[sdiy] Taking a Step towards Digital Synthesis?....

[Glen]

At 04:56 PM 1/7/04 , Colin f wrote:

>My guess is the choice of 48kHz (therefore double at 96) is fairly
>arbitrary, based on an integer division of readily available crystals
>(i.e. 12MHz / 250), and the major engineering demand was that it just
>had to be 'better' than CD.

I thought that 48 kHz rates were in professional use before the creation of
the CD? If that's true, then the engineers who originally chose 48 kHz
would not have been trying to outperform the then-nonexistent CD audio
format. It's my further belief, based upon *very* fuzzy memories, that the
44.1 kHz rate for CD audio was selected as some sort of "good enough for
the masses" compromise. 

Here in America, the CD was promoted to the general public as being nearly
sonically perfect, with the ability to last a lifetime. I think in some
European countries it wasn't even considered "Hi-Fi" in nature.

I think that it's time to migrate to higher bit depths and sample rates,
and no longer place CD audio on the pedestal it's occupied for so long.
We've been capable of doing better for a long time now, so let's just move
on to something better, please.


These are just some thoughts I have,
Glen Berry