Interesting Article - High End Audio

  • Thread starter Thread starter DigitalDon
  • Start date Start date
Audiophiles, <sigh>. hehe. Nothing wrong with it, but people just don't know when to quit.

Not sure what you are taking the argument to be?

The argument against 96khz + as I have always heard it is that we can't hear the difference...or are you saying an argument for 96khz and above?

I am confused. Interesting little article though.
 
I don't have any experience with 96KHz and above but the arguments against higher sample rates seem to be valid to me. There seems to be some consensus the higher rates are just a marketing tool of the manufacturers. Of course the "keeping up with the Jone's" kicks in then.

I think one point of the article was that scientific facts were used only to a point to support the audiophiles position then ignored when it contradicted further support.

Actually, the article was a little out of place in the trade magazine it was in. I guess that's why it caught my eye.

DD
 
hehe... I'm all for higher sampling rates... but not until we get speakers that can put out frequencies that high... we may not be able to "hear" those higher frequencies but I believe we can sense them... well some of them... how high we can sense but not hear I am not sure...
 
Well, I agree with your analysis. I am an engineer AND and audiophile. There are definite differences in the sample rates. I did experiments years ago with sine, trangle and square waves of about 14kHz. Since the first harmonic is 28kHz, it should be above the range of hearing and my test subjects shouldn't have been able to tell the difference. But, they could 100% of the time. Our hearing doesn't drop off like a brick wall at the magic 20kHz but fades out rapidly. However, I am convinced we hear sounds well above 20kHz based on my own experience. My speakers will definately reproduce well above 20kHz as will my equipment. You can definately tell the difference between a good CD and a good vinyl recording. I attribute that to those highs we "can't" hear. Only my opinion, but based on a lifetime of listening and pushing the limits. I haven't lived with 96k samples either, but I'm anxious to.
 
I dont understand the arguments against better technology. As long as the cost isn't prohibitive than why not?
 
But it always is about money...

Greetings,

I got caught up with that when i first came around here a year ago. Then i heard great stuff recording in the MP3 clinic with an audiophile and it brought me down a bit.

I'm neither an audiophile or an engineer (but i play on one tv), but I am a molecular biologist.

It all gets converted into biochemical signals in your ears sent to your brain. What are the chances evolution designed us to hear the differences between 48 and 96? Its not like our ancestors that heard at 48 were eaten by mountain lions or anything.! HA!

Anyways, look at shoes, makeup, cars, clothes, ab rollers, music. Its all marketing, something has to replace what works perfectly fine or else all the stores would go out of bizness. Simple as that, marketing makes the world go around. Its probobly better technology, but its unlikely to produce better sound. And even if it did, we would all probobly be better served making better music on 48 then spending time/money on 96 systems.

Just my (correct) opinion
SirRiff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top