KVR Audio

psychoxkps · Post by **psychoxkps** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:22 am

do you see it anywhere? some of good brand prefer..

JJBiener · Post by **JJBiener** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:31 am

psychoxkps wrote:do you see it anywhere? some of good brand prefer..

You're confusing sampling rate with frequency response. Good headphones will typically have a frequency response be 20 Hz and 20k Hz.

psychoxkps · Post by **psychoxkps** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:37 am

192khz.. isnt that number very pretty to i think frequency response?

JJBiener · Post by **JJBiener** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:47 am

psychoxkps wrote:192khz.. isnt that number very pretty to i think frequency response?

Humans can't really hear much above 20kHz. Headphones that could reproduce 192kHz would be a waste of technology, if it is even possible.

psychoxkps · Post by **psychoxkps** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:49 am

but i found studio monitors with sampling rate 192khz.. why not headphones?

JJBiener · Post by **JJBiener** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:12 am

psychoxkps wrote:but i found studio monitors with sampling rate 192khz.. why not headphones?

Those are active monitors with a build digital-analog converter. I don't know of any headphones that have built in amps or digital inputs.

psychoxkps · Post by **psychoxkps** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:21 am

and that active monitors are better for hearing?

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:25 am

they'll have less high-frequency phase shift which is sometimes referred to as "smearing".

only, it isn't because of the speakers. it's because if you process at a rate like 44.1khz the filters will start to modify near 20khz, which you can hear. at 192khz the filters can operate instead at 60khz, which you can't hear. so smear away!

this have absolutely nothing to do with the speaker/monitor.

you can also just process 96khz and then when you output, convert to 48khz or 44.1khz. same result, no smearing. 192k is just stupid - no reasonable reason to use such a frequency to playback audio.

are you making music for bats? you're batman?

maleaco · Post by **maleaco** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:16 am

are you making music for bats? you're batman?

hahaha, remember the dogs and cats too

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:35 pm

if you research the hearing range of dogs and cats you'll find it doesn't come close to that

dogs as far as i remember having even less range than humans.

Meffy · Post by **Meffy** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:38 pm

Dogs can hear up to 60 kHz, but they lose an octave off the low end compared to humans.

Bats could make use of most of 192 kHz phones' range, but they'd have to come with a toothbrush.

sauli · Post by **sauli** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:45 pm

aciddose wrote:if you research the hearing range of dogs and cats you'll find it doesn't come close to that

dogs as far as i remember having even less range than humans.

Dogs have actually much much better hearing range. Otherwise they wouldn't hear dog whistle which is silent to humans

biscuit13 · Post by **biscuit13** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:00 pm

psychoxkps: go and learn physics

http://www.easyphysics.net/ch9/ch9.htm

Panphobia · Post by **Panphobia** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:09 am

biscuit13 wrote:psychoxkps: go and learn physics
http://www.easyphysics.net/ch9/ch9.htm

*ahem* physics is for people who want to actually earn money for a living. We are musicians.

GaryG · Post by **GaryG** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:19 am

Meffy wrote:Dogs can hear up to 60 kHz, but they lose an octave off the low end compared to humans.

That's ironic then, y'know, calling them woofers and everything.

192khz headphones.. exist?