192 kHz?

[Moebius078]

Hi,

i bought an x-fi card several months ago. Apparantly, it features a resolution of 192 kHz. But what exactly does this mean and what is the function of this, other than marketing?
Is it the sampling rate, used to enrich the lower-frequency sound waves with high harmonic waves, or used to multiplex several audio sources on one copper line?

And what is the added-value above 96 kHz? Any noticable differences?

tnx for help, i'm a total newbie on this subject

 

[Sagekilla]

Having 192 kHz output is only useful if the source data is at a higher sampling rate then the standard 44.1/48 kHz. Otherwise it's pretty much moot. Your speakers need to be able to handle the extended frequency range as well.. Otherwise it'll be trying to reproduce something that it can't. It is pretty much a marketing term since every CD I know of today has a 44.1 kHz sampling rate, unless you like get a DVD-Audio one which are pretty limited.


That's what I know on the subject.. If anyone knows I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.

 

[Moebius078]

Your speakers need to be able to handle the extended frequency range as well..

I've got a Logitech Z5400 speaker set, which has a bandwidth of almost 20 kHz (15 Hz up to 20 kHz to be precise, which is a little more than the HiFi standard). I'm quite sure there's no sound system that can produce sound waves with a frequency of 44.1 Hz (at least not for casual users)... However, i could be wrong.
Can anyone confirm?

 

[djgandy]

Sample rate is not frequency response.

Sample rate is how many samples of the sound wave is taken per second.
The higher the sample rate the greater the accuracy of reproduction.

Take CD Audio...

44100 samples per second * 16bits per sample (2bytes)
88200 bytes per second.

2 channel stereo = 88200 * 2 = 176400 bytes/s

 

[Moebius078]

Sample rate is not frequency response.

K, tnx, just as i thought. But is there a noticeable difference between, say 192kHz and 96 kHz? Or is 192 kHz only a marketing trick?

 

[djgandy]

You'll never use 192khz.
People nowdays want small file size music. MP3's. There is no point putting the sample rate up on mp3s. It defeats the object of compressing them.

192khz is for studio use, so yes, it's pretty much all marketing

 

[Clob]

That greatly depends on your audio source, processor, and amplifier.

HDMI Dolby True HD sounds mighty good with some quality electronics and speakers. 8)

 

[astrallite]

It means it can play files at 192KHz sampling rate.

192KHz sampling rate means the digital brick wall filter is at 96KHz.

96KHz sampling rate means the digital brick wall filter is at 48KHz.

48 and 44.1 means 24KHz and 22.05KHz brick wall filters.

Most music is recorded at 44.1, which means the brick wall filter is at 22.05KHz. While most people over the age of 30 can't hear above 17KHz, *some* people have accurate hearing that go well into 23+KHz territory. Some people have complained about "high frequency ringing" from low sampling rates of 44.1KHz, which is why the original movie formats of DTS and DD were set at 48KHz, or the filter extended to 24KHz (nearly inaudible).

While most people can't hear much above 20KHz, there are still higher frequency harmonics that can be felt. 96+ KHz sampling rates are of course, the answer for high fidelity audio.

Of course, for PC systems, it's meaningless. Most PC speakers have very little output above 13KHz, so it's just marketing jargon. If you own real loudspeakers, then higher resolution formats are definitely a plus.

 

[Guest]

I am using the 192khz together with audio player software using eq and interpolation (up-sampling) (and some other goodies), well it is a >BIG< differecence between 48khz and even 96khz!! So I can hear that clear and without any speculations and that with cheap headphones!

So many ppl do the same thinking about that hearing-boundaries stuff below 20khz stuff when coming to this situation, selecting a right sample rate, I encountered it so many times, apparelled with a schmooze on my lips!
And why? Youre using higher sample rates for more dynamic between the samples, or in other words >1. second holds 192k of samples recorded from input instead of 44k. You make the signal a way more naturally, yes a way more continuous like! >If you record that with that rate of course<.

So long you're not going to master a CD at 44khz, use the highest rate for enjoyment! So why not.

 

[astrallite]

Well considering CD audio signals have no output beyond 22.05 KHz, I can only guess what kind of noise your re-sampler is adding to the sound that you can hear the difference.

All modern digital to analog converters will automatically up-sample to 24/96 or 24/192. Any software re-sampling is pointless and pure placebo, or your source is being distorted.

 

[Mousemonkey]

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey