3 ms·
Sony won, not Philips. It seems that the rationale is like so: a higher rate would not be compatible with both NTSC and PAL VCRs, and a lower rate would shrink
by hunter2_ 2y ago
Sony won, not Philips. It seems that the rationale is like so: a higher rate would not be compatible with both NTSC and PAL VCRs, and a lower rate would shrink the transition band for the antialiasing filter (or alternatively, reduce usable audio bandwidth to an extent that encroaches on the generally accepted limit of human hearing). Although the latter hardly seems relevant when the alternatives being debated were so close (Philips' 44056 Hz, for example)!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/44,100_Hz#Origin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/44,100_Hz#Origin
- anticensor 2y agoWhy couldn't they make use of a sampling rate with five samples per frame (which would exactly give 88.2kHz by the way)?
- wappieslurkz 2y agoBecause doubling the sample rate would half the playing time of a CD, or require twice the density, while not bringing any audible increase in quality for the human ear.
- alexjplant 2y ago> a lower rate would shrink the transition band for the antialiasing filter (or alternatively, reduce usable audio bandwidth to an extent that encroaches on the generally accepted limit of human hearing) I've seen people smarter than me argue that the ideal sampling rate is actually somewhere around 64 kHz because it would allow for a gentler anti-aliasing filter with fewer phase artifacts.