"Buckaroo" <Dipper_CA@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bdiq1c$8oa$1@gladiola.noc.ucla.edu...

Wow, it took me a whole 5 seconds to find a website that says 96kHz is
better than 44.1 khz. Audibly better. And it's done by a mastering
engineer no-less.

http://www.audiomedia.com/archive/fe...teningtest.htm

Here is another article that sheds some light on the limits of human hearing
and how higher sampling rates can result in better sound:

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ashon/a...ltrasonics.htm

I feel so hurt.

"Buckaroo" <Dipper_CA@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bdiq7r$8qn$1@gladiola.noc.ucla.edu...
Thats not the point of the discussion right now.

The point is that this topic became a flame, as it went from audio to totaly
mathematical/phisycal discussion. I pressume that nobody actually plugged
his/hers SACD player and heard for themselves. Or maybe recorded some stuff
and mixed in 44.1k and 96k, because of that everything of this was invented.
For the end, I can assure you, that my 96k mixes sound way much better than
pittiful 44.1k. If we already have a 96k, why the hell not use it, for
mother's sake!!!

End

Wow. Hopeless.

The first article is voodoo. Laughable .. it would be rejected at any
meeting of scientists as opinion.

The second? Sorry, but those data say 'Harmonics visible' .. Who cares?
Percussion harmonics go to 100 kHz +

What do you not understand about science, perception, and how they connect
and relate to engineering/acoustics?

The second article is a missive from an undergraduate student in a lower
division psychology class....give me a break.

"Buckaroo" <Dipper_CA@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bditkt$b0i$1@gladiola.noc.ucla.edu...

"Sasa [Sason] Miocic" <sasa.miocic@zd.hinet.hr> wrote in message
news:bditkp$erlg$1@as201.hinet.hr...
Because Nyquist says so!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Jan Philips" <judmccrNOSPAMM@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:aojofvome0lmi0sdjg6b010v8persoh9gp@4ax.com
right.

"FDR" <_remove_spam_block_rzitka@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iL6La.6128$8B.2793@twister.nyroc.rr.com
0400-listeningtest.htm


This page provides the following conclusions:

"This led to the following (preliminary) conclusions:
"1. A properly-designed 20kHz digital filter can be sonically invisible in a
96kHz sampled environment.

"2. Experience and this experiment suggests that 44.1kHz sampling digital
systems can sound much better simply by use of better digital filters. This
includes all the filters in compact disc players, A/Ds, etc. The effects of
cumulative filters must also be considered -
a situation similar to the familiar effects of group delay in successive
bandpass limited analogue circuits.

"3. 96kHz sampling systems do not sound better because of increased
bandwidth. The ear does not use information above 20kHz to evaluate sound.

IOW the site you cited says that 96 KHz is *NOT* audibly better than 44.1
KHz.


It's just an article written by an undergraduate student who was taking a
psychology course.

Listen for yourself at www.pcabx.com.

"Buckaroo" <Dipper_CA@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bditkt$b0i$1@gladiola.noc.ucla.edu...
Here's the opininon of another:

"In the Handbook for Sound Engineers Steve Dove says anti-aliasing filters
"....exhibit serious frequency dependent delay and convoluted
frequency/phase characteristics... leaving mangled audio in their wake". He
also advocates sampling around 100 kHz, and says the result is a more open
and spacious sound. "

http://www.silcom.com/~aludwig/EARS.htm

But then again, what would a sound engineer know?

As for finding all these articles supporting your claim on Google, I didn't
find any.

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:hcydnd-xYNMlnmCjXTWJiw@comcast.com...

"My experiences with 96kHz/24-bit sampled recording have been exceptional.
The sound is more open, transparent, and dynamic than previous 44.1kHz
recordings, with a purer mid range and more apparent depth and space closer
to the analogue source."


Do you dispute this in his report:

"Additional work supporting James Boyk's findings was done by John Atkinson,
editor of Stereophile magazine, the preeminent audiophile journal. In his
October 2000 editorial he describes spectral analyses of audio recordings,
all of which demonstrate more or less activity above 20 kHz. An interesting
finding he reports is that it is not just acoustic instruments that exhibit
ultrasonic activity - the electric guitar in bluegrass music, where
intentional feedback produces rampant clipping and the characteristic
electric guitar sound, also results in spectral content extending above 20
kHz. Furthermore, Atkinson noticed that even old analog recordings from the
'60s and earlier have captured this ultrasonic content."

Wow, old analog beats new 44.1 khz digital.

The report cites references that possibly higher frequencies are important
to perception. So if that's true, limiting sampling rates to 44.1 may be
discarding important perceptual information.

But hey, 44.1 is all we need right? Maybe all we need is to druve Hyundais
and eat soy food too.

Is that a page or a website?

Here's anpther non-scientific, but interesting article on 96 kHz including
some ABX tests:

"I know... I know... I can hear many of you saying there is absolutely NO
need for recording with a 96kHZ Sample Rate. Two weeks ago, I would have
agreed with you! I emphasize *would have* agreed with you! Let me state this
very clearly... YOU CAN INDEED HEAR THE DIFFERENCE when recording with a
96kHz Sample Rate!

I wouldn't have believed it myself if I hadn't heard the results. Bottom
line is that the highs sound more open and detailed. By the way... two other
folks here in my studio could pick the 96kHz track EVERY time in a blind
listening test (when compared with a 44.1kHz version). To hell with theory,
my EARS tell me there is a difference.

Want a real dose of Blasphemy? I compared recording at 96kHz and Sample Rate
converting down to 44.1, to simply recording at 44.1kHz. I couldn't believe
my ears! The track originally recorded at 96kHz and Sample Rate converted
down to 44.1kHz had much better sounding highs, maintaining much of the
character from recording at 96kHz.

This goes against everything that I have learned over the years... and goes
against accepted practice. So I don't make this statement lightly! You CAN
hear a difference... anyone who tells you otherwise hasn't tried recording
at 96kHz! Period. "

http://www.prorec.com/prorec/article...256688000FBE08

Did you click on it? Did you listen? Audiophiles are even more mislead
than engineers.

THAT is YOUR problem...the fact that you do not see the utter stupidity of
this as you read it.

"...as it went from audio to totaly

Absolutely NOT. I complain that you and others have not read anything about
the
results of psychoacoustical experimentation on hearing that links physics to
perception.


Hence your mysticism in what you believe you hear.

"Buckaroo" <Dipper_CA@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bdj8od$hhg$1@gladiola.noc.ucla.edu...
No, that is the classic repsonse of condescension and feigned superiority.
You add little else to this discussion. than to tell people they are wrong
and that you have secret knowledge that can't be revealed.

Your smug attitude will never change readers minds.

"Buckaroo" <Dipper_CA@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bdj8mt$hh7$1@gladiola.noc.ucla.edu...
Arny says I have to have aq $5000 audio card so I won't bother.

"Buckaroo" <Dipper_CA@earthlink.net> wrote

Oh, OK, I got 'cha... NOT! What might this mean in practical terms? I
guess you're saying that this might somewhat change the sound? I have
some things that have a fair amount of hiss in the original recording,
could you say if what you're talking about would have an impact on
recordings in which hiss is present? Thanks.

In article <pan.2003.06.27.15.49.43.513000@hotmail.com>,
ian_a_hastie@hotmail.com (Ian Hastie) wrote:

"FDR" <_remove_spam_block_rzitka@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:WufLa.7926$8B.1963@twister.nyroc.rr.com

More lies.

"FDR" <_remove_spam_block_rzitka@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CsfLa.7925$8B.3634@twister.nyroc.rr.com
Highly ironic.