Quote:
Originally Posted by djz
.......I can see the benefit of 96khz...but 192???
|
I found this
after I had agonized about, and then actually bought a Delta 192 specifically because it had such a high sampling rate, and then I read just the introduction to this:
"Nyquist pointed out that the sampling rate needs only to exceed twice the signal bandwidth. What is the audio bandwidth? Research shows that musical instruments may produce energy above 20 KHz, but there is little sound energy at above 40KHz.
Most microphones do not pick up sound at much over 20KHz. Human hearing rarely exceeds 20KHz, and certainly does not reach 40KHz. The above suggests that 88.2 or 96KHz would be overkill.
In fact all the objections regarding audio sampling at 44.1KHz, (including the arguments relating to pre ringing of an FIR filter) are long gone by increasing sampling to about 60KHz.
Sampling at 192KHz produces larger files requiring more storage space and slowing down the transmission. Sampling at 192KHz produces a huge burden on the computational processing speed requirements. There is also a tradeoff between speed and accuracy. Conversion at 100MHz yield around 8 bits, conversion at 1MHz may yield near 16 bits and as we approach
50-60Hz we get near 24 bits.
Speed related inaccuracies are due to real circuit considerations,
such as charging capacitors, amplifier settling and more. Slowing down improves accuracy."
The link to the pdf:
http://www.lavryengineering.com/docu...ing_Theory.pdf
Courtesy of Dan Lavry
Sampling Theory For Digital Audio
By Dan Lavry, Lavry Engineering, Inc.
I now do everything at 48KHz; including brushing my teeth.
