In Reply to: RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate posted by Werner on July 29, 2009 at 07:44:51:
Werner wrote:
This has sparked the mother of flame wars at the Stereophile forum.
Hopefully, we can conduct the discussion slightly better here.
Then K jumps to the conclusion that a 44.1kHz sample rate is insufficient. Quite a jump.
I feel you may be over-simplifying his position but perhaps I’ve missed something. Can you point me to where he draws ("jumps toâ€, even) that conclusion?
Thanks.
Dave
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 - Ryelands 07/29/0909:11:05 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)