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: Mr.T on 5 May 2008 04:34 "rickman" <gnuarm(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:0edc0747-6d9c-4cc7-9ec5-509523553e2e(a)b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > 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.
From: Randy Yates on 5 May 2008 06:01 rajesh <getrajeshin(a)gmail.com> writes: > [...] > Remember the shannon's theorem which places a trade off between error > correcting codes and bandwidth. No, Shannon's thereom places an upper limit on the rate at which one can reliably communicate in a white Gaussian noise channel based on bandwidth, signal power, and noise power. --Randy @article{shannon, title = "Communication in the Presence of Noise", author = "Claude E. Shannon", journal = "Proceedings of the Institute of Radio Engineers", year = "1949", volume = "37", pages = "10-21"} -- % Randy Yates % "Bird, on the wing, %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % goes floating by %%% 919-577-9882 % but there's a teardrop in his eye..." %%%% <yates(a)ieee.org> % 'One Summer Dream', *Face The Music*, ELO http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
From: dpierce.cartchunk.org on 5 May 2008 06:45 On May 5, 3:47 am, rajesh <getrajes...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 4, 8:10 pm, dpierce.cartchunk....(a)gmail.com wrote: > > Sorry, this is nothing but technobabble nonsense. > > Thanks ! Your facts are proving my point. Yes, and you continue below to spew pure nonsense. > Repeating samples is the most simplest form of > error correcting codes. Repeated samples ARE NOT "error correcting codes." And increasing the sample rate DOES NOT "repeat samples. In both cases, you deomnstrate your complete lack of understanding of the principles involved.. > All your error correcting codes and interpolation > techniques become 196/44.1 folds > more robust on 196 kHz signal compared 44.1 kHz signal. No, they do not. > " remembering and quoting facts is no big deal, > you have to learn to analyze them" And when people like deomstrate a complete lack of understanding of the facts, yous substitute just making sh*t up. That's better how?
From: dpierce.cartchunk.org on 5 May 2008 06:46 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.
From: rajesh on 5 May 2008 07:15
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? |