Bluray-am I the only one one to be disappointed ?

nickj_2

custardy wrote: »

what do you watch on/with just now?

just a bog standard hd 32" tv

Marty_J

aliEnRIK wrote: »

But the 192kHz refers to the fact its 'sampled' 192 thousand times per second

And at this sampling rate, it can reproduce frequencies that dogs can't hear, let alone humans. Higher sampling rates won't increase the quality in our audible range, it will just store more frequencies that (a) our equipment is incapable of reproducing and (b) we can't hear anyway.

In terms of what you speak of, people have designed speaker systems with tweeters that go WELL into the high reange. Not because we can hear them, but in that it 'somehow' aids people into hearing the 'actual' audible range (More than likely as the higher range is 'filtered out' leaving the rest of the range 'cleaner')

I've heard that music with the inaudible high frequencies left intact is regarded as being more pleasant to listen to (though I have no idea if it has actually been tested or not). This probably has more to do with the artefacts introduced in the audible range by cutting off the frequencies in the inaudible range though.

Regardless, 192 kHz is way over the top when it comes to storing digital audio, and trying to increase it would be just a waste of time and money.

aliEnRIK

Marty_J wrote: »

And at this sampling rate, it can reproduce frequencies that dogs can't hear, let alone humans. Higher sampling rates won't increase the quality in our audible range, it will just store more frequencies that (a) our equipment is incapable of reproducing and (b) we can't hear anyway.



I've heard that music with the inaudible high frequencies left intact is regarded as being more pleasant to listen to (though I have no idea if it has actually been tested or not). This probably has more to do with the artefacts introduced in the audible range by cutting off the frequencies in the inaudible range though.

Regardless, 192 kHz is way over the top when it comes to storing digital audio, and trying to increase it would be just a waste of time and money.

In your opinion. Im keeping a more open mind on this. Im sticking my neck out and saying we can gain more with higher 'sampling' rates

Marty_J

aliEnRIK wrote: »

Heres a basic graph which depicts why I believe we can gain more yet ~
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm

It's a very simplified graph though.

Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem states (very basically) that in order to perfectly reconstruct a waveform, you need to sample at twice its highest frequency.

The sampling frequency of a CD is 44.1 kHz. So, in theory, it can accurately reconstruct waveforms up to 22.05 kHz. I say "in theory", because as previously discussed, the filter that chops everything off at 22.05 kHz introduces artefacts lower in the frequency range. It also ramps up to 22.05 kHz gradually, so it affects the frequencies immediately below it too.

Moving the sampling rate higher pushes the filter and its artefacts so high in the frequency range that they're absolutely inaudible, and it doesn't matter if they're there or not.

Marty_J

aliEnRIK wrote: »

In your opinion. Im keeping a more open mind on this. Im sticking my neck out and saying we can gain more with higher 'sampling' rates

The limits of human hearing aren't a matter of opinion though, they're a matter of fact. Granted, there's some deviation from the norm, but there is a limit dictated by our physiology.

aliEnRIK

Marty ~ we shall see

aliEnRIK

Marty ~ this guy pretty much nails what im trying to say

"There seems to be some misunderstanding about what the Nyquist frequency is. Some recent posts seem to imply that if you sample at this frequency, then you'll get a perfect reproduction of what you're sampling. While this is true, it is not the whole truth.
If I am playing an "A" (440Hz) on a sine wave, then I can sample it at 880Hz and get a perfect reproduction.
If, however, that "A" is played on a piano, an 880Hz sampling will destroy it. The fundamental tone will be sampled accurately, but the overtones and harmonics (that is, the components that make a piano sound different from a sine wave) will get lost. You'll end up with an "A" that only sounds vaguely piano-like.
While the wave itself will be at 440Hz, the shape of that wave will be fairly complicated. From an engineering standpoint, it can be thought of as a composite of many waves at different frequencies and amplitudes (most of which will be integer multiples of the fundamental 440Hz.) In order to accurately sample the shape of the wave (and not just its fundamental frequency), you'll need a sampling frequency much higher than 880Hz.
So, although 44.1KHz can accurately sample fundamental (that is sine-wave) frequencies as high as 22.05KHz, a complex wave-shape at 22.05KHz will require a much higher sampling rate if you want an accurate representation.
96KHz and 192KHz sampling (as used in SACD and DVD-A discs) can often sound better because of this. Nobody can hear a 40KHz note, but the notes you do hear (especially the high notes, 8Khz and up) will be more accurately represented. Depending on the nature of the source material and the quality of your playback equipment, the differences can often be easy to hear."

Marty_J

aliEnRIK wrote: »

Marty ~ we shall see

I guess we will, one way or the other. I just think 192 kHz is already over-kill.

Marty_J

aliEnRIK wrote: »

Marty ~ this guy pretty much nails what im trying to say

"There seems to be some misunderstanding about what the Nyquist frequency is. Some recent posts seem to imply that if you sample at this frequency, then you'll get a perfect reproduction of what you're sampling. While this is true, it is not the whole truth.
If I am playing an "A" (440Hz) on a sine wave, then I can sample it at 880Hz and get a perfect reproduction.
If, however, that "A" is played on a piano, an 880Hz sampling will destroy it. The fundamental tone will be sampled accurately, but the overtones and harmonics (that is, the components that make a piano sound different from a sine wave) will get lost. You'll end up with an "A" that only sounds vaguely piano-like.
While the wave itself will be at 440Hz, the shape of that wave will be fairly complicated. From an engineering standpoint, it can be thought of as a composite of many waves at different frequencies and amplitudes (most of which will be integer multiples of the fundamental 440Hz.) In order to accurately sample the shape of the wave (and not just its fundamental frequency), you'll need a sampling frequency much higher than 880Hz.
So, although 44.1KHz can accurately sample fundamental (that is sine-wave) frequencies as high as 22.05KHz, a complex wave-shape at 22.05KHz will require a much higher sampling rate if you want an accurate representation.
96KHz and 192KHz sampling (as used in SACD and DVD-A discs) can often sound better because of this. Nobody can hear a 40KHz note, but the notes you do hear (especially the high notes, 8Khz and up) will be more accurately represented. Depending on the nature of the source material and the quality of your playback equipment, the differences can often be easy to hear."

Yes, there are overtones to consider, but once they get high enough, our playback equipment can't reproduce them, and even if it did, we couldn't hear them.