A CD is one of the better methods for storage and playback of music and other audio sources/signals. And "internet music" is, or should be, based on that kind of audio playback.
It does carry with it an inherent defect arising from too slow sampling rates of the original audio. During 1980 the proposed sampling rate was mathematically modelled for an ideal rate of 20Khz. Shortly thereafter 44Khz. was found, or thought to be even better, because of elimination of apparent "gaps" in the original audio.
This matter of "gaps" in the sampled audio signal can be expected to remain a defect in modern audio reproduction, regardless of magnitude. And as a note from the writer, this can contributed to the somewhat discordant sound of synthetic music, and some of the preference for vinyl music recording.
The matter with those "gaps" could be significantly reduced by using a 400Khz. sampling rate. Also the synthesis or conversion from digital to an audio signal should be significantly enhanced by using that 400Khz. sampling rate.
Agreed Ian?

 

I’m sorry but this is just wrong. The sampling rate of CD was never 40KHz, it was 44.1KHz from the start. The engineers inbolved were very aware of Nyquist and to be able to reproduce up to 20KHz they needed headroom. The reason for 44.1KHz was compatibility with video technology.

Current formats sample 24 bits at 192KHz with lossless compression. Rates as high as 384KHz are readily available for local (not streamed) content. Your unspecified “gaps” have no basis in reality.

 

There is no arguing with the golden ears. To them it is a matter of religious principle and it is a hill they are prepared to die on. Trying to do anything in that industry is IMHO a complete waste of time and creative energy. Let 'em choke on their religion.

 

I’m sorry but this is just wrong. The sampling rate of CD was never 40KHz, it was 44.1KHz from the start. The engineers inbolved were very aware of Nyquist and to be able to reproduce up to 20KHz they needed headroom. The reason for 44.1KHz was compatibility with video technology.

Current formats sample 24 bits at 192KHz with lossless compression. Rates as high as 384KHz are readily available for local (not streamed) content. Your unspecified “gaps” have no basis in reality.

192Khz. or 384Khz. are both adequate for "near as necessary" lossless sampling and DAC, agreed Sir. Those "gaps" of mine are based on announced, 1980 news being that 100% of up to 20Khz. audio was captured with a sampling rate of 40Khz. And that is incorrect, "mid-wave" signal in 15Khz. audio is sometimes missed by sampling at 40Khz or 44Khz. (By sampling at a peak or valley in the audio signal). That's the reason for 192Khz or 384Khz. Didn't I mention the year 1980, as the date of that original mathematical model of 40Khz being ideal. I haven't any info on modern sampling rates, I just recall that 1980 beginning of digital CD music.

 

A CD is one of the better methods for storage and playback of music and other audio sources/signals.

Yes, but don't rely on it for archive storage of vital data. I've had some CDs become unreadable after about ten years.

 

Yes, but don't rely on it for archive storage of vital data. I've had some CDs become unreadable after about ten years.

Sorry to hear about your ten year old CD's becoming unreadable. It seems very short lived. A harddisk drive isn't the answer either, and current state of the art non-volitile computer data storage is underdeveloped. What would you suggest as an answer for audio reproduction, I'm all ears.

 

Stone carvings. Some have lasted for millennia.

 

My current music storage is on a DLNA server (Linux MiniDLNA) Raid 6 with external backups., music on a CD is archaic.


https://manuals.denon.com/AVRX3700H/NA/EN/GFNFSYelkngxze.php#WBSPMLfrmttakf

 

Stone carvings. Some have lasted for millennia.

Yes Sir, that's what I thought. And an excellent method of archiving crucial data. I assume my YouTube Music comes from kind of CD storage and playback.

 

Yep, when I was in school, all the textbooks were carved in stone. I needed twenty servants just to carry my books.

 

Are you proposing that Edmund Whittaker, Harry Nyquist and Claude Shannon and everyone following who have been teaching Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem are all wrong?

 

192Khz. or 384Khz. are both adequate for "near as necessary" lossless sampling and DAC, agreed Sir. Those "gaps" of mine are based on announced, 1980 news being that 100% of up to 20Khz. audio was captured with a sampling rate of 40Khz. And that is incorrect, "mid-wave" signal in 15Khz. audio is sometimes missed by sampling at 40Khz or 44Khz. (By sampling at a peak or valley in the audio signal). That's the reason for 192Khz or 384Khz. Didn't I mention the year 1980, as the date of that original mathematical model of 40Khz being ideal. I haven't any info on modern sampling rates, I just recall that 1980 beginning of digital CD music.

The original design of the Compact Disc included the 44.1KHz sample rate. The CD is not a very good high fidelity audio medium but it's not because of "gaps". This is clearly not going to be a substantive discussion so this will be my last post.

 

Are you proposing that Edmund Whittaker, Harry Nyquist and Claude Shannon and everyone following who have been teaching Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem are all wrong?

If 44Khz is expected to capture most all of the acoustics wave, then yes I've got an issue with their theory

 

The original design of the Compact Disc included the 44.1KHz sample rate. The CD is not a very good high fidelity audio medium but it's not because of "gaps". This is clearly not going to be a substantive discussion so this will be my last post.

Alright by me, you and I've gone back and forth about 7-8 months ago. And I go by my best understanding, but I do appreciate your education. You're not stupid and maybe I'm a little off.

 

If 44Khz is expected to capture most all of the acoustics wave, then yes I've got an issue with their theory

What is the extent of your hearing, i.e. what is the highest audio frequency you can detect?

 

Are you proposing that Edmund Whittaker, Harry Nyquist and Claude Shannon and everyone following who have been teaching Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem are all wrong?

As if they were amateurs, idiots, or maybe dilletantes even.

 

should be significantly enhanced by using that 400Khz. sampling rate.

No one is going to pay for 10x more storage.
Your PC speakers will not reproduce 20khz anyway. Many of us can't hear 20khz. FM radio is limited to 15khz. Many microphones can't accurately copy 20khz.
I thought you might be having a big problem with "loss less compression", long before 20khz.

 

I don't have a problem at the upper hearing range but I do have the typical female voice hearing loss.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2005-08-07/men-do-have-trouble-hearing-women-research/2075194

Men who are accused of never listening by women now have an excuse - women's voices are more difficult for men to listen to than other men's.

Reports say researchers at Sheffield University in northern England have discovered startling differences in the way the brain responds to male and female sounds.

 

Yep, when I was in school, all the textbooks were carved in stone. I needed twenty servants just to carry my books.

I had another 20 to carry my girlfriend's books.

 

No one is going to pay for 10x more storage.
Your PC speakers will not reproduce 20khz anyway. Many of us can't hear 20khz. FM radio is limited to 15khz. Many microphones can't accurately copy 20khz.
I thought you might be having a big problem with "loss less compression", long before 20khz.

No, I can't hear much above 13Khz. (as a realistic guess). And the only time I listen to a PC is when I'm watching some good trampling porn. Usually I listen to YouTube Music by way of a Bluetooth connection between my mobile phone and a Onkyo reciever bought earlier this year for $250 bucks. And it's good enough for me. Model Tx 8220 available from Electronics Express, down in Tennessee as I recall their site's listing on google. As for compression, that's for video isn't it?
By lossless I'm referring to modern 192Khz-383Khz. sampling and Digital to Audio (or Analog) Conversion or "synthesis of music from modern digital data". And I wouldn't pay extra for a CD the size of an old vinyl record either. But maybe one of the online music sites would. That's where things are headed these days. And the circuits used for DAC work a lot simpler using 192-383Khz. state of the art synthesis or playback rates. Audio quality is up to the folks with oscilliscopes, not me. I just like my Onkyo reciever.