Hi:

Why does DVD-Audio use 192 kHz sample rate? What's the advantage over 
44.1 kHz? Humans can't hear the full range of a 192 kHz sample rate?

On average, what is the minimum sample rate for a guy in his early to 
mid 20s who likes treble?

I agree there are a small percentage of humans who can hear above 20 
kHz. However, DVD-audio uses a sample-rate of 192 kHz which allows a 
maximum frequency of 96 kHz. There is no known case of any human being 
able to hear sounds nearly as high as 96 kHz. I can agree with 48 kHz 
sample rate and even 96 kHz sample-rate [maybe], but 192 kHz is just stupid.

So whats the justification fur using 192 kHz? If you ask me, its just a 
total waste of bandwidth and energy. Any proof to the contrary?

Please correct me if I'm wrong but AFAIK, its a waste of time, money, 
energy to move to 192 kHz.


Thanks,

Radium

On May 3, 12:41 am, "Green Xenon [Radium]" <gluceg...@excite.com>
wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Why does DVD-Audio use 192 kHz sample rate? What's the advantage over
> 44.1 kHz? Humans can't hear the full range of a 192 kHz sample rate?
>
> On average, what is the minimum sample rate for a guy in his early to
> mid 20s who likes treble?
>
> I agree there are a small percentage of humans who can hear above 20
> kHz. However, DVD-audio uses a sample-rate of 192 kHz which allows a
> maximum frequency of 96 kHz. There is no known case of any human being
> able to hear sounds nearly as high as 96 kHz. I can agree with 48 kHz
> sample rate and even 96 kHz sample-rate [maybe], but 192 kHz is just stupid.
>
> So whats the justification fur using 192 kHz? If you ask me, its just a
> total waste of bandwidth and energy. Any proof to the contrary?
>
> Please correct me if I'm wrong but AFAIK, its a waste of time, money,
> energy to move to 192 kHz.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Radium

If it really is a waste of time and money to use 192 kHz ADC and DAC,
why do you think they would do it?  Don't you think the people
designing DVD equipment understand the economics of consumer
products?

Try to think about it and see if you can come up with a couple of
reasons yourself.  I'll be interested in hearing what you think.

Rick

rickman wrote:
> On May 3, 12:41 am, "Green Xenon [Radium]" <gluceg...@excite.com>
> wrote:
>> Hi:
>>
>> Why does DVD-Audio use 192 kHz sample rate? What's the advantage over
>> 44.1 kHz? Humans can't hear the full range of a 192 kHz sample rate?
>>
>> On average, what is the minimum sample rate for a guy in his early to
>> mid 20s who likes treble?
>>
>> I agree there are a small percentage of humans who can hear above 20
>> kHz. However, DVD-audio uses a sample-rate of 192 kHz which allows a
>> maximum frequency of 96 kHz. There is no known case of any human being
>> able to hear sounds nearly as high as 96 kHz. I can agree with 48 kHz
>> sample rate and even 96 kHz sample-rate [maybe], but 192 kHz is just stupid.
>>
>> So whats the justification fur using 192 kHz? If you ask me, its just a
>> total waste of bandwidth and energy. Any proof to the contrary?
>>
>> Please correct me if I'm wrong but AFAIK, its a waste of time, money,
>> energy to move to 192 kHz.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Radium
> 
> If it really is a waste of time and money to use 192 kHz ADC and DAC,
> why do you think they would do it?  Don't you think the people
> designing DVD equipment understand the economics of consumer
> products?
> 
> Try to think about it and see if you can come up with a couple of
> reasons yourself.  I'll be interested in hearing what you think.
> 
> Rick
> 


No. I can't think of any reason to use a 192 kHz sample-rate. It is 
really overkill. If you think otherwise, the please explain why.

