[
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2008, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]
208.127.195.173
In Reply to: RE: Yes I can hear the difference posted by Sunya on January 04, 2008 at 15:29:12
I am not an engineer, so I can't give a technical answer. If I understand correctly, it seems to me that you are only focused on the frequency response. I'm not sure about the value of extending response out to 96kHz, unless this impacts response in the normal hearing range.
I think what is more important is the increase in information density. This has always been the advantage of analog recording and the bête noire of digital recording. Higher sampling rates ameliorate this paucity of information at lower sampling rates. This is what I listen for, not frequency response.
A piano is a good instrument for hearing information density. It has complex overtones in the normal hearing range and a mechanism that allows the player to produce extremely varied tonal coloring by touch and use of the pedals. I want to hear the details I hear in a live performance, the kind of pedaling, the fine changes in touch, and even the kind of piano. Higher sampling rates help a lot.
The string section of an orchestra is also very good for hearing information density. That's why I mentioned it earlier. There is a very characteristic "aura" that massed strings develop when playing together. The sound is blended, but the instruments maintain their individuality with each player's slightly different vibrato. A recording needs to reproduce this.
Sorry if this all sounds like I have stepped into the twilight zone. We are dealing with sensory perception here, and measurements seem to have their limitations. We have to depend on our hearing to make the ultimate judgment.
Follow Ups:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2008, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]