Quote:
Originally Posted by MrVideo
The point is that the upper frequencies harmonics are lost.
|
Harmonics contribute to an instrument's 'timbre', but only with those frequencies which are within a human's hearing range which is normally below about 20kHz for youngsters. (Your avatar may chime in at this point though
).
Now take the highest C of a piano which is about 4186 Hz. Its audible overtones would be 8372, 12558, 16400, 20930Hz which are still covered by the 44.1kHz sampling rate. An 48kHz sampling rate will not even include the next harmonic of 25116Hz for which the minimum sampling rate would have to be about 51kHz.
So I don't see a significant improvement between 44.1kHz sampling rate or 48kHz sampling rate. More important than extending the frequency range is the resolution (quantization) of the samples (true 16bit is fine) and how the samples are processed in the sequel.
Oh well, audio quality can be discussed to death by audiophiles
.
Edit:
Now this makes we wonder why the sampling rate has been increased from 44.1 to 48kHz at all. Technology convenience? Marketing gimmick? Or perhaps a better or simpler design of the anti-aliasing filter with a smoother roll-of and a better transient response? Just guessing.