You obviously have no clue as to the effects of Nyquist on the _frequency response_ of the resultant digital recording.
LOL ... another newly coined audio term, and derogatory at that, from those grasping at straws to cover up their ignorance?
You know you've made your point successfully when the derogatory terminology starts flying in lieu of reasoned response.
no, but since you brought it up, the fastest ones do make the most noise.
That would depend entirely on the copyright holders - I'm just the erk doing the recording. Almost all were "private" recordings for clubs/societies etc.
Now they seem to think that something like the Zoom audio recorder is all they need and they do their own.
Sometimes people wanted a recording of their wedding, these days they want a video. Even when vicars prohibit video during the service many churches these days do their own audio. My own church now has a CD recorder as part of the sound system and the person on the sound desk operates it.
CCTV too with large screens and a remotely operated camera, high up, that can see most of the church so people at the back can see easily what's happening at the front.
It's a good job I was doing it as an amateur and not trying to make a living from it otherwise I'd now be another statistic on the register of the unemployed
Max, using ear protection
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 09:19:01 -0600, Leon
Probably sympathetic sound. That's about the limit of my sound knowledge you sound experts, so don't shoot me down too much.
You're *quite* wrong. I understand the science behind Nyquist and Fourier perfectly. What I don't understand is how, so called, "professionals" can get caught up in audiophoolery.
No, it's not newly coined and describes you to a tee.
You obviously wouldn't understand Nyquist if I explained it to you, or you wouldn't have posted a reference to a site that shows my point.
It must be the noise that causes the speed, right?
HEY! You should be apologizing to the rest of us for talking about all this sound stuff that very few of us understand.
I'd ask for an apology from the political pundits here but it could result in my being inundated with political rhetoric.
Not derogatory terminology perhaps but certainly derogatory towards me.
And you never did pick me up on the fact that although even studio machines use equalisation they also use compensating circuitry to correct the resulting phase shifts.
PAX.
Wasn't me, but it was right on target.
...and far more audiophoolery.
It *might* ask more questions but it certainly wouldn't give any answers.
Certainly true. The fourth harmonic would be at what is considered to be the "limit" (a few can hear significantly higher than 20kHz) of human hearing. OTOH, the second harmonic of 15kHz is *way* outside the realm of human hearing and as such doesn't matter at all.
None are flat and certainly none are flat from 50Hz to over 20kHz. Earphones have ridiculous resonances, even the professional types.
I'd like to see some serious double-blind tests on audiophool stuff. Nothing I'd love more than to see Monster, and its ilk, bankrupt. "Copper free", my ass.
Apologies accepted, please also accept mine.
We are crazy I know but my eldest daughter and I had done a 16 mile walk along the canal in temperatures around freezing and it had snowed the last
8 miles.
I has become patently obvious that, with a couple of exceptions, nobody here has a clue about psychoacoustics.
Let me try that again.
Max
Let me say it once again:
"An audio CD can represent frequencies up to 22.05 kHz, the Nyquist frequency of the 44.1 kHz sample rate."
If you want to continue playing cutesy with terminolgy, you either agree with the above, or you need to specify and Cite why you don't.
Unlike you, I'm reasonable and will listen to any reasoned refutation, but I will NOT accept you simply saying it is "wrong", which you have repeatedly done without explanation.
Here it is again:
"An audio CD can represent frequencies up to 22.05 kHz, the Nyquist frequency of the 44.1 kHz sample rate."
Have at it ... by my guest and pick it apart.
You mean like your remark previous to that where you stated your were dealing with a "poorly educated" American?
... and "sunshine" is not derogatory?
Tit for tat, eh? ..
Yes, Pax ... :)
I don't /believe/ any frequency beyond the upper limit of hearing matters either, unless it gets hetrodyned down, but I would be interested in, and open to, hard scientific evidence either way.
Which is why I said they would have to be specially designed.
As far as cables are concerned, the only thing that matters at audio frequencies is the resistance, and that is simply measured. Keep it low to maintain a good damping factor and all will be well.
You expected a lot more here in rec.woodworking? If you wish to discuss the acoustic properties of various types of woods, I'll be interested.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required