Understanding Sample Rate

[audiventory]

1 minute ago, beerandmusic said:

that an SACD will sound the same as a CD

 

SACD, CD, high res and other digital formats have no sound quality as itself. They give some abilities to achieve sound quality.

But playback processing and electrical schemes define quality. There is big field for improvements (distortion decreasing).

Example: CD (due lower sample rate and, thus, analog filter issues) have lesser sound quality improvement abilities than SACD.
But, In general case, fine built and ajusted CD player may sound better (lesser distortions) than simpler SACD player.

[beerandmusic]

3 minutes ago, audiventory said:

 

SACD, CD, high res and other digital formats have no sound quality as itself. They give some abilities to achieve sound quality.

But playback processing and electrical schemes define quality. There is big field for improvements (distortion decreasing).

Example: CD (due lower sample rate and, thus, analog filter issues) have lesser sound quality improvement abilities than SACD.
But, In general case, fine built and ajusted CD player may sound better (lesser distortions) than simpler SACD player.

 

yes, and an mp3 player can sound better than the best cd player if the recording is lousy on the cd.

The point was that it is "possible" for an SACD to sound better than a CD, that the current technology itself is allows for more data, and I read SNR, bit depth, and other things as well.  That any previous obstacles have been overcome.

 

Is it your opinion that CDs "in general" sound better than SACDs "in general" with comparable hardware and recordings?

 

 

[esldude]

20 minutes ago, mansr said:

What a load of twaddle. Everything that guy says is wrong, and I mean everything.

yes everything.  I am disgusted every time I see someone post this load of baloney.

[firedog]

2 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

 

Nothing he says has anything to do with your original question regarding higher sample rates being more accurate.

No one doubts better filtering produces better results. No one doubts hi res, or even upsampling to hi res and then using a hi res filter for better filtering is a possible way to improve results.  It’s also why people use a program like HQP. Still doesn’t make your idea about hi res being more accurate true. 

[beerandmusic]

8 minutes ago, firedog said:

 No one doubts hi res, or even upsampling to hi res and then using a hi res filter for better filtering is a possible way to improve results.

 

are you sure everyone?  Does mansr believe it?

Does most everyone truly believe that sampling higher than nyquist is a possible way to improve SQ?

I think that is what that video is saying that mansr and elsdude say is a bunch of baloney?

 

[firedog]

15 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

are you sure everyone?  Does mansr believe it?

Does most everyone truly believe that sampling higher than nyquist is a possible way to improve SQ?

 

That’s not what I wrote. Recording in high res is possibly beneficial not because it is “higher than Nyquist”, as you put it, but because it gives you the ability to use better/different filtering on playback. It’s also what some DACs do on playback. Recording in hi-res also ensures you are not recording “lower than Nyquist”, just in case there are some high frequency components  to your recording, from whatever source. 

[beerandmusic]

4 minutes ago, firedog said:

That’s not what I wrote.

please clarify then what you mean by no one doubts....

 

 

[Spacehound]

9 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

Does most everyone truly believe that sampling higher than nyquist is a possible way to improve SQ?

Only those who don't know how it works.

Which is probably "most everyone". But many of those have not said what they believe.

[beerandmusic]

3 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

Only those who don't know how it works. Which is probably the majority.

 

what say you?

I doubt you can hang with the mansrs or jabbrs of the site....but please try to share anything besides a mock or a troll statement.

 

Do you know how it works?  Can you explain the sampling and filtering thing to obtain more accuracy?

Or do you have any input of any substance?

 

[firedog]

22 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

please clarify then what you mean by no one doubts....

 

 

See above. I was referring to different filtering possibly sounding better. No filter design is perfect. Each one is some kind of compromise from a perfect filter. Different filters can sound different or possibly better (that’s subjective) even with Redbook. 

 

And again, this isn’t what you originally asked about, which was what you call “higher than Nyquist” recording resolution being more accurate, because it has more samples. That isn’t true, and I’m not saying it is.

[beerandmusic]

13 minutes ago, firedog said:

See above. I was referring to different filtering possibly sounding better. 

you mean by Oversampling right?

 

e.g. from wikipedia: Oversampling improves resolution, reduces noise and helps avoid aliasing and phase distortion by relaxing anti-aliasing filter performance requirements.

 

or some other method?

 

[beerandmusic]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

What a load of twaddle. Everything that guy says is wrong, and I mean everything.

what about the part where he talks over sampling to have the filtering outside the audio band?

 

 

[Spacehound]

16 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

what say you?

I doubt you can hang with the mansrs or jabbrs of the site....but please try to share anything besides a mock or a troll statement.

 

What I said of course.

 

You asked a question. I answered 100% factually. That is not mocking nor  trolling.

 

I do not know the totality of mansr's or jabbr's knowledge.

[beerandmusic]

12 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

You asked a question. I answered 100% factually. That is not mocking nor  trolling.

 

 

I asked a simple question...what do you believe since you "inferred" you know how it works.

 

I suggested that most of your comments are just mocking, trolling, or ridiculing, and I just wanted to know if you can say anything besides your stupid one-liners?

 

But apparently not?

 

I ask again, Does most everyone truly believe that sampling higher than nyquist is a possible way to improve SQ?

Please share your knowledge on the topic?

 

Your statement " What you doubt/believe is up to you, as we have seen" is a typical stupid comment that I am referring to....what everyone believes and doubts is up to them, and based on their knowledge and experience.

 

[pkane2001]

30 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

what say you?

I doubt you can hang with the mansrs or jabbrs of the site....but please try to share anything besides a mock or a troll statement.

