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