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: dpierce.cartchunk.org on 5 May 2008 17:17 On May 5, 4:48 pm, rickman <gnu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 5, 1:27 pm, dpierce.cartchunk....(a)gmail.com wrote: > > On May 5, 9:44 am, rajesh <getrajes...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > If we cant percieve freq higher than 20k doesnt > > > mean that they are not present > > > As the lawyers say, true but irrelevant. > > > If we can't perceive them, then their presence or > > absence is irrelevant. > > Are you guys still arguing over this??? The issue is > not whether ultrasonic signals can be perceived, it is > about the sample rate. That's right. Now sit down, there's a chance for learning to happen. > The microphone may well have a cutoff at or > below 20 kHz so that there is nothing in the > inaudible range. Still, a sample rate higher > than 40 kHz can be a good thing. But, clearly, you miss the point. A sample rate of 44.1 kHz is good enough for 20 kHz and below. A sample rate of MORE than 44.1 kHz IS NOT ANY BETTER. Got it?
From: geoff on 5 May 2008 17:54 rajesh wrote: > > Mr Pearce please view my profile and read some of my posts. What is "view my profile" ? Oh, I see, you think you are posting in some Google group. Guess what - you are not. you are posting out into a newsgroup in the real world, albeit through a google 'portal'. Most of us here are accessing USENET directly, and 'profiles' do not exist. They area Google Groups things only. geoff
From: geoff on 5 May 2008 17:57 Jerry Avins wrote: > > The DVD is packed more densely than the CD, so the same size scratch > destroys more DVD than CD data. The time of the outage depends only in > the size of the scratch and the playback peed of the disk. I think Rajesh is comparing 44k1 and 196K stream both on a DVD-Audio, in which a given blemish will in fact cause a bigger glitch on the lower sample rate, given that the native packing densisty of the bits is identical.\ geoff
From: Ben Bradley on 5 May 2008 18:51 On Sat, 3 May 2008 22:14:00 -0700, dplatt(a)radagast.org (Dave Platt) wrote: >In article <96fq141o7bh82pho575op2q1upefkq61bv(a)4ax.com>, >Rick Lyons <R.Lyons@_BOGUS_ieee.org> wrote: > >>Hi Randy, >> you remind me of the transistor radios when I was >>kid (back when the air was clean, and sex was dirty). >>If a transistor radio manufacturer could claim that >>their radio had had more transistors than their competition, >>then that was strong "selling point". As such, >>some transistor radio manufacturers were using transitors >>in place of the diodes needed in AM demodulation. >>So instead of having four transistors and one diode, >>those manufacturers could claim "5-transistor performance", >>in the hope of increasing sales. Ha ha. > >I've read that there were some "7-transistor" radios, in which one or >two of the transistors were soldered to unconnected pads on the board. >They had no function at all, and they were often "floor sweeping" >parts known to be defective... but they _were_ transistors and were >present in the radio, and so the radio could be advertised (legally if >not all that ethically) as a "7-transistor" model. When I was about 12-14 years old (early '70's) I looked carefully at the circuit board of such a transistor radio, and I saw two transistors that were: 1. each connected in a diode cofiguration, and 2. one of the two pads for each resulding "diode" did not connect anywhere. I turned that circuit board over dozens of times to make sure I was tracing the right transistor leads to the right pads. I couldn't figure out for the life of me how that thing worked.
From: John Monro on 5 May 2008 19:39
rajesh wrote: > 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. You lose 4.4 milliseconds worth of samples, not 4.4 seconds, in the example you give. If you allow for the fact that there are stereo channels present that comes down to 2.2 ms total outage, at first sight. In fact the CD designers anticipated the effect of scratches and distribute the bits along the track in such a way that a scratch affects one bit in many samples, and in such a way that the faults are likely to be exactly corrected, or replaced by interpolated values, or silenced by the playback processing. Regards, John |