Bye Bye AC'97!!!!!! Huzzah!
- Thread starter Natoma
- Start date
Great to hear, ac97 has held audio back for far too long. Long live aza...(whatever its called).Natoma said:http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20040415tech.htm
It's about freakin time.
epic
ps this should be in the hardware forum
CosmoKramer
Newcomer
Great. Now even your dog can enjoy listening to computer audio. Because you are aware that those samplerates are only useful to represent ultrasound?
very soon, i believe intel's next chipset (for tejas) will have it built in.K.I.L.E.R said:
later,
epic
To avoid aliasing, you need sampling rates well above the actual frequencies being sampled. With an assumed audio bandwidth of, say, 15kHz, Intel's rate of 192kHz is clearly (pardon the pun) going to be better than anything with a rate of 44kHz. Of course, whether the end user will be able to tell the difference using £30 desktop speakers is another discussion entirelyCosmoKramer said:
.epicstruggle said:Great to hear, ac97 has held audio back for far too long. Long live aza...(whatever its called).Natoma said:http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20040415tech.htm
It's about freakin time.
epic
ps this should be in the hardware forum
Doh! I think you're right. Oh wells.
Natoma said:Doh! I think you're right. Oh wells.
God, this just needs to be put in my sig. later,
epic
CosmoKramer
Newcomer
Neeyik said:To avoid aliasing, you need sampling rates well above the actual frequencies being sampled. With an assumed audio bandwidth of, say, 15kHz, Intel's rate of 192kHz is clearly (pardon the pun) going to be better than anything with a rate of 44kHz. Of course, whether the end user will be able to tell the difference using £30 desktop speakers is another discussion entirelyCosmoKramer said:
The AC97 standard is 48 kHz which has a fs/2 = 24 kHz which is sufficiently high for the anti aliasing filters to be gentle enough that any artifacts are inaudible.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=9311
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?showtopic=13298&
http://www.musicgearnetwork.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000822
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=3390
Agreed, hence my comment about £30 desktop speakers! That's, of course, assuming the filters in current AC97 implementations are up to scratch. If there was no appreciable performance overhead between 44.1k or 192k sampling per channel, in any hardware device supporting HDA 1.0, which would you run with anyway? Guaranteed there will be plenty of users who will swear that it sounds better. By the way, if one looks hard enough, there are always plenty of links to be found supporting the claims that sampling rates higher than 44.1kHz are worthwhile and audibly better. I teach the Nyquist theorem in the above context to A-level students, who then go off to exam it in great detail using the appropriate software and equipment; I get a different set of responses back each time though so I can't quantify any of the statements made in such links.CosmoKramer said:
I think it is fair to say though, that a device which offers >48kHz sampling is likely to be a better piece of hardware than anything which is <48kHz, just by the sheer nature of "newer = better". Mind you, for all we know, Intel's statement of 192kHz could be the total bandwidth for all available channels! Now how bad would that be?
192k for one; 96k for two; 48 for four; 24 for eight 8)It is a good thing that HDA supports higher sample rates and bit resolutions. Not because recording at 96 or 192 kHz is worthwhile or necessary, but because whatever the sample rate happens to be, it shouldn't require resampling during playback.
96 and 192 kHz is overkill, but the audio coded should not mess with the signal if somebody has for some reason chosen to use such sample rates.
Resampling everything to 48 kHz is the unforgivable crime of AC97.
96 and 192 kHz is overkill, but the audio coded should not mess with the signal if somebody has for some reason chosen to use such sample rates.
Resampling everything to 48 kHz is the unforgivable crime of AC97.
CosmoKramer
Newcomer
Bolloxoid said:
Agree 100%.
Schadenfroh
Newcomer
this gonna be in sound cards any time soon or will we have to weight for tejas chipset?
CosmoKramer
Newcomer
You can buy <100$ soundcards today that supports up to 24/192 formats (without resampling) today.
Fwiw, I do happen to own such a card and I have taken double blind tests to determin if I can hear any differencce between 16/44.1 and 24/96 (I don't have access to 24/192 samples). I can't.
Fwiw, I do happen to own such a card and I have taken double blind tests to determin if I can hear any differencce between 16/44.1 and 24/96 (I don't have access to 24/192 samples). I can't.
Real question is what speakers or headphones were you using? I can tell pretty easily with the Tannoy monitors or Sennheiser HD570s I use regularly.
