Topic: "The Science of Sample Rates"

[mblindsey]

This is an Internet old post, and it may be here somewhere that ts.com search didn't disclose.  Regardless, I thought it was a good read:

http://www.trustmeimascientist.com/2013/02/04/the-science-of-sample-rates-when-higher-is-better-and-when-it-isnt/

--Michael

[buckster]

A good read - thanks! 

[DSatz]

That is an excellent article with an uncanny resemblance to things I've been saying in this forum for YEARS.

--best regards

[kleiner Rainer]

Nice find. If we were bats (or cats), a sample rate of 192kHz and above would make sense.

There is a saying in Germany:

"Wo das Wissen endet, beginnt der Aberglaube"

Where knowledge ends, superstition starts.

Seems to be especially true in audio/Hi-Fi circles.

Greetings,

Rainer

[mblindsey]

That is an excellent article with an uncanny resemblance to things I've been saying in this forum for YEARS.

--best regards

It's the big brains, life experience, and solid advice of you and others that make ts.com a treasure trove.  I actually thought specifically, that you might align with that article, and it happened.  On behalf of many, sir, thanks for the continued wisdom around these parts.

--Michael

[rocksuitcase]

This is an Internet old post, and it may be here somewhere that ts.com search didn't disclose.  Regardless, I thought it was a good read:

http://www.trustmeimascientist.com/2013/02/04/the-science-of-sample-rates-when-higher-is-better-and-when-it-isnt/

--Michael

Thank you for the read. Interesting comment here:

My own preference is to work at 44.1, especially on projects that will move from studio to studio and even into band members’ homes, which is so common these days. You never know what kind of computer power and disk speed you’ll be faced with. And, any difference I hear on properly designed converters tends to be less significant than say, a half dB of top-end EQ. In another 10 or 15 years, I might not hear these differences at all. Even today, there are older engineers who can hear fewer of these high frequencies than I can. But that doesn’t mean much: listening almost always trumps hearing. And good listening comes with experience.

Very good and well segmented discussion of this topic. I like how he separates out listening from hearing, basically enforcing that when most of us listen, we bring our own subjectivity to the experience, but Hearing, particularly the science of, and limitations of the human ear's frequency response, CAN BE MEASURED objectively (with proper tools and good methodology).