[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 13:29:23 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message

My experience is that the info above 22050 Hz is largely
irrelevant.

The comments below completely invalidate the above.

Make up your mind, Mr. Kruger. You cannot have it both
ways. Either higher sampling rates (and the concurrent
extension of frequency response above 22 KHz that
accompanies them) is relevant or it isn't.

This is just rhetoric. I've never ever said that information above 22 KHz is
relevant to listening to music. There are reasons to occasionally use higher
sample rates for technical reasons, but no reasons to bother distributing
media with sounds on it that contribute zero to the actual listening
experience.

I say that
it's probably not the extension into the ultra-sonic
range that is important here and you contradict me saying
that my above comment is "invalidated"..

Its not the dynamic range, either.

The things that 24/96 and 24/192 bring to the
party are better image specificity, smoother
high-frequency reproduction (5K -up to the limits of
audibility-whatever they might be for the individual
listener), better low-level and ambience detail.

There's no reason to believe that high sampling rates
than 44.1 KHz have *any* effect, either measured or
heard, on imaging, ambience, or low level detail.

Then you turn right around and say that sampling rates
higher than 44.1 KHz (with it's concomitant 22.05Khz
upper frequency response limit) has no effect.


The two statements exactly agree. Where't the beef?

Now it either does have an effect or it doesn't.

Both statements in my reading say it doesn't.

Above
you tell me that I'm wrong and that my first comment is
invalidated by "Comments Below" indicating that you
disagree with me when I say that frequency response above
22.05 KHz is probably irrelevant. Then, in your very next
comment, you assert the exact same thing that I was
asserting????? Sometimes I think that you argue here
just to be contrary.

I don't know how you can read this from what I wrote.

BTW, I never said or implied that the sampling rate was
responsible for the improved imaging, ambience and
low-level retrieval. I merely stated that all of my
experiments on this phenomenon were carried out at the
higher sampling rates. In fact, in the very post that you
are (selectively) quoting here, I clearly said that
although all my experiments along these lines were done
at either 96 or 192KHz sampling rates, that it was very
possible that it IS NOT the high sampling rate that is
responsible for these audible improvements, but that one
might find that it's the 24-bit word length that is
responsible and that 24/48 or 24/44.1 might just yield
identical results to 24/96 and 24/192 in this respect.


I seriously doubt that any actual improved imaging was ever found. I see no
evidence that was gathered with the kind of care that should be used when
trying to study this kind of far-reaching question.