And I give you this to ponder.
Joseph Byrd , musician-composer-producer/emeritus professor (1960-present)
Analog music has an infinity of frequencies (sounds). There are 100 frequencies in the octave between 1Hz and 100 Hz, but 1,000 frequencies in the octave between 1KHz and 2KHz. Each subsequent octave doubles the number of frequencies. By the time you get to 10–20KZ, you’ve used up a vast amount of memory. And digital memory is not infinite, the way analog is.
Then there are the overtones for each instrument. An average example of overtones for any instrument has at least 32 overtones:
And each overtone has its own loudness, which creates the distinctive color or timbre. Now multiply all that data by the number of instruments or voices.
That is simply too much information for a CD to hold for an entire ensemble. So the trick is to “approximate” the higher overtones, i.e., instead of 18,277 Hz, it defaults to 18,300. This is good enough to trick the ear under some circumstances, but it has the effect of removing certain information, or “fudging” it. Imagine the effect of a full orchestra. In effect, up to 30% of the subtle partials that define the tone of the instrument or voice are lost. The “separation” of which you speak is contained in the highest partials.
On the Ry Cooder JAZZ album, we used 2-inch audio tape and boosted the high end of each instrument. The result was that the instruments were not only clearer, you could virtually “see” where they were placed in the room. The album won awards from two audio engineering magazines.
For me personally I am a recording engineer that has done multiple albums, a performing musician for,,,,, 33 years, wow, that long? I went to music school and sell recording and musical instruments as my profession quite a few of them for the price of nice cars. My audio setup for surfing the internet and watching shows is much nicer than most peoples recording studios. Does any of that make me right? No, but I know what I am talking about at least.
Lastly, there was no where in the article that showed my claim was provably false, no where in that article said anything about sound separation let alone channel separation which a totally different thing. So not only was what you claimed not there, what I actually claimed is not provably false there either. Of course sound is subjective, but since my living is selling things that make sounds, record it and reproduce it and I have been doing this for about 25 years its possible I may be correct.
= new reply since forum marked as read