On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Adam Davis wrote:

>In my mind, it's much like the color/resolution debate for video cards.  Sure,
>you *could* have 72 bits per pixel, but the human eye really can't distenguish
>that from a picture composed with 24 bits per pixel.  But the difference betwee
n
>1024x768 and 1600x1200 is still quite apparent.
Good explanation. That's what I mean.

>So I can understand the 96kHz.
Me too.

>But I have to agree that 24bit and 36 bit are probably overkill.  It would be
>interesting to do a range of sine waves at the different rates to see if people
>can tell a difference.
I think "real" musican could "hear" the difference. Pherhaps not the
difference itself but some "effects" of the lower sample resolution.
Like you couldn't hear the harmonic waves (frequency *3 *5 *7 ..) of a
sine wave at about 12khz but you could hear the "effects" the produce (how
is this called in English :-] )

NOISE IS EVERYWHERE !! :)

===================================================================
Kraft Bernhard aka. Krufti              /"\
ICQ# 3672982                            \ /  ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
                                         X   AGAINST HTML MAIL
                                        / \
===================================================================