Understanding Sample Rate

[jabbr]

43 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

My FTL spaceship is terrific. Only  a million dollars and seats two and a dog. Want one?

"Alternative facts" perhaps?

Is it a McLaren? Yes! Carbon fiber no less, and to keep on topic a Meridian soundsystem

 

[bobbmd]

OMG  SEND LAWYERS GUNS AND MONEY

can't any of you confine your comments to the relative discussion without calling people names

[Ralf11]

just adjust your sample rate on the thread

[beerandmusic]

 

wow, this site is crazy...and likely a good representation of what this world is coming to....

 

too soon is not soon enough....overdue for intervention....

[tmtomh]

22 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

wow, this site is crazy...and likely a good representation of what this world is coming to....

 

too soon is not soon enough....overdue for intervention....

 

I do agree that it might be good for this thread to be closed. Pretty much all the available information in response to your initial query has been supplied and/or linked to, multiple times. There's really nothing else anyone can say, or that you can say in response. Anything more would be repetitive, and in fact the thread already is quite repetitive.

As for being an example of what the world is coming to, I think that's a little overstated. But if this thread is indeed a microcosm of what the world is coming to, then I'm afraid you must count yourself as an active participant in the dynamic.

 

Some others certainly have been rude to you and have have engaged in snark or sarcasm. That's on them. But you've played your part as well, not only with the name-calling, but more fundamentally by continually claiming to be interested in information and dialogue, but in actuality showing yourself to be stubbornly wedded to your initial view, and unwilling to allow new information to impact your view in any discernible way.

 

39 pages ago you began with the view that higher sample rates do not only enable the sampling of higher frequencies, but also "smooth out the sound" or "enable the capturing of more detail" in the audible frequency range of 20Hz-20kHz.

 

39 pages later you are exactly where you began, despite 100s of posts attempting to explain to you that your view is not an "opinion" or a "hypothesis," but rather a misunderstanding of the basic principles of digital sampling theory. These principles are not a prediction of how digitally sampled music will sound. Rather, they are an explanation of how and why digital sampling works at all. If your view were true, digital sampling simply would not work.

 

To be clear, higher sample rates certainly can lead to improved sound in other ways. Most notably, they provide more "headroom" or "cushion" between the upper hearing limit of 20kHz and the Nyquist limit of the sample rate. 

 

But higher sample rates have absolutely, positively zero sonic benefits over lower sample rates when it comes to their ability to accurately capture a sound wave ("simple" or "complex"), as long as both sample rates are mathematically capable of encoding the highest frequency in the sound wave. There are many aspects of this hobby that are subjective and matters of opinion. But this is not one of them - it's a fact. And insofar as you refuse to accept a scientific fact (a mathematical fact, really) as a fact, you are indeed exemplifying a real problem in our society today.

[beerandmusic]

22 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

39 pages ago you began with the view that higher sample rates do not only enable the sampling of higher frequencies, but also "smooth out the sound"

 

Actually i said i DIDN"t agree that higher sampling rates "round" things.

I said, and still believe that it provides more detail and "airyness"....not round anything.

 

I don't refuse to accept a scientifc fact...the theorem has criteria, that allows me to accept it, which i have stated.

It is a scientific fact that nyquist theorem is bandlimited.

It is a scientific fact that the nyquist frequency is not perfect for capturing all sound in real world examples.

Those are scientific facts that i accept.

 

As long as i can hear more details in the live that cannot be reproduced, i cannot accept that 44.1k is the end all.

 

I may be wrong in my thinking, I don't deny that, but it is my honest belief.

 

 

 

 

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

Actually i said i DIDN"t agree that higher sampling rates "round" things.

I said, and still believe that it provides more detail and "airyness"....not round anything.

Whatever you think it does, it doesn't.

[beerandmusic]

6 minutes ago, mansr said:

Whatever you think it does, it doesn't.

