Steven Sullivan wrote:> In rec.audio.tech Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote: >> Steven Sullivan wrote: >>> In rec.audio.tech Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote: > >> ... > >>>> According to my audiologist, "bone >>>> conduction" is an alternate pathway to the auditory nerve. >>> one that bypasses the hair cells? > >> No. > > Ok, then I *should* call it 'hearing'. > > Now, would it have any relevance to sound that isn't delivered directly > at the body surface?Please spell out "sound that isn't delivered directly at the body surface" so I don't need to imagine what you might mean. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
What's the use of a 192 kHz sample rate?
Started by ●May 3, 2008
Reply by ●May 9, 20082008-05-09
Reply by ●May 9, 20082008-05-09
On May 3, 9:41 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, > > RadiumThe 192 kHz is meant for our martian friends.
Reply by ●May 9, 20082008-05-09
In rec.audio.tech Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:> Steven Sullivan wrote: > > In rec.audio.tech Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote: > >> Steven Sullivan wrote: > >>> In rec.audio.tech Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote: > > > >> ... > > > >>>> According to my audiologist, "bone > >>>> conduction" is an alternate pathway to the auditory nerve. > >>> one that bypasses the hair cells? > > > >> No. > > > > Ok, then I *should* call it 'hearing'. > > > > Now, would it have any relevance to sound that isn't delivered directly > > at the body surface?> Please spell out "sound that isn't delivered directly at the body > surface" so I don't need to imagine what you might mean.You know - normal listening. Where the sound source isn't pressed directly up against your scalp. -- -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 9, 20082008-05-09
In rec.audio.tech Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:> John Phillips wrote: > > 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> Does he call the effect "bone conduction"?Depends on which paper you look at. In the older one (2000): From an authentic view of human auditory physiology, it is not straightforward to explain the neuronal basis of the hypersonic effect characterized by the fact that HFCs showed significant physiological and psychological effects on listeners only when presented with audible sounds. Although how inaudible HFCs produce a physiological effect on brain activity is still unknown, we need to consider at least two possible explanations. The first is that HFCs might change the response characteristics of the tympanic membrane in the ears and produce more realistic acoustic perception, which might increase pleasantness. However, this hypothesis is unlikely to explain the fact that the subjects who showed significant hypersonic effect were not necessarily aware of the difference of sounds in a conscious manner. An alternative explanation is that HFCs might be conveyed through pathways distinct from the usual air-conducting auditory pathway and therefore might affect the CNS, including the deep-lying brain structure. It was reported that the vibratory stimulus of ultrasound modulated by the human voice activated the primary auditory cortex (Hosoi et al. 1998) and was successfully recognized by people with normal hearing as well as those whose hearing is totally impaired (Lenhardt et al. 1991). Recently evidence has accumulated that stimuli outside the frequency and amplitude boundaries of an auditory neuron's receptive field can influence responses to stimuli inside the classical receptive field determined with pure tone stimuli (e.g., Schulze and Langner 1999). This modulatory interaction between inside and outside the classical auditory receptive range is noteworthy. However, we cannot conclude that the neural mechanisms incorporating ultrasound hearing, including the bone-conducting auditory pathway, are the system responsible for the hypersonic effect, which involves the brain stem and thalamus. These regions showed decreased activity compared with the baseline when HCS [high-cut sound] was presented and thus may not belong to the conventional auditory perception system. Therefore participation of nonauditory sensory systems such as somatosensory perception also needs to be considered in further investigations. In the newer one (2005) Another example comes from a recent report on ultrasonic sound hearing (Lenhardt et al., 1991 M.L. Lenhardt, R. Skellett, P. Wang and A.M. Clarke, Human ultrasonic speech perception, Science 253 (1991), pp. 82.85.). People with normal hearing as well as those whose hearing is totally impaired due to a disturbance of the inner ear can successfully recognize speech signals that were modulated into the ultrasonic range and presented as vibratory stimulus. Such a bone-conducting auditory system may have some effect on the emergence of the hypersonic effect. -- -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 9, 20082008-05-09
Steve Underwood wrote:> They all have FIFOs. The data isn't played directly from the disk. It isUhm, this is a misconception of CD player. One thing is to have a 8KiB FIFO, one is to have a 16Bytes FIFO. Said that, performance of CD players changes from low to high end. And here it comes another story. Once I payed a visit, with a friend of mine, to one of this guys with super-cables concepts. He had an high end system, with these oxygen-free, carbon-diffused, time-warped, whatsover cables. He, of course, said these cables are needed for the ultimate audio experience. So, we listen the music with these cables and with the normal ones, on his high end system. Myself, and the friend, could not really feel any difference. We decided to try the super-cables with the low end system that the friend of mine had. Really a cheap CD player. Well, the cables made a huge difference, in that setup, even better than the high end. bye, -- piergiorgio
