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

Piergiorgio Sartor wrote:
> 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.

I recently had my hearing tested, both through the ear canals and via 
bone conduction. The results match to within a few dB, indicating that 
my loss of cochlear or nerve, rather than associated with eardrum or 
ossicles. I don't think the alternate paths account for much in general.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