Understanding Sample Rate

[beerandmusic]

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:

 

[beerandmusic]

Back to my suggestion of 9 million singers singing at the same time, and every quanta (smallest time slice possible below pico seconds) one of the 9 million singers changes their tone. 

 

There are only 44K samples per second, yet there are many more changes.

 

So the sampling itself is just an approximation or probable of what that timeslice sounds like...it is not accurate, and a higher sampling rate would be more accurate.

 

The question is whether the inaccuracies are discernible.

 

Again, i suggest that 9 million singers singing would likely not be discernible than 10 million singers singing, even if that 10 millionth singer is you.

 

What i am suggesting is that what you or i realize is discernible is irrelevant to what is accurate and no ABX test would be able to show that 10millionth singer (you) was absent.  What I am also suggesting is that there are things beyond man's knowledge, and that everyone is unique and has different experiences.

 

Sure it sounds really close, and sure, even a much less complex scenario would be hard to discern as well....but with infinite sampling and greater bit depth there will always be more accuracy.

[beerandmusic]

Just now, mansr said:

You have a fundamentally flawed understanding of the concept of frequency.

 

Well you stated that this is incorrect?

In audio production, a sample rate (or "sampling rate") defines how many times per second a sound is sampled.

 

Is there a link you can share that better defines (in layman's terms) what sample rate is ....as a basis for understanding?

 

 

[beerandmusic]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

No, I said that part is correct.

Ok great....

 

that is a good start for discussion then, as that is the basis for what my belief is based on.

 

I don't want to get into the weeds right now....will revisit later.

[beerandmusic]

2 minutes ago, jhwalker said:

 

Exactly.  But the second statement is INCORRECT because increasing the frequency of sampling is only effective up to double the audio frequency you wish to sample and, in any case, increasing the sampling rate does not lead to a "smoother" sound - it simply allows you to sample higher frequencies.

 

PS - I used to believe the same (i.e., the higher the sampling rate, the "smoother" the curve produced) - after all, it's just "common sense", right?  But after additional study, I discovered I was wrong. 

 

I didn't believe the smoother part either, so that is fine.

 

My biggest problem is that in my thinking is that a higher sample rate doesn't just allow you to sample higher frequencies....it also allows you to capture more data in very complex signals having nothing to do with the audible frequency range.

[beerandmusic]

7 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

No. If the signal is bandwidth limited, and the sample rate is sufficient (e.g. 2x) then the sampling is accurate. That's the point.

 

 

this doesn't take into consideration the infinite frequencies in a complex signal...

 

e.g. what does 9million singers sound like compared to 10 million singers sound like?

 

I will expand later....time for break (wink)

 

 

[beerandmusic]

 

7 minutes ago, jabbr said:

It doesn't take into account other things that don't exist.

 

At some point you will run into physics no matter how hard you resist.

Shit like Nitrogen and Oxygen atoms, Brownian motion -- you know, the stuff Einstein got a Nobel prize for ... and shit like quantum equations ... but no matter

 

are you suggesting that an infinite amount of frequencies don't exist?

or just that they may not be discernible to hearing?

 

[beerandmusic]

12 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Yep.  Band limited hearing, your hearing (and every other humans - or living creatures) is in no way "infinite".  Also, see my earlier post, frequency is not complex in the way you are imagining it to be.

 

Let me ask this....

is it possible to have an infinite amount of frequencies between 600hz and 700hz?

e.g. is it not possible to have 600hz 600.001, 600.002, 600.003, etc...

whether it is discernible to hear the difference from one person's voice to another, not being the question.

 

[beerandmusic]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

I believe I just answered that question.

that is the part the confuses me...every time where it is suggested that is above our hearing (e.g. higher than 40Khz)?

I am talking about an infinite number of frequencies WITHIN the boundaries of 20-20khz

[beerandmusic]

Another example

 

singer A+singerB sing and together when they sing in perfect harmony their frequency is 700hz

4 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Its rather interesting history of our quantum understanding of physics. Series of papers not just the "photoelectric effect" but essential for the concept of a light "wave" being understood as a quantized photon. Thus we understand the universe, and via other papers including Einstein's general relativity but many many papers all together, where space-time itself via not a smooth continuum equation rather a quantized  equation. The point being that our fundamental understanding of the universe is quantized, and hence an infinite number of frequencies do not physically exist. I was asked this very question.

 

before i get to deep into the weeds, and before i forget...i wanted to ask about something you said....

