From Marc 3 Poirier Sent Tue, Feb 16th 1999, 06:11
At 10:26 AM 2/15/99 -0600, cl wrote: >Marc 3 Poirier wrote: >> >> > About the only practical application of this audio technology is in the >> > recording and reproduction of classical music. The clarity is so good >> > out of an entire symphony orchestra you can individually pick out the >> > French horn player sitting in the middle who stopped briefly to pick his >> > nose. >> > >> > As for IDM? 16bit/44.1kHz is fine. >> >> Aw jeez, this is totally bogus. 16-bit 44.1 kHz is the most bare-ass, >> hardly passing standard for digital audio. Okay, maybe not totally because >> the 16-bit part is pretty good, but the 44.1 kHz part is atrocious. It >> doesn't have to do with whether you call the music you're playing >> "classical," it has to do with whether it has treble in it, & most music I >> listen to, of all different sorts, does have treble. Once you start >> getting into the highest audible frequencies, 44.1 kHz representations of >> them sound like shit, harsh & grating shit. Once you get to 22.05 kHz, >> this is what any waveform is going to be from a 44.1 kHz audio recording: >> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ >> That's it. Absolutely no detail at all. It gets better the lower you go >> from there, but that's why it sounds so bad. >> >> Marc Poirier > >i am not versed in the science of sound, but can >humans hear over 20 khz? Most folks, no, but that's not totally the point of what I was saying. I was more saying that the stuff at & near 20 kHz is of very, very poor quality in digital 44.1 kHz sampled recordings. Marc Poirier