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