>rickman wrote:
>> On May 3, 12:41 am, "Green Xenon [Radium]" <gluceg...@excite.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi:
>>>
>>> Why does DVD-Audio use 192 kHz sample rate? What's the advantage over
>>> 44.1 kHz? Humans can't hear the full range of a 192 kHz sample rate?
>>>
>>> On average, what is the minimum sample rate for a guy in his early to
>>> mid 20s who likes treble?
>>>
>>> I agree there are a small percentage of humans who can hear above 20
>>> kHz. However, DVD-audio uses a sample-rate of 192 kHz which allows a
>>> maximum frequency of 96 kHz. There is no known case of any human
being
>>> able to hear sounds nearly as high as 96 kHz. I can agree with 48 kHz
>>> sample rate and even 96 kHz sample-rate [maybe], but 192 kHz is just
stupid.
>>>
>>> So whats the justification fur using 192 kHz? If you ask me, its just
a
>>> total waste of bandwidth and energy. Any proof to the contrary?
>>>
>>> Please correct me if I'm wrong but AFAIK, its a waste of time, money,
>>> energy to move to 192 kHz.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Radium
>> 
>> If it really is a waste of time and money to use 192 kHz ADC and DAC,
>> why do you think they would do it?  Don't you think the people
>> designing DVD equipment understand the economics of consumer
>> products?
>> 
>> Try to think about it and see if you can come up with a couple of
>> reasons yourself.  I'll be interested in hearing what you think.
>> 
>> Rick
>> 
>
>
>No. I can't think of any reason to use a 192 kHz sample-rate. It is 
>really overkill. If you think otherwise, the please explain why.

Hi,

in DVDs the audio signals are modulated digital pulses (and not analog
waveforms), such as PCM, and their spectrum is no longer that of an
acoustical signal (20Hz-20kHz), justifying the need for a higher sampling
rate.

Manolis

rickman <g...@gmail.com> writes:

> If it really is a waste of time and money to use 192 kHz ADC and DAC,
> why do you think they would do it?  

Greed. They think that the general public is dumb enough to buy into
the lie that they really need such a system and would then spend lots of
money repurchasing what they already have.
-- 
%  Randy Yates                  % "Remember the good old 1980's, when 
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC            %  things were so uncomplicated?"
%%% 919-577-9882                % 'Ticket To The Moon' 
%%%% <y...@ieee.org>           % *Time*, Electric Light Orchestra
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

"Green Xenon [Radium]" <g...@excite.com> writes:
> [...]
> On average, what is the minimum sample rate for a guy in his early to
> mid 20s who likes treble?

The curve on p.20 of

  http://www.dohc.ie/publications/pdf/hearing.pdf?direct=1

indicates that, even for young adults, sound at <20 kHz is
inaudible. Based on this, a 44.1 kHz sample rate should be ample.
-- 
%  Randy Yates                  % "Remember the good old 1980's, when 
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC            %  things were so uncomplicated?"
%%% 919-577-9882                % 'Ticket To The Moon' 
%%%% <y...@ieee.org>           % *Time*, Electric Light Orchestra
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

"Green Xenon [Radium]" wrote:

> rickman wrote:
> >  "Green Xenon [Radium]" wrote:
> >>
> >> Why does DVD-Audio use 192 kHz sample rate? What's the advantage over
> >> 44.1 kHz? Humans can't hear the full range of a 192 kHz sample rate?
> >>
> >> On average, what is the minimum sample rate for a guy in his early to
> >> mid 20s who likes treble?
> >>
> >> I agree there are a small percentage of humans who can hear above 20
> >> kHz. However, DVD-audio uses a sample-rate of 192 kHz which allows a
> >> maximum frequency of 96 kHz. There is no known case of any human being
> >> able to hear sounds nearly as high as 96 kHz. I can agree with 48 kHz
> >> sample rate and even 96 kHz sample-rate [maybe], but 192 kHz is just stupid.
> >>
> >> So whats the justification fur using 192 kHz? If you ask me, its just a
> >> total waste of bandwidth and energy. Any proof to the contrary?
> >>
> >> Please correct me if I'm wrong but AFAIK, its a waste of time, money,
> >> energy to move to 192 kHz.
> >>
> >
> > If it really is a waste of time and money to use 192 kHz ADC and DAC,
> > why do you think they would do it?  Don't you think the people
> > designing DVD equipment understand the economics of consumer
> > products?
> >
> > Try to think about it and see if you can come up with a couple of
> > reasons yourself.  I'll be interested in hearing what you think.
>
>
> No. I can't think of any reason to use a 192 kHz sample-rate. It is
> really overkill. If you think otherwise, the please explain why.

Tell me what the point is of making road going cars that can do over 250 mph like
the Bugatti Veyron ? And why would anyone buy one ?


