home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.sys.atari.st:13624 rec.audio:12370 sci.skeptic:16285
- Path: sparky!uunet!ogicse!news.u.washington.edu!milton.u.washington.edu!mpark
- From: mpark@milton.u.washington.edu (Michael Park)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st,rec.audio,sci.skeptic
- Subject: sampling and human hearing range (was Re: (none))
- Message-ID: <1992Sep11.173910.279@u.washington.edu>
- Date: 11 Sep 92 17:39:10 GMT
- Article-I.D.: u.1992Sep11.173910.279
- References: <2250287@overmind.citadel>
- Sender: news@u.washington.edu (USENET News System)
- Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
- Lines: 28
-
- In article <2250287@overmind.citadel> only_bbs!JOHN_LOCKARD@overmind.mind.org writes:
- ...
- > Between the sampling rates of twice the freqency and four times
- > the freqency of the sine-wave you get complex phase, frequency,
- > and amplitude distortions that aren't easy to filter out.
- >
- > That's why to get the 35KHz wave that the human ear is supposed
- > to detect you need at least 100KHz or more to reproduce the sound.
-
- Does anyone have a reference to the [British?] research that
- supposedly demonstrates that the ear can detect "nuances" in
- sound up to 35kHz? Or any research that demonstrates that the
- conventionally-accepted human hearing range (~20Hz to ~20kHz)
- needs to be reconsidered?
- How about the idea that signals must be sampled at _three_ times
- their highest frequency?
-
- [newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st - where this started
- rec.audio - surely some audiophile knows a reference
- sci.skeptic - to keep the audiophiles honest :^)
- can't decide where to followup-to...]
-
-
-
- --
- Ciao-abunga! +-------------------------------------+
- Michael Park | This space intentionally left blank |
- mpark@u.washington.edu +-------------------------------------+
-