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

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

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,

Radium

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

On May 3, 12:41 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,
>
> Radium

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? 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. I'll be interested in hearing what you think.

Rick

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

rickman wrote:
> On May 3, 12:41 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,
>>
>> Radium
>
> 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? 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. I'll be interested in hearing what you think.
>
> Rick
>


No. I can't think of any reason to use a 192 kHz sample-rate. It is
really overkill. If you think otherwise, the please explain why.

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



"Green Xenon [Radium]" wrote:

> rickman wrote:
> > "Green Xenon [Radium]" wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> > 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? 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. I'll be interested in hearing what you think.
>
>
> No. I can't think of any reason to use a 192 kHz sample-rate. It is
> really overkill. If you think otherwise, the please explain why.

Tell me what the point is of making road going cars that can do over 250 mph like
the Bugatti Veyron ? And why would anyone buy one ?


Graham

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

On May 3, 1:49 am, "Green Xenon [Radium]" <gluceg...@excite . com >
wrote:
> rickman wrote:
> > On May 3, 12:41 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,
>
> >> Radium
>
> > 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? 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. I'll be interested in hearing what you think.
>
> > Rick
>
> No. I can't think of any reason to use a 192 kHz sample-rate. It is
> really overkill. If you think otherwise, the please explain why.

This thread is one that could be thought provoking. But I would like
to see *you* do some of the thinking. What is the difference between
the way a player is designed using a 44.1 (or 48) kHz sample rate and
a 192 kHz sample rate? What does that difference do to the analog
signal that is produced? How might that difference sound to a
listener?

This is not rocket science. The differences may not be audible to
you, but they exist and they are well understood. I'll give you a
hint; do you know what phase distortion is?

Also, I would like you to explain what is wasteful about a 192 kHz
sample rate. How much money does it cost to use 192 kHz instead of 96
kHz or 44.1 kHz. What time is involved? How much extra energy does
the higher sample rate use? Are you aware that there are virtually
infinite amounts of bandwidth not being used every second? What
difference does it make if DVDs underutilize a bit more?

I am working on a circuit that uses a 192 kHz CODEC to process 1 kHz
signals. Of course I am not using it at 192 kHz, so am I wasting
bandwidth still? Or by using an 8 kHz sample rate, am I conserving
bandwidth and deserve recognition? I like the idea of being "pink" (as
in noise) by conserving precious bandwidth. Actually, I can't wait to
get the thing out on the open road and open it up! I want to put the
pedal to the metal and sample at the full 192 kHz to see just what
sort of analog bandwidth these CODECs really have! I'm not actually
sure they will produce higher than about 40 kHz at the analog output.
I'll have to hack away the 1 pole filter I added to the input and
output. It limits the frequency range to a paltry 30 kHz or so. I
may not hear the difference, but my scope can "see" it!

BTW, if you aren't looking at your monitor or you aren't sitting close
enough to see every pixel, are you wasting bandwidth on your video
signal? Actually, that is an excellent analogy. If you limit the
video bandwidth to half the pixel rate, what difference will you see
on a CRT display?

Finally, why do you see the advantage of using 96 kHz sample rate and
not 192 kHz? Isn't 96 kHz wasting bandwidth?

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

> This is not rocket science. The differences may not be audible to
> you, but they exist and they are well understood. I'll give you a
> hint; do you know what phase distortion is?

The 20KHz low-pass FIR filters that they use in all modern CD/DVD players
are phase linear.

> Also, I would like you to explain what is wasteful about a 192 kHz
> sample rate. How much money does it cost to use 192 kHz instead of 96
> kHz or 44.1 kHz. What time is involved? How much extra energy does
> the higher sample rate use? Are you aware that there are virtually
> infinite amounts of bandwidth not being used every second? What
> difference does it make if DVDs underutilize a bit more?

The only reason to use anything higher than 44.1KHz for consumer playback is
marketing, and evidently, they have bandwidth (storage) to burn, so it
doesn't cost them much.

> I am working on a circuit that uses a 192 kHz CODEC to process 1 kHz
> signals. Of course I am not using it at 192 kHz, so am I wasting
> bandwidth still? Or by using an 8 kHz sample rate, am I conserving
> bandwidth and deserve recognition? I like the idea of being "pink" (as
> in noise) by conserving precious bandwidth. Actually, I can't wait to
> get the thing out on the open road and open it up! I want to put the
> pedal to the metal and sample at the full 192 kHz to see just what
> sort of analog bandwidth these CODECs really have! I'm not actually
> sure they will produce higher than about 40 kHz at the analog output.
> I'll have to hack away the 1 pole filter I added to the input and
> output. It limits the frequency range to a paltry 30 kHz or so. I
> may not hear the difference, but my scope can "see" it!

Okay, if you are still working with analog filters, then you need more room
for the transition band. Digital FIR filters get you much closer to the
theoretical limits much more easily and predictably. And they stay in spec
with temperature and age.

> BTW, if you aren't looking at your monitor or you aren't sitting close
> enough to see every pixel, are you wasting bandwidth on your video
> signal? Actually, that is an excellent analogy. If you limit the
> video bandwidth to half the pixel rate, what difference will you see
> on a CRT display?

The difference here is, video bandwidth is chosen for a particular viewing
distance, and if you are within (or nearer) the optimal distance, higher
bandwidth is easily perceptible. Not so with excessive audio sample rates.

> Finally, why do you see the advantage of using 96 kHz sample rate and
> not 192 kHz? Isn't 96 kHz wasting bandwidth?

