[Psalad]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Humm thought I was done here but given you are spiting my words back at me and the transparent subtext of your statement, it desperately needs clarification.

I was having a little fun, it was not meant as snarky.. no "transparent subtext." Sorry if it came off that way.

This is actually incorrect. It is not "proven that humans cant hear over 20k"

#1 The correct statement would be. It has been tested and accepted that the statistical norm for human hearing range is 20 to 20k.
While many, particularly older people's upper range limit is lower than 20k, rarely but occasionally some people test slightly higher.

Yep.. maybe a little pedantic, as I think you know what I mean, but I have no objection to your correction.

I don't think it matters though in the bigger picture, or at least I don't think so, as either way 44.1 covers frequencies that most, if not all, humans can hear.

As stated this is actually a skewed misinterpretation of the Nyquist theorem .

OK, I guess, but why?

#3 The Nyquist theorem was not about human hearing range period.
It is about the relationship of speed over time to digitally sample and accurately reconstruct an analog waveform .

Not sure how you misinterpreted my point, but we are saying the same thing.

And Shannon Nyquist was not about, nor did it determine that 44.1k was quote " enough to capture the entire range of human hearing."

Applying Shannon Nyquist as a mathematical minimum, it was Sony et al, that prevailed in the early sample rate wars and thus it was decided that 44.1k was an adequate minimum and should be the standard for CD playback.


Thats all fine and dandy And I would agree. BUT that has nothing to do with what I have said, ergo can't be something I could be incorrect about ?????

44.1 was chosen because it matched current science about normal human hearing, and was a suitable sample rate. They chose it based on the science of hearing at the time and what was understood about how humans hear.

If there is new evidence and science discovers more data about human hearing that is inconsistent, lots of people will change their minds... and people will change the commonly used 20-20k human hearing range.

I said one claim was an about higher freq. possibly having effects on freqs in the audible range being based in science, what I was referring to was things like sub harmonics (in the audible range) of fundamentals ( sitting above the audible range and above the capability of 44.1 K ) I don't think the existence of sub harmonics is "just a guess" And I clearly stated the claim about the effects on the brain also effecting the music was speculation.

Sub harmonics aren't a guess. The impact and the ability for humans to hear are a guess.

"but still, nobody has been able to prove this is a problem in a double blind test." This is another probable misstatement. A more accurate statement would be . Nobody has actually done a double blind test that is not based on flawed methodology about comparing recording and playback of different sample rates. You keep ignoring this but it is in fact very important.

Lots of tests have been done. You can keep criticizing the methodology, and that's fine. Maybe you are right. But at the end of the day, it has yet to be proven, and when it is, I (and everyone else) will take notice. Until then... no proof is no proof. You and everyone else is welcome to develop a better test.

I have done my own blind tests using multiple methodologies. I'm sure they are flawed, but at the end of the day... I can't hear it, and so far, nobody else has either in blind testing.

There is arguably not really any significant amount of applicable scientific AB testing of the science of digital sampling to act as an established baseline that burden of proof can be shifted to disproving it .

We disagree with your conclusion.

Apparently you need to believe that your decision to record in 44.1 is based in science, because "people can't hear above 20k". And that anybody who decides to record in higher rates is must be doing so because of bias or wishful thinking.

It's not really about me, to be honest. I have no care what sampling rate I record at, I have enough horsepower to record at whatever rate I choose.

My decision to record at 44.1 is based on my own experience, as well as the current understanding of human hearing and based on my current understanding of digital sampling. There is no "what if" or magical thinking involved, no blue sky ideas about what might be audible. I make my decision about what is known. If what is known changes, I will change with it.

And I am guessing the important truth is : None of the myriad people, from home recordists to top level recording engineers, really give a second thought as to who you think the "BURDEN OF PROOF" is on....

...and why you or I choose to record at a particular sampling rate, but that doesn't mean we can't have a conversation about it on a board for fun. Ultimately that is why we're here.