 

and i agree to disagree...in the poll that is running more than 2 to 1 believe that 44.1K is not the end all game.

[beerandmusic]

18 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

I do agree that it might be good for this thread to be closed.

 

PS i didn't mean to suggest the thread should be closed, although i would not be opposed to it....

 

my comment about intervention was more on a spiritual level (grin).

[kumakuma]

8 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

and i agree to disagree...in the poll that is running more than 2 to 1 believe that 44.1K is not the end all game.

 

Why you hung up on this sample rate?

 

There is nothing special about it other than the fact that is the one used in the Redbook standard for CDs.

 

[beerandmusic]

7 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Why you hung up on this sample rate?

 

There is nothing special about it other than the fact that is the one used in the Redbook standard for CDs.

 

 

I am not hung up on it...and as I expressed much earlier in the thread, it really has nothing to do with my initial reason for starting the thread.  I learned that nyquist is not even used for DSD.

 

What i really wanted to explore was why DSD can be a superior format to PCM...but after this thread, I am NOT going to start that thread, because it would be even more complicated and likely follow the same pattern (lol).

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, beerandmusic said:

 

I am not hung up on it...and as I expressed much earlier in the thread, it really has nothing to do with my initial reason for starting the thread.  I learned that nyquist is not even used for DSD.

 

What is "nyquist" referring to here?

[tmtomh]

28 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

Actually i said i DIDN"t agree that higher sampling rates "round" things.

I said, and still believe that it provides more detail and "airyness"....not round anything.

 

I don't refuse to accept a scientifc fact...the theorem has criteria, that allows me to accept it, which i have stated.

It is a scientific fact that nyquist theorem is bandlimited, and the nyquist frequency is not perfect for capturing all sound in real world examples.

 

As long as i can hear more details in the live that cannot be reproduced, i cannot accept that 44.1k is the end all.

 

I may be wrong in my thinking, I don't deny that, but it is my honest belief.

 

 

 

 

 

This is a great example of why some members have been driven to respond to you in negative ways.

 

Above, I wrote, "39 pages ago you began with the view that higher sample rates do not only enable the sampling of higher frequencies, but also 'smooth out the sound' or 'enable the capturing of more detail' in the audible frequency range of 20Hz-20kHz."

 

In your response, you quote me, but only partially, leaving out the "enable the capturing of more detail" part of my statement. Then you go on to say, "I said, and still believe that it provides more detail and 'airyiness'" - which is exactly what I referred to when I wrote of your claim that higher sample rates "enable the capturing of more detail."

 

What you're doing here is arguing in bad faith. It doesn't matter whether or not one calls it "smoother" or "more detailed" or just "better": - and in my opinion you know that. The point - and in my opinion you know this too - is that you are claiming that higher sample rates allow for better-sounding encoding of 20Hz-20kHz sound waves than lower sample rates. And that claim simply is untrue. 

 

If you want to say you still believe it regardless, then hey, that's your prerogative. But in that case there was no need for 39 pages of discussion - and in fact there was no need for you to start this thread at all.

 

 

19 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

and i agree to disagree...in the poll that is running more than 2 to 1 believe that 44.1K is not the end all game.

 

44.1kHz indeed is not the end-all game. But the reason it is not the end-all game is not the reason you are insisting upon. So again, while you remain free to hold your view, the poll you have cited is not evidence that your view is correct.

 

And since "end all game" is vague doesn't actually refer to your argument, the poll is not even evidence that a majority of members here agree with the view you're espousing in this thread.

[tmtomh]

On 2/18/2018 at 3:01 PM, beerandmusic said:

As to not disrupt the "best bang for the buck thread", any more, I am starting a new thread.

 

I am conceding that I "MAY" possibly have a misconception of sample rate, but after reading below, i "believe" my conception is still the same.

 

Can we agree on this as the "basics" for any debate?

 

https://techterms.com/definition/sample_rate

 

Sample Rate

In audio production, a sample rate (or "sampling rate") defines how many times per second a sound is sampled. Technically speaking, it is the frequency of samples used in a digital recording.

