Understanding Sample Rate

[firedog]

5 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

 

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

No you don't. You don't even understand the basic concepts. You don't even know what you don't know, and you glorify your ignorance. It's clear from what you write. 

 

Not knowing something is excusable, because you can always learn more.

 

But not knowing, refusing to learn, and glorifying your willful ignorance by saying "I have enough knowledge" - is the approach of a pre-scientific society based on legend and myth. 

 

Enjoy living with your blinders on. Living is so easy when you ignore facts and truth.

[beerandmusic]

55 minutes ago, firedog said:

No you don't. You don't even understand the basic concepts. You don't even know what you don't know, and you glorify your ignorance. It's clear from what you write. 

 

Not knowing something is excusable, because you can always learn more.

 

But not knowing, refusing to learn, and glorifying your willful ignorance by saying "I have enough knowledge" - is the approach of a pre-scientific society based on legend and myth. 

 

Enjoy living with your blinders on. Living is so easy when you ignore facts and truth.

 

i am sorry it bothers you that i understand things you do not.

the theorem does not speak to infinite frequencies that really exist.

 

it has criteria of a "band limited signal", which i do not understand, and it is my current belief, that it is in that criteria that makes it not applicable.

 

if you don't get it, i am sorry.

 

 

[beerandmusic]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

No you don't. You don't even understand the basic concepts. You don't even know what you don't know, and you glorify your ignorance. It's clear from what you write. 

 

Not knowing something is excusable, because you can always learn more.

 

But not knowing, refusing to learn, and glorifying your willful ignorance by saying "I have enough knowledge" - is the approach of a pre-scientific society based on legend and myth. 

 

Enjoy living with your blinders on. Living is so easy when you ignore facts and truth.

 

nothing can change my belief because i am not willing to devote more time to it, and it is my honest belief that others have it wrong.

no one can control another's belief, let alone the person.

and attacks, mockery, ridicule doesn't change that.

 

If someone has the "brilliance" to be able to spoon feed me in laymans terms why i have difficulty accepting that 44.1K sampling rate is enough to capture infinite frequencies, infinite time slices, and infinite complex waveforms, that is audible to man, i would change my mind, but i highly doubt that is possible....i believe i am realistic.

 

PS i doubt you even understand the basic concepts either.

[Spacehound]

18 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

i am sorry it bothers you that i understand things you do not.

the theorem does not speak to infinite frequencies that really exist.

if you don't get it, i am sorry.

 

I thoroughly enjoy nazi flying saucers, alien flying saucers, ley  lines, the 'power' of stone circles, AG used for building the pyramids, witchcraft,  dirac communication, talking snakes, ancient airfields in Peru, the still used  Viking one in the UK,  why everyone is now being abused rather than stalked,  the Bermuda triangle, Merlin the Wizard, etc,  etc.

But  I don't understand any of them.

 

Please can you explain them? (Any ten will be sufficient.)

[beerandmusic]

spaceman...i have you on ignore, but unfortunately i have just discovered even if you put someone on ignore, you still get messages that tell me you replied to me, even though i don't see the message.  You are the first person and only person i have put on ignore.  I am sure your response to me was disrespectful in the same way semente is disrespectful, but it took him a long time to get on my nerves, and i still haven't ignored him.  You have been here a very short time and i have never seen anyone that reaches your lows in such a short time.  I am sure whatever you said was a similar message, but i have no desire to read it, nor anything you ever have to say again, without a personal message of apology, which i am sure you are not capable of.

I am certain many people have put me on ignore, and i respect their decision.  Not everyone in this world will get along, and I would rather have no relationship than a bad relationship.  So i invite anyone that has ill feelings towards me and my views to please do the same.

[Spacehound]

3 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

spaceman...i have you on ignore, but unfortunately i have just discovered even if you put someone on ignore, you still get messages that tell me you replied to me.  You are the first person and only person i have put on ignore.  I am sure your response to me was disrespectful in the same way semente is disrespectful, but it took him a long time to get on my nerves, and i still haven't ignored him.  You have been here a very short time and i have never seen anyone that reaches your lows in such a short time.  I am sure whatever you said was a similar message, but i have no desire to read it, nor anything you ever have to say again, without a personal message of apology, which i am sure you are not capable of.

