Understanding Sample Rate

[Spacehound]

Here ya go.  From the  'orses mouth.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem

[Spacehound]

1 minute ago, beerandmusic said:

 

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.

Your thinking is incorrect.

[Spacehound]

I give up. Apparently you don't even want to learn.

[Spacehound]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

I don't see the photoelectric effect being of particular relevance here.

[Spacehound]

2 minutes ago, rickca said:

My TV (which is off) just said exactly the same thing to me.

And thus it descends......

 

[Spacehound]

5 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

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.

 

If all else fails RTFM. It's linked in my first post.

[Spacehound]

4 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Some of you guys are confused about something very basic.

 

We don't hear "frequencies", we hear pressurized atmosphere. That does seem like a pedantic distinction, but still helpful for grasping the situation -- the situation being that high res sounds better than Redbook.

 

It's an established fact that human beings can't hear anything beyond 20 kHz -- with the exception of children who can sometimes sense sound beyond that. 20 kHz is a unit of measurement of a frequency. A 20 kHz tone is a frequency that represents an oscillation every 50 microseconds. This 20 kHz tone exists in the atmosphere as a 1.7 cm long wavelength of pressurized air travelling at 343 meters a second. This wavelength of pressurized air does oscillate at 20 kHz, ie, one oscillation every 50 microseconds,  but our ear-brain system does not also operate at 50 microsecond intervals. When the wavelength of pressurized air hits your ear, your auditory system reacts at least as quickly as 10 microseconds -- not that this is the lower limit, just what has been shown in one experiment. A 10 microsecond oscillation period results in a 100 kHz tone, which we obviously can't hear, but we CAN distinguish moments of sound at least as short at 10 microseconds.

 

The situation is thus summed up: we can't hear beyond 20 kHz, but high resolution audio supplies more audio information which makes it sound better.

100% irrelevant to what he's asking.

[Spacehound]

7 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

 

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

That's not how science works. It's  an UNbelief system.

[Spacehound]

6 hours ago, mansr said:

Not cool.

I said near the beginning he doesn't want the answers. He believes  the "serpent" that lives in his safe space.

[Spacehound]

6 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

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%.

Those that prefer wilful ignorance to reality  deserve to be ridiculed.

[Spacehound]

5 hours ago, GUTB said:

 

Of course not. Ooshai showed that humans receive and process high frequency sounds, but that is 100% the domain of neuroscience. It could be why people love ribbon tweeters so much.

 

A frequency is an oscillation over a period of time. We can’t percieve tones above 20 kHz. A 20 kHz frequency oscillates at a rate of once per 50 microseconds. If looked at it in the time domain, we shouldn’t be able to hear pulses less than 50 microseconds long — however, we CAN. The study showed we are able to distinguish 10 microseconds, even against background noise.

You're like a sponge. Absorbs anything. But real sponges have got an organ that expels crap.

[Spacehound]

14 minutes ago, firedog said:

No, ridicule is just mean and diminishes the one ridiculing. At a certain point, they deserve to be ignored. People here have been incredibly patient with beerandmusic, actually. 

After all the time and personal attention that's been lavished on him by others - especially in this thread - he really should take a step back and try to understand the material without his false preconceptions.

If he isn't willing to do that, the best thing to do would be simply not to engage with him. No one should keep wasting their time on a person if he shows he isn't willing to listen to helpful, honest replies. 

Most people ask a question when  they want to know the answer. He doesn't, he actively rejects the answers he gets.  So it's just trolling.  (Though I don't like the word, as  it's used as a 'catch all' far too often. But I think it's true here, though of course that's just my opinion.)

 

Many here have got far more patience that I have when  dealing with 'wilful ignoranti'  but unlike in the 'open air' there are certain limits on what we can say.

[Spacehound]

21 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 ...

Double post.

[Spacehound]

3 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

 Nyquist always applies.

 

On the rest I have not yet made up my mind and probably won't  try as I don't believe it is worth thinking about. To me 44.1 is an adequate minimum but   I'm not a 'minimalist' audiowise - what's a couple of dollars?..

 

[Spacehound]

2 hours ago, firedog said:

This is getting tiresome. People have spent a lot of time trying to explain this to you. They've given you resources to read and to think about.

Instead you keep looking for reasons to double back on your mistaken arguments, and trying to find some link that enables you to keep arguing your baseless position.

