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

Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
> In article <481becfe$0$5141$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>  "Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucegen1@[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
> 
> 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?