"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com
It's crap, because the premise fails to answer the
question, "compared to what"?
As bit throughput, storage space, and processing power
steadily increase each year, 192 kHz goes from being an
onerous requirement requiring great sacrifice to
something more and more trivially handled.
But, it serves no purpose. It distracts people from far more important
issues.
While I
suspect it is indeed way more than is actually required,
the downside, once serious, is now less and less so.
So what? Following your logic, I need to have my car upgraded to over 1,000
horsepower as compared to its current 225 horsepower, because the cost of
upgrading to over 1,000 horsepower is not as prohibitive as it once was.
44.1 is clearly inadequate.
Assertion without proof or even supporting evidence.
The harsh treble overtone
structures many listeners report from CD vis-a-vis vinyl
and analog tape are more than figments of their
imaginations: they are almost certainly artifacts of the
necessity of having more bandwidth than the signal can
occupy
No bias-controlled listening tests confirm this. It is well-known that
people's biases can cause them to perceive problems that don't really exist.
. The oscilloscope community figured that out in
the 40s and many in the audio field-Neve et al- have
demonstrated it over and over.
Neve demonstrated no such thing. If you understand what Neve said, he
basically said that circuitry that resonates at say 40 KHz can have audible
effects below 15 KHz. If you look at the corresponding frequency response
curve you see that his circuit components such as input transformers did
indeed have effects on the order a few dB below 15 KHz even though they were
resonating at several times that frequency. This is just the well-known
behavior of resonant circuits.
Yet, Arny isn't listening.
Bret apparently did not pay attention to his sophomore electrical circuits
class that covered resonant circuits, if he ever actually even took such a
class. Or maybe he can't apply what he learned to practical audio circuits.
Those CDs that sound the best are usually those of
material from a time where the treble cutoff was 10 kHz
or less, functionally.
No such thing. In fact high-sample-rate material (24/96) with strong
harmonics right up to 20 KHz are audibly unchanged by a proper job of
downsampling to 44 KHz, and even lower.
This should tell us something too.
Unless, like Arny, we are quite literally not listening.
Obviously Bret you are listening to what I say, and quite irritated by it.
Too bad you can't rise to the occasion and share some wise words.
The CD was a serious compromise made in the early 80s to
put all of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony on one single-sided
optical disc easily producible at then-current technology
at a diameter a drive accomodating it could fit in a 5
1/4" floppy drive bay. And, in all fairness, it could
have been worse-a lot worse. But to uphold it as the gold
standard is idiocy.
Show us your bias-controlled listening tests that support your claims, Bret.
My friends and I did our homework. We subjected high-quality musical signals
from live performances to 16/44 coding, in one of the finest studios in the
Detroit area, which was under the direction of Robert Dennis who is still
working professionally to this day. We used over a dozen musicians, audio
engineers, and experienced audiophiles as our listening panel. No
distinguishable differences were found.
We now can and should do better. And, we have, if we will but use it.
It is true that I have dozens of channels of converters that are capable of
running at 24/96 and 24/192. I've used them to record music from broadband
sources and compared the results to what happens when the signal is further
downsampled to 16/44. No audible difference for either myself or my friends.
Anybody with high sample rate converters, who wants to listen to examples of
this issue being played out with broadband musical sounds can do so by
downloading files from
http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm
..