Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site mako.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!mako!seifert
From: seifert@mako.UUCP (Snoopy)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: CD musings and freqs gt 20 kHz
Message-ID: <532@mako.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Jan-85 15:55:26 EST
Article-I.D.: mako.532
Posted: Tue Jan 22 15:55:26 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 24-Jan-85 07:20:24 EST
References: <162@lcuxc.UUCP> <226@itm.UUCP>
Reply-To: seifert@mako.UUCP (Snoopy)
Organization: The Daisy Hill Puppy Farm
Lines: 29
Summary: 


"Nothing above 16kHz makes any difference"

I *assume* they checked to make sure that the screens didn't
block freqs higher than that?  And that background noise was
sufficiently low, etc etc.

If so, that's sort of interesting.

AR once did something similar, not to investigate bandwidth
requirements but just to prove that their speakers (10pi)
could fool people.

And someone else did a similar bandpass experiment with various
curtains/screens that *did* block various freqs, which proved
that high frequencies *did* matter. (These were done a *long*
time ago.  I don't remember whether "high" was referring to over
16kHz at that time.)

I'd like to know what miking/speaker placement setups they
used to fool people in a live-vs-recorded test.  Proper
imaging is hard to achieve, and could easily spoil such
a test.  (right, Phil?)

        _____
	|___|		the Bavarian Beagle
       _|___|_			Snoopy
       \_____/		tektronix!mako!seifert
        \___/