![]() |
|
Welcome to the HEXUS.community discussion forums forums. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! |
|
|||||||
| Audio/Visual - Standard and HD Discussions about audio and visual equipment, media and content for both standard and HD |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools |
|
|
#1 (permalink) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 771
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
24/96Khz Vs 24/192Khz
Ok, whats the difference between a DVD player with
24bit 192Khz & another with 24bit 96Khz...??? I've seen cheap DVD players use 192Khz, and expensive ones use 96Khz... but I've also seen Expensive ones use 192Khz... argh.... |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 (permalink) |
|
Drop it like it's hot
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Surrey, South East
Posts: 11,631
Thanks: 14
Thanked 40 Times in 36 Posts
|
"xxKHZ" is the maximum sampling rate (of the digital audio) that it can decode. Generally, the higher the better. But it depends on the quality of the DAC.
Home cinema: Toshiba 42XV555DB Full HD LCD | Onkyo TX-SR705 | NAD C352 | Monitor Audio Bronze B2 | Monitor Audio Bronze C | Monitor Audio Bronze BFX | Yamaha NSC120 | BK Monolith sub | Toshiba HD-EP35 HD-DVD | Samsung BD-P1400 BluRay Player | Pioneer DV-575 | Squeezebox3 | Virgin Media V+ Box
PC: Asus P5B | Core2duo 2.13GHz | 2GB DDR2 PC6400 | Inno3d iChill 7900GS | Auzentech X-Plosion 7.1 | 250GB | 500GB | NEC DVDRW | Dual AG Neovo 19" HTPC: | Core2Duo E6420 2.13GHz | 2GB DDR2 | 250GBx2 | Radeon X1300 | Terratec Aureon 7.1 | Windows MCE 2005 Laptop: 1.5GHz Centrino | 512MB | 60GB | 15" Wide TFT | Wifi | DVDRW |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 (permalink) |
|
www.5lab.co.uk
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 6,407
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
i believe that 192 is needed for sacd/dvda but i might be wrong. as with everything hifi thou, a bigger number doesnt mean it'll sound better.
hughlunnon@yahoo.com | I have sigs turned off..
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 (permalink) |
|
Drop it like it's hot
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Surrey, South East
Posts: 11,631
Thanks: 14
Thanked 40 Times in 36 Posts
|
No only if you're buying decent quality equipment. It doesn't really apply if you're buying supermarket players
Home cinema: Toshiba 42XV555DB Full HD LCD | Onkyo TX-SR705 | NAD C352 | Monitor Audio Bronze B2 | Monitor Audio Bronze C | Monitor Audio Bronze BFX | Yamaha NSC120 | BK Monolith sub | Toshiba HD-EP35 HD-DVD | Samsung BD-P1400 BluRay Player | Pioneer DV-575 | Squeezebox3 | Virgin Media V+ Box
PC: Asus P5B | Core2duo 2.13GHz | 2GB DDR2 PC6400 | Inno3d iChill 7900GS | Auzentech X-Plosion 7.1 | 250GB | 500GB | NEC DVDRW | Dual AG Neovo 19" HTPC: | Core2Duo E6420 2.13GHz | 2GB DDR2 | 250GBx2 | Radeon X1300 | Terratec Aureon 7.1 | Windows MCE 2005 Laptop: 1.5GHz Centrino | 512MB | 60GB | 15" Wide TFT | Wifi | DVDRW |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 (permalink) |
|
From The Grave
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SE London
Posts: 8,139
Thanks: 94
Thanked 62 Times in 50 Posts
|
TBH I have my doubts that the human ear can tell the difference between 24/96 and 24/192. 96KHz sampling rate is high enough to have a fairly smooth rolloff filter from about 35KHz up, and I doubt we're capable of hearing harmonics that high.
Rich :¬) |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 (permalink) |
|
Kirstie Allsopp
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Sunny Bolton
Posts: 2,697
Thanks: 10
Thanked 13 Times in 12 Posts
|
Supposedly, the human ear can't tell the difference in sound quality with bitrates and frequencies of 128kbps and 22Khz and above. I do disagree with this however, because in my personal experience I have been able to tell the difference between 128kbps and 192kbps, and 192kbps and 320kbps. The same with frequencies - there is a noticable difference between a track recorded with 22khz and 44khz. CD standard is 48Khz iirc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 (permalink) |
|
www.5lab.co.uk
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 6,407
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
your mixed up there theo. your thinking of khz not kbps. theres no tests that show the human ear cant detect difference of mp3 quality
hughlunnon@yahoo.com | I have sigs turned off..
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 (permalink) |
|
From The Grave
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SE London
Posts: 8,139
Thanks: 94
Thanked 62 Times in 50 Posts
|
In any case, there's a reason why 96KHz might sound better than 44.1KHz sampling (which is the CD's sample rate, DAT is 48KHz). The human ear can in theory hear sounds up to 20KHz; some people claim that the ear can detect harmonics above this frequency while not being able to hear them on their own; I've never seen any hard evidence for this. Now a 44.1KHz sampler can reproduce sounds up to 22.05KHz, which should in theory be enough. Unfortunately though, any frequency above 22.05 entering the ADC will cause aliasing, so the recorders have a 'Brick Wall' filter with a very sharp rolloff above 20KHz. The trouble is that this kind of filter causes resonance effects or something like that, which compromises the sound quality. If you have a 96KHz sampling rate, you can have a filter with a smooth rolloff starting at maybe 35-40KHz, well above the threshold of human hearing, and with no nasty resonance effects. 192KHz really doesn't provide any additional benefit to justify it's 100% data increase, as far as I can see. As for going from 16 to 24 bit sampling....I'm not convinced of the benefits of that either, but that's only a 50% BW increase so never mind .If anyone who really knows about audio wants to pick holes in that: please do . I've probably made some mistakes (in terminology if nothing else) and it could probably be explained better.Rich :¬) |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 (permalink) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 771
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Breadcrumb | ||||||
|
||||||
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|