[linux-audio-user] Re: 192kHz

[Mike Taht]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 at 11:27 -0800, Mike Taht wrote:
> 1) Surround sound: If you have 5:1 surround sound, somehow that gets
> encoded into the same sample rate as 2 channel sound, and there must
> be some corresponding quality loss overall. So it strikes me that if
> you want higher fidelity surround, the end output  needs to have more
> bits than nyquist dictates.

>I'm sorry, I don't understand this. Can you elaborate? If you have 5:1,
>that means you have six channels, right? How does that relate to sample
>rate?

My point was that you (typically, today) do a surround mix into a
encoder that crunches it down then plays back at the same rate as a
"normal" mix, while being decoded...

If I do a surround mix at 96k will it sound better than than a
surround mix at 44k is my question?

For all I know that may be changing and a "surround mix" in the future
may well be 5 or more pure XKhz streams supplied by the device...

On 1/28/06, Hans Fugal <hans at fugal.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 at 11:27 -0800, Mike Taht wrote:
> > 1) Surround sound: If you have 5:1 surround sound, somehow that gets
> > encoded into the same sample rate as 2 channel sound, and there must
> > be some corresponding quality loss overall. So it strikes me that if
> > you want higher fidelity surround, the end output  needs to have more
> > bits than nyquist dictates.
>
> I'm sorry, I don't understand this. Can you elaborate? If you have 5:1,
> that means you have six channels, right? How does that relate to sample
> rate?
>
>
> --
> Hans Fugal ; http://hans.fugal.net
>
> There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the
> right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
>     -- Johann Sebastian Bach
>
>


--
Mike Taht
PostCards From the Bleeding Edge
http://the-edge.blogspot.com