Carlo Capocasa wrote:
I've always thought that a soundcard whose clock is able to work at
192KHz will be more precise than a soundcard whose clock is sticked to
48KHz, so there's a reason to buy a 192KHz soundcard... and work at
48KHz. :)
Ah, kind of like buying a big fat stereo even though you live in an
apartment building :) so you can get the precision listening at 10% volume.
I don't see any reason to work at 192KHz. Apart from huge files,
Nyquist is on my side.
Err, NyQuil? Oh Nyquist ;) Took a little google to get that one about
Hm, I audiophiles probably
don't qualify as 'practical purposes' but I do here a whole lot of
bickering by them about the dynamics of CDs.
The "bickering about the dynamics of CDs" could be partly due to the
production used in lots of CDs - there is often a tendency to
overcompress popular music (in particular) to ridiculous levels,
reducing the dynamic range considerably.
Just rip an entire album by a band like POD (or many others) and have a
look at the wave files. Chances are that the wave peaks will be almost
constant throughout.
It gets very tiring on the ears to listen to some things for this reason.
I wonder if it is possile
for a well-trained sense of hearing to 'sense' frequencies beyond human
nyquist and get a psychoacoustic sensation from them anyway.
Well, it seems likely to me that waves outside the range of audible
frequencies could interfere with each other (beating effects, etc), such
that they alter the audible sound.
It probably doesn't make a lot of difference though to the average
listener. For example, my girlfriend is more than happy to listen to
tunes on a car radio that sounds like a distorted old phone headset speaker.
Regards
Michael
