The Logic Off Topic list

> > I know most people cant hear above say 17kHz or so, and thus the
argument
> > for 96kHz sampling rate seems ridiculous.

j.offerman@...>;  wrote
> You are mixing up two *very* different things: 17kHz refers to the
> highest frequency people can hear, whilst the 96kHz refers to the
> frequency at which the sound is sampled by digital recorder.
>
> I.e. a 96kHz digital recorder samples the frequency of the sound that
> is being recorded 96.000 times per second. This has *nothing* to do
> with the actual frequency range of the sound being recorded.

sorry Jim, I should have been more specific, I was commenting on the fact
that 44.1kHz recordings can only reproduce tones up to 22.05kHz, then I was
making the comparison that humans can only actually hear up to 20 odd k
theoretically (and I made a guesstimate of 17k practically - due to  rock
concerts, traffic, computer whine etc...). Then the fact that the higher
tones cant be heard anyway makes sense, however...

I made a half-assed guess at beat frequencies generated by high order
harmonics interacting but Lennart pointed out quite rightly that such tones
are produced from perception through a non-linear medium rather than
superposition in a linear medium (ie. air). Thus to properly reproduce these
beat frequencies you DO need to record as high as you can go.

The only problem then is how to reproduce these tones. Most titanium
tweeters I have seen spec sheets for only reproduce up to maybe 30 or
40kHz - how do the higher frequencies get reproduced?

--
Mark Lennox
Technical Consultant
ENDUSER
Suite 40
Guinness Enterprise Centre
Taylors Lane
Dublin 8
Ireland
Tel: +353 1 4100 665
Fax: +353 1 4100 985
web: http://www.enduser.com
--