3 ms·
While 192KHz is overkill, there are plenty of instruments that produce non-trivial amounts of energy above 22KHz. While we're unable to hear them some can be ge
by giantrobot 5y ago
While 192KHz is overkill, there are plenty of instruments that produce non-trivial amounts of energy above 22KHz. While we're unable to hear them some can be generally felt (depending on volume and proximity). A pair of headphones won't reproduce those ultrasonic energies but good speakers can. Even so, this is only germane in a handful of types of music with high fidelity recording and mastering.
The same for higher resolution samples, an audio pipeline using that available dynamic range can do cool stuff.
Both are pointless for 99% of music sold though.
- layoutIfNeeded 5y agoDebunked https://web.archive.org/web/20200310055211/https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html https://web.archive.org/web/20200310055211/https://people.xi...
- Mediterraneo10 5y agoThis is somewhat true. Also, while human beings cannot hear a dog whistle per se, due to the way the human ear works they can hear the beats produced by the combination of that sound with another, straightforwardly audible-frequency sound. Per Nørgård exploits this in his Symphony No. 5. But examples of this actually affecting enjoyment or even an A/B test in practice are so few they shouldn't really guide one's encoding choices, CD audio is already sufficiently wide in practice and claims that we need more are audiophile wishful thinking.
- giantrobot 5y agoI'm definitely not arguing for the stupid "audiophile" frequencies. For the tiny fraction of music taking advantage of ultrasonic frequencies and high dynamic range it's nice there's an option now. I hope the availability of high resolution, or more importantly the spacial audio, will inspire some artists to really explore the space. I'm hoping for some stuff like the Flaming Lips' Zaireeka or Yoshimi album's 5.1 mix.