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

-- deleted messages --

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

rickman wrote:

> 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.

There are 3 reasons why people design and manufacture 192KHz equipment:
1 - They imagine it makes a difference.
2 - The technology is available, so why not
3 - Everybody already has 44k1/48K gear, so what would we sell them
otherwise....

geoff

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

"geoff" <geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote in message
news:M5CdnfvR7O51q4PVnZ2dnUVZ_oSunZ2d@giganews,com
> rickman wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> There are 3 reasons why people design and manufacture
> 192KHz equipment: 1 - They imagine it makes a difference.
> 2 - The technology is available, so why not
> 3 - Everybody already has 44k1/48K gear, so what would we
> sell them otherwise....

That is pretty well it. As time marches on, 192/24 converters with > 115 dB
dynamic range are becoming jelly bean (highly inexpensive) chips. A number
of years back us quality bugs smiled and ponied up about $800 for Lynx L33
cards, but now you can get pretty much the same converters and performance
in < $200 eMu cards.

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


"rickman" <gnuarm@gmail,com > wrote in message
news:0edc0747-6d9c-4cc7-9ec5-509523553e2e@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups,com ...
> 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.

Because it costs them no more and the advertising sounds better to the
uninformed.
What did you come up with?

MrT.

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

On May 5, 4:34 am, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
> "rickman" <gnu...@gmail,com > wrote in message
>
> news:0edc0747-6d9c-4cc7-9ec5-509523553e2e@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups,com ...
>
> > 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.
>
> Because it costs them no more and the advertising sounds better to the
> uninformed.
> What did you come up with?
>
> MrT.



If you look at 192KHz or SACD releases, they have been mastered and
recorded with more care and skill than ordinary CD recordings. So they
may indeed sound better, but probably not because of the sampling
rate.

If you are interested in a related subject, check out;

http :// www .holosonics,com

This company creates sound by intersecting two ultrasonic beams in
air, and the non-linearity of the air demodulates the AM modulation
applied to one of the beams to create audio that appears to come from
out of nowhere. But there is controversy; how do you know that the non-
linearity occurs in the air, and not the ear, which is known to have
intermodulation distortion? Well, you could pick up the sound with a
microphone and look at the FFT, but the problem is that microphones
also have non-linearity when presented with 140dB ultrasonic signals!

But I don't think non-linear folding of ultrasonic signals by the ear
is very relevant to the 192K argument, as the SPL levels must be
extreme before any effect is apparent.

Bob Adams

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

Robert Adams wrote:
> If you look at 192KHz or SACD releases, they have been mastered and
> recorded with more care and skill than ordinary CD recordings. So they
> may indeed sound better, but probably not because of the sampling
> rate.


But that same remastered version can be put onto CD and sound (maybe)
exactly the same.

Sure there may be differnces in the DACs and the bit-depth conversuion, but
these are unlikely to be as significant as the mastering changes that were
possible only done to kid us that ther really is an 'improvement'.

Talking aboout similtaneously released versions on both media, such as the
DSOTM a few years ago ...

geoff

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

In rec.audio.tech Robert Adams <robert.adams@analog,com > wrote:
> On May 5, 4:34 am, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
> > "rickman" <gnu...@gmail,com > wrote in message
> >
> > news:0edc0747-6d9c-4cc7-9ec5-509523553e2e@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups,com ...
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Because it costs them no more and the advertising sounds better to the
> > uninformed.
> > What did you come up with?
> >
> > MrT.



> If you look at 192KHz or SACD releases, they have been mastered and
> recorded with more care and skill than ordinary CD recordings.

Not necessarily true, for DVD-A stereo (which is where 192kHz shows up)
at least.

Examples where DVD-A stereo mastering is as dynamically compressed as
modern day ordinary CD recordings may be found on this thread:


http :// www .avsforum,com /avs-vb/showthread.php?t09384


Basically, if the signal is PCM, you can easily boost the 'loudness' by digital compression
and limiting. And if it *can* be done, modern practice is that someone probably *will*.

And now that there are tools to 'rip' DVD-A, we can clearly see whether
that's been done.

AFAIK it can't be done purely in the DSD domain (Scarlet Book spec?),
but I suppose one *could* introduce a PCM step...


> So they
> may indeed sound better, but probably not because of the sampling
> rate.

True.


--
-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.

