Joel said:
https://manual.audacityteam.org/man/digital_audio.html
See the part about “sample rates” in the middle of the page.
It literally says what I have been saying in my previous comments:
“Higher sample rates allow higher audio frequencies to be represented. Provided that the sample rate is more than double the highest audio frequency present, the waveform can be reconstructed exactly from the digital samples.”
Forgive me if I rely on my audio recording degree, 15 years as a recording engineer, and 30 years as an audio hobbyist over your ability to google something.
Nonsense. I see professional, well known audio people spreading myths about digital audio, including the myth that vinyl is better than Redbook (it’s 2018, jeez). They could also claim that their years of professional audio engineering makes their points more solid, despite the little problem that vinyl cannot even reach 96db of dynamic range. But hey, they’re professional engineers!!!111
Meanwhile, I haven’t just made some quick google search in these last weeks. I have googled about these topics over several years already and I have learned to stop relying in whatever bizarre stuff people say at sites like Steve Hoffman’s forum.
I don’t claim to be anything other than a hobbyist (and a very poor one), but even if I were a recording engineer I wouldn’t use the argument of authority unless I’m really confident about what I am saying.
Nyquist stated that to reproduce a certain frequency, you need a sample rate of at least twice that frequency. This doesn’t mean that a higher sampling rate only gives you more high frequencies/more frequency response. It does allow for a wider frequency response, but the point of it is to capture more plot points to reconstruct the signal (as per the chart in the link above).
You are confusing the need for a minimum Nyquist rate with “more samples means better time-domain accuracy, and Redbook has very small time resolution”. I have already posted a link that shows that Redbook has, at the very least, time-domain accuracy up to the nanosecond level, which is already impresive and makes any claim about the need for “Hi-Res” audio even more pointless.
If you want to tell me more about what I don’t know, feel free to PM me here, but we can stop cluttering up this post with the technical discussion.
I’m not gonna PM you because you’re showing me you’re ignoring my arguments. It’s hopeless, and I gain nothing from continuing this conversation.
Good day, Joel.