Graham

On May 3, 3:28 am, Randy Yates <ya...@ieee.org> wrote:
> rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> writes:
> > If it really is a waste of time and money to use 192 kHz ADC and DAC,
> > why do you think they would do it?
>
> Greed. They think that the general public is dumb enough to buy into
> the lie that they really need such a system and would then spend lots of
> money repurchasing what they already have.

I'm curious, how do you know what unnamed people are thinking?  My
understanding is that regardless of what frequencies acoustic testing
says that people can hear, audiophiles can hear the difference between
many of these "wasteful" features and otherwise adequate audio
systems.

I have known people who worked on professional equipment.  The
extremes that they have design in are all audible to the buyers of
such systems.  In the audio sections of the equipment they use 15 volt
rails or even higher, just to increase the SNR when the noise floor
can't be lowered anymore.  They totally eliminate all digital clocks
from any circuit near the audio section to prevent noise injection.
From what I have seen, they use more extreme measures in high end
audio than is used in sensitive military radio gear which is trying to
get over 140 dB of SNR!

I am not going to try to tell someone else what they can and can't
hear.  I know that my hearing has dropped of dramatically to where I
can no longer hear the 15 kHz emitted by TVs and I'm not sure I can
hear the high notes on a piano.  When I press the keys on the right, I
hear more of a click than a ping (maybe it's the piano)!  But that
doesn't mean that there aren't others who can hear the distortion
created by the anti-alias filters used when the ADC and DAC run at
44.1 kHz.

On Sat, 3 May 2008 05:11:53 -0700 (PDT), rickman <g...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On May 3, 3:28 am, Randy Yates <ya...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> writes:
>> > If it really is a waste of time and money to use 192 kHz ADC and DAC,
>> > why do you think they would do it?
>>
>> Greed. They think that the general public is dumb enough to buy into
>> the lie that they really need such a system and would then spend lots of
>> money repurchasing what they already have.
>
>I'm curious, how do you know what unnamed people are thinking?  My
>understanding is that regardless of what frequencies acoustic testing
>says that people can hear, audiophiles can hear the difference between
>many of these "wasteful" features and otherwise adequate audio
>systems.
>

Utter nonsense - unless of course you can cite some proper tests.

>I have known people who worked on professional equipment.  The
>extremes that they have design in are all audible to the buyers of
>such systems.  In the audio sections of the equipment they use 15 volt
>rails or even higher, just to increase the SNR when the noise floor
>can't be lowered anymore.  They totally eliminate all digital clocks
>from any circuit near the audio section to prevent noise injection.
>From what I have seen, they use more extreme measures in high end
>audio than is used in sensitive military radio gear which is trying to
>get over 140 dB of SNR!
>

More nonsense. I have worked on many radio systems, both military and
civil, and a typical target SNR for these radios is in the region of 6
to 10dB.

>I am not going to try to tell someone else what they can and can't
>hear.  I know that my hearing has dropped of dramatically to where I
>can no longer hear the 15 kHz emitted by TVs and I'm not sure I can
>hear the high notes on a piano.  When I press the keys on the right, I
>hear more of a click than a ping (maybe it's the piano)!  But that
>doesn't mean that there aren't others who can hear the distortion
>created by the anti-alias filters used when the ADC and DAC run at
>44.1 kHz.

Doesn't mean they can either. That isn't a piece of logic that
commutes.

d

-- 
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

rickman <g...@gmail.com> writes:
> [...]
> When I press the keys on the right, I
> hear more of a click than a ping (maybe it's the piano)!  

Then you can no longer hear up to 4186 Hz. 

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_key_frequencies

You are free to think what you want about hearing. I choose to side with
objective measurements verifying again and again over several decades
the same conclusions rather than a few crackpot audiophools that claim
they're different without any supporting objective evidence. 

And even if one or two actually could hear beyond 20 kHz, they're the
Robert Wadlow's of the audio world - should we start building houses
with 10-foot ceilings because 1 out of a billion will be over 8 feet
tall?
-- 
%  Randy Yates                  % "How's life on earth? 
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC            %  ... What is it worth?" 
%%% 919-577-9882                % 'Mission (A World Record)', 
%%%% <y...@ieee.org>           % *A New World Record*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com