View Single Post
  #37   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger[_4_] Arny Krueger[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 854
Default Hi Rez digital vs. LP

On Wed, 2 May 2012 14:48:03 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On May 2, 10:38am, ScottW wrote:


But it doesn't have to start at 16/44. Recording at low sample rates
requires aggressive anti-alias filters which can have audible effects.


What's a low sample rate in this context? 44 Khz is disqualified
because it puts all such artifacts outside of the audible range?

Record at higher rates, digitally filter and then convert to lower
rates appears to be the norm for recording today.


It is what some people do, and a lot of people don't.

I get that and agree with you. But there are some here who seem to be
claiming that even when you start at 16/44 it should be transparent.


16/44 is transparent no matter what the original bandwidth with some
caveats. If your system includes a piece of equipment that has
excess nonlinear distortion(s) (e.g. tubed equipment), then a
spurious signals in a wideband recording can be downconverted into
the audible range by the distoriton(s).

The LP format and the playback equipment used with it are themselves
excessively nonlinear by modern standards. They also have a great
potential to create spurious ultrasonic signals simply because of
their excessive nonlinearity.

If you cleanly convert wideband material down to 44 KHz sampling, those
spurious signals are effectively erased and won't be down converted by the
excessively nonlinear playback equipment.

The downsampled version and the original version may sound different because
the downsampled version lacks the spurious signals that trigger nonlinear
distortion.