The standard sample rate used for audio CDs is 44.1 kilohertz (44,100 hertz). That means each second of a song on a CD contains 44,100 individual samples. When an analog sound, such as a vocal performance, is sampled at a rate of tens of thousands of times per second, the digital recording may be nearly indistinguishable from the original analog sound.

CDs use a sample rate of 44.1 KHz because it allows for a maximum audio frequency of 22.05 kilohertz. The human ear can detect sounds from roughly 20 hertz to 20 kilohertz, so there is little reason to record at higher sample rates. However, because digital audio recordings are estimations of analog audio, a smoother sound can be gained by increasing the sample rate above 44.1 KHz. Examples of high sample rates include 48 KHz (used for DVD video), 88.2 KHz (2x the rate of CD audio), and 96 KHz (used for DVD-Audio and other high definition audio formats).

While audio aficionados may appreciate higher sample rates, it is difficult for most people to perceive an improvement in audio quality when the sample rate is higher than 44.1 Khz. A more effective way to improve the quality of digital audio is to increase the bit depth, which determines amplitude range of each sample. 16-bit audio, used in audio CDs, provides 2¹⁶ or 65,536 possible amplitude values. 24-bit audio, used in high definition formats, can store 2²⁴ or 16,777,216 possible amplitude values – 256 times more than 16-bit audio.

NOTE: Many DAW programs support sample rates up to 192 KHz. Recording at extremely high sample rates allows sound engineers to preserve the audio quality during the mixing and editing process. This can improve the end result of a song or audio clip even if the final version is saved with a sample rate of 44.1 Hz.

 

Updated: August 22, 2015

Cite this definition:

 

 

Also, one more important point: You started this thread asking if we could all agree on a techterms.com definition as a starting point for sample rate discussion, and you provided that definition in your opening post.

 

As you can see by the part I've highlighted in bold and in red in the above quoted post of yours (you have to expand it by clicking "read more"), the definition you started us off with, and which you proposed was correct, says exactly what you have recently denied claiming: that higher sample rates can provide "smoother sound."

 

This is another example of why a refusal to be accountable for your own prior statements (and in this case, a statement by someone else that you explicitly aligned yourself with) makes rational discussion impossible. Accountability is essential for a productive discussion, and with all due respect, my view is that you have no one but yourself to blame if the thread goes sideways as a result of your lack of accountability for your own prior words and views.

[Allan F]

26 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

But the reason it is not the end-all game is not the reason you are insisting upon. So again, while you remain free to hold your view, the poll you have cited is not evidence that your view is correct.

 

Seems like b&m's approach is to follow the example of a certain person who lives in a big white house in Washington, D.C.

[beerandmusic]

 

I corrected the part that was misquoted because it was incorrect.  I left out the part i agreed with because i agree with it.

To me smoothing out is nothing like more detail.

 

Anyway, it's just repetitive. 

 

My guess is that my belief has something to do with "bandlimited" because i don't really understand it...i just know that i can hear a lot more details in the "live" than i believe is possible to engineer a solution to reporduce the same details, and i attribute it to the infinite frequencies that exist in the real world, that are not "bandlimited"...at least that is my thinking.

 

I am perfectly content with the subject going away.  No one will change my mind, and i am not willing to take the amount of study time that would make me understand where i may believe i am mistaken...i believe my disbelief is related to the infinite frequencies that really exist and the bandlimited criteria of the nyquist theorem.

 

[beerandmusic]

15 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

Also, one more important point: You started this thread asking if we could all agree on a techterms.com definition as a starting point for sample rate discussion, and you provided that definition in your opening post.

 

As you can see by the part I've highlighted in bold and in red in the above quoted post of yours (you have to expand it by clicking "read more"), the definition you started us off with, and which you proposed was correct, says exactly what you have recently denied claiming: that higher sample rates can provide "smoother sound."

