"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

In article
, Glenn
Richards wrote:


You can't hear much above 20kHz.

Varies from one person to another, but what you say is
broadly correct so far as we can tell.

But signals at frequencies above this will affect what
you do hear, harmonics, interaction etc.

What evidence do you have for the above? There have been
some claims to this effect, but tests I've seen don't
show much support for the idea.

Why do you think there's been so much work done on
DVD-A, SACD etc, using sample rates of 96kHz or even
192kHz, rather than 44.1?

Various reasons. :-)

Say the word: marketing.

Also lets tell the truth - DVD-A is a failure in the marketplace. Some
record industry executives who hitched their wagons to the DVD-A star were
already fired over a year ago.

SACD is still solderiering bravely but with no market growth. This is a
testimony to Sony's stubborness and deep pockets.

In professional realms - insistance on high sample rates are a sign of an
amateur. It reminds me of the old saying "Amateur soliders worry about
strategy, professionals worry about logistics".

e.g. a concern (a la. Peter Craven) for avoiding unwanted
*in band* time dispersion effects. Moving the bandwidth
up gives more elbow room for ensuring a well-controlled
response in band.

e.g. Making 24-bit-sample recordings makes it easier to
avoid running out of dynamic range by accident, but this
may not matter to the final result.

The major barriers to the as-made, as-used dyanamic range of recordings are
at the ends of the record/playback process. The distribution media is in the
middle.

e.g. Marketing and the need to replace (patents expired)
audio CD with a new format (with new patents) and get
people to re-buy the same material yet again. :-)

The last time through, a low-cost reduced-sound-quality format won the
reissue race: MP3. The moral of the story is that the much-demeaned CD
format was actually overkill.