Stereo pair, pilot, RDS (the scrolling artist/song text), and the 67 kHz SCA. It's not quite 192kHz as I recall, but that's nearest fit really. AES192/192kHz MPX composite on the back end of every exciter/transmitter when I was last near them.
Distributing music != recording music != processing music.
There ARE good reasons for recording and processing music at higher bitrates and sample sizes. Effects, especially those with positive feedback loops, can go more unstable and clip and lose information with fewer bits and samples.
There's just no good reason to DISTRIBUTE music at the higher rates.
Don't such effects already upsample and downsample as needed internally ? You don't need to waste cpu on the effects that don't need higher sampling rate, right ?
Ultrasonic recordings
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCQCP-5g5bo
Don't forget about cats and bats, they like music too
Good old FM radio (in stereo) is a 192kHz mux, annoyingly.
How so?
Stereo pair, pilot, RDS (the scrolling artist/song text), and the 67 kHz SCA. It's not quite 192kHz as I recall, but that's nearest fit really. AES192/192kHz MPX composite on the back end of every exciter/transmitter when I was last near them.
2 replies →
Tuning into time radio signals like DCF77?
See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3668310
Distributing music != recording music != processing music.
There ARE good reasons for recording and processing music at higher bitrates and sample sizes. Effects, especially those with positive feedback loops, can go more unstable and clip and lose information with fewer bits and samples.
There's just no good reason to DISTRIBUTE music at the higher rates.
Don't such effects already upsample and downsample as needed internally ? You don't need to waste cpu on the effects that don't need higher sampling rate, right ?