Understanding Sample Rate

[jabbr]

4 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

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.

 

This is flat out wrong and despite being told so, and provided literature and references, you maintain your fixed dogmatic yet incorrect viewpoint. 

[beerandmusic]

2 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

This is flat out wrong and despite being told so, and provided literature and references, you maintain your fixed dogmatic yet incorrect viewpoint. 

 

I believe there are an infinite number of frequencies between 100hz and 101 hz, and the fact that the theorem has a criteria of bandlimited, that i don't believe the nyquist theorem can accurately capture all sounds between that range.

 

And like i said, it is possible i am incorrect...i just don't believe i am.

I don't know why people have such a hard time understanding that.

[jabbr]

4 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

I believe there are an infinite number of frequencies between 100hz and 101 hz, and the fact that the theorem has a criteria of bandlimited, that i don't believe the nyquist theorem can accurately capture all sounds between that range.

 

And like i said, it is possible i am incorrect...i just don't believe i am.

I don't know why people have such a hard time understanding that.

 

You can believe that 1 + 1 = 3 despite being told that it equals 2. I have a hard time why you refuse to either accept this or do some reading and work the math out for yourself.

 

Math and physics aren't like art. Not all opinions are equally valid.

[Spacehound]

7 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

And like i said, it is possible i am incorrect...i just don't believe i am.

I don't know why people have such a hard time understanding that.

Because you keep pushing your beliefs and  if they are true they aren't beliefs and thus can be demonstrated to all. Please do so..

[bobbmd]

@Spacehound but he authored my freshman general chemistry text at St Lawrence University in 1965=i still have it somewhere-just about the same time he uttered that nonsense about Vit C and the human body doesn't store VitC you just pee excess out-Laureates don't know everything

goodnite time for Homeland...

bobbmd

[Spacehound]

2 minutes ago, jabbr said:

You can believe that 1 + 1 = 3

Try something more suited to the beginner.

[beerandmusic]

1 minute ago, jabbr said:

 

You can believe that 1 + 1 = 3 despite being told that it equals 2. I have a hard time why you refuse to either accept this or do some reading and work the math out for yourself.

 

Math and physics aren't like art. Not all opinions are equally valid.

You can't force someone to believe something.  They have to understand it.  Some people may say they accept something because they were told it, but really don't know.  I don't accept it because I hear more things in life than what i can hear in reproduction.... I don't want to do the math to either prove or disprove it, because it is not important enough to me to take the time to understand it.  It seems to me that more people are concerned with my acceptance than my own desires, which i have no idea why...why does anyone care if i believe it or not?

 

[Spacehound]

Just now, beerandmusic said:

You can't force someone to believe something.  They have to understand it.  Some people may say they accept something because they were told it, but really don't know.  I don't accept it because I hear more things in life than what i can hear in reproduction.... I don't want to do the math to either prove or disprove it, because it is not important enough to me to take the time to understand it.  It seems to me that more people are concerned with my acceptance than my own desires, which i have no idea why...why does anyone care if i believe it or not?

 

Truth is not dependent on  people's understanding of it.

[beerandmusic]

7 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

Because you keep pushing your beliefs and  if they are true they aren't beliefs and thus can be demonstrated. Please do so..

I am not pushing my beliefs at all...

I really could care less whether people believe me or not.

I am not trying to change anyone's mind...on the contrary people seem to be trying to force their beliefs on me.

I know i have belief in a lot of things others do not....

 

[jabbr]

Just now, beerandmusic said:

You can't force someone to believe something.  They have to understand it. 

 

I can't force you to understand anything, but if you continue to say things in public that are blatantly and plainly wrong, I will note these so that other people don't being misinformed by your endlessly repetitive yet incorrect statements.

[beerandmusic]

2 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

Truth is not dependent on  people's understanding of it.

I agree....there is only one truth.

It is also possible i am wrong...no big deal.

[beerandmusic]

8 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

I can't force you to understand anything, but if you continue to say things in public that are blatantly and plainly wrong, I will note these so that other people don't being misinformed by your endlessly repetitive yet incorrect statements.

I highly doubt anyone would believe something just because someone said it was so.

Belief (in the non-spiritual sense) is based on knowledge and experience, not on what someone says.

 

 

 

[Spacehound]

5 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

I am not pushing my beliefs at all...

I really could care less whether people believe me or not.

I am not trying to change anyone's mind...on the contrary people seem to be trying to force their beliefs on me.

I know i have belief in a lot of things others do not....

 

Good for you. I try not to have any beliefs at all.

[beerandmusic]

49 minutes ago, buonassi said:

@beerandmusic.  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:

 

 

 

I don't really know the actual math, i just know that i can hear a lot more details in live than i have ever heard in recordings.

If you followed the thread, you will see that for about a half a day i was willing to accept that 44.1K was sufficient to capture all audible sound, even though i didn't quite believe it, i was able to accept the possibility....but then while laying down and hearing my wife with a fork in a mixing bowl, i concentrated on the details of the different frequencies and realized that in the real world there are infinite frequencies "chords if you will" that just can't be reproduced with today's technology.  I am guessing the the microphones are the weaker link than the playback system, but our ears are far more capable than what man gives credit for.

[tmtomh]

39 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

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.

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry I'm not able to make myself fully understood to you. With respect, I feel fairly confident that the vast majority of folks reading and participating in this thread do understand why I'm trying to say, so I'll just leave it at that.

