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
What's the use of a 192 kHz sample rate?
Started by ●May 3, 2008
Reply by ●May 3, 20082008-05-03
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, > > RadiumIf 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
Reply by ●May 3, 20082008-05-03
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, > > RadiumIf 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
Reply by ●May 3, 20082008-05-03
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.
Reply by ●May 3, 20082008-05-03
>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 humanbeing>>> 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 juststupid.>>> >>> So whats the justification fur using 192 kHz? If you ask me, its justa>>> 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
Reply by ●May 3, 20082008-05-03
rickman <gnuarm@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' %%%% <yates@ieee.org> % *Time*, Electric Light Orchestra http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
Reply by ●May 3, 20082008-05-03
"Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucegen1@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' %%%% <yates@ieee.org> % *Time*, Electric Light Orchestra http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
Reply by ●May 3, 20082008-05-03
"Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucegen1@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' %%%% <yates@ieee.org> % *Time*, Electric Light Orchestra http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
Reply by ●May 3, 20082008-05-03
"Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucegen1@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' %%%% <yates@ieee.org> % *Time*, Electric Light Orchestra http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
Reply by ●May 3, 20082008-05-03
"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