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

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> In rec.audio.tech Jerry Avins <jya@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>>> In rec.audio.tech rickman <gnuarm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> On May 3, 8:22 am, nos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Don Pearce) wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 3 May 2008 05:11:53 -0700 (PDT), rickman <gnu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 3, 3:28 am, Randy Yates <ya...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>> rickman <gnu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>> Greed. They think that the general public is dumb enough to buy
into
>>>>>>> the lie that they really need such a system and would then spend
lots of
>>>>>>> money repurchasing what they already have.
>>>>>> I'm curious, how do you know what unnamed people are thinking?  My
>>>>>> understanding is that regardless of what frequencies acoustic
testing
>>>>>> says that people can hear, audiophiles can hear the difference
between
>>>>>> many of these "wasteful" features and otherwise adequate audio
>>>>>> systems.
>>>>> Utter nonsense - unless of course you can cite some proper tests.
>>>> And what do you base this statement on?  I don't have any "proper"
>>>> studies.  I am referring to a conversation with a friend who worked
in
>>>> the field. 
>>>
>>> Not nearly good enough.
>>>
>>>
>>>> You can poo-poo this sort of evaluation.  But that doesn't make you
>>>> right.  Do you have any "proof" that no one can hear the difference?
>>>> Do you even know what the differences are that I was talking about?
>>> You can't prove negatives to 100% empirical certaintly.  You can
determine likelihoods, and 
>>> that's what science is really about -- finding the models of reality
that are most likely 
>>> to be accurate.  It seems extremely likely, for example, that no one
can actually *hear* 
>>> frequencies above the mid-20 kHz.  They can be perceived via bone
conduction, if the signal is 
>>> generated right at the skin surface.
> 
>> Conduction to the inner ear and thence via the auditory nerve?
> 
> 
> I didn't say 'heard'  (implying participation of the auditory nerve).  I
said 'perceived'.

I can perceive a light bulb in contact with my skin going on and off. Do 
you call that bone conduction too? According to my audiologist, "bone 
conduction" is an alternate pathway to the auditory nerve.

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