 

 

and probably a few posts down from that, i said i didn't believe that part....and that is why i refuted that part of what you said.

 

[beerandmusic]

In the end, i believe everyone here will know the truth.

If i was wrong, no big deal.  If i was right, no big deal....

but if i was right, I  will sneek in "i told you so" with a cheers, and hope everyone else would be able to say likewise, if they were right (wink).

 

I am sure there will be much bigger issues for everyone.

 

 

[tmtomh]

7 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

and probably a few posts down from that, i said i didn't believe that part....and that is why i refuted that part of what you said.

 

 

Look, if you proposed that we all agree to a definition and then later said that you really meant all of a definition except for one phrase, I think that's needlessly confusing of you, but I will certainly be happy to accept your work on that.

But in return, I would expect you to acknowledge that whether higher sample rates are about "smoothness" or "detail" was not the point of what I was saying. If you cannot or will not acknowledge that, then you're not arguing in good faith, and it will not be possible or worthwhile engaging the content of what you say.

[Spacehound]

8 hours ago, jabbr said:

Fair enough, but for example: https://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pauling.html

 

The fact that Linus Pauling's statements about the merits of Vitamin C are called into question does not diminish the respect that should be accorded to him as a scientist.

 

Thats an example.

Linus Pauling didn't sell orange juice 

[Ralf11]

28 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

the infinite frequencies that really exist 

 

 

they don't

[buonassi]

I thought the whole point of increasing the sampling rate was to improve the time domain performance irrespective of frequency.  According to Hans Beekhuysen, the below are the benefits of increased sample rates.  Please ignore any reference to MQA as the principles apply to traditional PCM just as well:

 

1.  You can design much more slower rolloff filters in the passband without it affecting any of the humanly audible spectrum.  This results in far less time smearing/ringing.  The entire video is worth watching.

 

 

2.  Transient realism and localization.  I think this was the point @beerandmusic was trying to make with his "9 million singers" example, although the phrase "changes their tone" was confusing.  Because the human auditory system is capable of perceiving sound changes as fast as 5-10 millionths of a second, 44 thousand times a second isn't really sufficient resolution to match our hearing resolution - 10:50 in the below video:

 

 

[buonassi]

26 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

In the end, i believe everyone here will know the truth.

If i was wrong, no big deal.  If i was right, no big deal....

but if i was right, I  will sneek in "i told you so" with a cheers, and hope everyone else would be able to say likewise, if they were right (wink).

 

I am sure there will be much bigger issues for everyone.

 

 

gloating doesn't add anything positive to the discourse.  

[Spacehound]

1 hour ago, beerandmusic said:

 

and i agree to disagree...in the poll that is running more than 2 to 1 believe that 44.1K is not the end all game.

The operation  of the universe is  not influenced by CA polls.

[beerandmusic]

38 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

Look, if you proposed that we all agree to a definition and then later said that you really meant all of a definition except for one phrase, I think that's needlessly confusing of you, but I will certainly be happy to accept your work on that.

But in return, I would expect you to acknowledge that whether higher sample rates are about "smoothness" or "detail" was not the point of what I was saying. If you cannot or will not acknowledge that, then you're not arguing in good faith, and it will not be possible or worthwhile engaging the content of what you say.

 

I proposed an excerpt from a link...it was open to discussion as a starting point....

the reason i quoted that part, was because that was the first part of what you said that i disagreed with.

i am happy to quit discussing any time you want to. 

I am not arguing you "in good faith or bad faith" or anythng else....i was just correcting you where i disagreed.

It seemed to me you were trying to make several points, and to be totally honest, i have no clue what point even needs to be discussed.

Everyone knows that I don't agree that that 44.1K sampling rate can accurately capture all possible sounds up to 20Khz...so i am not sure what else is to discuss.  I don't even think that 44.1K sampling rate can capture all possible sounds between 100 and 101 hz.