Understanding Sample Rate

[beerandmusic]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

Yes, DSD256 is better still.

better than DSD64 but not better than pcm 44.1K?

[beerandmusic]

3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

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

 

EE's yawn...they are still mortal

[kumakuma]

11 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

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.

 

DSD8192 DACs should be available in the next decade or so. Still not infinite sampling but probably close enough for your needs.

[pkane2001]

5 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

EE's yawn...they are still mortal

 

Yes, mortals are so boring!

[beerandmusic]

34 minutes ago, yamamoto2002 said:

 

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.

 

Thanks for sharing.

Just curious, in your opinion can any format above 44.1kpcm 16 bit able to provide better SQ, whether it be higher rate pcm or dsd, given all possible complex waveforms where maximum frequency is less than 20khz?

[beerandmusic]

6 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

DSD8192 DACs should be available in the next decade or so. Still not infinite sampling but probably close enough for your needs.

 

Super....then all they have to do is fix the recording to equal our ears.

[mansr]

9 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

EE's yawn...they are still mortal

How can you be sure? I might live forever.

[beerandmusic]

4 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

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?

i am not a fan of up-converting usually....i prefer native dsd....also i don't know why (probably has to do with usb interface, but i typically like playing from quality cd player over playing from pc.

 

[crenca]

18 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

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. 

 

Others are telling you you came to the wrong conclusion but you already know that

 

There are DSP programs in beta now that will be able to fool you into thinking you are hearing your wife in the kitchen when you are lying in your bed headphones on!  Also, someone could sneak into your house and add room treatments and those little directional cues you are picking up would be skewed and you would be thrown off - and yes all this can be reproduced but it is hard, expensive, etc. to do.  In other words those waveforms you are hearing are just that, and can be  perfectly reproduced digitally.

 

Not that any of this has anything to do with recording waveforms accurately...

[beerandmusic]

1 hour 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. 

semente is definitely in bottom 5%

I actually think i like GUTB better.

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, beerandmusic said:

I actually think i like GUTB better.

 

You need to increase your sample rate.

[fas42]

33 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

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.

 

Ummm ... why you don't hear that 'realness' with normal playback is because the quality of playback chain is not to a high enough standard. I first heard that aspect in the sounds from recordings 30 years ago, and have investigated the relevant factors ever since ... just because the rigs you've come across can't get it right, doesn't mean that no rigs can get it right ...

[beerandmusic]

11 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Others are telling you you came to the wrong conclusion but you already know that

 

There are DSP programs in beta now that will be able to fool you into thinking you are hearing your wife in the kitchen when you are lying in your bed headphones on!  Also, someone could sneak into your house and add room treatments and those little directional cues you are picking up would be skewed and you would be thrown off - and yes all this can be reproduced but it is hard, expensive, etc. to do.  In other words those waveforms you are hearing are just that, and can be  perfectly reproduced digitally.

 

Not that any of this has anything to do with recording waveforms accurately...

 

even if everything in the world told me i was wrong, that wouldn't change my belief.  "True Belief" is not something you can control...

 

but how would the recorded data be able to tell you that street noise is to the south of me and kitchen noise to the north of me so that whoever applies the DSP would know how to properly program.

 

 

[beerandmusic]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Ummm ... why you don't hear that 'realness' with normal playback is because the quality of playback chain is not to a high enough standard. I first heard that aspect in the sounds from recordings 30 years ago, and have investigated the relevant factors ever since ... just because the rigs you've come across can't get it right, doesn't mean that no rigs can get it right ...

 

i would suggest it has to do with the recording more, so i just agree to disagree...

[crenca]

1 minute ago, beerandmusic said:

 

even if everything in the world told me i was wrong, that wouldn't change my belief.  Belief is not something you can control....you can "choose" to believe without actually believing, but that just mean you gave up.

 

 

but how would the recorded data be able to tell you that street noise is to the south of me and kitchen noise to the north of me so that whoever applies the DSP would know how to properly program.

 

 

 

 

Your right - other people and even to a certain kinds of experience (when you are in "evaluative mode", etc.) can not change your belief.  Only certain kinds of experience, when coupled with certain states of mind can change a belief because beliefs are at the core of who you (and everybody else) are and nobody can allow any old thing to willy nilly come into the core of who you are - that is far far too dangerous.

 

Do you read literature? 

 

These kinds of directional cues and sounds are already being used in multi-channel recordings - do you have a surround sound system at your home?  

[beerandmusic]

7 hours ago, mansr said:

At least not in a couple of days. To be fair, it took me a lot longer to learn it too. More like a couple of years, including all the prerequisite calculus etc.

