Understanding Sample Rate

[Spacehound]

34 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Seriously? Had no idea!

 

There is an overlap. And sometimes engineers succeed in making scientifically impossible things. 

 

Then scientists change their minds. It's how science is intended to work. And does.

[Spacehound]

49 minutes 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.

He's already pre-judged mansr before he's  even got started on anything.

[firedog]

1 hour 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 .

 

It's a very nice answer, but doesn't have anything to with the question he asked and the answers he got. He asked a specific question about how high a sample rate needs to be to fully and accurately reconstruct an audio signal. He got an answer which is 100% true, which he refuses to accept, because he doesn't like the answer.

 

None of that has anything to do with other factors that might influence listening SQ such as clean power. There are lots of things in audio that are debatable. This specific question and answer aren't one of them.

[pkane2001]

5 minutes ago, firedog said:

It's a very nice answer, but doesn't have anything to with the question he asked and the answers he got. He asked a specific question about how high a sample rate needs to be to fully and accurately reconstruct an audio signal. He got an answer which is 100% true, which he refuses to accept, because he doesn't like the answer.

 

None of that has anything to do with other factors that might influence listening SQ such as clean power. There are lots of things in audio that are debatable. This specific question and answer aren't one of them.

 

For what it’s worth, my recommendation is to stop wasting time in this thread.

 

OP made up his mind and doesn’t want anyone to keep telling him he’s wrong. His approach to knowledge allows him to bypass logic and reason and to stick to an unprovable belief based on an incorrect intuition. What else is there to discuss?

 

[firedog]

8 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

For what it’s worth, my recommendation is to stop wasting time in this thread.

 

OP made up his mind and doesn’t want anyone to keep telling him he’s wrong. His approach to knowledge allows him to bypass logic and reason and to stick to an unprovable belief based on an incorrect intuition. What else is there to discuss?

 

Not replying to him

[beerandmusic]

15 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

For what it’s worth, my recommendation is to stop wasting time in this thread.

 

OP made up his mind and doesn’t want anyone to keep telling him he’s wrong. His approach to knowledge allows him to bypass logic and reason and to stick to an unprovable belief based on an incorrect intuition. What else is there to discuss?

 

 

I agree, nothing more to discuss...i just recommend anyone that wants to know the truth to just dig a little deeper and read what i wrote, rather than to just be another follower of incorrect information.

 

Consider the criteria required for the theorem, and all possibilities where the theorem is not applicable based on it's criteria....it gets close and is "good enough"...just like most things audio....

 

also you can google "beyond nyquist" or "nyquist bandlimited" or a number of other searches and you will find many white papers that suggest nyquist is not the complete picture.

 

[mansr]

3 hours ago, firedog said:

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

Living is easy with eyes closed
Misunderstanding all you see
It's getting hard to be someone
But it all works out
It doesn't matter much to me

-- Strawberry Fields Forever, John Lennon / Paul McCartney

[psjug]

7 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

I agree, nothing more to discuss...i just recommend anyone that wants to know the truth to just dig a little deeper

I would not say that it is digging deep to  paste  links that you think might have something remotely related to the thread topic, then asking others to read the material for you.

[mansr]

4 hours ago, semente said:

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

And make Bob Stuart pay for it.

[beerandmusic]

12 minutes ago, psjug said:

I would not say that it is digging deep to  paste  links that you think might have something remotely related to the thread topic, then asking others to read the material for you.

i already have shared one that no one commented on.....

 

 

[adamdea]

1 hour ago, Spacehound said:

'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. .   

Yes but you still can't get answers out without (consciously or unconsciously) applying a psychacoustic model. If we were cats, we might need a higher sampling rate than 44.1 kHz.

That is not because of any limitation in the maths, it's just that our specification of what we need need from the system comes from something outside. 

I have been dying to get my hands on someone who really understands current thinking on psychacoustics because the information about time resolution of the perceptual system is a bit difficult to get hold of. I have got as far as understanding that there seems to be some current thinking about the system integrating over a 6ms window. I have a hunch that this might be important to certain current controversies.

[Spacehound]

59 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

every ....OP made up his mind and doesn’t want anyone to keep telling him he’s wrong. His approach to knowledge allows him to bypass logic and reason and to stick to an unprovable belief based on an incorrect intuition. What else is there to discuss?

 

Nothing.

 

After the first  few posts there never was. Because he's  not only ignorant of science he's ACTIVELY against it despite it works for him 24/7.

 

So whyTF did he ever ask the question?

[Spacehound]

2 minutes ago, adamdea said:

Yes but you still can't get answers out without (consciously or unconsciously) applying a psychacoustic model. If we were cats, we might need a higher sampling rate than 44.1 kHz.

That is not because of any limitation in the maths, it's just that our specification of what we  need from the system comes from something outside. 

I have been dying to get my hands on someone who really understands current thinking on psychacoustics because the information about time resolution of the perceptual system is a bit difficult to get hold of. I have got as far as understanding that there seems to be some current thinking about the system integrating over a 6ms window. I have a hunch that this might be important to certain current controversies.

