On May 5, 2:44 pm, rajesh <getrajes...@gmail.com> wrote:> > There is no gurantee that the audio signal is bandlimited. If we cant > percieve freq higher than 20k doesnt mean that they are not presentIf the audio signal has not been appropriately bandlimited before sampling, then of course there will be problems. But in the real world, the signal is explicitly filtered before it hits the sampling circuitry. -- Oli
What's the use of a 192 kHz sample rate?
Started by ●May 3, 2008
Reply by ●May 5, 20082008-05-05
Reply by ●May 5, 20082008-05-05
On May 5, 6:50�pm, Oli Charlesworth <ca...@olifilth.co.uk> wrote:> On May 5, 2:44 pm, rajesh <getrajes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > There is no gurantee that the audio signal is bandlimited. If we cant > > percieve freq higher than 20k doesnt mean that they are not present > > If the audio signal has not been appropriately bandlimited before > sampling, then of course there will be problems. �But in the real > world, the signal is explicitly filtered before it hits the sampling > circuitry. > > -- > Olibut at what cut off frequency is it being filtered in case of 192 kHz ? I dont think its 20...its much much higher.
Reply by ●May 5, 20082008-05-05
On May 5, 2:56 pm, rajesh <getrajes...@gmail.com> wrote:> On May 5, 6:50 pm, Oli Charlesworth <ca...@olifilth.co.uk> wrote: > > > On May 5, 2:44 pm, rajesh <getrajes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > There is no gurantee that the audio signal is bandlimited. If we cant > > > percieve freq higher than 20k doesnt mean that they are not present > > > If the audio signal has not been appropriately bandlimited before > > sampling, then of course there will be problems. But in the real > > world, the signal is explicitly filtered before it hits the sampling > > circuitry. > > but at what cut off frequency is it being filtered in case of 192 > kHz ? > I dont think its 20...its much much higher.But you've just acknowledged that "we can't perceive freq higher than 20k". If we can, then of course a higher sampling rate will sound better. But that goes against the premises of the OP, and is nothing to do with the ECC or interpolation that you've been going on about! -- Oli
Reply by ●May 5, 20082008-05-05
On May 5, 2:56 pm, rajesh <getrajes...@gmail.com> wrote:> On May 5, 6:50 pm, Oli Charlesworth <ca...@olifilth.co.uk> wrote: > > > On May 5, 2:44 pm, rajesh <getrajes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > There is no gurantee that the audio signal is bandlimited. If we cant > > > percieve freq higher than 20k doesnt mean that they are not present > > > If the audio signal has not been appropriately bandlimited before > > sampling, then of course there will be problems. But in the real > > world, the signal is explicitly filtered before it hits the sampling > > circuitry. > > but at what cut off frequency is it being filtered in case of 192 > kHz ? > I dont think its 20...its much much higher.But you've just acknowledged that "we can't perceive freq higher than 20k". If we can, then of course a higher sampling rate will sound better. But that goes against the premises of the OP, and is nothing to do with the ECC or interpolation that you've been going on about! -- Oli
Reply by ●May 5, 20082008-05-05
On May 5, 2:56 pm, rajesh <getrajes...@gmail.com> wrote:> On May 5, 6:50 pm, Oli Charlesworth <ca...@olifilth.co.uk> wrote: > > > On May 5, 2:44 pm, rajesh <getrajes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > There is no gurantee that the audio signal is bandlimited. If we cant > > > percieve freq higher than 20k doesnt mean that they are not present > > > If the audio signal has not been appropriately bandlimited before > > sampling, then of course there will be problems. But in the real > > world, the signal is explicitly filtered before it hits the sampling > > circuitry. > > but at what cut off frequency is it being filtered in case of 192 > kHz ? > I dont think its 20...its much much higher.But you've just acknowledged that "we can't perceive freq higher than 20k". If we can, then of course a higher sampling rate will sound better. But that goes against the premises of the OP, and is nothing to do with the ECC or interpolation that you've been going on about! -- Oli
Reply by ●May 5, 20082008-05-05
