High Playback Sampling Frequencies, Why are they becoming popular? Options

[icstm]

OK, at the risk of sounding completely stupid?

Why do people listen to music with high sampling frequencies?
What is 88k+ providing them?
I understand why you might record at a high sampling rate, but why keep that for playback?

Looking through the FAQ, there are threads from 2003 that point out that the sampling frequency and bit-dept work in tandem. So the quantisation error of 16bit at 44.1k has the opportunity to be corrected sooner at a higher sampling rate, so in some ways is like a dithering pattern.

However given noise introduced in the analogue systems required to listen to music, a SNR within a 16bit signal of ~96dB seems pretty good.

So assuming that speakers struggle to produce the sounds that a 192k sampling frequency allow (eg 96kHz) and assuming that 16bits were sufficient when compared to the analogue equipment in the system, what have I missed in these high sampling playback formats?

[wakibaki]

Just as an aside, bit depths and sampling rates are interchangeable, you can trade one for the other, with the proviso that the Nyquist limit still holds. A simple on-off signal can encode any analogue signal to an arbitrary degree of accuracy as pulses of equal magnitude and duration if the duration of the pulses is reduced sufficiently. Suppose a 44k1/16 signal were to be recoded into a bitwide stream. If in every sample period (1/44100 sec) between 0 and 65535 bits (ones) (depending on the numeric value of the sampled signal) could be transmitted then the signal would be effectively recoded. For reconstruction purposes the numeric values could be recovered at a rate of 44k1 by a counter if by no other expedient.

The increasing popularity of high playback sampling rates could be attributed to a not entirely irrational desire for margin (overkill).

Amplifiers with very low THD are desired by some (me even). In a circumstance where the limits of perception are difficult to establish, for one reason or another, a simple strategy for ensuring the inaudiblity of error is to exceed the probable limits by a margin, even a large margin.

w

This post has been edited by wakibaki: Feb 20 2012, 05:16

[Arnold B. Kruege...]

The increasing popularity of high playback sampling rates could be attributed to a not entirely irrational desire for margin (overkill).

Good point.

Using higher sampling rates is virtually a no-cost option today. AFAIK every decent converter that is designed for use in audio production work has sample rate options up to 24/192. The extra storage and processing required by the need to handle integer multiples more data are now readily available. This even extends to highly portable equipment.

The same can be said of the use of longer data words.

Neither of them are generally effective at actually producing better sound quality, but as the thinking goes - since: "They cost me nothing and give me the perception of reduced risk..."

[wakibaki]

Neither of them are generally effective at actually producing better sound quality, but as the thinking goes - since: "They cost me nothing and give me the perception of reduced risk..."

Precisely.

I look forward to the day when both higher sample rates and greater bit-depths are widely adopted, not because I feel they offer an improvement in SQ, but because I think (admittedly perhaps mistakenly) that they will offer less opportunity for the sowing of FUD in the consumer.

w

[saratoga]

I look forward to the day when both higher sample rates and greater bit-depths are widely adopted, not because I feel they offer an improvement in SQ, but because I think (admittedly perhaps mistakenly) that they will offer less opportunity for the sowing of FUD in the consumer.

Ha, I wish. The day everyone has 96k/24 bit audio is the day they start selling 192k remasters

No matter how big of a number you have people will eventually find a way to bullshit about a bigger one.