Is 44.1 KHz sample-rate enough? Yes and No.

Is 44.1 KHz sample-rate enough? Yes and No.

No:

* w w w .allexperts . com /user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4743184

* w w w .allexperts . com /user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4742942

Yes:

* w w w .allexperts . com /user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4742938

I am confused as to who is right and who is wrong. So I ask in this
group as well. Is a 44.1 kHz sample rate sufficient to cover the entire
human hearing range?

I am the "Green" guy who asked questions on Allexperts . com


Regards,

Radium

Re: Is 44.1 KHz sample-rate enough? Yes and No.

In article <480678c5$0$7049$4c368faf@roadrunner . com >,
"Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucegen1@excite . com > wrote:

> No:
>
> * w w w .allexperts . com /user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4743184
>
> * w w w .allexperts . com /user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4742942
>
> Yes:
>
> * w w w .allexperts . com /user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4742938
>
> I am confused as to who is right and who is wrong. So I ask in this
> group as well. Is a 44.1 kHz sample rate sufficient to cover the entire
> human hearing range?
>
> I am the "Green" guy who asked questions on Allexperts . com
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Radium

It is, unless you can hear frequencies higher than 20 kHz. An easy way
to find out is to visit

* w w w . fr eemosquitoringtones.org/

If you're older than 30, you may be surprised and disappointed by what
you hear... or don't hear.

Cheers!
- Allen

Re: Is 44.1 KHz sample-rate enough? Yes and No.

"Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucegen1@excite . com > writes:

> No:
>
> * w w w .allexperts . com /user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4743184
>
> * w w w .allexperts . com /user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4742942
>
> Yes:
>
> * w w w .allexperts . com /user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4742938
>
> I am confused as to who is right and who is wrong. So I ask in this
> group as well. Is a 44.1 kHz sample rate sufficient to cover the
> entire human hearing range?
>
Food for thought:
* theaudiocritic . com /blog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=41&blogId=1

--
Martin Schöön <martin.schoon@gmail . com >

"Problems worthy of attack
prove their worth by hitting back"
Piet Hein

Re: Is 44.1 KHz sample-rate enough? Yes and No.

Schöön Martin wrote:
> "Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucegen1@excite . com > writes:
>
>> No:
>>
>> * w w w .allexperts . com /user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4743184
>>
>> * w w w .allexperts . com /user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4742942
>>
>> Yes:
>>
>> * w w w .allexperts . com /user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4742938
>>
>> I am confused as to who is right and who is wrong. So I ask in this
>> group as well. Is a 44.1 kHz sample rate sufficient to cover the
>> entire human hearing range?
>>
> Food for thought:
> * theaudiocritic . com /blog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=41&blogId=1
>
> --
> Martin Schöön <martin.schoon@gmail . com >
>
> "Problems worthy of attack
> prove their worth by hitting back"
> Piet Hein


DSD/SACD do not have sufficient bit-resolution at all. I prefer my
digital audio be linear PCM that is at least 16-bit and 44.1 kHz.

Anyways, while 16-bit and 44.1 kHz and sufficiently for just recording
and playback, those who wish to do intense audio processing should use
more bit-depth and sample-rate to avoid the artifacts from getting
perceptible.

Re: Is 44.1 KHz sample-rate enough? Yes and No.

"Green Xenon [Radium]" wrote:

> Schöön Martin wrote:
> > "Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucegen1@excite . com > writes:
> >
> < ....snip.... >
> >>
> > Food for thought:
> > * theaudiocritic . com /blog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId==
41&blogId=1
> >
> > --
> > Martin Schöön <martin.schoon@gmail.c=
om>
> >
> > "Problems worthy of attack
> > prove their worth by hitting back=
"
> > Piet Hein=

>
> DSD/SACD do not have sufficient bit-resolution at all. I prefer my
> digital audio be linear PCM that is at least 16-bit and 44.1 kHz.
>
> Anyways, while 16-bit and 44.1 kHz and sufficiently for just recording
> and playback, those who wish to do intense audio processing should use
> more bit-depth and sample-rate to avoid the artifacts from getting
> perceptible.

