🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1554@redsox.bsw.com> campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell) writes:
>In article <sa0KhqO00Uh7M2R25C@andrew.cmu.edu> bas+@andrew.cmu.edu (Bruce Sherwood) writes:
>-The analogy with audio is that a CD with frequency response out to 10
>-MHz would not sound better than one with frequency response out to 20
>-KHz, because the human ear can't hear the higher frequencies.
>
>Speak for yourself.  Perhaps the *average* human ear can't hear higher
>than 20 KHz, but some can.  I don't know what frequency they are, but
>I can hear those "ultrasonic" sonar burglar alarms -- and they are loud
>enough to be painful if I'm standing directly under the transducer.
>But I know most people can't hear them.
>
>CDs would have been nice if they had a decent high frequency rolloff; but if
>I A/B an LP and a CD it is clear that the CD has cut off the higher
>frequencies.  So I get a choice -- ticks, pops, and rumble, or missing high
>frequencies.  Feh.
>
>Anyone know if DAT will have a better high end than CDs (presumably this
>depends almost entirely on its sampling rate)?

	Indeed, the frequency response depends entirely on the
sampling rate.  The fidelity, however, of the high frequencies depends
on the A-D sampling rate (oversampling), the anti-aliasing filtration,
the D-A sampling rate (oversampling again), and the output filtration,
among a possibly endless list of other factors.

	The DAT recorder will sample at a maximum of 48Khz, so it
should have slightly better high frequency response than the CD
format.  (This still won't get us anywhere near the range you are
looking for however.)

	I personally don't have the problem with the lack of
ultrasonic frequencies on the CD, but empathize with you nonetheless.
Many folks in the music business claim that we perceive (not
necessarily hear) these frequencies, and that their absence has a
definate impact on the aural experience of the listener.

	Anyway, if you don't hate the concept of digital audio
altogether, and are just fed up with the frequency response
limitations of the current generation of gear, you might take a look
at Ken Pohlman's "Principles of Digital Audio."  It is a fascinating
in-depth look at this wonderous new technology.  If the people who
claim that LP's still sound better - and I don't put you in that group
Larry, as you seem to be unhappy with CD's AND LP's - would read this
book, they would realize that in the long run, digital audio will
satisfy even the most discriminating ears - their own!  Presently, it
is possible that an LP played on a Linn-Sondek with a whatever sort of
tonearm and cartridge can sound better than a CD.  But keep in mind
that the LP is at the peak of it's evolution.  Digital audio is still
an infant, and it has almost caught up already!  The problems
associated with digital audio are not with the digital portion itself, but
rather the A-D and D-A conversions.  However, we are learning new and
better conversion techniques everyday...  As this portion of the
technology evolves, we will be able to hear the true beauty of digital
audio.


	  -- Dan Schick