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

On May 3, 9:16 am, rajesh <getrajes...@gmail.com> wrote:
>    Its also about how you store data.
>
>    here is an simplified analogy.

Yes, simplified to the point of being factually wrong.

> say you need 44.1k samples per second to hear properly.
> If the disk is corrupted with scrathes and 1 samples in his
> region are lost your sound is distorted or lost for that period
> of time.

Wrong. First, you have a pretty robust error correction
scheme built in to the disk. The encoding and decoding
is such that significant amounts of data can be lost
but can be EXACTLY reconstructed on playback with NO
loss. And if the disk is severely scratched to the point where
the error correction algorith fails, interpolation takes place.

One can see thousands of uncorrected errors in the raw
data coming of the disk, and once the error correction
has been applied, the result might be a SMALL handful
(like, oh, 4?)  uncorrectable but interpolated errors

> Now if there are 196k samples even if (196/44.1)
> samples are lost there is no difference to what you
> hear.

False. Since you're cramming more data into the same
area, and the physical faults take up the same area
regardless of the data density, more bits, according to
YOUR theory, will be lost on the higher density disk
than on the lower density disk.

That means MORE data is missing, that means the
error correction algorith is subject to higher rates of
non-correctable errors, and so on. Your theory is
bogus if for no other reason than it simply ignores the
facts.

But, in EITHER case, unless the disk is SERIOUSLY
damaged, the data loss in either case is repaired.

> DVD's come wih high density of data due to this
> they are highly vulnerable to scratches this can
> be avoided with better waveform matching achieved
> by high sampling rate.

Sorry, this is nothing but technobabble nonsense.

On May 3, 9:16 am, rajesh <getrajes...@gmail.com> wrote:
>    Its also about how you store data.
>
>    here is an simplified analogy.

Yes, simplified to the point of being factually wrong.

> say you need 44.1k samples per second to hear properly.
> If the disk is corrupted with scrathes and 1 samples in his
> region are lost your sound is distorted or lost for that period
> of time.

Wrong. First, you have a pretty robust error correction
scheme built in to the disk. The encoding and decoding
is such that significant amounts of data can be lost
but can be EXACTLY reconstructed on playback with NO
loss. And if the disk is severely scratched to the point where
the error correction algorith fails, interpolation takes place.

One can see thousands of uncorrected errors in the raw
data coming of the disk, and once the error correction
has been applied, the result might be a SMALL handful
(like, oh, 4?)  uncorrectable but interpolated errors

> Now if there are 196k samples even if (196/44.1)
> samples are lost there is no difference to what you
> hear.

False. Since you're cramming more data into the same
area, and the physical faults take up the same area
regardless of the data density, more bits, according to
YOUR theory, will be lost on the higher density disk
than on the lower density disk.

That means MORE data is missing, that means the
error correction algorith is subject to higher rates of
non-correctable errors, and so on. Your theory is
bogus if for no other reason than it simply ignores the
facts.

But, in EITHER case, unless the disk is SERIOUSLY
damaged, the data loss in either case is repaired.

> DVD's come wih high density of data due to this
> they are highly vulnerable to scratches this can
> be avoided with better waveform matching achieved
> by high sampling rate.

Sorry, this is nothing but technobabble nonsense.

On May 3, 9:16 am, rajesh <getrajes...@gmail.com> wrote:
>    Its also about how you store data.
>
>    here is an simplified analogy.

Yes, simplified to the point of being factually wrong.

> say you need 44.1k samples per second to hear properly.
> If the disk is corrupted with scrathes and 1 samples in his
> region are lost your sound is distorted or lost for that period
> of time.

Wrong. First, you have a pretty robust error correction
scheme built in to the disk. The encoding and decoding
is such that significant amounts of data can be lost
but can be EXACTLY reconstructed on playback with NO
loss. And if the disk is severely scratched to the point where
the error correction algorith fails, interpolation takes place.

One can see thousands of uncorrected errors in the raw
data coming of the disk, and once the error correction
has been applied, the result might be a SMALL handful
(like, oh, 4?)  uncorrectable but interpolated errors

> Now if there are 196k samples even if (196/44.1)
> samples are lost there is no difference to what you
> hear.

