Re: (idm) 24bit 96kHz format

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