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: rajesh on 5 May 2008 08:08 On May 5, 5:00 pm, Oli Charlesworth <ca...(a)olifilth.co.uk> wrote: > 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 Sorry didnt get what u mean by two discs.Isnt it the same disc where in one case the data written is that of 192khz signal and other case it is 44.1 khz. please clarify this. So if you apply same error correcting code on both cases , you will have a reason to say that 192khz is better.
From: Oli Charlesworth on 5 May 2008 08:13 On May 5, 1:08 pm, rajesh <getrajes...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 5, 5:00 pm, Oli Charlesworth <ca...(a)olifilth.co.uk> wrote: > > > 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. > > Sorry didnt get what u mean by two discs.Isnt it the same disc where > in one case the data written is that of 192khz signal and other case > it is 44.1 khz. please clarify this. In that case it is you who should clarify. We've all been talking about a comparison between a high-density disc (e.g. a DVD) and a standard CD. What are you talking about? > So if you apply same error correcting code on both cases , you will > have a reason to say that 192khz is better. Now you're just going round in circles. Do you want to talk about ECC or not? -- Oli
From: rajesh on 5 May 2008 08:16 On May 5, 5:13 pm, Oli Charlesworth <ca...(a)olifilth.co.uk> wrote: > On May 5, 1:08 pm, rajesh <getrajes...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 5, 5:00 pm, Oli Charlesworth <ca...(a)olifilth.co.uk> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > Sorry didnt get what u mean by two discs.Isnt it the same disc where > > in one case the data written is that of 192khz signal and other case > > it is 44.1 khz. please clarify this. > > In that case it is you who should clarify. We've all been talking > about a comparison between a high-density disc (e.g. a DVD) and a > standard CD. What are you talking about? > > > So if you apply same error correcting code on both cases , you will > > have a reason to say that 192khz is better. > > Now you're just going round in circles. Do you want to talk about ECC > or not? > > -- > Oli I havent read all the posts. But the topic of this thread mentions only two different sampling rates and it DOESNT mention any thing about discs
From: rajesh on 5 May 2008 08:26 On May 5, 5:13 pm, Oli Charlesworth <ca...(a)olifilth.co.uk> wrote: > On May 5, 1:08 pm, rajesh <getrajes...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 5, 5:00 pm, Oli Charlesworth <ca...(a)olifilth.co.uk> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > Sorry didnt get what u mean by two discs.Isnt it the same disc where > > in one case the data written is that of 192khz signal and other case > > it is 44.1 khz. please clarify this. > > In that case it is you who should clarify. We've all been talking > about a comparison between a high-density disc (e.g. a DVD) and a > standard CD. What are you talking about? > > > So if you apply same error correcting code on both cases , you will > > have a reason to say that 192khz is better. > > Now you're just going round in circles. Do you want to talk about ECC > or not? > > -- > Oli "Why does DVD-Audio use 192 kHz sample rate? What's the advantage over 44.1 kHz? Humans can't hear the full range of a 192 kHz sample rate? " He means to say that why 44.1khz is not used on DVD's? Thats exactly what i answered
From: dpierce.cartchunk.org on 5 May 2008 08:54
On May 5, 8:34 am, rajesh <getrajes...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 5, 5:26 pm, Randy Yates <ya...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> But yes, just doing a single repeat (transmitting two >> samples for every one) does not buy you anything. > > it does help the signal to get reconstructedl more accurately. Not if the waveform is sampled at grater than 2 times the bandwidth, it does not. Once you sample greater than the Nyquist limit, NO extra information is gathered, not matter HOW much more your sample. The resulting output waveform is the same whether you sampled at 2..01times the bandwidth or 2000000 times the bandwidth. The output waveform DOES NOT get any more accurate. You've invoked Shannon. How about going and actually READING and UNDERSTANDING it not? |