Is 192kHz a gimmick?

T

towert7

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 18, 2003
Messages
2,930
I have not read into the specifics of these higher frequency digital signals, so I was wondering if anyone here knows the speicifics.

I know to get a true digital signal(or as close as it comes), the frequency should be at least double that of the highest audio frequency, and thus the 44.1kHz and 48kHz are common.

But there are now things with 96kHz, 192kHz............ and I'm sure it will just keep going up and up.

Are there any "real world" benefits to anything higher then 44.1kHz?

~Thanks
 
If the source material was recorded with significant quality, and you have a decent system for playback, then the answer is yes: More data provides better sound.

OTH, upsampling some shitty recording and then playing it through a $50 audiovox receiver won't show any difference between the two bitrates. :D
 
Oh, its actually adding more detailed sound, and not just adding extra pointless information?

I'm going to have to dig up a book that covers this in more detail.
 
What you are getting at is Nyquist sampling rate, which basically means that you have to double the the sampling rate to properly digitally represent an analog signal of a given frequency range.

Thusly, the frequency on CDs is 22.05khz, DVD-A up to 96khz, and SACD I believe is over 100khz.

If you sample at a higher frequency, there is more data points to describe the initial waveform, so you'll be getting [on paper] a better signal. Whether you can discern that better signal in a DBT is another matter entirely, and the subject of a reasonable amount of controversy.

However, because of Nyquist sampling, brickwall filters are used to remove any harmonics above the frequency range, which can result in a mangling of the data found, so it makes sense to perform that filtering at a range that cannot be heard by humans, which could be one reason that some people seem to prefer DVD-A, even [and especially] in two-channel.

Hope some of this information helps out =]
 
I think SACD is actually something rediculous like 2 mghz sampling rate.

Now I don't have any problem with a higher sampling rate that "tracks" the original signal better, but if its to give frequency responses out to 80Khz, I think thats a bit of a waste. There are very few high frequency drivers (tweeters) that are even flat out to 20Khz. Most drivers start to fall off around 15Khz. So the signal may be there, but the driver simply won't reproduce it.

EDIT: 2.8Mghz it look like actually, but most players filter the top end though...usually below 100Khz.
 
Human hearing tends to have a range from low hertz (10-20 ... do you hear or feel) up through around 20khz (depending on the person). My figures probably aren't 100%, but I think they're close.

This is why CDs are starting at 44.1khz, that's roughly Nyquist for human hearing. Sampling at a higher rate will capture more information and there are uses for this information. If the sampled sound is used in filtering, effects, etc, it's better to have more than less.

I would argue that sample resolution or quantatization or the sound makes a difference as well. I would take 24bit / 32bit samples over 8bit any day. The extra bit resolution also make processing the audio more accurate. When there is more dynamic range to work with, there may be less loss and better results of processing.

Certainly size is a consideration here as well.

Imagine a 44.1kHz 16bit mono audio file of about 30 seconds.

that's 30 * 44100 * (16/8) = roughly 2.5 MB

Now 192kHz 32bit mono audio file of 30 seconds

that's 30 * 192000 * (32/8) = ~22 MB

Recap:

High sampling rate and high sample resolution are good and have their uses, but the trade-off is storage space. Can you hear the difference? It's subjective.
 
interesting article on sacd/dvd-a...

imo, i LOVE both sacd and dvd-a... but, as someone else stated before, your equipment has to be up to the task...
 
BO(V)BZ said:
What you are getting at is Nyquist sampling rate, which basically means that you have to double the the sampling rate to properly digitally represent an analog signal of a given frequency range.

Thusly, the frequency on CDs is 22.05khz, DVD-A up to 96khz, and SACD I believe is over 100khz.

If you sample at a higher frequency, there is more data points to describe the initial waveform, so you'll be getting [on paper] a better signal. Whether you can discern that better signal in a DBT is another matter entirely, and the subject of a reasonable amount of controversy.

However, because of Nyquist sampling, brickwall filters are used to remove any harmonics above the frequency range, which can result in a mangling of the data found, so it makes sense to perform that filtering at a range that cannot be heard by humans, which could be one reason that some people seem to prefer DVD-A, even [and especially] in two-channel.

Hope some of this information helps out =]
Click to expand...

DVD-A is up to 192KHz in Stereo and 96KHz on 5.1. For the others here.

http://www.wired4music.com/DVD-Audio_FAQ.htm

Q1: What does DVD-Audio sound like?

The 192kHz or 96kHz/24-bit linear PCM sound exhibits sharp transient response, with clear reproduction of instruments such as cymbals having plentiful high-frequency content, and rich, authentic timbre in the mid and low frequencies. Rapid high-frequency passages show excellent definition of individual notes, while stereo imaging presents a precise sound stage with great depth and solidity. Also, multi-channel capability means you can experience the acoustics of the best concert seats or instantly reproduce the ambience of a cozy club in your living room. The natural richness of the sound makes the performance come alive, delivering a convincing "you are there" effect. Car audio surround sound is a particular area that will benefit from multi-channel DVD-Audio reproduction.
Click to expand...

