19 Jun
2004
19 Jun
'04
7:39 p.m.
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 04:30:26 -0400, Chris Pickett wrote:
At first glance that seems fairly honest. It does
also suggest that you
wouldn't appreciate the benefits with a normal audio CD, so in that
respect it seems pointless, but maybe I'm missing something. As for the
Nyquist frequency I read some discussion that some people can hear up to
23 kHz, and that there may even be psychoacoustic effects up to 30 kHz,
but I didn't try to find any references on this.
I vaguely remember being shown a paper where a group of people were played
sine and saw waves at 15+ kHz and they could tell them apart. If I
rembered it correctly that does mean that humans can detect the presence
of partials at 30ish kHz, but my memory of it is vague.
As noted, the effect processing argument says that
it's better to
process everything internally at as high a resolution as possible (bit-
and frequency-wise); does this by itself mean we should also record
everything as high as possible, to get the best input to the effect
functions? I have no idea.
Internally many processes upsample, process and then downsample.
- Steve