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

Started by Green Xenon [Radium] May 3, 2008
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.
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.
On Wed, 07 May 2008 15:48:42 -0500, 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.
Not especially usefully. One sample period at 48kHz is about 7mm through the air, so one at 192kHz is a little under 2mm. Now where are you sitting in your listening room, and how many samples are there between your ears and the CD player? What's the latency induced by the delivery truck that got the bits on the DVD-A from the pressing plant to the retail shop? We're not really dealing with a system with *any* significant latency, when talking about a DVD-A.
> 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.
Remember the truck, and the time that the disk sat on the shelf at the shop...
> Latency is very important both > in live venue settings and in recording studios.
Now this is a different situation, to be sure. But remember the 7mm, and consider the distances involved in actually producing and listening to music in a live environment. Certainly latency can't be excessively large, but the difference caused by different sample rates is not in and of itself significant. Cheers, -- Andrew
Steven Sullivan wrote:
> 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'. I can perceive a light bulb in contact with my skin going on and off. Do you call that bone conduction too? According to my audiologist, "bone conduction" is an alternate pathway to the auditory nerve. 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;
Jerry Avins wrote:
> > I can perceive a light bulb in contact with my skin going on and off. > Do you call that bone conduction too? According to my audiologist, > "bone conduction" is an alternate pathway to the auditory nerve.
No. That's heat. geoff
In article 
<cd064e42-2f3a-47ab-b778-17f00ccd9dc8@1g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
 rajesh <getrajeshin@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 7, 8:53 am, isw <i...@witzend.com> wrote: > > In article > > <b86829fe-0a50-4bc5-8c2b-4274cfff7...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > rajesh <getrajes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 6, 9:53 am, rajesh <getrajes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 5, 10:33 pm, dpierce.cartchunk....@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > On May 5, 10:09 am, rajesh <getrajes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 5, 7:05 pm, Oli Charlesworth <ca...@olifilth.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > I said we cant percieve, but i didnt say they arent there.. > > > > > > > Again, true but irrelevant. > > > > > > > > i will continue the dicussion on ECC tomorrow. > > > > > > > Hopefully, you will be much better prepared. > > > > > > > As a hint: the issue of proper sampling vs bandwidth > > > > > is a topic COMPLETELY separate from ECC. You > > > > > might want to keep that in mind during your preparations. > > > > > > take for example h.264 video > > > > Apart from having many sophisticated techniques it also > > > > recommends simple one like repeating packets. > > > > > Correction its not packets , its slices > > > > Slice repeat is not for handling errors; it's an efficient encoding > > technique. Instead of sending all the data a second time whwnever two > > slices are nearly identical (and that happens fairly often), just say > > "remember that slice I just sent you? Well, use it again, but make these > > minor changes to it." > > > > Isaac > > I didnt get how repetition can be used for efficient encoding?
It's not repetition. Read what I wrote again, slowly. Isaac
On May 8, 2:28 am, dpierce.cartchunk....@gmail.com wrote:
> 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?
there is no such thing as packet repetition in h.264. It was my misconception. thanks
"Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message
news:fvsqd7$qgk$9@reader2.panix.com...
> Hearing into the mid-20's is not unknown. It's just extremely rare beyond > childhood.
And it's almost universal that young girls have the best hearing, and care far less about sound quality than old men! MrT.
On 2008-05-07, Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote:
> ... 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.
This seems to be confirmed in Oohashi's 2006 "Hypersonic effect" paper [1] which seems to show that the "inaudible high frequeny content" of his test material is not perceived directly through the ear but is perceived through the body surface. In this development from his 2000 paper [2] he seems to show that his subjects' highest comfortable listening level is increased by the presence of inaudible content when not applied just to the ear. [1] http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0006899305019499 [2] http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548 -- John Phillips
When replying you could at least read my posting first...

>On Wed, 07 May 2008 15:48:42 -0500, 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 > >Not especially usefully. One sample period at 48kHz is about 7mm through
>the air, so one at 192kHz is a little under 2mm.
It's not like the audio passes through only one A/D converter during a recording session.
>Now where are you >sitting in your listening room, and how many samples are there between >your ears and the CD player? > >What's the latency induced by the delivery truck that got the bits on the
>DVD-A from the pressing plant to the retail shop? > >We're not really dealing with a system with *any* significant latency, >when talking about a DVD-A.
*yawn* -ah yeah- read the posting you're replying to first...
>> Latency is very important both >> in live venue settings and in recording studios. > >Now this is a different situation, to be sure. But remember the 7mm, and
>consider the distances involved in actually producing and listening to >music in a live environment. Certainly latency can't be excessively >large, but the difference caused by different sample rates is not in and
>of itself significant.
Just a few years ago it was no uncommon to see 5-10ms latency through almost any typical digital effects box or loudspeaker management system. This was an issue that has been reduced a great deal thanks to higher sampling rates _and_ the technology that came along with that. Now imagine that a live situuation had to process the audio through 5-10 such digital devices and the latency will make it difficult to play on stage. Another benefit with higher sampling rates is reduced aliasing distortion - of course most of this is caused by engineers and mastering engineers that have no idea how bad it is to use digital clipping to increase "loudness". This is also stated Nyquist's law. L