I am certain many people have put me on ignore, and i respect their decision.  Not everyone in this world will get along, and I would rather have no relationship than a bad relationship.  So i invite anyone that has ill feelings towards me and my views to please do the same.

 

We  all appeared to be on ignore already,

[beerandmusic]

6 hours ago, crenca said:

@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!

Yes, i have bought it and Miska, Jabbr, Superdad, Mansr, and barrows are probably the people i respect the most on this site.

They are always helpful.

I haven't played with any advanced features of HQPlayer and have diffiulty even with it's GUI....but i still use it nearly every day.

 

As far as the math goes in the reproduction of music ...i believe it gets close...that is all i can give it.

[sandyk]

18 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

If someone has the "brilliance" to be able to spoon feed me in laymans terms why i have difficulty accepting that 44.1K sampling rate is enough to capture all sounds that is audible to man, i would change my mind, but i highly doubt that is possible.

 

 It isn't.  24/48 would be better though, but even then ....

[beerandmusic]

9 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 It isn't.  24/48 would be better though, but even then ....

thank you for that....

it is nice to know that someone will accept that i am unable to accept something i do not believe.

 

I accept and love everyone, even if they are of different faith, and I will not pass judgement on them for their belief.

[Spacehound]

14 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 It isn't.  24/48 would be better though, but even then ....

I would have chosen 24/48 had I been in charge  but apparently there were size limitations, both physical  (maybe vibrations?) and 'digital'  on the disc at the time.

 

We (IBM) had a very 'floppy' disc with a vaguely 'half cone' bump on the  stationary base over which it flew to make the also flying heads (heads  never touch)  closer to the surface but we never got it to work properly, The disc  always 'scrunched up' after a while.

[beerandmusic]

I am not going to read this white paper,  as it is beyond my understanding, but I know that there are many people that believe as i do...and maybe someone else may be interested in reading...but I am not.

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0902.0026.pdf

 

excerpt:— Wideband analog signals push contemporary analog-to-digital conversion systems to their performance limits.

In many applications, however, sampling at the Nyquist rate is inefficient because the signals of interest contain only a small number of significant frequencies relative to the ban-dlimit, although the locations of the frequencies may not beknown a priori. For this type of sparse signal, other sampling strategies are possible. This paper describes a new type of data acquisition system, called arandom demodulator, that is constructed from robust, readily available components. Let K denote the total number of frequencies in the....

 

Even this paper suggests a criteria for K, and so it would not encompass an infinite number of frequencies in a signal...and I didn't even read very far into it...my guess is that there is a requirement for a divisible time period as well.

 

 

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

thank you for that....

it is nice to know that someone will accept me even though that i am unable to accept something i do not believe.

 

The majority of those giving you a hard time are correct in most respects, and mean well, but they don't have a mortgage on the truth. There are still many things that we are currently learning , especially in the area of very clean power supplies etc.

I note also a backdown in some areas such as depth and height of stereo images from (in some cases) impossible, to accidental and non predictable accuracy .

Things may get even more interesting if Mani is able to convince Mansr  that he isn't imagining what he reports .

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

I would have chosen 24/48 had I been in charge  but apparently there were size limitations, both physical and 'digital'  on the disc at the time.

 

 Yes, I am aware of that being the preferred option , but back then, even 16 bit was hard to achieve, hence the 14 bit players available at the time including Nakamichi etc. ( I had a Nakamichi player at a later time)j

[beerandmusic]

5 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

The majority of those giving you a hard time are correct in most respects, and mean well, but they don't have a mortgage on the truth. There are still many things that we are currently learning , especially in the area of very clean power supplies etc.

I note also a backdown in some areas such as depth and height of stereo images from (in some cases) impossible, to accidental and non predictable accuracy .