...and yet, your "favorite analog audio storage = B&W variable-densit=
y
optical track of old films."

Once again I seem to detect a total disconnect from reality.


Later...
--

Re: Is 44.1 KHz sample-rate enough? Yes and No.

Ron Capik wrote:


> ...and yet, your "favorite analog audio storage = B&W variable-density
> optical track of old films."


That's for analog audio. I am talking about digital audio here.

Re: Is 44.1 KHz sample-rate enough? Yes and No.


"Green Xenon [Radium]" wrote:

> Ron Capik wrote:
>
> > ...and yet, your "favorite analog audio storage = B&W variable-density
> > optical track of old films."
>
> That's for analog audio. I am talking about digital audio here.

There is a disparity here that you are not (nor have
you been) addressing, please address it.


Later...
--

Re: Is 44.1 KHz sample-rate enough? Yes and No.

Ron Capik wrote:


> There is a disparity here that you are not (nor have
> you been) addressing, please address it.


What do you mean?

Re: Is 44.1 KHz sample-rate enough? Yes and No.

"Green Xenon [Radium]" wrote:

> What do you mean?

Seek the convergent path.

--

Re: Is 44.1 KHz sample-rate enough? Yes and No.

"Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucegen1@excite . com > wrote in
message news:480678c5$0$7049$4c368faf@roadrunner . com
> No:
>
> * w w w .allexperts . com /user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4743184

"ANSWER: If you ever have the opportunity to come across a true audio buff,
especially one who prefers vinyl to CD, when a cartridge, tonearm and
transcription turntable are of performance quality, you will hear something
about harmonics that reinforce the fundamental frequencies. Myself included
there are people with trained ears or a gift of perfect pitch that can
easily hear those differences. In truth the sonority is felt even by the
layman when it's A/B'd. Even though Lucas has a claim to fame, since the
first Star Wars film, of mandating that THX become the standard for which
all sound reproduction must surpass any vinyl known to man, it was also
adopted by the audio industries golden ears. There truly is a difference,
but it cannot be appreciated unless the recording is pristine because it
will bring out imperfections as well. You are not going to hear it unless
all of the audio equipment in the chain can reproduce the dynamics and
frequencies. 44.1 is far from being a perfect sampling rate. Contained in it
are LSB's which are truncated lost ambient information. That information
adds warmth to a CD. SACD is a fine attempt at processing a CD to get a
little closer to 24/192 but it's only 20bit technology and is still like a
4x3 video image being stretched using processing to fit a 16x9 display.

"Some of us do hear like dogs & bats. Go into a true listening room with a
fine Telarc recording and be prepared to be blown out of your seat. The
average to really good sound systems that are marketed in the states will
not show you the benefits. You'll hear it more often in Japan.

"I am an associate of Mark Levinson. Now he's a guru!

Summary - it is true because I say it is true.

> * w w w .allexperts . com /user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4742942

"The higher the sampling rate the more accurate the reproduction. The human
ear is an analog receiver. While most modern music is less effected by the
sampling rate, if you were to listen to classical music, you would hear the
difference. The higher sampling rate will reproduce what is called the
"warmth" of the music. This is a hard thing to describe, but it does exist.
Hard core classical enthusiasts will agree, that vinyl records provide a
more accurate reproduction of actual performances than CDs. Records are
analog recordings. Interestingly enough, many recording studios still
record in analog to tape before processing digitally...

Summary - an analog bigot.

> Yes:
>
> * w w w .allexperts . com /user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4742938

Answer is so stupid as to be embarassing.

> I am confused as to who is right and who is wrong.

They are *all* wrong.

> So I ask in this group as well. Is a 44.1 kHz sample rate
> sufficient to cover the entire human hearing range?

Yes, because this has been investigated scientifically many different ways,
and removing all sound above 20 KHz generally makes no difference with
recordings of music, dialog, and almost all sound effects.

Re: Is 44.1 KHz sample-rate enough? Yes and No.