I believe you inferred that you don't believe above 88K (or somewhere there abouts, but you like DSD and highres for other reasons)?

 

If there is no discernible difference, then why?  Just curious....

[beerandmusic]

10 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Yes and no.  The problem is how you are framing the question, which is in turn related to how you are thinking about frequency (no offense intended).  You are imagining that frequency, and thus sound, and thus the sound energy that your organic ear/brain converts into what you hear, is a "complex" composite of multiple frequencies values that all occur at the same point in time.

 

The truth is closer to this:  what is the average of all those "infinite", or even finite, frequencies?  That average is what is in fact the reality of sound, sound recording, sound reproduction, and hearing.  As manser said, frequency is "continuous", it is one thing - not many.

 

What I just said is still a laypersons explication and is itself "wrong" but I hope it helps.

 

Actually that is the exact point i am trying to get to....that the average may appear to have no discernible difference, but in actuality they do....e.g. 9 million singers may sound exactly like 10 million singers, but clearly they are not the same.

 

 

[beerandmusic]

1 minute ago, crenca said:

 

How?

 

The average is not a guess - it is calculated and the above referenced theory (supported by a large body of research) reveals that this calculation is correct.  What is the calculation missing, and what kind of frequency "information" are you hypothesising as existent that the theory does not capture?

 

probably something that physics doesn't allow (wink).

[beerandmusic]

13 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

How?

 

The average is not a guess - it is calculated and the above referenced theory (supported by a large body of research) reveals that this calculation is correct.  What is the calculation missing, and what kind of frequency "information" are you hypothesising as existent that the theory does not capture?

 

just for example....I would say that out of the billions of people on this planet, that if any two people are paired in harmony that they will all sound different although on paper probably a good 1% would sound the same to even the best listeners.

 

I am suggesting that sound has "dna" or uniqueness that man knows nothing about.

 

and beyond that, time slicing a second into 44000 samples is oblivious to what is possible.

[beerandmusic]

2 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Well, like you said physics would not "recognize" your hypothetical.  What is it about a pressure wave, which is simply (simplistically) the mere movement (somewhat orderly) of a medium (in this case air), that has a physical "dna"?  Would you say the speed of your car has a physical "has a dna" different from every other car at the same speed?  Would you say that your wife's nagging has a physical "dna", something different than the complex almamorgation of her real dna, her emotions, and your behavior?

 

Your rather haphazardly mashing domains of knowledge, physical and non physical realities all together in your imagination to create something about sound that is...well, it's a unicorn

 

I like that (smile)

[beerandmusic]

3 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Well, like you said physics would not "recognize" your hypothetical.  What is it about a pressure wave, which is simply (simplistically) the mere movement (somewhat orderly) of a medium (in this case air), that has a physical "dna"?  Would you say the speed of your car has a physical "has a dna" different from every other car at the same speed?  Would you say that your wife's nagging has a physical "dna", something different than the complex almamorgation of her real dna, her emotions, and your behavior?

 

Your rather haphazardly mashing domains of knowledge, physical and non physical realities all together in your imagination to create something about sound that is...well, it's a unicorn

 

I don't think physics can prove God either (wink).

[beerandmusic]

57 minutes ago, mansr said:

The relevant point here is that all frequencies that can meaningfully be said to exist in a given signal are accurately captured by sampling at a rate greater than twice the highest frequency.

 

or to be said in a different way, all sound can be accurately captured by sampling 44000 times in a second or 264000 times in a minute ....i call hogwash.

 

I say all sound can't be captured in 264000 samples times 7 in a second.

[beerandmusic]

4 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Did you even bother to read what he wrote?

I read what mansr, jabbr, crenca and many others write, but I typically don't read what you write (wink)...you fall in a different category...but i see you still read and reply to me....prefer you didn't.

[beerandmusic]

4 minutes ago, mansr said:

Not cool.

what? that i respect you but not kumakuma?

sorry, but even I have my standards....

Do you suggest I have to respect idiot followers that do little but ridicule?  He's far from the worst, but i would put him in bottom 20%.

[beerandmusic]

2 hours ago, crenca said:

 

Folks keep telling you your "thinking is incorrect" but not why.

 

The reason is because of what mansr said, your understanding of frequency incorrect because you think it is "complex".  You are imagining that frequency somehow captures each of those "9 million" singers.  It does not, it captures a composite of those 9 million singers.  The frequency is thus simple - it is one (and not many).  