 

I am not denying that it is beyond my desire to spend the time to fully understand.

 

I do know i had a recorded genius iq at one time, and likely much lower now, but I believe I am still very smart.

I believe there are many here that are much smarter than me, but anyone that suggests that I am not smart will not hurt my feelings....that would be the same as someone teasing me for my blonde hair, when i have brown hair.

 

I am able to accept that what others have posed that the nyquist theorem is not without reproach and gets "very close"

But, likewise, i will always believe that more samples means more accuracy to the point where engineering cannot compensate for errors in processing, for the simple fact that in real life there is infinite time slices and infinite frequencies and infinite complex waveforms and HUMAN ears.

 

Can we get close, sure....but isn't that what the continual effort to improve audio is all about?

Until a playback system can accurately reproduce what my ears are able to hear in live, there is room for improvement, and I am not willing to state it ends at 44.1Kpcm.

 

 

[crenca]

8 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

I am not denying that it is beyond my desire to spend the time to fully understand.

 

I do know i had a recorded genius iq at one time, and likely much lower, now, but I believe I am still very smart.

I believe there are many here that are much smarter than me, but anyone that suggests that I am not smart will not hurt my feelings....that would be the same as someone teasing me for my blonde hair, when i have brown hair.

 

I am able to accept that what others have posed that the nyquist theorem is not without reproach and gets "very close"

But, likewise, i will always believe that more samples means more accuracy to the point where engineering cannot compensate for errors in processing, for the simple fact that in real life there is infinite time slices and infinite frequencies and infinite complex waveforms and HUMAN ears.

 

Can we get close, sure....but isn't that what the continual effort to improve audio is all about?

Until a playback system can accurately reproduce what my ears are able to hear in live, there is room for improvement, and I am not willing to state it ends at 44.1Kpcm.

 

 

 

Are you a wrencher?  Do you work on cars/motorcycles, or study/collect them?

[beerandmusic]

32 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Do you read literature? 

 

 

I hate reading...I am ADD.  I have never read a novel in my life, only tech manuals, but i have bad eyes now...prefer videos.

I have multi-channel in family room for watching blu-rays but not for music...and rarely use it anymore...

I really have expended far more energy in this topic than i really care to...i am content with my current belief, and really my youthful science days are over.  I would rather watch big brother or blacklist (grin).

Although, I do like to debate even if i don't know what i am talking about...i find it challenging...if it was something i knew (like religion) it's not as fun....but this topic has wore me out...lol

[crenca]

4 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

I hate reading...I am ADD.  I have never read a novel in my life, only tech manuals, but i have bad eyes now...prefer videos.

I have multi-channel in family room for watching blu-rays but not for music...and rarely use it anymore...

I really have expended far more energy in this topic than i really care to...i am content with my current belief, and really my youthful science days are over.  I would rather watch big brother or blacklist (grin).

Although, I do like to debate even if i don't know what i am talking about...i find it challenging...if it was something i knew (like religion) it's not as fun....but this topic has wore me out...lol

 

Yea, your ADD comes through   I know your writing helps you focus.

 

What sort of tech manuals did you used to have to work through?

[beerandmusic]

11 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Are you a wrencher?  Do you work on cars/motorcycles, or study/collect them?

 

addictive personality...i collect lots of things from vinyl to vintage toys, to anything I can buy and sell for profit for both hobby and income. i used to buy and sell convertibles, and always keeping one for myself, but ended that a couple years ago.

I am getting into home automation, and plan on getting back into multi-channel, but i only sleep 2-3 hrs a day and usually find it difficult to find any energy, beyond playing with the computer.

 

Are you going to suggest i do something else with my time than bothering people here (grin).

[mansr]

27 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

I believe I am still very smart.

Then start acting like it.

[beerandmusic]

2 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Yea, your ADD comes through   I know your writing helps you focus.

 

What sort of tech manuals did you used to have to work through?

been in computer technology all my life....so everything from basic EE to programming to netowrking to virtualization.

[beerandmusic]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

Then start acting like it.

what, like smart like you, by accepting everything ends at 44.1KHZ?

[Ralf11]

whether it 'all' ends at 44.1 kHz depends on what the ear can hear - if you are a dolphin (which I doubt) you will need a higher sampling frequency

 

 

it is not about being very smart - it is about having an adequate technical background

[Ralf11]

36 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

in real life there is infinite time slices and infinite frequencies and infinite complex waveforms

 

 

you will need to accept reality also