Steve Harris wrote: > On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 10:19:59 +0100, Joern Nettingsmeier wrote: > >>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). 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 J?rn Nettingsmeier Kurf?rstenstr 49, 45138 Essen, Germany http://spunk.dnsalias.org (my server) http://www.linuxaudiodev.org (Linux Audio Developers)