 

I am simplifying a bit for obvious purposes...

but the composite is changing every quanta time and the average is one of an infinite amount of possibilities....even between 600 and 700hz there is an infinite number of compositions, and changing an infinite amount of times in less than a pico second....the question again is what is discernible, not what is actual or accurate.

[beerandmusic]

7 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Putting aside your specific math, why not?  What is it about a waveform that you believe is complex, such that a finite sample rate can not describe a finite reality?  Do you assume a waveform is an infinite reality - essentially, unmeasurable? Is a waveform a transcendent reality, a kind of god?

 

Let's say you have 3 singers in the room with you, and you ask them to all sing at the same time.  How many waveforms are you hearing when they do this?  Let's say there are 300 singers in a large hall - how many waveforms are you hearing?

 

for what i tried to describe previously....

 

one sample or 1/44000 of a second, call it T1, you can have an infinite number of different frequencies all within 600 to 700 hz (which the composite can be equally infinitie) and occur an infinite amount of times between T1 and T2.

 

granted, man may not be able to distinguish between 600.000001 and 600.000002 but that does not mean the frequency does not exist.  Then take a complex waveform of multiples of these same frequencies and you can sure average them out and say you cannot discern, but that is not to say they do not exist.

[beerandmusic]

Or to put it even differently...and put simply...

 

man can hear both 600.00001 and 600.00002 frequencies very easily.  They cannot discern between them, but if

2 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Ah, but what is the rate of that change?  Your not saying that the change is radom - at one point in time going this way, and at another point in time going another way.  No, the waveform - that which is changing - is changing in an orderly way correct?  Your not asserting sound is simply chaos, or is random movement like heat?  Why would a creature benefit from the sensory perception of pure randomness?  No, a waveform is an orderly change, and that order can be measured (and in the case of our hearing, sensed and perceived).

 

Your emphasizing the wrong thing in your imagination.  Try to imagine order in the chaos, a form in the midst of infinity...

 

 

Agree....this is where i completely blew all of this stuff off, when the suggestion comes into play about transition...the point being, in a complex waveform you can have an infinite number of transitions starting, occuring, and stopping in any fraction of any timeslice.

[beerandmusic]

5 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Ah, but what is the rate of that change?  Your not saying that the change is radom - at one point in time going this way, and at another point in time going another way.  No, the waveform - that which is changing - is changing in an orderly way correct?  Your not asserting sound is simply chaos, or is random movement like heat?  Why would a creature benefit from the sensory perception of pure randomness?  No, a waveform is an orderly change, and that order can be measured (and in the case of our hearing, sensed and perceived).

 

Your emphasizing the wrong thing in your imagination.  Try to imagine order in the chaos, a form in the midst of infinity...

 

 

If you try to apply order, that may be easier to apply to math, but in reality, there is no order.

[beerandmusic]

Just now, crenca said:

 

What is, exactly, a "complex waveform"?  Further, are you claiming sound is this complex waveform?

I am a layman, but i do have a high iq, and i am certain i don't have the correct terminology....when i say a complex waveform, I am just talking about a waveform with a lot of frequencies....or a composition if you will.

[beerandmusic]

8 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

No you can not  - or there would be no such thing as "frequency" .  A frequency is an orderly waveform defined and bound by both time and the rate of the movement of the medium.  You are claiming that the medium (in this case air) can move in more than one direction at the same time - "infinitely".   Essentially, you are claiming that waveforms don't exist...

 

you can have a million different frequencies occuring at any time....take example of a million different frequencies all between 600 and 700 hz such the composition averages to 650hz in one pico second 651 in another pico second etc....but then granulate it even smaller.....e..g... 650.00001, 650.0005, etc...

are they discernable, no....is one more accurate than the other depending on sample rate...yes.

[beerandmusic]

3 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

If that were the case, then sound itself, to say nothing of sound reproduction would not exist - it would be an impossibility.

 

What is real, is the somewhat counter-intuitive fact that sound is a relatively simple (and simply described) waveform phenomena that even the crudest of 19th century electronics could reproduce.

 

Let's talk about real...

 

what does 600hz sound like

what does 600.000001 sound like

 

no one can discern the difference, but both are very real and both are very easily heard.

one can be a composite of 2 frequencies at T1 and the other at T2, but if T1.5 was averaged in (that doesn't exist) , it would be 600.000005, which would be more accurate...