What's the use of a 192 kHz sample rate?
in [DSP]
|
Prev: Is 44.1 KHz sample-rate enough to cover the entire human hearingrange?
Next: Newbie to DSP - Phase shift detection
From: Oli Charlesworth on 5 May 2008 09:50 On May 5, 2:44 pm, rajesh <getrajes...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > There is no gurantee that the audio signal is bandlimited. If we cant > percieve freq higher than 20k doesnt mean that they are not present If the audio signal has not been appropriately bandlimited before sampling, then of course there will be problems. But in the real world, the signal is explicitly filtered before it hits the sampling circuitry. -- Oli
From: rajesh on 5 May 2008 09:56 On May 5, 6:50 pm, Oli Charlesworth <ca...(a)olifilth.co.uk> wrote: > On May 5, 2:44 pm, rajesh <getrajes...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > There is no gurantee that the audio signal is bandlimited. If we cant > > percieve freq higher than 20k doesnt mean that they are not present > > If the audio signal has not been appropriately bandlimited before > sampling, then of course there will be problems. But in the real > world, the signal is explicitly filtered before it hits the sampling > circuitry. > > -- > Oli but at what cut off frequency is it being filtered in case of 192 kHz ? I dont think its 20...its much much higher.
From: Oli Charlesworth on 5 May 2008 10:05 On May 5, 2:56 pm, rajesh <getrajes...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 5, 6:50 pm, Oli Charlesworth <ca...(a)olifilth.co.uk> wrote: > > > On May 5, 2:44 pm, rajesh <getrajes...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > There is no gurantee that the audio signal is bandlimited. If we cant > > > percieve freq higher than 20k doesnt mean that they are not present > > > If the audio signal has not been appropriately bandlimited before > > sampling, then of course there will be problems. But in the real > > world, the signal is explicitly filtered before it hits the sampling > > circuitry. > > but at what cut off frequency is it being filtered in case of 192 > kHz ? > I dont think its 20...its much much higher. But you've just acknowledged that "we can't perceive freq higher than 20k". If we can, then of course a higher sampling rate will sound better. But that goes against the premises of the OP, and is nothing to do with the ECC or interpolation that you've been going on about! -- Oli
From: rajesh on 5 May 2008 10:07 On May 5, 6:15 pm, Jerry Avins <j...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > Don Pearce wrote: > > On Mon, 5 May 2008 04:36:01 -0700 (PDT), rajesh > > <getrajes...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On May 5, 4:21 pm, nos...(a)nospam.com (Don Pearce) wrote: > >>> On Mon, 5 May 2008 04:15:59 -0700 (PDT), rajesh > > >>> <getrajes...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On May 5, 3:46 pm, dpierce.cartchunk....(a)gmail.com wrote: > >>>>> On May 5, 4:05 am, rajesh <getrajes...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> Remember the shannon's theorem which places a > >>>>>> trade off between error correcting codes and bandwidth. > >>>>> Again, pure nonsense. Shannon's theorem > >>>>> never discusses error correcting codes AT ALL. > >>>> hi pierce , > >>>> BTW from which school did u learn DSP? > >>> Rajesh, please take some advice and don't do this. He is going to rip > >>> you to pieces and embarrass you badly. > > >>> d > > >>> -- > >>> Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com > >> Here is the coz for mis interpretation of my opinions. > > >> I am not comparing two different discs of two different capacities at > >> all. > > >> I am comparing, given the same high capacity disc, which sampling rate > >> can cope better with errors. > > >> And the answer is the one with which is oversampled. > > > Do you even know what oversampling is? You won't find it on any disc - > > it is a function of the front end of an ADC. > > > And of course they are ALL oversampled, no exceptions, ever. > > >> say if u are comparing 44.1 kHz CD and a 196kHz DVD then they both > >> cope with errors equally.there is no doubt about this. > > >> But then in the later case you are not comparing apples to apples. > > > The way they cope with errors is a function of the error > > detection/correction schemes they use. > > And the packing density. If 192 samples are packed into the same space > as 44.1, then a scratch of a particular size destroys more than 4 times > as much data at the higher density. > > Jerry > -- > Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. > ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I am talking about 44.1 kHz on the DVD, if a scratch occurs and if 44.1*4.4 samples are lost then it amounts to 4.4 sec loss in 44.1khz case and only 1 second in 192 khz case.
From: rajesh on 5 May 2008 10:09
On May 5, 7:05 pm, Oli Charlesworth <ca...(a)olifilth.co.uk> wrote: > On May 5, 2:56 pm, rajesh <getrajes...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 5, 6:50 pm, Oli Charlesworth <ca...(a)olifilth.co.uk> wrote: > > > > On May 5, 2:44 pm, rajesh <getrajes...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > There is no gurantee that the audio signal is bandlimited. If we cant > > > > percieve freq higher than 20k doesnt mean that they are not present > > > > If the audio signal has not been appropriately bandlimited before > > > sampling, then of course there will be problems. But in the real > > > world, the signal is explicitly filtered before it hits the sampling > > > circuitry. > > > but at what cut off frequency is it being filtered in case of 192 > > kHz ? > > I dont think its 20...its much much higher. > > But you've just acknowledged that "we can't perceive freq higher than > 20k". > > If we can, then of course a higher sampling rate will sound better. > But that goes against the premises of the OP, and is nothing to do > with the ECC or interpolation that you've been going on about! > > -- > Oli I said we cant percieve, but i didnt say they arent there..i will continue the dicussion on ECC tomorrow. |