touché! i forgot the Nyquist theory. you must forgive me, it's been nearly
3 years since i took my digital class and i'm not even using my recording
degree. you got me on both counts. i should have remembered we mastered to
dats at 48kHz. oh well.
sorry all for getting off target ;-)
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: russ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thom Burger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 05, 1999 8:25 PM
Subject: Re: [sdre-l]: Diary & LP2 reprints
> Well, actually, the majority of your post was pretty accurate, especially
> regarding "warmth", but this section is not. While _in_theory_ the highest
> frequency the can be recorded by a digital system (the Nyquist frequency)
> is half of the sampling rate (so for CDs it SHOULD be 22.05 kHz), some
> practical considerations reduce that figure to 0.4 times the sampling
> rate. Thus, to reproduce the AUDIBLE frequency spectrum for humans, a
> sampling rate of about 50kHz would be the minimum (The Redbook standard is
> 44.1 kHz because when CDs first came out, that was about as high a
> sampling rate as was practical financially). I say MINIMUM because while
> humans can generally not HEAR frequencies above 20k, we can PERCEIVE them.
> they help with tuning and location cues in particular( yes, I realize that
> psychoacustics are not a necessary subject for this list, but I figured
> you kids would rather have the whole story than half-truths).
> In conclusion, CDs as a form of digital audio are not up to par with the
> really high-end analog equipment. By the way, yes, I can hear the
> difference between 44.1kHz and 48kHz(many DAT machines are capable of
> this. DVDs are capable of up to 192kHz, which, if coupled with a decent
> bit depth (24 bits is good enough) should produce the most "accurate"
> audio signal.
>
>
> But digital audio will still sound thinner the more you dump it in and out
> of digital audio software like Pro Tools.
>
> -B.
>
> >>>>If you want a closer approximation of live sound you have to use
> digital record
> ing. Digital can handle all freqs within the audible spectrum: 20 to
> 20KHz. I
> n fact digital records freqs outside our range of hearing so that
> harmonics are
> not augmented at a lower range. As to the sample rate. Who can
> differentiate
> the samples at a sample rate or 44.1Khz (one sample every .000022675
> seconds)?
> I can't. And you don't hear people saying film is nothing like real
> life...
> there's only 24 frames per second in film. The only real problem with
> digital
> sound is that there's too much high freqs.
>
>
