lupin..the..3rd wrote: > This looks like an old thread, however it turned up on a recent google > search, as I was looking for the possibility of 24/192 playback from my > Transporter. I thought I'd add some information here and clear up some > misconceptions. > > Nyquist has really no place in any audiophile discussion. As you've > stated Phil, the highest frequency that can be produced by a 44.1 khz > sample rate, is 22.050 khz. Although I disagree with your assertion > that it is "adequate". No humans can hear above 22 khz anyhow, so isn't > this "good enough"? Short answer is No. Here's why. If you plot out a > 22 khz frequency at a 44.1 khz sample rate, the result is not a very > nice looking wave, in fact, there are no curves to it at all! - it's a > sawtooth. No matter what frequency we're talking about, a sawtooth is a > very poor approximation of a wave, and it sounds it. It is generally > agreed that to have a decent digital approximation of an analog wave, > you need 8 points, not 2. 44.1 khz divided by 8 equals 5.5125 khz. So > with a 44.1 khz sample rate, anything above 5.5 khz is noticeably > diminished in its accuracy. > > So Clive, you see now how I'm going to disagree with your statement. > You're correct in that we don't care about a 48 khz frequency, as no > human can hear it. However the benefits of 192 khz sample rate has > nothing to do with the 48 khz theoretical limit. As I described above, > 44.1 khz sample rate is highly accurate to only 5.5 khz. However 96 khz > sample rate is highly accurate to 12 khz, and 192 khz sample rate is > highly accurate to 24 khz. Therefore, frequencies that are in the > audible range are considerably more accurate at these higher sampling > rates, with 192 khz delivering highly accurate (8+ sample per wave) > reproduction throughout the entire range of human hearing. > > As for the argument that there is no discernible difference between 96 > khz and 192 khz, that's clearly false as I've just described, however > there is a very real reason for why some would make this assertion. Our > high frequency hearing diminishes with age. And lets face it, > audiophiles are generally not known for being young spring chickens! > While a teenager can hear an 18 khz tone, it's common for a 50 year old > adult to hear only up to 12 khz or so - hence the reason that even a > discerning ear may not have the ability to distinguish between a 96 khz > and a 192 khz recording. > > Cheers
Why stop at only 8 points? How about 8K points? Of course with 8K (8,000) points one would need a sampling rate of 192,000khz for a 24khz frequency but man would it sound smooth! All kidding aside, please post any links which show conclusive proof of why an 8X sampling rate is required and not the 2X sampling rate which is presently being used, otherwise we can all just make things up to suit our needs, as I did above. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=69882 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