On May 5, 2:56 pm, rajesh <getrajes...@gmail.com> wrote:> On May 5, 6:50 pm, Oli Charlesworth <ca...@olifilth.co.uk> wrote: > > > On May 5, 2:44 pm, rajesh <getrajes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > There is no gurantee that the audio signal is bandlimited. If we cant > > > percieve freq higher than 20k doesnt mean that they are not present > > > If the audio signal has not been appropriately bandlimited before > > sampling, then of course there will be problems. But in the real > > world, the signal is explicitly filtered before it hits the sampling > > circuitry. > > but at what cut off frequency is it being filtered in case of 192 > kHz ? > I dont think its 20...its much much higher.But you've just acknowledged that "we can't perceive freq higher than 20k". If we can, then of course a higher sampling rate will sound better. But that goes against the premises of the OP, and is nothing to do with the ECC or interpolation that you've been going on about! -- Oli
Reply by ●May 5, 20082008-05-05
On May 5, 2:56 pm, rajesh <getrajes...@gmail.com> wrote:> On May 5, 6:50 pm, Oli Charlesworth <ca...@olifilth.co.uk> wrote: > > > On May 5, 2:44 pm, rajesh <getrajes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > There is no gurantee that the audio signal is bandlimited. If we cant > > > percieve freq higher than 20k doesnt mean that they are not present > > > If the audio signal has not been appropriately bandlimited before > > sampling, then of course there will be problems. But in the real > > world, the signal is explicitly filtered before it hits the sampling > > circuitry. > > but at what cut off frequency is it being filtered in case of 192 > kHz ? > I dont think its 20...its much much higher.But you've just acknowledged that "we can't perceive freq higher than 20k". If we can, then of course a higher sampling rate will sound better. But that goes against the premises of the OP, and is nothing to do with the ECC or interpolation that you've been going on about! -- Oli
Reply by ●May 5, 20082008-05-05
On May 5, 2:56 pm, rajesh <getrajes...@gmail.com> wrote:> On May 5, 6:50 pm, Oli Charlesworth <ca...@olifilth.co.uk> wrote: > > > On May 5, 2:44 pm, rajesh <getrajes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > There is no gurantee that the audio signal is bandlimited. If we cant > > > percieve freq higher than 20k doesnt mean that they are not present > > > If the audio signal has not been appropriately bandlimited before > > sampling, then of course there will be problems. But in the real > > world, the signal is explicitly filtered before it hits the sampling > > circuitry. > > but at what cut off frequency is it being filtered in case of 192 > kHz ? > I dont think its 20...its much much higher.But you've just acknowledged that "we can't perceive freq higher than 20k". If we can, then of course a higher sampling rate will sound better. But that goes against the premises of the OP, and is nothing to do with the ECC or interpolation that you've been going on about! -- Oli
Reply by ●May 5, 20082008-05-05
On May 5, 7:05�pm, Oli Charlesworth <ca...@olifilth.co.uk> wrote:> On May 5, 2:56 pm, rajesh <getrajes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 5, 6:50 pm, Oli Charlesworth <ca...@olifilth.co.uk> wrote: > > > > On May 5, 2:44 pm, rajesh <getrajes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > There is no gurantee that the audio signal is bandlimited. If we cant > > > > percieve freq higher than 20k doesnt mean that they are not present > > > > If the audio signal has not been appropriately bandlimited before > > > sampling, then of course there will be problems. �But in the real > > > world, the signal is explicitly filtered before it hits the sampling > > > circuitry. > > > but at what cut off frequency is it being filtered in case of 192 > > kHz ? > > I dont think its 20...its much much higher. > > But you've just acknowledged that "we can't perceive freq higher than > 20k". > > If we can, then of course a higher sampling rate will sound better. > But that goes against the premises of the OP, and is nothing to do > with the ECC or interpolation that you've been going on about! > > -- > OliI said we cant percieve, but i didnt say they arent there..i will continue the dicussion on ECC tomorrow.
Reply by ●May 5, 20082008-05-05
"Robert Lacoste" <use-contact-at-www-alciom-com-for-email> wrote in message news:481f044b$0$864$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...> >Oversampled conversion does not require one to *store* information at > >the oversampled rate. > > Fully right, but it is a low cost solution if you want to avoid the costof> a digital low pass filter & decimator...No, it's a very tiny one off cost Vs more expensive data storage. The solution that uses less expensive disk manufacture is the true "low cost solution". MrT.