[quote title=George Massenburg wrote on Mon, 03 May 2004 17:29]I'm loathe to throw a curveball in here, but I must.
Dan, in these years you and I have discussed the possible impact of wide-band signals, one idea that we talked about sticks in my mind.
"1. I am first and foremost an engineer who deeply respects the scientific method, and I am here to tell you that there is no science so far that supports the physiology of perceptive differentiation of very high sample rates. We have some ideas as to what a credible testing protocol might look like."
Did you read my paper? Everything I said is backed by math. The conclusions are rock solid: The difference between an analog wave and the sampled signals is high frequency content. By removing such content, you remove the difference, thus get back to the original. The high frequency difference is just too often confused with the subject of aliasing. It is the sampling process that makes for the high frequency difference, and removing the high frequency ends up as is filtering at the DA side.
"2. I have heard some stunning, compelling presentations in the high-sample rate, high-resolution contexts, particularly in 384kHz & DSD (SACD technology). Perhaps the impressions of these technologies wasn't attributable to high-frequency response; perhaps it is. Lately our thinking is that the really impressive localization in the hi-rez formats might be attributable to much better cross-channel resolution in the time domain."
I have taken great care to state that I do not say that people do not hear what they hear. I also do not claim what is good sound vs. bad sound. All I am saying is that whatever you hear, be it good, bad, nice or not, is not energy that requires 192KHz sampling. Please read the article, and point out what is it specifically you disagree with.
I am finding myself arguing such simple things such as:
material that was recorded at 192 and than decimated to 44.1KHz can not possibly have energy above 22.05KHz. You say
I don't know.
And you don't know.
I think I know what I am saying, and I am being careful not to say what I do not understand.
"Not until we get something proven. Hard proven. And although I love your work (and, as you know, use your converters regularly), you haven't really proven the case to me."
I do not need to prove fundamentals again and again. I have to conclude that you did not take the time to read my article.
I recall our talk about "aliasing" from a time domain perspective. But it is just a more convenient way for some to view the same thing. The time/frequency domain relationships are just math, but the same thing. Nyquist holds for non linearity, noise and anything you will throw at it.
I too love your work. I am not crazy to think that you, of all people can not hear. What I said does not challenge it at all. It is about where the energy resides, is 192KHz needed for audio, where the signal itself is not even there (mics, ear, speakers... all in series....)
BR
Dan Lavry