Understanding Sample Rate

[fas42]

52 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

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

 

The only way you can 'know' that it is in the recording, is via playback - so, which is the more "faulty"? The input, or the output? Men have big egos, so obviously their playback is doing the right thing - much simpler to blame the other chap; of course he didn't do the job well enough, I can hear he didn't!!

[pkane2001]

2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

you will need to accept reality also

 

There is no objective reality. If you believe something strongly, it must be so. Shannon? Nyquist? They are just alternate facts, fake news.

[beerandmusic]

1 hour ago, beerandmusic said:

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.

 

 

Actually i probably should do more comparative testing since i got my ND8006....for the first time i played out usb (native 11.2mhz), the usb actually sounded REALLY good.  The ND8006 does state it has some usb isolation and it is possible that previous DSD dacs i have tried didn't have good usb isolation....

[beerandmusic]

14 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

The only way you can 'know' that it is in the recording, is via playback - so, which is the more "faulty"? The input, or the output? Men have big egos, so obviously their playback is doing the right thing - much simpler to blame the other chap; of course he didn't do the job well enough, I can hear he didn't!!

 

I don't think i have an ego or a good playback system, even if i appear to come off that way...i consider myself inferior to most....and i have heard many $500K systems...they sound really good, but still won't approach live.

 

I just don't think any microphone placement can come close to touching what the human ears are capable of.  I know native DSD recordings sound really good, but still don't believe they come even remotely close to what human ears can do...i believe better improvement in audio can be made in better recording studios and equipment for the mass market.

[fas42]

Part of the game in this thread is that those of a technical bent say the technology is good enough; those who actually listen to the sound know that the technology is not delivering, usually - the question is, why is there this gap?

 

The answer, which always no-one wants to consider, is that implementation, the real life realisation of the components and system, is absolutely crucial - but, it hasn't got a "gee whiz!" factor, it's not shiny and blingy - so, let's run over to MQA, DSD512, etc, etc - that lot is dripping with techno stuff, fun new toys to explore - not interested in boring solutions ...

[beerandmusic]

20 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 If you believe something strongly, it must be so. Shannon? Nyquist? They are just alternate facts,

I know you are trying to be sarcastic, but you are actually getting it right..that's twice in a row!  (i removed fake news, as that part made your statement wrong, the rest is true).

[Ralf11]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2748718/

[fas42]

5 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

I don't think i have an ego or a good playback system, even if i appear to come off that way...i consider myself inferior to most....and i have heard many $500K systems...

 

I just don't think any microphone placement can come close to touching what the human ears are capable of.  I know native DSD recordings sound really good, but still don't believe they come even remotely close to what human ears can do...i believe better improvement in audio can be made in better recording studios for the mass market.

 

You see, you "don't think any microphone placement can come close" - but that is based on what you're hearing through standard quality replay. There is no actual way for you, or anyone else, to "prove" that microphones aren't good enough - it's just a belief that's built over time. But I have actually heard what is on these recordings, yes, even "hopeless" 44.1kHz ones - and, it is all there.

 

I have had some tremendous listening session with recordings that most would think are truly awful - so-called audiophile recordings to me often come across like baby food - pre-digested to not offend anyone, and lacking any real guts ... give me a recording with real grunt, every time!

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

I know you are trying to be sarcastic, but you are actually getting it right..that's twice in a row!

 

 

Happy to help support the cause, Beer! 

 

[beerandmusic]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

You see, you "don't think any microphone placement can come close" - but that is based on what you're hearing through standard quality replay. There is no actual way for you, or anyone else, to "prove" that microphones aren't good enough - it's just a belief that's built over time. But I have actually heard what is on these recordings, yes, even "hopeless" 44.1kHz ones - and, it is all there.

 

as all beliefs are based....it is based on experience and knowledge.

it is based on my appreciation for the human body over man made digitization, and my experience hearing live sounds and hearing systems in the top 10% of systems with the likes of wilson, evolution, pass, levinson etc...

 

[beerandmusic]

39 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

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

 

I have no audio technical background, but i have enough knowledge to dispel myths that misappropriate theorems.

