home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.sys.atari.st:13756 rec.audio:12456 sci.skeptic:16394
- Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!uknet!acorn!eoe!ahaley
- From: ahaley@eoe.co.uk (Andrew Haley)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st,rec.audio,sci.skeptic
- Subject: Re: sampling and human hearing range (was Re: (none))
- Message-ID: <1410@eouk9.eoe.co.uk>
- Date: 14 Sep 92 11:14:18 GMT
- References: <lyxnnzp@lynx.unm.edu>
- Organization: EO Europe Limited, Cambridge, UK
- Lines: 37
- X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
-
- EL GATES (egates@triton.unm.edu) wrote:
- : Actually DATs sample at a higher frequency because the sound reproduction
- : is better.
-
- Erm, are you sure about this? Granted, the anti-aliasing filters need
- be less steep, but the sigma-delta converters ofte used today make
- that less of a worry.
-
- : BTW, the reason that CDs only sample at 44.1 kHz is that when they
- : first came out that was about the best they could do and then couldn't
- : up the sampling rate since so many people had already bought CD players
- : for the 44.1kHz sampling rate.
-
- This is utter nonsense. 44.1kHz was used because video tape recorders
- were used to master CDs, and thus the sampling rate had to be a
- multiple of the TV scan frequency.
-
- : It also turns out (I believe) that a
- : sampling rate higher than 48 kHz doesn't really get you anything as far
- : as better quality reproduction, (again see Nyquist Theorem) and does
- : get more expensive to make good AD converters.
-
- Not so much that, as the fact that it reduces the storage capacity of
- the media. Running the DACs faster is not a problem, as the
- popularity of oversampling converters will attest.
-
- : El
- :
- :
- : egates@triton.unm.edu
- :
- :
- : Disclaimer: All opinion here are mine and noone else can claim them
- : for their own.
-
-
- Andrew.
-