Yes, very much so. I daresay you won't find a lot of 96 or 192KHz sample
rates where bandwidth is at a premium (broadcast, satellite or streaming
media). Quite the reverse; they'll be looking for ways of reducing the bit
rate. But if you have bandwidth (storage) to burn, and a lot of
unsophisticated consumers who think bigger is better, then 96 or 192KHz it
is. Not because good engineering demands it, but because marketing
departments know consumers are gullible. The original CD spec was pretty
much optimal from an engineering perspective. It delivers just as much as it
needs to, and not much beyond. It was beautifully engineered. Many of the
original CD players (and recorders) did not actually meet the spec very
well, nor did recording engineers and producers understand how to work with
the new medium, which gave CDs a bit of a black eye. But the theoretical
design was quite optimal.

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

rickman <gnuarm@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.
--
% Randy Yates % "Remember the good old 1980's, when
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % things were so uncomplicated?"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Ticket To The Moon'
%%%% <yates@ieee.org> % *Time*, Electric Light Orchestra
* w w w .digitalsignallabs . com

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

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.

I have known people who worked on professional equipment. The
extremes that they have design in are all audible to the buyers of
such systems. In the audio sections of the equipment they use 15 volt
rails or even higher, just to increase the SNR when the noise floor
can't be lowered anymore. They totally eliminate all digital clocks
from any circuit near the audio section to prevent noise injection.
From what I have seen, they use more extreme measures in high end
audio than is used in sensitive military radio gear which is trying to
get over 140 dB of SNR!

I am not going to try to tell someone else what they can and can't
hear. I know that my hearing has dropped of dramatically to where I
can no longer hear the 15 kHz emitted by TVs and I'm not sure I can
hear the high notes on a piano. When I press the keys on the right, I
hear more of a click than a ping (maybe it's the piano)! But that
doesn't mean that there aren't others who can hear the distortion
created by the anti-alias filters used when the ADC and DAC run at
44.1 kHz.

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

On Sat, 3 May 2008 05:11:53 -0700 (PDT), rickman <gnuarm@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.

>I have known people who worked on professional equipment. The
>extremes that they have design in are all audible to the buyers of
>such systems. In the audio sections of the equipment they use 15 volt
>rails or even higher, just to increase the SNR when the noise floor
>can't be lowered anymore. They totally eliminate all digital clocks
>from any circuit near the audio section to prevent noise injection.
>From what I have seen, they use more extreme measures in high end
>audio than is used in sensitive military radio gear which is trying to
>get over 140 dB of SNR!
>

More nonsense. I have worked on many radio systems, both military and
civil, and a typical target SNR for these radios is in the region of 6
to 10dB.

>I am not going to try to tell someone else what they can and can't
>hear. I know that my hearing has dropped of dramatically to where I
>can no longer hear the 15 kHz emitted by TVs and I'm not sure I can
>hear the high notes on a piano. When I press the keys on the right, I
>hear more of a click than a ping (maybe it's the piano)! But that
>doesn't mean that there aren't others who can hear the distortion
>created by the anti-alias filters used when the ADC and DAC run at
>44.1 kHz.

Doesn't mean they can either. That isn't a piece of logic that
commutes.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
* w w w .pearce.uk . com

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

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. He couldn't hear the difference, but his customers could.
If they came out with a product that used a "lesser" technique,
without *knowing* what technology was behind it they would reject the
system as not being good enough. If they didn't know anything about
the methods, they only had their ears to judge the equipment. Since
they are paying serious bucks (>$100,000 some 20 years ago) for these
systems, they have *NO* reason to buy racks of gear that is any better
than a lower price system. BTW, this was professional equipment, not
the home stuff with oxygen free speaker wires and such.

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?


> >I have known people who worked on professional equipment. The
> >extremes that they have design in are all audible to the buyers of
> >such systems. In the audio sections of the equipment they use 15 volt
> >rails or even higher, just to increase the SNR when the noise floor
> >can't be lowered anymore. They totally eliminate all digital clocks
> >from any circuit near the audio section to prevent noise injection.
> >From what I have seen, they use more extreme measures in high end
> >audio than is used in sensitive military radio gear which is trying to
> >get over 140 dB of SNR!
>
> More nonsense. I have worked on many radio systems, both military and
> civil, and a typical target SNR for these radios is in the region of 6
> to 10dB.

My bad, I used the wrong term, it should have been 140 dB signal
strength. Yes, I need to indicate what the reference is, but I don't
recall if it was dBmW or dBW, a 30 dB difference.


> >I am not going to try to tell someone else what they can and can't
> >hear. I know that my hearing has dropped of dramatically to where I
> >can no longer hear the 15 kHz emitted by TVs and I'm not sure I can
> >hear the high notes on a piano. When I press the keys on the right, I
> >hear more of a click than a ping (maybe it's the piano)! But that
> >doesn't mean that there aren't others who can hear the distortion
> >created by the anti-alias filters used when the ADC and DAC run at
> >44.1 kHz.
>
> Doesn't mean they can either. That isn't a piece of logic that
> commutes.

I didn't say it proves that others can. What logic are you talking
about? I am simply saying that you shouldn't judge what others can
perceive by what you can or even what the general public can according
to "proper tests".

I'm not trying to "prove" anything. I am presenting information which
you can consider and believe or can ignore. But you can't say my
statements are false unless you have some information to "prove" they
are. Human hearing is not a microphone connected to an amplifier. It
is a very complex process which even includes the brain and we
certainly don't understand it completely.

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



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 Consultant
* w w w .abvolt . com

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

Vladimir Vassilevsky 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.

Quite right, too. If engineers only built what people actually need, you
and I would probably be looking for another occupation.

Steve

-- deleted messages --

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

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 Consultant * w w w .abvolt . com

I guess, you are in business of separating fool from his money.

vlad

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

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 Consultant * w w w .abvolt . com
>
> I guess, you are in business of separating fool from his money.

Welcome to the world of high-end audio.