Things may get even more interesting if Mani is able to convince Mansr  that he isn't imagining what he reports .

 

To be honest, i do not believe Mansr will hear differences, even if there are...i doubt i would be able to hear differences either, or at least not in a comparative way....The differences are usually so subtle, and even when they are not, comparative listening has not proven to be very productive...even when things are obvious like a high res mp3 file to a flac file....

 

EIther way, i applaud them both for volunteering to try to see the other side, but i really do not believe there will be any fruit.

[Spacehound]

7 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

The majority of those giving you a hard time are correct in most respects, and mean well, but they don't have a mortgage on the truth. There are still many things that we are currently learning , especially in the area of very clean power supplies etc.

I note also a backdown in some areas such as depth and height of stereo images from (in some cases) impossible, to accidental and non predictable accuracy .

Things may get even more interesting if Mani is able to convince Mansr  that he isn't imagining what he reports .

I meant well, but I eventually got irritated because he wouldn't even  listen to anyone who disagreed with his beliefs.

[adamdea]

7 hours ago, crenca said:

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!

Whilst I mainly agree with you, I would say that there is far more established knowledge in audio than most people seem to think or draw on (see for example the dreadful farrago of a discussion of auditory localisation on another thread); it's not quite so mathematical as the sampling theorem (being amongst other things experimentally derived, and in more developing fields)  but sill it's solid scientific understanding, fairly easily accessible  and frankly no one seems to give a damn. 

Most people insist on starting from what they think they know and only cherry-picking technical stuff so far as it seems to support that. I find it extraordinary that we still have discussions about the sampling theorem; I would have assumed that everyone involved would either have understood it by now, given up hope or decided that they didn't care. I would also have hoped that people would stop posturing and pretending either to understand it or to be interested in trying to understand it. Why bother?

Our intuitive understanding of every process involved (maths, engineering, psychoacoustics no doubt more else) is muddled and about as helpful as the intuition that thunder must be caused by the gods moving chairs around. . As long as that intuitive understanding is valued above any actual knowledge we get the wrong answer. Where much of it is debatable that may not make much difference. Where it isn't debatable is just leads to a very long very boring river of sludge, enlivened by the occasional interesting anecdote, charming generous and warm-hearted character or flash of wit.

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, beerandmusic said:

To be honest, i do not believe Mansr will hear differences, even if there are.....i doubt i would be able to hear differences either, or at least not in a comparative way....The differences are usually so subtle, and even when they are not, comparative listening has not proven to be very productive...

 

He doesn't need to. He only needs to be convinced that Mani can hear them. I wouldn't sell Mani's hearing or equipment short either.

Despite what many appear to believe, there can be a big gulf between the SQ of typical gear and more well designed equipment where fewer compromises have been made, especially in the areas of power supply isolation between Digital and Analogue areas. The ready availability of extremely low noise voltage regulators such as the LT3045 etc. will result in further audible improvements as their use becomes more common place.

[Spacehound]

6 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 Yes, I am aware of that being the preferred option , but back then, even 16 bit was hard to achieve, hence the 14 bit players available at the time including Nakamichi etc. ( I had a Nakamichi player at a later time)j

It was much  more fun when things wren't so 'advanced'.

 

The 'top' Philips non-portable cassette players had 'dynamic  noise reduction'. It was much  better than  Dolby when well-adjusted and didn't need  a special recording 'curve'.

 

In production Philips never adjusted  it at all. I made one, exactly to Philips circuit,  slowly  turned the  'preset type' pot, and you could gradually hear the noise vanish and come back again if you turned it too far.

[fas42]

7 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

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...

 

 

Yes, I have heard systems using those components, and none of the combos could have been classed as competent - they do spectacular demo tracks, but in terms of being faithful to the recording they are nowhere in sight of getting it right. To me they are the equivalent of a teenager's fantasy car - very ordinary chassis, with huge, showoff engine, and ridiculous tyres - useful for putting down layers of rubber at the lights, and getting the girls to stare ... but if you want to travel fast, safely and comfortably over very ordinary roads, forget it ...