False. Since you're cramming more data into the same
area, and the physical faults take up the same area
regardless of the data density, more bits, according to
YOUR theory, will be lost on the higher density disk
than on the lower density disk.

That means MORE data is missing, that means the
error correction algorith is subject to higher rates of
non-correctable errors, and so on. Your theory is
bogus if for no other reason than it simply ignores the
facts.

But, in EITHER case, unless the disk is SERIOUSLY
damaged, the data loss in either case is repaired.

> DVD's come wih high density of data due to this
> they are highly vulnerable to scratches this can
> be avoided with better waveform matching achieved
> by high sampling rate.

Sorry, this is nothing but technobabble nonsense.

On May 3, 9:16 am, rajesh <getrajes...@gmail.com> wrote:
>    Its also about how you store data.
>
>    here is an simplified analogy.

Yes, simplified to the point of being factually wrong.

> say you need 44.1k samples per second to hear properly.
> If the disk is corrupted with scrathes and 1 samples in his
> region are lost your sound is distorted or lost for that period
> of time.

Wrong. First, you have a pretty robust error correction
scheme built in to the disk. The encoding and decoding
is such that significant amounts of data can be lost
but can be EXACTLY reconstructed on playback with NO
loss. And if the disk is severely scratched to the point where
the error correction algorith fails, interpolation takes place.

One can see thousands of uncorrected errors in the raw
data coming of the disk, and once the error correction
has been applied, the result might be a SMALL handful
(like, oh, 4?)  uncorrectable but interpolated errors

> Now if there are 196k samples even if (196/44.1)
> samples are lost there is no difference to what you
> hear.

False. Since you're cramming more data into the same
area, and the physical faults take up the same area
regardless of the data density, more bits, according to
YOUR theory, will be lost on the higher density disk
than on the lower density disk.

That means MORE data is missing, that means the
error correction algorith is subject to higher rates of
non-correctable errors, and so on. Your theory is
bogus if for no other reason than it simply ignores the
facts.

But, in EITHER case, unless the disk is SERIOUSLY
damaged, the data loss in either case is repaired.

> DVD's come wih high density of data due to this
> they are highly vulnerable to scratches this can
> be avoided with better waveform matching achieved
> by high sampling rate.

Sorry, this is nothing but technobabble nonsense.

On May 3, 9:16 am, rajesh <getrajes...@gmail.com> wrote:
>    Its also about how you store data.
>
>    here is an simplified analogy.

Yes, simplified to the point of being factually wrong.

> say you need 44.1k samples per second to hear properly.
> If the disk is corrupted with scrathes and 1 samples in his
> region are lost your sound is distorted or lost for that period
> of time.

Wrong. First, you have a pretty robust error correction
scheme built in to the disk. The encoding and decoding
is such that significant amounts of data can be lost
but can be EXACTLY reconstructed on playback with NO
loss. And if the disk is severely scratched to the point where
the error correction algorith fails, interpolation takes place.

One can see thousands of uncorrected errors in the raw
data coming of the disk, and once the error correction
has been applied, the result might be a SMALL handful
(like, oh, 4?)  uncorrectable but interpolated errors

> Now if there are 196k samples even if (196/44.1)
> samples are lost there is no difference to what you
> hear.

False. Since you're cramming more data into the same
area, and the physical faults take up the same area
regardless of the data density, more bits, according to
YOUR theory, will be lost on the higher density disk
than on the lower density disk.

That means MORE data is missing, that means the
error correction algorith is subject to higher rates of
non-correctable errors, and so on. Your theory is
bogus if for no other reason than it simply ignores the
facts.

But, in EITHER case, unless the disk is SERIOUSLY
damaged, the data loss in either case is repaired.

> DVD's come wih high density of data due to this
> they are highly vulnerable to scratches this can
> be avoided with better waveform matching achieved
> by high sampling rate.

Sorry, this is nothing but technobabble nonsense.

On May 3, 9:16 am, rajesh <getrajes...@gmail.com> wrote:
>    Its also about how you store data.
>
>    here is an simplified analogy.

Yes, simplified to the point of being factually wrong.

> say you need 44.1k samples per second to hear properly.
> If the disk is corrupted with scrathes and 1 samples in his
> region are lost your sound is distorted or lost for that period
> of time.

