Popular Post beerandmusic Posted February 18, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted February 18, 2018 As to not disrupt the "best bang for the buck thread", any more, I am starting a new thread. I am conceding that I "MAY" possibly have a misconception of sample rate, but after reading below, i "believe" my conception is still the same. Can we agree on this as the "basics" for any debate? https://techterms.com/definition/sample_rate Sample Rate In audio production, a sample rate (or "sampling rate") defines how many times per second a sound is sampled. Technically speaking, it is the frequency of samples used in a digital recording. The standard sample rate used for audio CDs is 44.1 kilohertz (44,100 hertz). That means each second of a song on a CD contains 44,100 individual samples. When an analog sound, such as a vocal performance, is sampled at a rate of tens of thousands of times per second, the digital recording may be nearly indistinguishable from the original analog sound. CDs use a sample rate of 44.1 KHz because it allows for a maximum audio frequency of 22.05 kilohertz. The human ear can detect sounds from roughly 20 hertz to 20 kilohertz, so there is little reason to record at higher sample rates. However, because digital audio recordings are estimations of analog audio, a smoother sound can be gained by increasing the sample rate above 44.1 KHz. Examples of high sample rates include 48 KHz (used for DVD video), 88.2 KHz (2x the rate of CD audio), and 96 KHz (used for DVD-Audio and other high definition audio formats). While audio aficionados may appreciate higher sample rates, it is difficult for most people to perceive an improvement in audio quality when the sample rate is higher than 44.1 Khz. A more effective way to improve the quality of digital audio is to increase the bit depth, which determines amplitude range of each sample. 16-bit audio, used in audio CDs, provides 216 or 65,536 possible amplitude values. 24-bit audio, used in high definition formats, can store 224 or 16,777,216 possible amplitude values – 256 times more than 16-bit audio. NOTE: Many DAW programs support sample rates up to 192 KHz. Recording at extremely high sample rates allows sound engineers to preserve the audio quality during the mixing and editing process. This can improve the end result of a song or audio clip even if the final version is saved with a sample rate of 44.1 Hz. Updated: August 22, 2015 Cite this definition: mordante and Teresa 1 1 Link to comment
beerandmusic Posted February 18, 2018 Author Share Posted February 18, 2018 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
Spacehound Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 Here ya go. From the 'orses mouth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted February 18, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted February 18, 2018 1 hour ago, beerandmusic said: In audio production, a sample rate (or "sampling rate") defines how many times per second a sound is sampled. Technically speaking, it is the frequency of samples used in a digital recording. This is correct. 1 hour ago, beerandmusic said: However, because digital audio recordings are estimations of analog audio, a smoother sound can be gained by increasing the sample rate above 44.1 KHz. This is incorrect. sarvsa, JediJoker, opus101 and 1 other 4 Link to comment
mansr Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 1 hour ago, beerandmusic said: 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. You have a fundamentally flawed understanding of the concept of frequency. tmtomh 1 Link to comment
beerandmusic Posted February 18, 2018 Author Share Posted February 18, 2018 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? Teresa 1 Link to comment
mansr Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 1 minute ago, beerandmusic said: 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. No, I said that part is correct. Link to comment
beerandmusic Posted February 18, 2018 Author Share Posted February 18, 2018 1 minute ago, mansr said: No, I said that part is correct. Ok great.... that is a good start for discussion then, as that is the basis for what my belief is based on. I don't want to get into the weeds right now....will revisit later. Link to comment
Popular Post jhwalker Posted February 18, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted February 18, 2018 Just now, mansr said: No, I said that part is correct. 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. tmtomh, STC, esldude and 1 other 3 1 John Walker - IT Executive Headphone - SonicTransporter i9 running Roon Server > Netgear Orbi > Blue Jeans Cable Ethernet > mRendu Roon endpoint > Topping D90 > Topping A90d > Dan Clark Expanse / HiFiMan H6SE v2 / HiFiman Arya Stealth Home Theater / Music -SonicTransporter i9 running Roon Server > Netgear Orbi > Blue Jeans Cable HDMI > Denon X3700h > Anthem Amp for front channels > Revel F208-based 5.2.4 Atmos speaker system Link to comment
beerandmusic Posted February 18, 2018 Author Share Posted February 18, 2018 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
Popular Post jabbr Posted February 18, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted February 18, 2018 1 hour ago, beerandmusic said: 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. 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. Spacehound and tmtomh 2 Custom room treatments for headphone users. Link to comment
Spacehound Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 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
beerandmusic Posted February 18, 2018 Author Share Posted February 18, 2018 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
Popular Post Spacehound Posted February 18, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted February 18, 2018 I give up. Apparently you don't even want to learn. Sonicularity and semente 2 Link to comment
jabbr Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 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 semente 1 Custom room treatments for headphone users. Link to comment
Popular Post crenca Posted February 18, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted February 18, 2018 6 minutes ago, beerandmusic said: this doesn't take into consideration the infinite frequencies in a complex signal... Folks keep telling you your "thinking is incorrect" but not why. The reason is because of what mansr said, your understanding of frequency incorrect because you think it is "complex". You are imagining that frequency somehow captures each of those "9 million" singers. It does not, it captures a composite of those 9 million singers. The frequency is thus simple - it is one (and not many). I am simplifying a bit for obvious purposes... mordante and Shadders 2 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
mansr Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 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
pkane2001 Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 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? -Paul DeltaWave, DISTORT, Earful, PKHarmonic, new: Multitone Analyzer Link to comment
mansr Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 1 minute ago, jabbr said: the stuff Einstein got a Nobel prize for I don't see the photoelectric effect being of particular relevance here. wgscott 1 Link to comment
crenca Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 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 mordante 1 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
jabbr Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 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
Spacehound Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 2 minutes ago, mansr said: I don't see the photoelectric effect being of particular relevance here. jabbr 1 Link to comment
mansr Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 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. Spacehound 1 Link to comment
rickca Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 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. crenca 1 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
beerandmusic Posted February 18, 2018 Author Share Posted February 18, 2018 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
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now