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

On May 3, 3:28 am, Randy Yates <ya...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> rickman <gnu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.