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

Randy Yates wrote:

> 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.

The problem might be that a "sound" is not only
perceived with ears, but with the full body.

One specific issue are the sudden transitions of
pitches that real world instruments can create,
and, possibly, are picked up by different means.
For example, the sound waves going through the
skull, brain tissue and then to ears (from inside)
are "distorted" and, maybe, remodulated, so that
a person *could* receive "signals" (from real
instruments), which otherwise would be wiped out
by sampling low-pass filter, in case of 44.1KHz
sampling rate.

That's the theory.
Is this true? I don't know, maybe, maybe not.
There are people swearing this is the case, others
say that's nonsense.
There are people citing Dolby technologies taking
into account these alternate perception paths, but
I could not find any real reference.

Nevertheless, one thing is sure (and proven) sound
waves are not only "eared", they're generally
perceived by the full body, but the studies I know
always refer to bass and not to ultrasounds.

bye,

-- 

piergiorgio