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

In rec.audio.tech Robert Adams <robert.adams@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 5, 4:34 am, "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?  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.
> >
> > 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.

Not necessarily true, for DVD-A stereo (which is where 192kHz shows up) 
at least. 

Examples where DVD-A stereo mastering is as dynamically compressed as 
modern day ordinary CD recordings may be found on this thread:


http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1009384


Basically, if the signal is PCM, you can easily boost the 'loudness' by
digital compression 
and limiting.  And if it *can* be done, modern practice is that someone
probably *will*.

And now that there are tools to 'rip' DVD-A, we can clearly see whether
that's been done.

AFAIK it can't be done purely in the DSD domain (Scarlet Book spec?), 
but I suppose one *could* introduce a PCM step...


> So they
> may indeed sound better, but probably not because of the sampling
> rate.

True.  


-- 
-S 
maybe they wanna rock.
maybe they need to rock.
Maybe it's for the money?  But That's none of our business..our business
as fans is to rock 
with them.