What's the use of a 192 kHz sample rate?

Started by Green Xenon [Radium] May 3, 2008
In rec.audio.tech robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
> On May 3, 4:58 pm, Ken <ke...@telia.com> wrote: > > On Sat, 3 May 2008 13:36:10 -0700 (PDT), robert bristow-johnson > > > > <r...@audioimagination.com> wrote: > > > but we can't hear anything above 20 kHz. even with percussive sounds > > > with sharp attacks. and if we cannot hear anything above 20 kHz, then > > > 40.0001 kHz sampling rate can store all of the information we need. > > > for practical reconstruction purposes, 44.1 and 48 kHz are sufficient. > > > > No. When I was 35 years I could hear up to 24 kHz. > > Now I'm 54 years and can easy hear 19 kHz (haven't tested higher).
> well, good for you. still would like to see how you would do in such > a blind test.
> r b-j
Hearing into the mid-20's is not unknown. It's just extremely rare beyond childhood. -- -S maybe they wanna rock. maybe they need to rock. Maybe it's for the money? But That's none of our business..our business as fans is to rock with them.
Steven Sullivan wrote:
> In rec.audio.tech rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> On May 3, 8:22 am, nos...@nospam.com (Don Pearce) wrote: >>> On Sat, 3 May 2008 05:11:53 -0700 (PDT), rickman <gnu...@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. > >> And what do you base this statement on? I don't have any "proper" >> studies. I am referring to a conversation with a friend who worked in >> the field. > > > Not nearly good enough. > > >> You can poo-poo this sort of evaluation. But that doesn't make you >> right. Do you have any "proof" that no one can hear the difference? >> Do you even know what the differences are that I was talking about? > > You can't prove negatives to 100% empirical certaintly. You can determine
likelihoods, and
> that's what science is really about -- finding the models of reality that are most
likely
> to be accurate. It seems extremely likely, for example, that no one can actually
*hear*
> frequencies above the mid-20 kHz. They can be perceived via bone conduction, if
the signal is
> generated right at the skin surface.
Conduction to the inner ear and thence via the auditory nerve? I expect not. Just as sensory paths other than auditory support the perception of very low frequencies ("I could feel it in my chest!") very high frequency skin stimulation may also use another pathway. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. &#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;
In rec.audio.tech Piergiorgio Sartor
<piergiorgio.sartor.this.should.not.be.used@nexgo.removethis.de> wrote:
> Jerry Avins wrote:
> > I recently had my hearing tested, both through the ear canals and via > > bone conduction. The results match to within a few dB, indicating that > > my loss of cochlear or nerve, rather than associated with eardrum or > > ossicles. I don't think the alternate paths account for much in general.
> Uhm, but the alternate paths, usually, are no so > specific as per hearing test.
> There are several issues here. > One is to distinguish, and it is not easy, between > what we can hear and what "sounds good". > The two things may not be equivalent.
> There is a difference between:
> 1) Attending live a Wagner's concert, in which, for the > record, the orchestra needs some added instruments. > 2) Listening the same concert in front of loudspeakers, > which can "only" reproduce up to 20KHz. > 3) Having some headphones beaming a pure tone directly > into the head, with someone asking to press a button when > something is heard.
> The first is like bathing in a ocean of sound. > The second is like swimming in a pool of sound.
But that's not because of the bandwidth limitation. It's due more to the channel limitation, than anything else. -- -S maybe they wanna rock. maybe they need to rock. Maybe it's for the money? But That's none of our business..our business as fans is to rock with them.
In rec.audio.tech robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:

