I have read (somewhere a long time ago) that the reason 44.1 was picked was because that gave you a frequency range of 44.1/2 on either side of the middle.
I was looking at it as thought it was a frequency range with a bottom and upper limit (which would be split in half like a signed data type)
44.1kHz is how many samples there are in a second. It dictates how much frequency can be generated with the upper bound being half the sample rate...
[…] can anyone tell me the specifics of why that very particular sampling rate was chosen? Why not just use 44.0 kHz, for example? Who decided the upper limit needed was 22.05 kHz, exactly? Why not just 20 kHz?Who decided this? Denon?
What's the top frequency of CD anyway? Am I correct CD's are incapable of 22.05 kHz, they can only do 22.0499999999...? Thanks.[My questions are to all]
it can be represented in 44.1kHz PCM at any amplitude
This got me wondering what styles of music generally do use the full bandwidth and bit-width available on CDs?
...and reverb tails. Better still with high-rez!
When CDs were introduced, I predicted that (popular) music would evolve and become more dynamic, taking advantage of the format... Boy, was I WRONG!
It's ironic that the most dynamic music is (generally) the oldest... Classical.
I haven't listened for it on the CD version, but on the LP version of "A Day in the Life", if you turn the volume up really high as the final piano chord is fading away, you can hear the squeek of the piano bench.
One of the most dynamic pop albums I know (and with well-used dynamics at that) is Peter Gabriel's 4th ("Security") from 1982.
Oh FFS, I was continuing with the joke; but seriously, you can't possibly find it inconceivable that one could end a track with a digitally-generated reverb tail which could make use of the increased bit depth causing an audible difference when amplified by an unreasonable amount for normal playback?
Back in the olden days this kind of signal actually was quite popular for evaluating low-level DAC nonlinearity. The results would be quite boring with a properly dithered signal on a modern-day DAC though.Quote from: DVDdoug on 12 June, 2012, 03:54:12 PMWhen CDs were introduced, I predicted that (popular) music would evolve and become more dynamic, taking advantage of the format... Boy, was I WRONG!Well, people did take advantage of it, sometimes, for a few years. Productions up to about 1985 tend to be pretty good IME (after when it slowly got more and more spotty until the mid-'90s). One of the most dynamic pop albums I know (and with well-used dynamics at that) is Peter Gabriel's 4th ("Security") from 1982.
Quote from: stephan_g on 13 June, 2012, 08:40:39 AMOne of the most dynamic pop albums I know (and with well-used dynamics at that) is Peter Gabriel's 4th ("Security") from 1982....whose dynamic range was reduced on the remaster (as I'm sure will not surprise you)
The eponymous album by Rickie Lee Jones (recorded and released in the late 1970s) was the all-time dynamic range champ in my investigations until just lately, with real live passages (not fade ins or fade outs) that were recorded about 70 dB below FS. Engineer? The late, great Roger Nichols.