Amen to that, Steven. We live in a loud world. I have been wearing
musician's earplugs while outdoors in the city for a while now and love not
getting blasted full-strength by air brakes and cars that need new mufflers.
Still, at the risk of invoking Walter Sear's argument pro analog, I wonder
if better high end reproduction doesn't acoustic-heterodyne down audibly to
the midrange better even for those with high end hearing loss, or if the
smearing of high end caused by steep anti-aliasing filters at 44.1 kHz just
slips though undetected in all circumstances unless someone has good high
end hearing.
I don't pretend to have 20 kHz hearing, but I can tell there's something
lost when sample rate converting from 88.2 down to 44.1. Even switching
the ADC from 44.1 to 48 kHz Fs is a breath of fresh air. Something opens
up and sounds more natural... Of course this is always done triple blind.
(<:
Andrew
On 4/26/11 7:59 PM, "Steven C. Barr" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: "Andrew Hamilton" <[log in to unmask]>
>> I hear you, but numbers of sales don't mean that many truly satisfied
>> customers. Furthermore, most CD consumers haven't even heard good 48 kHz
>> digital audio masters, so they aren't really qualified to decide which
>> would
>> have been best. Today, we have 24 bit 96 kHz stereo uncompressed LPCM on
>> the same sized disc, albeit with finer burning pitch, but the convenience
>> of
>> decimated CD audio - bits through a cheese grater produces an audible
>> facsimile to music that is close enough for the convenience of easy
>> portability (and web-piracy) that MPEG offers.
>>
> Note that for many of us on the list (like myself)...we have already lost
> a good portion of our high-end hearing simply due to the ravages of
> ever-advancing age...?!
>
> Steven C. Barr
--
[log in to unmask]
www.serifsound.com
|