^^^ Interesting quote, but it contains something of a contradiction with respect to sampling rate. As I read it, he is saying that he needs speakers capable of ultrasonic playback to hear the effects of ultrasonic sound on the audible range ("I hear the effects of that content above 20kHz on the entire signal below 15kHz."), But if those effects are in the audible range, then they can be recorded and played back without the ultrasonics. As Lavry puts it (http://www.lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-white-paper-the_optimal_sample_rate_for_quality_audio.pdf):
It has been well documented that acoustic musical instruments generate energy at frequencies far above audibility. In the performance space (before any recording takes place), if there is any mechanism that enable ultrasonic frequencies to impact what we hear, it would require energy transfer from ultrasonic frequencies to the audible range. Therefore, using microphones and gear that cover what we hear enables us to capture and keep ALL the energy we need. We can store it, convert it and at some point play back all that we need. There is no good reason for keeping what we don’t hear, because everything we heard in the original performance is already there.
Incidentally, I don't know why you say "war". It's just another internet discussion...
That quote I posted is a bit out of context, because someone had told this guy that there weren't the speakers that could play back hi-res audio.
"War" is sort of tongue-in-cheek, but people seem very entrenched and invested in their opinions on this, and it seems as if it's "either-or" -- you're on one side or the other. And it's also about being told that you can't hear something that you hear.
"There is no good reason for keeping what
we don’t hear, because everything
we heard in the original performance is already there."
There are people who don't hear any difference between an mp3 and a CD and have the math and the specs to prove that there is no difference.
I remember when friends first played me their CD's and tried to convince me they were better than LP's.
Here's another quote:
"I did a days worth of tests - the same program recorded at 48, 96, and
192k at the same time. We recorded piano, acoustic guitar, percussion,
drums. Not a scientific A/B/C test, but as blind as we could make it.
Everyone (6 people - musicians, engineers, bystander) picked the 192k.
Most telling, the piano player ran into the room after hearing the 192k
from outside the control room saying "I never heard it sound like I hear
it while I'm playing."
You never realize how bad 48k sounds until you do this test. 192k is
pure and airy, 96k has a mid-range grunge that appears, and 48k really
has a lot of the mid-range hardness.
I buy Dan Lavry's argument about poor converter implementation. I buy
all the other audio engineering guru's finding problems with 192k too.
They all make some good points. But I've heard it and I'm convinced it
sounds better.
That being said, I don't go out of my way to record anything at 96k
anymore. It's too much effort for not a lot of advantage in the end for
most types of recording. But if I had to make a real "audiophile"
recording, I'd do it at 192k in a flash."
--
Bobby Owsinski
Surround Associates
http://www.surroundassociates.com