Arny Krueger wrote:


> "Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucegen1@excite . com > wrote in
> message news:480678c5$0$7049$4c368faf@roadrunner . com :


>> So I ask in this group as well. Is a 44.1 kHz sample rate
>> sufficient to cover the entire human hearing range?



> Yes, because this has been investigated scientifically many different ways,
> and removing all sound above 20 KHz generally makes no difference with
> recordings of music, dialog, and almost all sound effects.


So, IOW, its a waste of time, money, energy to move to 192 kHz, even 96
kHz, or even 48 kHz? Why doesn't the audio industry just stick to 44.1
kHz? Is it a marketing trick they use -- i.e. play with customers' minds
by claiming that a higher sample rate is always better than a lower
sample rate? It's starting to seem like it. I could be wrong though.

Re: Is 44.1 KHz sample-rate enough? Yes and No.

"Green Xenon [Radium]" wrote:

> < ...snip... >
>
> So, IOW, its a waste of time, money, energy to move to 192 kHz, even 96
> kHz, or even 48 kHz? Why doesn't the audio industry just stick to 44.1
> kHz? Is it a marketing trick they use -- i.e. play with customers' minds
> by claiming that a higher sample rate is always better than a lower
> sample rate? It's starting to seem like it. I could be wrong though.

Can YOU hear the difference? If not, case closed, move on;
else continue your "research."


Later...
--

Re: Is 44.1 KHz sample-rate enough? Yes and No.

"Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucegen1@excite . com > wrote in
message news:48093f79$0$3351$4c368faf@roadrunner . com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
>> "Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucegen1@excite . com > wrote in
>> message news:480678c5$0$7049$4c368faf@roadrunner . com :
>
>
>>> So I ask in this group as well. Is a 44.1 kHz sample
>>> rate sufficient to cover the entire human hearing range?
>
>
>
>> Yes, because this has been investigated scientifically
>> many different ways, and removing all sound above 20 KHz
>> generally makes no difference with recordings of music,
>> dialog, and almost all sound effects.
>
>
> So, IOW, its a waste of time, money, energy to move to
> 192 kHz, even 96 kHz, or even 48 kHz?

Yes.

> Why doesn't the audio industry just stick to 44.1 kHz?

It pretty well has done exactly that, in terms of recordings that are
actually sold.

>Is it a marketing
> trick they use -- i.e. play with customers' minds by
> claiming that a higher sample rate is always better than
> a lower sample rate?

They tried that with SACD and DVD-A and they both flopped in the
marketplace, and failed scientific tests designed to see if they made an
audible difference.

> It's starting to seem like it.

Hold that thought!

Re: Is 44.1 KHz sample-rate enough? Yes and No.

Arny Krueger wrote:


> They tried that with SACD and DVD-A and they both flopped in the
> marketplace, and failed scientific tests designed to see if they made an
> audible difference.


SACDs suck. There is just too much clipping in them -- due to the 1-bit
limit of resolution. If you want professional-quality audio, you need at
least 24-bits of resolution. Even 16-bit is too low. 16 bits can handle
only up to 96 dB without clipping. 24-bits can handle a stunning 144 dB
without distortion.

No DSD or SACD for me. No thanks. What a waste of money and a big
earache from all those nasty flat tops.

Re: Is 44.1 KHz sample-rate enough? Yes and No.

"Green Xenon [Radium]" wrote...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> They tried that with SACD and DVD-A and they both flopped in the
>> marketplace, and failed scientific tests designed to see if they made an
>> audible difference.
>
>
> SACDs suck. There is just too much clipping in them --

Then you haven't been paying attention to what typical
audio CDs have on them.

> due to the 1-bit limit of resolution. If you want professional-quality
> audio, you need at least 24-bits of resolution. Even 16-bit is too low. 16
> bits can handle only up to 96 dB without clipping. 24-bits can handle a
> stunning 144 dB without distortion.

Now you're just being silly. No CDs have "1-bit resolution".
None. Nada. Not a single one. You appear to be confusing
a popular kind of D/A conversion which is called "1-bit".

> No DSD or SACD for me. No thanks. What a waste of money and a big earache
> from all those nasty flat tops.

But since you only listen in monaural, I'm surprised you even
noticed.