Cats and psychoacoustics have zero to do with computing or the  sampling theorem.

As I previously said it even works fine on bus timetables.  And as mansr said it will work  100% on  things not yet discovered.

 

The rest is 'vague (not your fault). It's like  'logic machines' such as computers. Be very  exact in  what you wish for  

[psjug]

22 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

i already have shared one that no one commented on.....

 

 

My point was that you didn't even comment on it yourself, because you couldn't make the effort to read it.

[adamdea]

Just now, Spacehound said:

Cats and psychoacoustics have zero to do with computing or the  sampling theorem.

As I previously said it even works fine on bus timetables.  And as mansr said it will work  100% on  things not yet discovered.

 

The rest is 'vague (not your fault). It's like  'logic machines' such as computers. Be very  exact in  what you wish for  

Of course not, but they do have a lot to do with the question what is the minimum sample rate required to capture all the information you can hear. You need to understand the sampling theorem and know something about human hearing to answer that question. Like durrr

[firedog]

40 minutes ago, mansr said:

Living is easy with eyes closed
Misunderstanding all you see
It's getting hard to be someone
But it all works out
It doesn't matter much to me

-- Strawberry Fields Forever, John Lennon / Paul McCartney

I always knew that was a great song.

[beerandmusic]

13 minutes ago, psjug said:

My point was that you didn't even comment on it yourself, because you couldn't make the effort to read it.

I did comment on it.

i read enough of it to believe that it substantiated my belief even further and I even provided an excerpt and my reasoning.

[beerandmusic]

6 minutes ago, firedog said:

I always knew that was a great song.

follower....remember you promised not to respond to me.....life has gotten better, provided you keep your word.

[Spacehound]

1 minute ago, adamdea said:

Of course not, but they do have a lot to do with the question what is the minimum sample rate required to capture all the information you can hear. You need to understand the sampling theorem and know something about human hearing to answer that question. Like durrr

He appears to point blank refuse to understand anything he doesn't understand already. Unless perhaps  our sample rate is too low.

 

The "something  about" is the maximum frequency we can hear.  All the 'time' and 'impulse' stuff follows from that and most people's 'understanding' of it is nonsense because they don't understand that fundamental point.

[mansr]

22 minutes ago, adamdea said:

Of course not, but they do have a lot to do with the question what is the minimum sample rate required to capture all the information you can hear. You need to understand the sampling theorem and know something about human hearing to answer that question. Like durrr

You can also ask the question, what is the minimum sample rate required to capture all the sound there is? The answer is roughly 500 kHz. Recordings done at 352.8 kHz are now readily available. If you examine one, you will see that they have precisely zero signal content above 100 kHz or so and very, very little above 50 kHz. This means that a sample rate of ~200 kHz is enough to capture all sound in actual music, whether we are cats or humans.

[the_bat]

2 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

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

 

Nyquist rate is inefficient because the signals of interest contain only a small number of significant frequencies relative to the ban-dlimit,

I don't think this means what you think it means.  It's saying that sampling at the Nyquist rate for any given set of frequencies is inEfficient, not inSUfficient - i.e you could get away with sampling less because not all frequencies within the chosen bandwidth are present at any given time.

 

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

I did comment on it.

i read enough of it to know that it substantiated my belief and even provided an excerpt and my reasoning.

If misunderstanding were an Olympic sport, you'd be winning the gold medal every time, summer and winter games.

[adamdea]

Just now, Spacehound said:

He appears to point blank refuse to understand anything he doesn't understand already. Unless perhaps  our sample rate is too low.

 

The "something  about" is the maximum frequency we can hear.  All the 'time' and 'impulse' stuff follows from that and most people's 'understanding' of it is nonsense because they don't understand that fundamental point.

Yes. That much became apparent over 10 pages ago. Having thought about it and already worked out the answer to your earlier question (why does OP bother asking a question if he doesn't care about the answer?) I answered in my own mind as "to get attention". So I think it's time to follow the logic of my own conclusion and engage the ignore button. 

[beerandmusic]

4 minutes ago, mansr said:

If misunderstanding were an Olympic sport, you'd be winning the gold medal every time, summer and winter games.

I will use your quote in response....

 

if you are smart, start acting like it....comments like this show you clearly have little understanding of "the big picture"...not talking about sampling rate.

[Spacehound]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

You can also ask the question, what is the minimum sample rate require to capture all the sound there is? The answer is roughly 500 kHz. Recordings done at 352.8 kHz are now readily available. If you examine one, you will see that they have precisely zero signal content above 100 kHz or so and very, very little above 50 kHz. This means that a sample rate of ~200 kHz is enough to capture sound in actual music, whether we are cats or humans.

Also many forget  the human ear's response is far from flat. If a 20KHz sine wave was  powerful enough to sound  as loud  as   a  'very loud'  3KHz one to you  it would possibly kill you.