5 ms·

Not the only reason. A combination of CD targeting a useable spectrum just above 20KHz (human hearing) which meant having more than double due to Shannon-Nyqvis

Not the only reason. A combination of CD targeting a useable spectrum just above 20KHz (human hearing) which meant having more than double due to Shannon-Nyqvist ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_the... ). With the need of filter cutoff on the high end, 44000 was enough to avoid aliasing and still have a good useable spectrum. The second part is finding a good sample rate that you can easily clock on VHS. That’s where the this stems from although they technically could have gone for a different sample rate at a lower bit depth. 44100 ended up being a good trade off between different requirements.

aardvark179 6y ago
Yeah. I was going to type more about the Shannon-Nyquist limit, but was on my phone, and I've heard several people over the years assert that the 44100 sample rate was a very early form of DRM since "anybody sensible" would have picked 48000, and indeed did for various other formats where this restriction didn't apply.
- slashink 6y ago
  Yeah also you are technically right. The specific reason we ended up at 44100 is a VHS constraint but the 44* ballpark was what I wanted to clarify. Nevertheless always fun to see this pop up on HN, there is so much forgotten reasoning about standards that we’ve carried over into the modern world.
- chiph 6y ago
  I bought a Sony CDP-101 in 1984 (their first commercial CD player). Unlike hifi components today that are mostly air and a small embedded processor, it was densely packed with circuitry and weighed a surprising amount (10kg? maybe more?). For cost and packaging reasons, Sony only put a single DA converter in it. This meant that they had to alternate converting the left + right channels, which introduced a 11µs delay between them. Not ideal, but it was what was what they were able to do given the technology of the time. Much like Technics was with the SV-P100. Anyone saying the 44.1 kHz sampling rate was because of DRM [0] and that they should have used a more sensible rate like 48 kHz is just mistaken. DAT was the first commercial product to have 48 kHz sampling, and that wasn't available until 1987. [0] The Red Book CD Digital Audio specification obviously existed and was available, otherwise other equipment makers couldn't create compatible players.
- segfaultbuserr 6y ago
  > the 44100 sample rate was a very early form of DRM Can you elaborate? How could it be a form of DRM? Did you mean that 44100 Hz was incompatible with existing designs using 48000 Hz, or that 44100 Hz created technical challenge for replication due to its smaller frequency margin?
  - garganzol 6y ago
    44.1 kHz sample rate limits the audio frequency response to 22 kHz. The popular knowledge says that the human hearing "stops" at 20 kHz, but in reality this is not a flush cut off. It may go way beyond that: some people are able to hear up to 27 kHz, depending on age and personal physiology. Limiting frequency response at 22 kHz ensures that you get a high quality material, but not the highest quality. Record labels still have the leverage to extract some pennies in the future by selling a higher quality record and this makes them feel comfortable.
    - klodolph 6y ago
      I don’t find this argument particularly compelling. You can hear up to 27kHz if the sound is loud enough, under laboratory conditions. However, from a psychoacoustic standpoint, you are unlikely to be able to hear those frequencies under normal listening conditions, and typical program material doesn’t make use of those frequencies anyway. In other words, 20 kHz is good enough.
      - garganzol 6y ago
        There is a bit of difference between 48 and 44.1 tracks, and it is a bit deeper than expected. 44.1 tracks tend to be "normalized" at the highest portion of the spectrum trying to squeeze the juice right at the studio. Tracks mastered for 48+ kHz are usually more relaxed in this regard, they just let the sound flow. Both sound exceptionally well, but tracks with higher sample rate sound a bit more natural, a bit softer if you prefer. Higher sample rate tends to add a pleasant edge to some kinds of music: live performances, jazz, minimal techno. If you happen to live in a part of the world where crickets are active in the summer then take a closer look. Their audio spectrum goes way beyond 20 kHz and if you try to listen carefully then you may spot the point where it goes beyond 20 kHz limit. Not everybody is physically capable to experience this. Personally I can hear a bit of those frequencies, so it's amusing to realize that a little bug can be such a masterful audio source. Nature is beautiful. And this beauty is a selling point when it comes to music.

aardvark179 6y ago

Yeah. I was going to type more about the Shannon-Nyquist limit, but was on my phone, and I've heard several people over the years assert that the 44100 sample rate was a very early form of DRM since "anybody sensible" would have picked 48000, and indeed did for various other formats where this restriction didn't apply.

slashink 6y ago
Yeah also you are technically right. The specific reason we ended up at 44100 is a VHS constraint but the 44* ballpark was what I wanted to clarify. Nevertheless always fun to see this pop up on HN, there is so much forgotten reasoning about standards that we’ve carried over into the modern world.
chiph 6y ago
I bought a Sony CDP-101 in 1984 (their first commercial CD player). Unlike hifi components today that are mostly air and a small embedded processor, it was densely packed with circuitry and weighed a surprising amount (10kg? maybe more?). For cost and packaging reasons, Sony only put a single DA converter in it. This meant that they had to alternate converting the left + right channels, which introduced a 11µs delay between them. Not ideal, but it was what was what they were able to do given the technology of the time. Much like Technics was with the SV-P100. Anyone saying the 44.1 kHz sampling rate was because of DRM [0] and that they should have used a more sensible rate like 48 kHz is just mistaken. DAT was the first commercial product to have 48 kHz sampling, and that wasn't available until 1987. [0] The Red Book CD Digital Audio specification obviously existed and was available, otherwise other equipment makers couldn't create compatible players.
segfaultbuserr 6y ago
> the 44100 sample rate was a very early form of DRM Can you elaborate? How could it be a form of DRM? Did you mean that 44100 Hz was incompatible with existing designs using 48000 Hz, or that 44100 Hz created technical challenge for replication due to its smaller frequency margin?
- garganzol 6y ago
  44.1 kHz sample rate limits the audio frequency response to 22 kHz. The popular knowledge says that the human hearing "stops" at 20 kHz, but in reality this is not a flush cut off. It may go way beyond that: some people are able to hear up to 27 kHz, depending on age and personal physiology. Limiting frequency response at 22 kHz ensures that you get a high quality material, but not the highest quality. Record labels still have the leverage to extract some pennies in the future by selling a higher quality record and this makes them feel comfortable.
  - klodolph 6y ago
    I don’t find this argument particularly compelling. You can hear up to 27kHz if the sound is loud enough, under laboratory conditions. However, from a psychoacoustic standpoint, you are unlikely to be able to hear those frequencies under normal listening conditions, and typical program material doesn’t make use of those frequencies anyway. In other words, 20 kHz is good enough.
    - garganzol 6y ago
      There is a bit of difference between 48 and 44.1 tracks, and it is a bit deeper than expected. 44.1 tracks tend to be "normalized" at the highest portion of the spectrum trying to squeeze the juice right at the studio. Tracks mastered for 48+ kHz are usually more relaxed in this regard, they just let the sound flow. Both sound exceptionally well, but tracks with higher sample rate sound a bit more natural, a bit softer if you prefer. Higher sample rate tends to add a pleasant edge to some kinds of music: live performances, jazz, minimal techno. If you happen to live in a part of the world where crickets are active in the summer then take a closer look. Their audio spectrum goes way beyond 20 kHz and if you try to listen carefully then you may spot the point where it goes beyond 20 kHz limit. Not everybody is physically capable to experience this. Personally I can hear a bit of those frequencies, so it's amusing to realize that a little bug can be such a masterful audio source. Nature is beautiful. And this beauty is a selling point when it comes to music.