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

On May 3, 1:49 am, "Green Xenon [Radium]" <gluceg...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> rickman wrote:
> > On May 3, 12:41 am, "Green Xenon [Radium]" <gluceg...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > 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?