 

Do you know how it works?  Can you explain the sampling and filtering thing to obtain more accuracy?

Or do you have any input of any substance?

 

 

Read the Wikipedia article on oversampling. Particularly the section titled 'Oversampling in reconstruction'. That's a method of shifting unwanted frequencies and noise out of audio band to enable simpler filtering that doesn't produce as many (possibly audible) artifacts. A technique known and used for well over 30 years in CD players and DACs.

 

I'm really fearful you'll be debating oversampling for another 20 pages... please read on the topic before posting your opinion, please!

 

[beerandmusic]

4 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Read the Wikipedia article on oversampling. Particularly the section titled 'Oversampling in reconstruction'. That's a method of shifting unwanted frequencies and noise out of audio band to enable simpler filtering that doesn't produce as many artifacts. A technique known and used for well over 30 years in CD players and DACs.

 

I already read it and that is what i quoted....

It is still debatable, correct?

My question is the same, does MANSR believe that upsampling can improve the SQ if used in this manner.

[yamamoto2002]

7 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

 

I am going to attempt to go down this road again with another example in hopes for better understanding.

 

Of course totally hypothetical to extremes to help me better understand....

 

Assume 10000 different tone generators (starting and stopping at different picoseconds) all at different frequencies between 10hz and 10.1hz (e.g. similar to 10.00000001, 10.00000002, 10.0000003, but not necessarily linear in difference etc)

Granted we would not be able to discern differences, but with only a needed 20 samples per second, would we not be able to more accurately capture with a higher sample rate?

Isn't it possible that the 20 samples per second that we capture were amplitudes that corresponded to frequencies 10.000000000021 though 10.00000000040, when in actuality during that same second the composite included those frequencies once, but all the other frequencies occurred more often, and that if we captured 40 samples per second we may have captured plots corresponding to frequencies 10.000000050 through 10.000000089 which was more accurate to reality?

 

 

edit to add...if 10hz is not considered audible, raise it to 20hz with a sample rate of 40 times per second....i only used a low number to help my understanding...

 

 

 

If bit depth is infinite, it is possible.

 

I calculate real world example about 44.1kHz 16bit PCM data of 1/100th of second (441 samples).

It can store the difference of

1000.0000000 Hz from 1000.0000010 Hz but

1000.0000001 Hz signal is rounded to 1000.0000000 Hz.

By increasing bit depth to 24bit, frequency precision increases by 256 times.
 

[beerandmusic]

1 minute ago, yamamoto2002 said:

 

If bit depth is infinite, it is possible.

 

I calculated real world example about 44.1kHz 16bit PCM data of 1/100th of second (441 samples).

It can store the difference of

1000.0000000 Hz from 1000.0000010 Hz but

1000.0000001 Hz signal is rounded to 1000.0000000 Hz.

Dithering can improve the situation.

By increasing bit depth to 24bit, frequency precision increases by 256 times.
 

 

You totally lost me, but it is always nice to see a fresh perspective (wink)

thanks for sharing.

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, beerandmusic said:

 

I already read it and that is what i quoted....

It is still debatable, correct?

My question is the same, does MANSR believe that upsampling can improve the SQ if used in this manner.

 

It's not debatable that oversampling helps shifts filter artifacts out of the audible range and allows simpler, gentler filters to be used. What is debatable is whether these artifacts were audible in the first place. On that, reasonable people can disagree.

 

[beerandmusic]

3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

It's not debatable that oversampling helps shifts filter artifacts out of the audible range and allows simpler, gentler filters to be used. What is debatable is whether these artifacts were audible in the first place. On that, reasonable people can disagree.

 

that is what i meant....does mansr believe that it can improve SQ?

 

I am really curious if there are smart people that don't believe that anything can be improved beyond pcm 44.1khz?

Regardless of his belief, i consider him very smart.

 

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

that is what i meant....does mansr believe that it can improve SQ?

Why don't you ask him?

[Fokus]

6 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

It's not debatable that oversampling helps shifts filter artifacts out of the audible range and allows simpler, gentler filters to be used.

 

No. Oversampling, be it in a DAC or in an ADC, does not allow gentler filters and it does not move the transition frequency away from the audible band (speaking of CD here). Oversampling does not change the requirements to the anti-imaging or anti-aliasing filter. What oversampling does allow is to move the bulk of the filtering action from the analogue domain to the digital domain, where more is possible and at a lower cost.

 

[beerandmusic]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

Why don't you ask him?

 

I am ...i knew you would be here, and i did ask you specifically about what hans said in the video about increasing sampling for filtering purposes to improve SQ....but firedog made it even easier by suggesting "no one doubts".

[beerandmusic]

3 minutes ago, Fokus said:

 What oversampling does allow is to move the bulk of the filtering action from the analogue domain to the digital domain, where more is possible and at a lower cost.

 

 

In your opinion, Does this oversampling make it possible to improve SQ?
 

[pkane2001]

19 minutes ago, Fokus said:

 

No. Oversampling, be it in a DAC or in an ADC, does not allow gentler filters and it does not move the transition frequency away from the audible band (speaking of CD here). 

 

Sorry, but I must disagree. For example, here's a quote from an Analog Devices tutorial on DAC process in a CD player. Highlight is mine:

 

Quote

The concept of oversampling and interpolation can be used in a similar manner with a reconstruction DAC. ... The high oversampling rate moves the image frequencies higher, thereby allowing a less complex lower cost filter with a wider transition band. In addition, there is an increase in the SNR within the signal bandwidth because of the process gain. 

 

I guess everything is debatable on CA