[beerandmusic]

2 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

I'm sorry I'm not able to make myself fully understood to you. With respect, I feel fairly confident that the vast majority of folks reading and participating in this thread do understand why I'm trying to say, so I'll just leave it at that.

I am sure everyone understands everybody except for me...i am ok with that.

thanks for trying...

 

Peace.

[jhwalker]

1 hour ago, beerandmusic said:

 

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

 

 

This is as succinct a statement of the "my belief is just as good as your facts" problem I've seen

[fas42]

19 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

I don't really know the actual math, i just know that i can hear a lot more details in live than i have ever heard in recordings.

If you followed the thread, you will see that for about a half a day i was willing to accept that 44.1K was sufficient to capture all audible sound, even though i didn't quite believe it, i was able to accept the possibility....but then while laying down and hearing my wife with a fork in a mixing bowl, i concentrated on the details of the different frequencies and realized that in the real world there are infinite frequencies "chords if you will" that just can't be reproduced with today's technology.  I am guessing the the microphones are the weaker link than the playback system, but our ears are far more capable than what man gives credit for.

 

No, the weak link is the playback system - hearing a live sound conveyed to you, over distance or time, depends on a chain of processes: the recording phase, storage in some format, then playback of the stored recording ... nearly everyone is obsessed with the recording and storage phases ... and thus the playback phase gets off the hook, very lightly ... well, it's mine, I can see it, it looks fab, it's gotta be doing the right thing!

 

Ummm ... that's the problem ... that lovely playback setup is not doing the right thing - no matter how much one's ego is tied up in it being spot on! Perhaps, exposing oneself to a rig that's fully competent is needed, to get the message through ...

[Archimago]

38 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

I don't really know the actual math, i just know that i can hear a lot more details in live than i have ever heard in recordings.

If you followed the thread, you will see that for about a half a day i was willing to accept that 44.1K was sufficient to capture all audible sound, even though i didn't quite believe it, i was able to accept the possibility....but then while laying down and hearing my wife with a fork in a mixing bowl, i concentrated on the details of the different frequencies and realized that in the real world there are infinite frequencies "chords if you will" that just can't be reproduced with today's technology.  I am guessing the the microphones are the weaker link than the playback system, but our ears are far more capable than what man gives credit for.

 

@beerandmusic

Bold and italics added to that quote to focus on the sentence.

 

I am curious, by what means did you "realize" that something "can't" be reproduced with today's technology?

 

Is that based on intuition? If so, are you saying that:

"I was listening to the fork in the mixing bowl and had a hunch..."

 

Or is this a certainty that you hold?

"I was listening to the fork in the mixing bowl and now know for a fact..."

 

These are quite different levels of belief; from simply a suspicion of something to firm knowledge. Can you clarify?

[Ralf11]

it's like the old aphorism:

 

You can lead a graduate student to knowledge, but you can't make him think.

 

 

or maybe the horse one is a better analogy here

[jabbr]

41 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

I don't really know the actual math, i just know that i can hear a lot more details in live than i have ever heard in recordings.

 

Right, so why conclude that because you can hear more details in a live concert than a recording that 1 + 1 = 3?

 

Why not question your assumptions? The math is correct. Why not question whether two channels bandwidth limited to 20 Khz can capture live? Why not question whether 16 bits can capture live? Why not question the microphones, the playback etc etc etc.... why question the math?

[Ralf11]

re:  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

 

Knowledgeable engineers have commented on that video before but I'll chip in on the above stmt. ...

 

5-10 us eh?  Where is the citation for that?

 

it also seems to fundamentally mis-understand how the vertebrate auditory system actually does work

 

and then there is the problem of how the time scales of neural conduction and synaptic transmission accord with that

[Ralf11]

1 minute ago, jabbr said:

 

Right, so why conclude that because you can hear more details in a live concert than a recording that 1 + 1 = 3?

 

Why not question your assumptions? The math is correct. Why not question whether two channels bandwidth limited to 20 Khz can capture live? Why not question whether 16 bits can capture live? Why not question the microphones, the playback etc etc etc.... why question the math?

 

or question the 20 kHz upper limit for human hearing on sine waves and if it applies to a complex pulse

[Don Hills]

1 hour ago, buonassi said:

...  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 ...

 

This is a commonly held belief, but it is incorrect.

The time resolution of a 16 bit, 44.1khz PCM channel is not limited to the 22.7µs time difference between samples. The actual minimum time resolution is equivalent to 1/(2pi * quantization levels * sample rate). For 16/44.1, that is 1/(2pi * 65536 * 44100), which is about 55 picoseconds. To put that in perspective, light travels less than an inch in that time.  
 
Shannon and Nyquist showed that as long as you keep all components of the input signal below half the sampling frequency, you can reconstruct the original signal perfectly - not just in terms of amplitude, but in terms of temporal relationships too. They only addressed sampling, and assumed infinite resolution in amplitude. With a digital signal the precision is limited by the number of amplitude steps, leading to the above formula.

 

If you want to see a real-world example, watch the following video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM

 

The whole video is worth watching, but the most relevant part starts at about 21:50. It shows the edge of a square wave being smoothly moved in time between 2 sample points.

[buonassi]

33 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

5-10 us eh?  Where is the citation for that?

 

 

no idea.  In the video, Hans makes brief reference to his research on the subject and suggests his research was done on publications by acousticians and such.  

 

A counter argument to this theory is that the speed of transient isn't what allows for localization, but that localization is purely an HRTF/amplitude thing.