> i have never completely accepted that ABX testing is better than "same/ > difference testing" (what i used to call "AB testing") for the > question we are trying to answer here.
> ABX is for answering the question: which is better? or which is > closer? does synthesizer A sound more like a real piano or does > synthesizer B sound more like the real piano?
Nope. X in an ABX *is* either A or B. So the task is to determine whether A or B is X. Not which is 'better', only which is *the same as* (or to look at it the other way, which is *different from*) the current X.
> "same/difference testing" does not cloud the issue with an ancillary > question of "which one of these two sound closer to a third?"
But in an ABX you know that the 'third' must be, in fact, one of the two. In any particular trial in an ABX series, you are *by definition* either comparing self to self, or self to nonself. -- -S maybe they wanna rock. maybe they need to rock. Maybe it's for the money? But That's none of our business..our business as fans is to rock with them.
In rec.audio.tech Robert Adams <robert.adams@analog.com> wrote:
> On May 5, 4:34&#2013266080;am, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote: > > "rickman" <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > news:0edc0747-6d9c-4cc7-9ec5-509523553e2e@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > > > > > 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? &#2013266080;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. &#2013266080;I'll be interested in hearing what you think. > > > > Because it costs them no more and the advertising sounds better to the > > uninformed. > > What did you come up with? > > > > MrT.
> If you look at 192KHz or SACD releases, they have been mastered and > recorded with more care and skill than ordinary CD recordings.
Not necessarily true, for DVD-A stereo (which is where 192kHz shows up) at least. Examples where DVD-A stereo mastering is as dynamically compressed as modern day ordinary CD recordings may be found on this thread: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1009384 Basically, if the signal is PCM, you can easily boost the 'loudness' by digital compression and limiting. And if it *can* be done, modern practice is that someone probably *will*. And now that there are tools to 'rip' DVD-A, we can clearly see whether that's been done. AFAIK it can't be done purely in the DSD domain (Scarlet Book spec?), but I suppose one *could* introduce a PCM step...
> So they > may indeed sound better, but probably not because of the sampling > rate.
True. -- -S maybe they wanna rock. maybe they need to rock. Maybe it's for the money? But That's none of our business..our business as fans is to rock with them.
Even if the question is why DVD-A uses 192kHz I'd like to add one thing
that is important in audio recording: Latency
The higher the sampling rate the lower the latency.
Newer converters have very small buffers and latency is usually pretty
good but this might help if you need to keep latency to a minimum and still
want to use FIR filters for loudspeaker correction or maybe look ahead
limiting. Latency is very important both in live venue settings and in
recording studios.

L


Steven Sullivan wrote:

> But that's not because of the bandwidth limitation. > > It's due more to the channel limitation, than anything else.
Well, the problem is in the whole system. That's why these people like to have everything "unlimited", including the bandwidth. They do not know exactly, but more is better than less. Once I met a guy which designs cross-over, matched with the loudspeakers. He had the high-end CD player, connected digitally to the amplifier, on an air-cushion pillow. I asked why. He told me the reason is to reduce the fed-back vibration, from loudspeakers. I replied that the CD is a complete digital device, how could the loudspeakers interfere with it. Unless they're so powerful to make it skip the track. He answered that *maybe* the crystal can pick up the sound waves... bye, -- piergiorgio
Steven Sullivan wrote:

> But that's not because of the bandwidth limitation. > > It's due more to the channel limitation, than anything else.
Well, the problem is in the whole system. That's why these people like to have everything "unlimited", including the bandwidth. They do not know exactly, but more is better than less. Once I met a guy which designs cross-over, matched with the loudspeakers. He had the high-end CD player, connected digitally to the amplifier, on an air-cushion pillow. I asked why. He told me the reason is to reduce the fed-back vibration, from loudspeakers. I replied that the CD is a complete digital device, how could the loudspeakers interfere with it. Unless they're so powerful to make it skip the track. He answered that *maybe* the crystal can pick up the sound waves... bye, -- piergiorgio
Steven Sullivan wrote:

> But that's not because of the bandwidth limitation. > > It's due more to the channel limitation, than anything else.
Well, the problem is in the whole system. That's why these people like to have everything "unlimited", including the bandwidth. They do not know exactly, but more is better than less. Once I met a guy which designs cross-over, matched with the loudspeakers. He had the high-end CD player, connected digitally to the amplifier, on an air-cushion pillow. I asked why. He told me the reason is to reduce the fed-back vibration, from loudspeakers. I replied that the CD is a complete digital device, how could the loudspeakers interfere with it. Unless they're so powerful to make it skip the track. He answered that *maybe* the crystal can pick up the sound waves... bye, -- piergiorgio
Steven Sullivan wrote:

> But that's not because of the bandwidth limitation. > > It's due more to the channel limitation, than anything else.
Well, the problem is in the whole system. That's why these people like to have everything "unlimited", including the bandwidth. They do not know exactly, but more is better than less. Once I met a guy which designs cross-over, matched with the loudspeakers. He had the high-end CD player, connected digitally to the amplifier, on an air-cushion pillow. I asked why. He told me the reason is to reduce the fed-back vibration, from loudspeakers. I replied that the CD is a complete digital device, how could the loudspeakers interfere with it. Unless they're so powerful to make it skip the track. He answered that *maybe* the crystal can pick up the sound waves... bye, -- piergiorgio