Understanding Sample Rate

[jabbr]

3 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

My main objective for this thread really is a totally different issue anyway, and really had to do with why an SACD sounds better than a CD, and i thought everyone believed that, but apparently not....

 

Do an experiment for yourself:

 

1) start with a CD source.

2) compare sending the CD source files directly to your DAC vs. convert to DSD and send to your DAC

 

Which do you like better?

[Ralf11]

13 hours ago, hsmeets said:

Let it go people. Beerandmusic is just pulling a leg. At best he’s having fun. 13 pages of “being on to something” about the same thing he’s been told that it Is not as he thinks it is. 

 

 

I think he is most likely sincere, but lacks the technical knowledge to form a basis to understand digital sampling theory.  That is why I asked him about his education in these areas.

 

I think also that he got ahold of something (I suggested Fourier decomposition) at some point that stuck in his brain.  So I think he has a conceptual tree on which to hang at least some of this info, but that it is the wrong tree.

[Ralf11]

5 hours ago, psjug said:

Those of you who continue to help on this are better people than me.  Is there such a thing as infinite patience?

 

infinite patience requires a very high sampling rate

 

in practice, it is better to bandwidth limit the signal based on the species of interest and its hearing ability (e.g. humans, dogs, dolphins...)

[Spacehound]

6 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

infinite patience requires a very high sampling rate

 

in practice, it is better to bandwidth limit the signal based on the species of interest and its hearing ability (e.g. humans, dogs, dolphins...)

Cats. 75K and they can adjust the stereo effect too.

[semente]

On 19/02/2018 at 1:06 PM, beerandmusic said:

  I only want to know why an SACD sounds better than a CD and why so many people are reluctant to accept that..

 

Sounds better is subjective. Some people prefer vinyl.

[semente]

On 19/02/2018 at 1:57 PM, psjug said:

Really I can't believe anyone is still trying to help you with this at this point.  Your attitude reminds me of a Jehovah's Witness friend I had who called any scientific evidence contrary to his beliefs "fake".

 

Is your friend by any chance called Donald?

[semente]

On 19/02/2018 at 3:38 PM, beerandmusic said:

 

agree, this is more along my interests, and probably instead of starting a thread "understanding sample rate", in hind sight, i should have started a topic "why does sacd sound better than a cd for the layman". (wink)

 

Me,me me, I know the answer. Yes. The answer is "because layman read Sony's marketing blabber"?

[semente]

On 19/02/2018 at 3:54 PM, adamdea said:

I see. Well learning and questioning your own beliefs can be tiring and it might get in the way of all the attention-seeking. Onto a new thread?

 

[crenca]

3 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

 

But year upconverting to DSD works absolutely great for DACs that prefer DSD (lots and lots).

 

That is my position as well.  It is not that DSD is "more accurate", it's just that the iFi Micro (or do I have the IDac2?) "likes" DSD a wee bit better than PCM - it "implements" it slightly better...

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, crenca said:

That is my position as well.  It is not that DSD is "more accurate", it's just that the iFi Micro (or do I have the IDac2?) "likes" DSD a wee bit better than PCM - it "implements" it slightly better...

DSD128, yes. DSD64 has some issues.

[crenca]

9 hours ago, yamamoto2002 said:

 

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.
 

 

I have a "wow" reaction to that!  Intuitively who would have thought that 16 bits would lead to such "accuracy", but then if a sample rate of >200Hz can lead to a perfectly reconstructed wave form, then it follows (within a certain amplitude if I am not mistaken)...

[crenca]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

DSD128, yes. DSD64 has some issues.

 

Makes sense.  I have not even tried upsampling to DSD64 for quite a while now - I just upsample to DSD256 since that is trivial for my system and the iFi seems to like it...

[mansr]

1 minute ago, crenca said:

Makes sense.  I have not even tried upsampling to DSD64 for quite a while now - I just upsample to DSD256 since that is trivial for my system and the iFi seems to like it...

Yes, DSD256 is better still.

[fas42]

6 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

My main objective for this thread really is a totally different issue anyway, and really had to do with why an SACD sounds better than a CD, and i thought everyone believed that, but apparently not.......i guess i need to go back to living in my thread "is everything debatable". 

 

 

The simple answer is that a particular rig will do a better job of conveying the identical recorded event using one format as compared to another, because of how it's engineered and built - there is no magic to these formats, they just make it easier to the electronic circuits to do their jobs properly.

[semente]

11 hours ago, mansr said:

Yes, a sample is nothing but the instantaneous value of the signal at a point in time. It tells nothing about the value at earlier or later times. A single value could be part of a signal of any frequency from zero to infinity. We can only start talking about frequency once we have multiple samples spaced over a period of time.

