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: Don Pearce on 5 May 2008 07:39 On Mon, 5 May 2008 04:36:01 -0700 (PDT), rajesh <getrajeshin(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On May 5, 4:21 pm, nospam(a)nospam.com (Don Pearce) wrote: >> On Mon, 5 May 2008 04:15:59 -0700 (PDT), rajesh >> >> <getrajeshin(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. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com
From: rajesh on 5 May 2008 07:45 On May 5, 4:39 pm, nos...(a)nospam.com (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. > > d > > -- > Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com Assume for a moment there are no error correction codes. Now which one is better. error correction codes dont care about the signal's sampling rate or what ever.
From: rajesh on 5 May 2008 07:49 On May 5, 4:39 pm, nos...(a)nospam.com (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. > > d > > -- > Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com Mr Pearce please view my profile and read some of my posts.
From: Don Pearce on 5 May 2008 07:52 On Mon, 5 May 2008 04:49:19 -0700 (PDT), rajesh <getrajeshin(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On May 5, 4:39 pm, nos...(a)nospam.com (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. >> >> d >> >> -- >> Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com > >Mr Pearce please view my profile and read some of my posts. I have no idea what you mean by your profile. And those posts of yours that I have so far read make it clear that you don't even know the meaning of the word oversampling. That is pretty fundamental to an understanding of DSP, so no, my money is not on you in this race. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com
From: Oli Charlesworth on 5 May 2008 08:00
On May 5, 12:54 pm, rajesh <getrajes...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 5, 4:49 pm, nos...(a)nospam.com (Don Pearce) wrote: > > I dont think you are tryin to comprehend my question > rather giving unruly answers It is difficult to determine what your current question is, as your train of replies has been very muddled. However, would it be fair to say that your current question is "which would be better given no error-correcting: a 192kHz disc or a 44.1kHz disc?" Aside from the fact that has already been pointed out (they would both be unusable), there is no reason to suggest that the 192kHz disc would be any better. -- Oli |