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

In article <481becfe$0$5141$4c368faf@roadrunner,com >,
"Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucegen1@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

Oversampling reduces losses during editing. 192KHz could be the
studio's native format.

It appearing on consumer DVDs might be simply because it falls within
the native bandwidth of a optomechanical mechanism designed for an A/V
stream. A bit of time with a search engine might turn up the answer.

--
Block Google's spam and enjoy Usenet again.
Reply with Google and I won't hear from you.

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

Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
> In article <481becfe$0$5141$4c368faf@roadrunner,com >,
> "Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucegen1@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
>
> Oversampling reduces losses during editing. 192KHz could be the
> studio's native format.
>
> It appearing on consumer DVDs might be simply because it falls within
> the native bandwidth of a optomechanical mechanism designed for an A/V
> stream. A bit of time with a search engine might turn up the answer.
>


Shouldn't a 96 kHz sample-rate suffice for that?

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

On May 3, 7:11 pm, "Green Xenon [Radium]" <gluceg...@excite,com >
wrote:
> >> Please correct me if I'm wrong

Why would anyone think that would work now?

>>> but AFAIK, its a waste of time, money,
>>> energy to move to 192 kHz.
>> A bit of time with a search engine might turn up the answer.
> Shouldn't a 96 kHz sample-rate suffice for that?

A bit of time with a search engine might turn up the answer.

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

dpierce.cartchunk.org@gmail,com wrote:



> On May 3, 7:11 pm, "Green Xenon [Radium]" <gluceg...@excite,com >
> wrote:



>> Shouldn't a 96 kHz sample-rate suffice for that?




> A bit of time with a search engine might turn up the answer.



Unfortunately, no. I've done as my of my own research on this subject
and still don't understand why a 96 kHz sample-rate is inadequate. I
still don't understand why a 192 kHz sample-rate is at all necessary.

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

On May 4, 2:11 am, "Green Xenon [Radium]" <gluceg...@excite,com >
wrote:
> dpierce.cartchunk....@gmail,com wrote:
> > On May 3, 7:11 pm, "Green Xenon [Radium]" <gluceg...@excite,com >
> > wrote:
> >> Shouldn't a 96 kHz sample-rate suffice for that?
> > A bit of time with a search engine might turn up the answer.
>
> Unfortunately, no. I've done as my of my own research on this subject
> and still don't understand why a 96 kHz sample-rate is inadequate. I
> still don't understand why a 192 kHz sample-rate is at all necessary.

A bit of time with a search engine might turn up the answer.

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

dpierce.cartchunk.org@gmail,com wrote:
> On May 4, 2:11 am, "Green Xenon [Radium]" <gluceg...@excite,com >
> wrote:
> > dpierce.cartchunk....@gmail,com wrote:
> > > On May 3, 7:11 pm, "Green Xenon [Radium]" <gluceg...@excite,com >
> > > wrote:
> > >> Shouldn't a 96 kHz sample-rate suffice for that?
> > > A bit of time with a search engine might turn up the answer.
> >
> > Unfortunately, no. I've done as my of my own research on this subject
> > and still don't understand why a 96 kHz sample-rate is inadequate. I
> > still don't understand why a 192 kHz sample-rate is at all necessary.

> A bit of time with a search engine might turn up the answer.

He could start with the rationale given by Meridien for developing DVD-Audio
in the first place


http :// www .meridian-audio,com /w_paper/Coding2.PDF

which I find rather weak, myself. As did Meyer & Moran when it was puiblished in JAES..,it
was an impetus for their long-term mult-listener study on DSD vs Redbook.



--
-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.

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

Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme,com > wrote:
> In article <481becfe$0$5141$4c368faf@roadrunner,com >,
> "Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucegen1@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

> Oversampling reduces losses during editing.


I think you're confusing higher SR with higher bit-depth.

> 192KHz could be the
> studio's native format.

One would wonder why, there as well.



--
-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.

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

"Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucegen1@excite,com > writes:
> [...]
> On average, what is the minimum sample rate for a guy in his early to
> mid 20s who likes treble?

The curve on p.20 of

http :// www .dohc.ie/publications/pdf/hearing.pdf?direct=1

indicates that, even for young adults, sound at <20 kHz is
inaudible. Based on this, a 44.1 kHz sample rate should be ample.
--
% 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
http :// www .digitalsignallabs,com