[LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant.

[Monty Montgomery]

On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Chris Bannister
<cbannister at slingshot.co.nz> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 12:39:17PM -0500, Thomas Vecchione wrote:
>> 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?

Hoping is troll, but...

Harmonics above the hearing range are irrelevant to hearing oddly enough.

> 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