Jump to content
IGNORED

Understanding Sample Rate


Recommended Posts

Back to my suggestion of 9 million singers singing at the same time, and every quanta (smallest time slice possible below pico seconds) one of the 9 million singers changes their tone. 

 

There are only 44K samples per second, yet there are many more changes.

 

So the sampling itself is just an approximation or probable of what that timeslice sounds like...it is not accurate, and a higher sampling rate would be more accurate.

 

The question is whether the inaccuracies are discernible.

 

Again, i suggest that 9 million singers singing would likely not be discernible than 10 million singers singing, even if that 10 millionth singer is you.

 

What i am suggesting is that what you or i realize is discernible is irrelevant to what is accurate and no ABX test would be able to show that 10millionth singer (you) was absent.  What I am also suggesting is that there are things beyond man's knowledge, and that everyone is unique and has different experiences.

 

Sure it sounds really close, and sure, even a much less complex scenario would be hard to discern as well....but with infinite sampling and greater bit depth there will always be more accuracy.

Link to comment
Just now, mansr said:

You have a fundamentally flawed understanding of the concept of frequency.

 

Well you stated that this is incorrect?

In audio production, a sample rate (or "sampling rate") defines how many times per second a sound is sampled.

 

Is there a link you can share that better defines (in layman's terms) what sample rate is ....as a basis for understanding?

 

 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, jhwalker said:

 

Exactly.  But the second statement is INCORRECT because increasing the frequency of sampling is only effective up to double the audio frequency you wish to sample and, in any case, increasing the sampling rate does not lead to a "smoother" sound - it simply allows you to sample higher frequencies.

 

PS - I used to believe the same (i.e., the higher the sampling rate, the "smoother" the curve produced) - after all, it's just "common sense", right?  But after additional study, I discovered I was wrong. 

 

I didn't believe the smoother part either, so that is fine.

 

My biggest problem is that in my thinking is that a higher sample rate doesn't just allow you to sample higher frequencies....it also allows you to capture more data in very complex signals having nothing to do with the audible frequency range.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, beerandmusic said:

 

I didn't believe the smoother part either, so that is fine.

 

My biggest problem is that in my thinking is that a higher sample rate doesn't just allow you to sample higher frequencies....it also allows you to capture more data in very complex signals.

Your thinking is incorrect.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

No. If the signal is bandwidth limited, and the sample rate is sufficient (e.g. 2x) then the sampling is accurate. That's the point.

 

 

this doesn't take into consideration the infinite frequencies in a complex signal...

 

e.g. what does 9million singers sound like compared to 10 million singers sound like?

 

I will expand later....time for break (wink)

 

 

Link to comment
Just now, beerandmusic said:

 

this doesn't take into consideration the infinite frequencies...

It doesn't take into account other things that don't exist.

 

At some point you will run into physics no matter how hard you resist.

Shit like Nitrogen and Oxygen atoms, Brownian motion -- you know, the stuff Einstein got a Nobel prize for ... and shit like quantum equations ... but no matter

Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

My biggest problem is that in my thinking is that a higher sample rate doesn't just allow you to sample higher frequencies....it also allows you to capture more data in very complex signals having nothing to do with the audible frequency range.

Those complexities are higher frequencies.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, jabbr said:

It doesn't take into account other things that don't exist.

 

At some point you will run into physics no matter how hard you resist.

Shit like Nitrogen and Oxygen atoms, Brownian motion -- you know, the stuff Einstein got a Nobel prize for ... and shit like quantum equations ... but no matter

 

Why bother with reality when one can spend all their time in an imaginary world?

Link to comment

Also, for those engineers - beerandmusic's understanding of frequency and sound is very common.  It is a laypersons perspective and reveals the distance between your education and theirs...not to give your already inflated egos a boost or anything :)

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

e.g. what does 9million singers sound like compared to 10 million singers sound like?

 

Ok, so lets suppose each singer produces a bandwidth limited signal 20-20kHz (for the sake of discussion), and lets assume the sounds are linearly additive (for the sake of discussion). 9million vs 10million singers will still be 20-20kHz bandwidth limited *but* the signal itself may have a higher dynamic range e.g. the bit depth would be greater.

 

At this point the discussion would be whether 20 vs 24 bits is enough of a bit depth, rather than the sampling frequency.... this is all math.

Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, crenca said:

Also, for those engineers - beerandmusic's understanding of frequency and sound is very common.  It is a laypersons perspective and reveals the distance between your education and theirs...not to give your already inflated egos a boost or anything :)

There's a reason it takes years of study to get an engineering degree.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Why bother with reality when one can spend all their time in an imaginary world?

My TV (which is off) just said exactly the same thing to me.

Pareto Audio AMD 7700 Server --> Berkeley Alpha USB --> Jeff Rowland Aeris --> Jeff Rowland 625 S2 --> Focal Utopia 3 Diablos with 2 x Focal Electra SW 1000 BE subs

 

i7-6700K/Windows 10  --> EVGA Nu Audio Card --> Focal CMS50's 

Link to comment

 

7 minutes ago, jabbr said:

It doesn't take into account other things that don't exist.

 

At some point you will run into physics no matter how hard you resist.

Shit like Nitrogen and Oxygen atoms, Brownian motion -- you know, the stuff Einstein got a Nobel prize for ... and shit like quantum equations ... but no matter

 

are you suggesting that an infinite amount of frequencies don't exist?

or just that they may not be discernible to hearing?

 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...