24 Dec
2012
24 Dec
'12
4:14 a.m.
On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Chris Bannister
<cbannister(a)slingshot.co.nz> wrote:
On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 12:39:17PM -0500, Thomas
Vecchione wrote:
Hoping is troll, but...
Harmonics above the hearing range are irrelevant to hearing oddly enough.
And for the record, the basic reasoning for what
I said is simple, and has
existed for quite some time, that 44.1kHz is capable of containing more
than the entire human hearing range of an undamaged ear (Reproducing all
frequencies up to just above 22k).
Yeah, but what about harmonics? I believe it was Shannon's law which basically
stated that the sampling
frequency should be twice as high as the highest frequency (or
bandwidth, if the lowest is zero).
Thy Shannon-Nyquist-[etc] sampling theorem states the sampling rate
for a PCM channel must be epsilon greater than twice the channel
bandwidth. It generalizes nicely to other digital forms like PDM, etc.
I believe the same reasoning was used when they
started fabricating CDs.
It's a fundamental property of mathematics and information theory, like 1+1=2.
I also understand that vinyl is now increasingly (very
slowly though)
becoming the preferred medium for listening to music.
Vinyl died in the mainstream for good reasons, just like open reel
tape did. It's more expensive, inferior, easier to damage, and wears
out.
Nothing about its performance is better. I grant it's pretty to look
at, fun to handle, and relatively straightforward technology. That
has nothing to do with how it sounds or performs.
Remember: If you sample at an infinite frequency you
have analog
No, you don't.
and
isn't the idea of quality digital to have a high sample rate.
No, it isn't.
Monty