PHD
Member
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2023
- Messages
- 96
- Likes
- 191
I found this and other sources that claim that the human ear could be trained to detect audible time differences even below 30us
So, let's say some people could detect down to 15us time differences between two sounds, accounting for the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem, this translates to 2/15e-6 = 133.34kHz. Therefore, the next standard audio sampling frequency would be 2*CDDA = 4*44.1= 176.4kHz. Also, some humans could hear a dynamic range of up to 120dB, which could also justify 24bit resolutions (effective dynamic range, accounting for a 20dB noise floor).
Does this prove the possible benefits of high-res audio?
I wish the Redbook standard had been set at 24bit/176.4kHz instead of 16bit/44.1kHz. All they had to do was delay the CD format release by 10 years until DVD media became available, which could easily hold full albums at that rate.
So, let's say some people could detect down to 15us time differences between two sounds, accounting for the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem, this translates to 2/15e-6 = 133.34kHz. Therefore, the next standard audio sampling frequency would be 2*CDDA = 4*44.1= 176.4kHz. Also, some humans could hear a dynamic range of up to 120dB, which could also justify 24bit resolutions (effective dynamic range, accounting for a 20dB noise floor).
Does this prove the possible benefits of high-res audio?
I wish the Redbook standard had been set at 24bit/176.4kHz instead of 16bit/44.1kHz. All they had to do was delay the CD format release by 10 years until DVD media became available, which could easily hold full albums at that rate.