"TT" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
http://www.lavryengineering.com/docu...ing_Theory.pdf
"
Conclusion:
There is an inescapable tradeoff between faster sampling
on one hand and a loss of accuracy,
increased data size and much additional processing
requirement on the other hand.
AD converter designers can not generate 20 bits at MHz
speeds, yet they often utilize a circuit
yielding a few bits at MHz speeds as a step towards
making many bits at lower speeds.
The compromise between speed and accuracy is a permanent
engineering and scientific
reality.
Sampling audio signals at 192KHz is about 3 times faster
than the optimal rate.
It compromises the accuracy which ends up as audio
distortions.
While there is no up side to operation at excessive
speeds, there are further disadvantages:
1. The increased speed causes larger amount of data
(impacting data storage and data
transmission speed requirements).
2. Operating at 192KHz causes a very significant
increase in the required processing
power, resulting in very costly gear and/or further
compromise in audio quality.
The optimal sample rate should be largely based on the
required signal bandwidth. Audio
industry salesman have been promoting faster than
optimal rates. The promotion of such ideas
is based on the fallacy that faster rates yield more
accuracy and/or more detail. Weather
motivated by profit or ignorance, the promoters, leading
the industry in the wrong direction, are
stating the opposite of what is true.
"
So with SACDs 2.8MHz sampling and 1 bit resolution doesn't
that therefore overcome this problem with PCM?
Doesn't seem like SACD makes much of a difference in this regard. Remember
that the basic message is that 96 KHz sampling is already more than enough
for the best possible sounding audio.
It would have been great if this article had of touched on that.