 

[LCC0256]

1 hour ago, semente said:

 

Is your friend by any chance called Donald?

No his name is smart mouth  and he writes under the pseudonym Semente with over THREE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED posts on one website - pontificating to any who will read his dribble.   MAGA. 

[semente]

1 minute ago, LCC0256 said:

No his name is smart mouth  and he writes under the pseudonym Semente with over THREE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED posts on one website - pontificating to any who will read his dribble.   MAGA. 

 

I see we have a Trumpette here. Touchy too.

[crenca]

14 minutes ago, semente said:

 

I see we have a Trumpette here. Touchy too.

 

Make Audio Great Again!

[Don Hills]

45 minutes ago, semente said:

...

 

This place really needs a facepalm icon.

[yamamoto2002]

7 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

 

why would you need 44.1khz sample if only frequency is 1000hz?  wouldn't you just need a sample rate of 2.1K?

and why would you need an infinite bit depth?

 

44.1kHz sample rate is not necessary to capture 1kHz signal. This is just a test setup. 2.1kHz sampling PCM can capture every detail of 1000Hz signal if AD converter is well designed.

 

Infinite bit depth is often assumed to understand a effect of sampling of AD converter, on the desk, when considering the nature of the signal ②:

 

(Analog input signal) → lowpass filter → ① → sampling → ② → quantization → ③(PCM output)

 

This thread is about sampling so engineers talk about sampling. "sampled signal" is ②. ② has infinite bit depth and ② can express continuous frequency, any rational and irrational number frequency exactly.

 

Because PCM data ③ is sampled and quantized, PCM data has artifact caused by quantization bit depth, it is called quantization error.

Rounding happens and quantization error occurs. On musical signal input, quantization error becomes persistent whitenoise-like hiss noise. Persistent hiss is not heard from every CD, this means noise caused by quantization error is sufficiency low and 16-bit bit depth is sufficient for listening.

 

I tested reducing bit depth of 44.1kHz 16bit PCM (ripped from music CD, Stravinsky Le sacre du printemps) and found, reducing bit depth to 13 bit (without dither) causes very subtle, constant hiss. Reducing to 12 bit causes more obvious hiss.

[Ralf11]

20 minutes ago, Don Hills said:

 

This place really needs a facepalm icon.

 

 

[beerandmusic]

6 hours ago, firedog said:

He apparently has an obsession with his idea of resolution and accuracy and has almost dropped it, and then goes looking on the net for material he doesn't understand so that he can come back and say what we've been telling him is wrong. 

 

It's pretty much time to give up responding to him. 

 

And yes, beerandmusic, there are conditions for the Shannon -Nyquist theorem that are never actually met in real life. That means nothing as we can get so close to the conditions that the gap is meaningless.

If you don't believe that, I suggest you stop using every bit of technology you own, and never get in a car or on a plane or train. It's all based on "almost" getting there in calculations.

NASA got to the moon using calculations made by a slide rule, because it was "accurate enough" that in real/practical terms you could call it 100% accurate.

 

Actually, i accepted that the nyquist frequency can capture accurately all possibilities,...

 

but shortly after accepting it, i later rejected it.

 

After thinking about it more, I am back to my original thinking that more samples will bring more accuracy to the point where technology is not able to process without error...i keep thinking about in real life about the infinite possibilities and infinite time slices and the inability to playback or even record with 100% accuracy.  It came to me while i was laying in bed and hearing my wife moving around and cooking in the kitchen and outside background noise, and my ears as microphones able to distinguish location and details that i know that NO reproduction is capable of.  There is no way that anything less than an infiinite sampling and infinite time is able to reproduce more accurately.

 

No theorem will convince me otherwise.

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

No theorem will convince me otherwise.

I'm so sorry.

[beerandmusic]

Just now, mansr said:

I'm so sorry.

I am too...men are so feeble

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, beerandmusic said:

 

Actually, i accepted that the nyquist frequency can capture accurately all possibilities, but for less than one day...after thinking about it more, I am back to my original thinking that more samples will bring more accuracy to the point where technology is not able to process without error...i keep thinking about in real life about the infinite possibilities and infinite time slices and the inability to playback or even record with 100% accuracy.  It came to me while i was laying in bed and hearing my wife moving around and cooking in the kitchen and outside background noise, and my ears as microphones able to distinguish location and details.  There is no way that anything less than an infiinite sampling and infinite time is able to reproduce more accurately.

 

No theorem will convince me otherwise.

 

Happy for you. Resist all science, it is made up by EEs who pretend to know stuff just to demonstrate their superiority.