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
What's the use of a 192 kHz sample rate?
Started by ●May 3, 2008
Reply by ●May 7, 20082008-05-07
Reply by ●May 7, 20082008-05-07
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
Reply by ●May 7, 20082008-05-07
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
Reply by ●May 7, 20082008-05-07
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
Reply by ●May 7, 20082008-05-07
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
Reply by ●May 7, 20082008-05-07
Hybrid wrote:> 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.I don't think so. Can you show us with numbers from real filters? Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●May 7, 20082008-05-07
On May 6, 12:53 am, rajesh <getrajes...@gmail.com> wrote:> take for example h.264 videoNo, let's not take h.264 video: it's not relevant to the discussion.You made some pretty far-out-in-left field technical assertions regardingf 192 kHz sampling rate that are just plain wrong.
Reply by ●May 7, 20082008-05-07
On May 6, 12:53 am, rajesh <getrajes...@gmail.com> wrote:> take for example h.264 video > Apart from having many sophisticated techniques it also > recommends simple one like repeating packets.And this has absolutely NOTHING to do with 192 kHz vs 44.1 kHz sampling rates or DVDs vs CDs for audio, does it?
Reply by ●May 7, 20082008-05-07
In rec.audio.tech Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:> 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 didn't say 'heard' (implying participation of the auditory nerve). I said 'perceived'. -- -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.
Reply by ●May 7, 20082008-05-07
In rec.audio.tech Piergiorgio Sartor <piergiorgio.sartor.this.should.not.be.used@nexgo.removethis.de> wrote:> 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.Not necessarily. The loudspeakers tend to be the most distorting gear of a system, by far, these days.> 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...*Maybe* your friend was imagining things. -- -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.
