"roke" wrote in message

As I understand it, the reason digital doesn't sound as
good as analogue is as follows (simplified because I
don't remember every exact technical detail):

44.1 KHz (usual sampling rate), is enough to capture all
frequencies that the human ear can hear.

However, it doesn't capture those funny frequencies below
and above the hearing thresholds which many natural (and
electronic!) instruments generate.

This statement has to be at least half completely and totally because there
is no theoretical limit to the lowest frequency that can be accuratly
conveyed by a digital format. The practical limit relates to the length of
the recording. IOW if a recording is 10 minutes or 600 seconds long, then
the lowest frequency that recording can convey is 1/600 th of a Hz. This is
true for either digital or analog recordings. However there are practical
reasons why no analog recording comes anywhere near this.

Even though you can't hear these frequencies, they add
something subliminal to the way the music affects you.

Interesting theory, but how are you going show that this is right if there
are no conscous affects?

Difficult to put ones finger on.... but I suppose its
also true to say its difficult to put your finger on the
reason why you think a particular piece of music is so
great... and for that reason I don't think one should be
so quick to dismiss this explanation as un-scientific
mumbo-jumbo .

What, just because your theory is unprovable unscientific, and full of
mumbo-jumbo?

LOL!