26 Jan
2004
26 Jan
'04
7:01 a.m.
Steve Harris wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 10:19:59 +0100, Joern
Nettingsmeier wrote:
interesting point. but isn't membrane inertia the limiting factor in
transient reproduction anyway?
my naive understanding is that min rise time = nyquist freq. if we
cannot perceive frequencies above, say, 20k, all we win by faster
sampling is more accurate timing information.
but there is a worst-case "timing error" of 1/24000 sec, which does not
seem much to me...
i'd like to read more, but i haven't been able to google anything up
about transient perception and reproduction. any pointers?
for the record, here's a 1998 aes paper that elaborates on the
consequences of higher sampling on filter artifaces in the audible
range: http://www.nanophon.com/audio/antialia.pdf
--
"I never use EQ, never, never, never. I previously used to use mic
positioning but I've even given up on that too."
- Jezar on http://www.audiomelody.com
Jörn Nettingsmeier
Kurfürstenstr 49, 45138 Essen, Germany
http://spunk.dnsalias.org (my server)
http://www.linuxaudiodev.org (Linux Audio Developers)
imnsho, all this sampling rate hype is a clever
industry ploy to keep
people from thinking that their hardware is finally good enough and they
can stop buying now.
Probably true but...
people can't hear over 20k. period. 48k
sampling rate gives you 24k
minus what's cropped off by the aliasing filter. granted, higher
sampling allows you to use a simpler, less steep aliasing filter, and
some people claim to perceive an improvement from that. but even then,
96k should be enough.
This is not quite correct. While humans can not hear continuous tones over
20-odd kHz that is not the whole story, the frequency reproduction also
limits the minimum transient rise time, which is detected by a different
part of the ear (IIRC, IANABiologist and my psychoacoustics textbook is at
work).