In Reply to: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate posted by Tony Lauck on July 26, 2009 at 19:26:14:
Let's repeat in short what the experiments *actually* were:
1) two vertically-arrayed tweeters are fed a 7kHz squarewave. The upper
tweeter is kept aligned with the lower one (sound A) or moved backwards over a distance d (sound B). A listener is asked to distinguish between A and B. Note that sound A and sound B both are continuous and periodic, and
also that one would expect the listener to be sensitive to the fundamental
only (7kHz) as the first harmonic is 21kHz, which is proven to be inaudible (average people and normal listening levels). The experiment tells us that listeners perceive differences in A and B down to distances that correspond to a delay of 5us in free air. Note that the experiment does *NOT* test the audibility of two impulses 5us apart.
2) a headphone is fed a mono triangular signal of 7kHz. The signal is untreated (A) or pre-filtered first-order with a time constant T. Listeners can discern between A and B for Ts down to 5 us. Again, one expects that the listeners are only sensitive to the fundamental of both sounds.
There is some theorising about the cause of people being capable of telling A and B apart, but no clear origin is pointed at, except perhaps
the non-linear mixing of 7k and 21k to produce 14k (by two mechanisms).
So far so good, and I'm sure no-one takes any offence.
Then K jumps to the conclusion that a 44.1kHz sample rate is insufficient. Quite a jump. And without further motivation, nor
an experiment where the same signals are sent through a 44.1kHz
encoding/decoding system, which, by the way, would still pass
21kHz.
This has sparked the mother of flame wars at the Stereophile forum,
and it was about the ugliest thing I've ever seen on a forum.
And then you wake up and realise that your classmates of old ... are running most of the TV shows.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Werner 07/29/0907:44:51 07/29/09 (14)
- RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Ryelands 09:11:05 07/29/09 (12)
- RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Tony Lauck 10:41:27 07/29/09 (11)
- RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Werner 13:04:49 07/29/09 (10)
- RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Tony Lauck 14:52:26 07/29/09 (9)
- RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Werner 22:40:02 07/29/09 (8)
- RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Ryelands 02:29:20 07/30/09 (7)
- RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Werner 04:09:24 07/30/09 (6)
- RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Tony Lauck 08:57:45 07/30/09 (3)
- RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Werner 09:53:13 07/30/09 (1)
- RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Tony Lauck 13:47:57 07/30/09 (0)
- RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Phelonious Ponk 09:16:45 07/30/09 (0)
- I second the agreement... - Phelonious Ponk 07:48:46 07/30/09 (0)
- Completely agree with you. nt - drrd 07:03:18 07/30/09 (0)
- RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Tony Lauck 09:04:11 07/29/09 (0)