Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mtxinu.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!unisoft!mtxinu!ed From: ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) Newsgroups: net.audio Subject: Re: CD Musings Message-ID: <271@mtxinu.UUCP> Date: Fri, 18-Jan-85 15:26:39 EST Article-I.D.: mtxinu.271 Posted: Fri Jan 18 15:26:39 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 21-Jan-85 07:50:12 EST References: <147@lcuxc.UUCP> <257@petrus.UUCP> Organization: mt Xinu, Berkeley, CA Lines: 23 > Prove to me that you can HEAR 42 KHz and I'll believe you. Hearing, per se, isn't the real issue. The fact that I can't hear a 44 KHz tone isn't relevant. The fact is that the presence of the high- frequency harmonics *does* have a well-established effect on the overall sound perception. How important that connection is varies by peoples' taste and experience. Another thing to look at when considering a 44 KHz sample rate is that many people can hear signals with frequency higher than 22 KHz. So even if the sampling theorem that states that double-the-high-frequency is enough were relevant, 44K isn't high enough. I've compared an analog pressing of a recording made digitally with a 50K sample rate to a CD of the same thing at 44K, and the vinyl was *definitely* a better sound. What I don't know, unfortunately, is whether the CD was reprocessed from the 50K master or was recorded in parallel at 44K. -- Ed Gould mt Xinu, 739 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA 94710 USA {ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!ed +1 415 644 0146