> However, with a sampling rate of 44,000 samples per second, there were overtones of sound now missing.
Human hearing only goes up to 20 kHz when you are young, dropping to about 12 kHz at the age of 50. 44 kHz sampling gives a Nyquist frequency of 22 kHz, easily encompassing the full range of human hearing. Any overtones that are missing in the recording are overtones that didn't make it through the human ear in the first place.
>I have long since abandoned arguments about the quality of sound. The analog sound was better. It was fuller and warmer, and it held all the sonic information.
16-bit samples on a CD can represent about 96 dB of dynamic range. The cassette tapes that he is arguing for can only represent 60-70 dB of dynamic range. It certainly doesn't hold "all the sonic information".
I really appreciate the historical view that the author brings. In terms of the technology, though, he sounds like one of the foolish audiophiles buying the $1,500 HDMI cables.
Human hearing only goes up to 20 kHz when you are young, dropping to about 12 kHz at the age of 50. 44 kHz sampling gives a Nyquist frequency of 22 kHz, easily encompassing the full range of human hearing. Any overtones that are missing in the recording are overtones that didn't make it through the human ear in the first place.
>I have long since abandoned arguments about the quality of sound. The analog sound was better. It was fuller and warmer, and it held all the sonic information.
16-bit samples on a CD can represent about 96 dB of dynamic range. The cassette tapes that he is arguing for can only represent 60-70 dB of dynamic range. It certainly doesn't hold "all the sonic information".
I really appreciate the historical view that the author brings. In terms of the technology, though, he sounds like one of the foolish audiophiles buying the $1,500 HDMI cables.