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

On May 5, 4:34=A0am, "Mr.T" <MrT@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "rickman" <gnu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
news:0edc0747-6d9c-4cc7-9ec5-509523553e2e@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > 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? =A0Don'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. =A0I'll be interested in hearing what you think.
>
> Because it costs them no more and the advertising sounds better to the
> uninformed.
> What did you come up with?
>
> MrT.



If you look at 192KHz or SACD releases, they have been mastered and
recorded with more care and skill than ordinary CD recordings. So they
may indeed sound better, but probably not because of the sampling
rate.

If you are interested in a related subject, check out;

http://www.holosonics.com

This company creates sound by intersecting two ultrasonic beams in
air, and the non-linearity of the air demodulates the AM modulation
applied to one of the beams to create audio that appears to come from
out of nowhere. But there is controversy; how do you know that the non-
linearity occurs in the air, and not the ear, which is known to have
intermodulation distortion? Well, you could pick up the sound with a
microphone and look at the FFT, but the problem is that microphones
also have non-linearity when presented with 140dB ultrasonic signals!

But I don't think non-linear folding of ultrasonic signals by the ear
is very relevant to the 192K argument, as the SPL levels must be
extreme before any effect is apparent.

Bob Adams