Power DVD 6 Deluxe Can do this in software with ANY 5.1 card. This Lossless Compression (MLP) is much better than Lossy Compression that makes up 24bit/96KHz DTS or 16to20bit/48KHz DD. 5.1 puts you in the Band and 2.1 puts you Center front row.
I have a 6.1DTS-Audio Disc, Sting. DVD-A kills it=P

Donnie27
 
Donnie27 said:
I have a 6.1DTS-Audio Disc, Sting. DVD-A kills it=P
Click to expand...


Are you talking about the DTS Sting album Ten Summoners Tales? I have that and its a great album.

The most exicting feature to me with hi-res audio is the true surround. I have the Boston, Boston SACD album which is two channel, and to me there is no "apparent" difference between it and the Redbook version. However the Pink Floyd Dark Side Of The Moon (SACD) and REM Automatic For The Poeple (DVD-A) sound amazing with the true surround channels.
 
westrock2000 said:
Are you talking about the DTS Sting album Ten Summoners Tales? I have that and its a great album.

The most exicting feature to me with hi-res audio is the true surround. I have the Boston, Boston SACD album which is two channel, and to me there is no "apparent" difference between it and the Redbook version. However the Pink Floyd Dark Side Of The Moon (SACD) and REM Automatic For The Poeple (DVD-A) sound amazing with the true surround channels.
Click to expand...

I have to make a Correction, it's only 5.1 DTS, not 6.1.

I have the old Classic Police, Every Breath You Take, The Classics. Floyd rocks!

Donnie27
 
westrock2000 said:
I think SACD is actually something rediculous like 2 mghz sampling rate.

Now I don't have any problem with a higher sampling rate that "tracks" the original signal better, but if its to give frequency responses out to 80Khz, I think thats a bit of a waste. There are very few high frequency drivers (tweeters) that are even flat out to 20Khz. Most drivers start to fall off around 15Khz. So the signal may be there, but the driver simply won't reproduce it.

EDIT: 2.8Mghz it look like actually, but most players filter the top end though...usually below 100Khz.
Click to expand...

Yea, the sample rate on SACD is really high, but it also uses 1bit samples, so it's an entirely different beast. Needless to say, I don't know much about it, I don't have an SACD player, and I wouldn't be interested in anything currently recorded on it, besides a Nightwish album. Suprise Surprise, but no electro/industrial artists record their albums in high-res multichannel formats :D
 
Donnie:

Re: the bitrate of DVD-A, I should have quantified that that number I listed was for multichannel, not stereo.

Also, are you aware that ALL Creative cards are not capable of true 24bit/96khz reproduction, even including the X-Fi? I found this to be a major disappointment, as it seems to prove to me that Creative has no interest in fixing the flaws in their sound cards.
 
BO(V)BZ said:
Also, are you aware that ALL Creative cards are not capable of true 24bit/96khz reproduction, even including the X-Fi? I found this to be a major disappointment, as it seems to prove to me that Creative has no interest in fixing the flaws in their sound cards.
Click to expand...
Care to explain this? I have never heard this... and with creative boasting 24bit/192kHz.............
 
BO(V)BZ said:
Donnie:

Re: the bitrate of DVD-A, I should have quantified that that number I listed was for multichannel, not stereo.

Also, are you aware that ALL Creative cards are not capable of true 24bit/96khz reproduction, even including the X-Fi? I found this to be a major disappointment, as it seems to prove to me that Creative has no interest in fixing the flaws in their sound cards.
Click to expand...

It's a bummer, but Creative is the sound card monopoly much like Microsoft is the desktop OS monopoly. The main advantages of the two companies on their flagship product lines keeps coming back to the power of their market share rather than outstanding performance on the part of the product(This isn't true for all their products of course). When they've got all the market power there's less need for innovation and improvement since they're more or less guarenteed to get your money anyway,so it becomes a margin game for them.

When these companies move into markets where they don't have the dominating power (Like gaming for MS, or Creative), then there's a much bigger return on innovation and improvement and then their products get better and better because now they've got to actually compete.
 
BO(V)BZ said:
Donnie:

Re: the bitrate of DVD-A, I should have quantified that that number I listed was for multichannel, not stereo.

Also, are you aware that ALL Creative cards are not capable of true 24bit/96khz reproduction, even including the X-Fi? I found this to be a major disappointment, as it seems to prove to me that Creative has no interest in fixing the flaws in their sound cards.
Click to expand...

I don't care how it got there, the only thing that matters are the end results and those are good. I like DVD-A and DVD-DTS in stereo better than 5.1. 5.1 is very nice though. I don't find anything to be disappointed about with an $84 (what I paid at the time) and disc being read by $34 LiteOn CD-R/DVD-ROM. I would be disappointed if this were a system that costs 10 times as much and resampled at 48bit or etc.., but with this, I don't think so.
Also, keep in mind that have about 30GB of 5.1 from the HDD that doesn't resample like th it does from the opticals.

I wrote Creative a nasty note about their BS about 24bit/96 when my recording topped off at 48bit on the Audigy 1. Now I can do 5.1 analog recordings with 5.1 sources. Unlike folks expecting Denon performances at BenQ prices, I was please with the end result on the Audigy2 and 2 ZS. This is nothing like my Bud's studio but only someone on Crack would expect it to be. Just for recording music, I like M-Audio better but sucked for games aand didn't have any DVD-A or DTS software.

Donnie27
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top