Insteresting point. However isn't the point of SQ to not be distinguishable from the real thing? Anyway, let's take a look at some pictures. In this picture, what would you say distinguishes the 2 monters in the hallway. Facial expression, size, color? After all, we can obviously see differences in these 2 monsters, yet try to quantitatively measure it.... (get a ruler handy)
Wait a sec....I thought we were talking about quality here, not quantity???
The human hearing range is NOTHING near 30k. Assuming your not 9 years old you'll be fortunate to hear past 15k with any reasonable volume level. Even very young girls have problems beyond 22, and they are lucky. Furthermore that, 10hz is also very subsonic. Like I already said, if you above 40k you are at least sampling up to the limit of human hearing however dithering and added noises in the D/A stage still needs to be taken into account. This is where MP3's tend to fall short, they pull out some of the smaller details when low level noise is removed. Anyway, when you said at a maximum of 92db's what were you referring to?
yes, but I guess the question becomes, can we quanitify quality? After all an amps ability to reproduce a signal is very well described mathmatically. I mean those 2 monsters look very different, despite they themselves giving the same imprint on our retina, the only physical component of vision is light. Just the same way sound is nothing more than ossicallating air waves. At what point does the human minds bias overcome any phsyical constraint. 2 systems could quite eaisly measure the exact same and yet sound very different to judges, just because of the gear involed, who's car it was, what mood he was in etc. The human experience is a hard thing to define, and as such, soudn quality becomes subjective. What truly seperates things however, isn't. In that way I can agree and disagree. Sure in it's purest form SQ is a 100% reproduction of a signal, but even that won't guarntee that it sounds the same to a human ear..... Learning to work around that is one of the biggest keys in SQ competitions.
It isn't an exact replication, but it is/was the accepted standard resolution that is "close enough" to the original.
Most songs are mastered at 24-bit/96kHz sampling rates, which is an all-digital signal, then that signal is fed through a Digital-to-analog converter prior to being burned onto a CD. Analog signals are 16-bit/48kHz or 16-bit/44.1kHz. CD Quality is 16-bit/48kHz sampling rate. Its like the HDTV signal...DVI-D is an all-digital signal, which is the best signal you can get, while VGA is all-analog, and everyone knows an all-digital signal is much better quality than an all-analog signal. When you convert from digital to analog, you lose quality, which is why they master with an all-digital signal at 24-bit/96kHz, which is the original source quality. This is also why it is almost impossible to accurately reproduce the original source quality, since the files have to be converted to analog before they can be burned onto a CD, then converted back into a digital signal when the music files are played. The benefit to an all-digital signal is this: The sound you hear is exactly the sound that is being made. That is why all songs are mastered at higher resolutions, so the sounds can be accurately reproduced without loss.
How can an analog signal be a 16-bit? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/naughty.gif.94359f346c0f1259df8038d60b41863e.gif
!!!
Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong - Wrong.
See my reply for his pre-edit post.