Wrong. First, you have a pretty robust error correction
scheme built in to the disk. The encoding and decoding
is such that significant amounts of data can be lost
but can be EXACTLY reconstructed on playback with NO
loss. And if the disk is severely scratched to the point where
the error correction algorith fails, interpolation takes place.

One can see thousands of uncorrected errors in the raw
data coming of the disk, and once the error correction
has been applied, the result might be a SMALL handful
(like, oh, 4?)  uncorrectable but interpolated errors

> Now if there are 196k samples even if (196/44.1)
> samples are lost there is no difference to what you
> hear.

False. Since you're cramming more data into the same
area, and the physical faults take up the same area
regardless of the data density, more bits, according to
YOUR theory, will be lost on the higher density disk
than on the lower density disk.

That means MORE data is missing, that means the
error correction algorith is subject to higher rates of
non-correctable errors, and so on. Your theory is
bogus if for no other reason than it simply ignores the
facts.

But, in EITHER case, unless the disk is SERIOUSLY
damaged, the data loss in either case is repaired.

> DVD's come wih high density of data due to this
> they are highly vulnerable to scratches this can
> be avoided with better waveform matching achieved
> by high sampling rate.

Sorry, this is nothing but technobabble nonsense.

On May 3, 3:01 pm, vlad <vova.kuznet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 3, 8:11 am, Vladimir Vassilevsky <antispam_bo...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > rickman wrote:
> > >>Utter nonsense - unless of course you can cite some proper tests.
>
> > > And what do you base this statement on?
>
> > The ultimate reason for the audio systems is making the people happy. If
> > someone is happy because of 192kHz sample rate, and willing to pay for
> > that, then why do you need to proove anything? Heck, if someone orders a
> > 192MHz audio system, it would be my pleasure to do this project.
>
> > Vladimir Vassilevsky
> > DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultanthttp://www.abvolt.com
>
> I guess,  you are in business of separating fool from his money.

Welcome to the world of high-end audio.

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.
The third is like measuring the water's temperature.

And we, here, are discussing how warm or cold humans
can feel the water.
The problem is how nice or not is the water...

bye,

-- 

piergiorgio

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.
The third is like measuring the water's temperature.

And we, here, are discussing how warm or cold humans
can feel the water.
The problem is how nice or not is the water...

bye,

-- 

piergiorgio

On May 4, 11:20�am, Piergiorgio Sartor
<piergiorgio.sartor.this.should.not.be.u...@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.
> The third is like measuring the water's temperature.
>
> And we, here, are discussing how warm or cold humans
> can feel the water.
> The problem is how nice or not is the water...
>
> bye,
>
> --
>
> piergiorgio



I realize that this is a bit off-topic, but;

It seems silly to argue about whether .01% of the population might, on
a good day and with a particular recording, discern the difference
between 44.1K and 192K sample-rates 51% of the time, when the real
reason that recorded sound cannot come close to reproducing live sound
is the nature of 2-speaker stereo itself.

Have you ever wondered why, when you walk into the lobby of a hotel,
that you can immediately tell the difference between live and recorded
music (besides the fact that the singer is off-key) ?

I have my own theory, and it's quite simple. In a live recording, the
radiation pattern of every instrument is unique, with live cymbals in
particular standing out as having a very different radiation pattern
from other instruments. In a stereo playback environment, all
instruments have the same radiation pattern (= the speakers pattern).
The ear discerns this quite easily. If you replace the hotel band with
a recording of the same hotel band, played back in the same location
over PA speakers, you will not have the same "live" impression when
you enter the hotel.

Now I know that if you believe in HRTF's, and your living room in an
anechoic chamber, and you sit glued to one spot, and hrtf curves were
actually gathered from YOUR OWN ears, you should, in theory, be able
to exactly reproduce the pressure waveform at your eardrum that would
have existed in a live performance. But this is so far from the usual,
and practical, case, that it is not worth spending much time on.
Headphones offer a better opportunity for this type of listening, but
again you have the "those are not MY HRTF's" problem.

I don't know a practical solution to this problem, other than to go to
lots of acoustic concerts.


Bob Adams