[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 13:29:23 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


My experience is that the info above 22050 Hz is largely
irrelevant.

The comments below completely invalidate the above.


Make up your mind, Mr. Kruger. You cannot have it both ways. Either higher
sampling rates (and the concurrent extension of frequency response above 22
KHz that accompanies them) is relevant or it isn't. I say that it's probably
not the extension into the ultra-sonic range that is important here and you
contradict me saying that my above comment is "invalidated"..

The things that 24/96 and 24/192 bring to the
party are better image specificity, smoother
high-frequency reproduction (5K -up to the limits of
audibility-whatever they might be for the individual
listener), better low-level and ambience detail.

There's no reason to believe that high sampling rates than 44.1 KHz have
*any* effect, either measured or heard, on imaging, ambience, or low level
detail.

Then you turn right around and say that sampling rates higher than 44.1 KHz
(with it's concomitant 22.05Khz upper frequency response limit) has no
effect.

Now it either does have an effect or it doesn't. Above you tell me that I'm
wrong and that my first comment is invalidated by "Comments Below" indicating
that you disagree with me when I say that frequency response above 22.05 KHz
is probably irrelevant. Then, in your very next comment, you assert the exact
same thing that I was asserting????? Sometimes I think that you argue here
just to be contrary.


BTW, I never said or implied that the sampling rate was responsible for the
improved imaging, ambience and low-level retrieval. I merely stated that all
of my experiments on this phenomenon were carried out at the higher sampling
rates. In fact, in the very post that you are (selectively) quoting here, I
clearly said that although all my experiments along these lines were done at
either 96 or 192KHz sampling rates, that it was very possible that it IS NOT
the high sampling rate that is responsible for these audible improvements,
but that one might find that it's the 24-bit word length that is responsible
and that 24/48 or 24/44.1 might just yield identical results to 24/96 and
24/192 in this respect.

If all the DBT tests associated with so-called hi-res audio are
concerned with, or largely confined to the effects of the
ultrasonic performance on the actual tonal balance, or
other frequency-response related issues, then those
constructing these tests are, IMHO, barking up the wrong
tree by listening for the wrong things in their tests.

Given the vast number of DBTs comparing higher sample rates to 16/44 that
have been done with the null outcomes, there simply is no contrary opinion
that is humble. Besides, there is no reason to weigh this issue based on
opinion when reliable, factual information is so easy to obtain.

Since I have never insisted that the sample-rate is responsible for
improvements in imaging, ambience, or low level detail and said so in the
very post of mine that you are quoting out of context, your above comment
seems more than a little self serving, misleading and some might say,
mean-spirited.