Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site uokvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uokvax!emjej
From: emjej@uokvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Re: CD Musings
Message-ID: <1000020@uokvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Jan-85 01:05:00 EST
Article-I.D.: uokvax.1000020
Posted: Tue Jan 22 01:05:00 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 24-Jan-85 07:08:01 EST
References: <147@lcuxc.UUCP>
Lines: 25
Nf-ID: #R:lcuxc:-14700:uokvax:1000020:000:1357
Nf-From: uokvax!emjej    Jan 22 00:05:00 1985

/***** uokvax:net.audio / lcuxc!wjm / 11:12 am  Jan 15, 1985 */
[gould!jon] is correct in stating that a 44 kHz sampling rate will
perfectly reproduce a 22 kHz signal (the Nyquist sampling theorem).
However, that is not the problem.  The problem is that, frankly, 22 kHz
may not be adequate for *true* high fidelity reproduction....Since the
third harmonic of a 14 kHz cymbal or bell note is 42 kHz, 22 kHz is
nowhere near adequate for proper reproduction.
/* ---------- */

I applaud the non-inflammatory approach of the poster of this note, but
I must respectfully state that it's not clear to me how one reaches the
conclusion from the admittedly correct premise (that 3 * 14 = 42), nor
is it clear that any existing high-fidelity equipment can reproduce a
42 KHz signal with any accuracy. I would think that one need not reproduce
anything that humans (or maybe even 1-epsilon fraction of humans) could
not perceive (which perhaps includes feeling the shockwaves from the
cannon in some pieces)--if a bat wants to spend money on hi-fi, it can
spend its own :-). Comments on both issues (especially from folks
knowledgeable about speakers and cartridges, which seem to me the obvious
weak links in correctly transmitting such information--not the people,
the devices :-) are invited.

			"Have you heard the Magnestatic? It's phenomenal!"
			James Jones