[Ralf11]

7 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

as all beliefs are based.... on experience and knowledge.

 

 

 

 

wrong - see the link I posted above

[beerandmusic]

4 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

wrong - see the link I posted above

 

no thank you...but if you want to tell me what is in the link that is not experience or knowledge i will entertain you.

[beerandmusic]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

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?  

 

Ok...i didnt catch where you were going with this ...

 

I really have been planning on getting back into multi-channel.

Can a CD do multi-channel well, or only higher formats?  Probably a silly question, but i really don't know the answer.

 

[Ralf11]

14 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

no thank you...but if you want to tell me what is in the link that is not experience or knowledge i will entertain you.

 

 

you can get more help if you avoid acting like an ass

[beerandmusic]

2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

you can get more help if you avoid acting like an ass

 

I have no clue what you are saying....what help are you offering that I am looking for?

I told you what I believe "belief" is based on and you told me I was wrong.

I am not looking for help on what belef is based on, but if you want to share why you believe i am wrong, i will entertain you if you take the time to tell me what is wrong with my thinking.  I don't want to read a link if it is not in your own words.

 

I am perfectly content stating belief is based on knowledge and experience.

If you don't want to discuss it, that is fine by me.

[beerandmusic]

wife is forcing me off computer for dinner and tv....chow for now.

[esldude]

never mind. 

[crenca]

@beerandmusic, As you already know, your past experience makes you good at gadget tinkering and hacking - trying this with that, questioning this recommendation and trying something new, and the like.

 

Have your tried HQPlayer?  If not check it out - it is cheap and there are many combinations of filters, modulators, etc.  That way, you can see for yourself the differences between PCM & DSD, upsampling with this filter vs. that, etc.  There are lot's of options that are not meaningless in these sorts of areas and for which one thing works for one person, one set of equipment, and one room - and another combination works for somebody else. 

 

As far as sampling theory, your trying to tinker in one of the few areas where there is actually a substantial body of scientific, mathematical certainty and proof in audio.  The differences in sound you experience and rightly question, the cause is not because of sampling method (i.e. the math and digital construction of the waveform), but rather because of the implementation of the equipment, room, music, and person.  

 

Divert to these other areas for fruitful and interesting things!

[crenca]

20 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

you can get more help if you avoid acting like an ass

 

Everyone else, especially those in education (ADD, ADHD) & medicine (the same, stroke, TBI, PTSD) think of your training...

[Ralf11]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2748718/

 

 

this thread reminds me of climate change deniers, evolution deniers, and anti-VAXers

[esldude]

59 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

I have no clue what you are saying....what help are you offering that I am looking for?

I told you what I believe "belief" is based on and you told me I was wrong.

I am not looking for help on what belef is based on, but if you want to share why you believe i am wrong, i will entertain you if you take the time to tell me what is wrong with my thinking.  I don't want to read a link if it is not in your own words.

 

I am perfectly content stating belief is based on knowledge and experience.

If you don't want to discuss it, that is fine by me.

 He knows you are wrong.  You have a belief, a mistaken belief.  He has facts and knowledge.  People were attempting to help you gain that knowledge until you finally stated nothing could change your incorrect knowledge and you didn't want it changed.  Which has seemed an under-current since the beginning of this thread of yours.  

 

So you are offering to let him explain your wrongness as long as you don't have to learn why.  Not much can come of that.  

[audiventory]

8 hours ago, jabbr said:

Upsampling does not add information to the system but it makes the sound coming out of the DAC better.

 

Imroving of perceived sound by upsampling/resampling is matter of different audio system distortions at different resolutions.

 

Sometimes for improving of played back sound need to cut information. I mean ultrasound, that can cause audible distortions due intermodulations. The intermodulation products may be listened as noise. In this case cutting of ultrasound above 20 kHz can remove noise.

 

Some time ago I described step-by-step how to attempt to found the best audio resolution: https://samplerateconverter.com/content/how-improve-sound-quality

[semente]

8 hours ago, crenca said:

 

Make Audio Great Again!

 

We needa builda wall. A brick wall, to keep those alias out. Out!

[firedog]

7 hours 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 don't produce science. They work with the results.