Computer Audio Asylum

Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate

Posted by Werner on July 30, 2009 at 04:09:24:
"Again, you seem to be complaining of possible ambiguities in a text aimed at a lay audience rather than examining the experiments themselves. The latter strikes me as a more fruitful route"

I have been reading and rereading the two initial papers, with the two experiments, for about a month now.

The papers describe experimental results that, assuming no mistake was made, indicate that:
1) people can discern when two vertically stacked loudspeakers replaying a continous 7kHz squarewave are misaligned in depth down to a distance of 2mm (~5us)
2) ... when a monophonic headphones feed of a continuous 7kHz triangle is first-order low-pass filtered with a time constant down to 5 us.

Kunchur claims that all trivial mechanisms for distinction (i.e. as presently in the knowledge on auditory perception) have been accounted for and were found each to be below the JND threshold at the respective levels and frequencies. In other words: differences are detected and this
through a hitherto unknown mechanism.

Fine.

These two items, and only these two, are the basis of all further argument.

Now please tell me: how follows from 1) and/or 2) that a 44.1kHz sampling system is insufficient?

And tell me further: how follows from 1) and/or 2) that an audio coding system has to be capable of keeping separated two short impulses spaced 5us apart in time?

These are two claims made in the papers and/or the later FAQ, but I fail to see the connection, I fail to see how this is 'a logical consequence of his results' when the experiments did not involve a 44.1kHz sampling system, did not involve bandwidth limiting of the stimuli, and did not involve pulses spaced 5us apart.

This is a sincere question. Maybe I don't see the connection because
I'm stupid, ignorant, or wrongly educated. I'd like to know.

--

As for the FAQ being for laypeople: inaccuracy in terminology never ever brings any benefit.