 

I heard what 44.1k sound is capable of decades ago, and I have never had the slightest interest in "better" formats - a complete waste of time, a kludge to get around the fact that designers of audio gear weren't taking refining the quality of the playback systems seriously.

[pkane2001]

2 hours ago, firedog said:

EE's don't produce science. They work with the results.

Seriously? Had no idea!

 

[beerandmusic]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

 

He doesn't need to. He only needs to be convinced that Mani can hear them. I wouldn't sell Mani's hearing or equipment short either.

Despite what many appear to believe, there can be a big gulf between the SQ of typical gear and more well designed equipment where fewer compromises have been made, especially in the areas of power supply isolation between Digital and Analogue areas. The ready availability of extremely low noise voltage regulators such as the LT3045 etc. will result in further audible improvements as their use becomes more common place.

 

Well mansr is very skeptical, just as i am very skeptical in ideas that challenge my beliefs, and i believe everyone should be.

I think respect is owed for any strong faith, as it shows devotion.

If mani is able to convince mansr he can hear differences in music that mansr brings, then maybe there will be a bridge...

 

[beerandmusic]

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

I heard what 44.1k sound is capable of decades ago, and I have never had the slightest interest in "better" formats - a complete waste of time, a kludge to get around the fact that designers of audio gear weren't taking refining the quality of the playback systems seriously.

 

I respect this thinking, and many times i think similarly....why get so hung up on such minute or subtle differences which consume so much of our valuable time and money.

 

I too would be content with a CD, until I was spoiled with DSD, and at no greater costs.

 

I relate it to ben & jerrys ice cream.  I rarely will eat any ice cream besides ben&jerry's, but i also will never buy it unless it is on sale....but once in a rare occasion between sales, i will resort to ralphs quality creamy brand of pistachio, which isn't close, but its better than nothing.

[Spacehound]

26 minutes ago, adamdea said:

Whilst I mainly agree with you, I would say that there is far more established knowledge in audio than most people seem to think or draw on (see for example the dreadful farrago of a discussion of auditory localisation on another thread); it's not quite so mathematical as the sampling theorem (being amongst other things experimentally derived, and in more developing fields)  but sill it's solid scientific understanding, fairly easily accessible  and frankly no one seems to give a damn. 

Most people insist on starting from what they think they know and only cherry-picking technical stuff so far as it seems to support that. I find it extraordinary that we still have discussions about the sampling theorem; I would have assumed that everyone involved would either have understood it by now, given up hope or decided that they didn't care. I would also have hoped that people would stop posturing and pretending either to understand it or to be interested in trying to understand it. Why bother?

Our intuitive understanding of every process involved (maths, engineering, psychoacoustics no doubt more else) is muddled and about as helpful as the intuition that thunder must be caused by the gods moving chairs around. . As long as that intuitive understanding is valued above any actual knowledge we get the wrong answer. Where much of it is debatable that may not make much difference. Where it isn't debatable is just leads to a very long very boring river of sludge, enlivened by the occasional interesting anecdote, charming generous and warm-hearted character or flash of wit.

'Digital', audio or not,  is fully understood  and has been for a very long time. We made it  from scratch to work as we intended it to, we didn't 'discover' it. At first it was entirely 'mechanical' but the principles have not  changed at all.

 

The 'small area' where it changes from digital to analog (if reguired) is only fully understood in its digital part.

 

The only 'digital' advance needed (or possible) are in computing speed, which is not important in audio as it already vastly faster than audio will ever need. .   

[beerandmusic]

50 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

nvm

 

 

 

[Andyman]

20 hours ago, Spacehound said:

Oh good. Me fly fishing for trout on a Hampshire,  UK,  chalkstream, in the  very footsteps of Presidents Eisenhower and Carter,  both Bushes, plus Storming Norman of Iraq:

 

 

 

 

 

I see one is already impaled upon your roof. Perhaps from previous flooding (I believe the land lies low and flat around those parts...)