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

"Eric Jacobsen" <eric.jacobsen@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:c0tr245enrbgg4649mrr88jp18da1ttf88@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 16:16:40 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> <arnyk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> "Eric Jacobsen" <eric.jacobsen@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:p1so2455ofi12tv1blmla4acu6e1o8fpjf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>> And it wasn't disconnected, I think you just failed to
>>> recognize the connection.    You said:
>>
>>>> There are a modest number of correctable and corrected
>>>> errors.
>>
>>> What's "modest"?   This was right after you asserted the
>>> output "probably has less than one erroneous sample per
>>> full side (72 minutes)".
>>
>> That is of course after correction.That's what you get
>> at the output of a proper CD player - corrected data.

> Yes, the discussion has been, to my understanding,
> primarily about the 'corrected' error rate.   Clearly the
> raw error rate has an effect on that, so it's relevant to
> the discussion as well.

Only to people who want to obsess over problems that are for most 
practically purposes, long-solved.

> You still haven't quantified what you mean by "modest
> number of correctable and corrected errors".

I've defined it well enough if the goal is not to be excessively pedantic.

>>>   At 44kHz x 16 bit words that's
>>> a word error rate of ~5*10e-9 and a bit error rate of
>>> ~3*10e-10!  (Assuming a single bit error.)   That's
>>> either the most over-engineered audio system around or
>>> the error rate is much higher than you think (hint: it's
>>> the latter).    The raw error rate on optical media,
>>> even in pristine condition, is usually fairly high, in
>>> the Pe = 10e-3 region.    To me that's not "modest",
>>> and is the point to which I was responding.

>> You seem to think that the output of a CD player is
>> taken right after the optical pickup. Not in this
>> universe, it isn't.

> You must have missed most of what I've written.

No, much of what you've written is only vaguely connected with practical 
reality.

> You've
> also avoided the real susbtantive points of the
> discussion.

No, I've avoided reha****ng well-known technology. I've avoided pedantry.


>  This is leading me to believe that your
> understanding of the system isn't very deep.

Your comments lead me to believe that you've never actually tested the 
digital data from an audio CD against the origional data used to create
it.