 

STOP! You know, you are really coming off as a person with a lot of negative qualities. Do you not have any appreciation that people here are trying to help you, and of how patient they've been with you? Stop throwing their well intentioned efforts back in their faces.

 

Be quiet for at least a  FEW DAYS and study the material.

 

DON'T do more searches - you don't understand what you find anyway. You've already been given all the links you need. You will probably need to go over the material multiple times before you start to get it. 

DON'T post on this topic during that time. You won't ingest the material and understand it in just a few minutes. It's stuff that takes time to wrap your brain around - because it disproves your intuition (like a lot of math does). 
 

After you've truly ingested the material, then come back and ask questions if you have any. 

 

As far as your you tube video, he didn't say what you seem to claim. Of course the higher sampling rate allows you to take more samples - that is by definition true. The sticking point is that after you get to the minimum sample rate necessary, those extra samples provide NO useful information: the waveform drawn from them is exactly the same as the waveform drawn from a dataset taken with a lower sample rate, as long as both meet the minimal rate needed for the recording in question. That is what you need to learn to understand. 

 

Now stop writing about it and sit down and learn about it till you understand it.

 

No one here wants to keep repeating the same things to you over and over again. 

It gets worse.

Not only does he  ask a question and refuses to believe the answer, now he attempts to limit the answers we can give:

 

"I don't want to talk about....etc"

 

How do such people every live to reach adulthood?

[Spacehound]

56 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

From what i read yesterday, it does both....most of these people are tied to just part of what increasing the sample rate does, while totally disregarding the other thing it does....moving forward, i will only discuss what increasing the sample rate does across the horizontal axis.

Those charts are the totally misleading garbage you see in a lot of dumb articles by people with  less mathematical skills than  a housefly. It isn't a 'step function'.

[Spacehound]

29 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

People can talk about whatever they want, i am just saying it has nothing to do with my understanding.

Why do people need to resort to ridicule.

Even if i was retarded and didn't understand, there is never a reason to ridicule.

"My entire effort is why does SACD sound better than CD"

That's just your opinion.

And anyway, if that is what yo wanted, why didn't have a thread title saying so?

 

 

 

I wouldn't if you weren't  determined to remain ignorant, thus wasting everyone's  time. 

If you refuse to believe any of the answers you get, why did you ask the original  question?

Firedog is much more patient than me, but even he just told you to shut up  and start reading.

 

There is a big difference from being retarded and being deliberately obtuse - in one of my rare 'kind'  periods,  I worked with retarded people full time for two years at half the pay I would have got otherwise.

[Spacehound]

11 minutes ago, firedog said:

I wasn't quoting you directly. I was using the quotes for their punctuation purpose when inserting a statement into a  sentence. But the quotes accurately reflect what you've been saying - that hi-res and DSD sound better because they give a more accurate picture of the waveform. 

Don't confuse him with "more accurate". If a sample rate is double any arbitrary high frequency you choose it's 100% accurate Always, as I am sure you know. It's what he refuses to understand. 

 

It's not just sound, it even works with bus timetables. 

[Spacehound]

16 minutes ago, mansr said:

Let's ask Monty if he has a version of the video with a higher frame rate. Perhaps that would be more accurate.

 

 

[Spacehound]

18 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

compare 10 samples per second to 1000 samples per second, and the accuracy of the reconstruction would be more obvious, especially on a very complex waveform compared to a simple sine wave of one frequency.

An hour or so ago   you said it was more difficult  than  you thought and you were 'giving up' so to speak. 

 

I gave you an 'uptick' for that. Not for giving up but because I thought it was 'honorable' of  you to say so,

 

Now you change your mind and because you  have totally  refused to accept the answers you got and continue to do so (even though you don't  understand them)  you get it wrong again (above).

[Spacehound]

26 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

sorry, i am not a robot....i lied if you want to call it that...i wouldn't.

thoughts will continue, and people continue to propose additional thinking.

you can leave if you want....most of your responses are troll nature anyway.

If trolling=truth yes. No otherwise.

 

You don't understand it. Fine,  lots of people don't.

You said it was too hard  for you to spend the necessary time on. Also fine.

But is  not reasonable to argue with it - it is not an opinion.

But you come back and do exactly that.  Which is what your 10-1000  is doing - arguing with facts. Simple ones, getting there was the hard part but that's done.

[Spacehound]

4 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

when you sample the same thing, the accuracy doesn't change, but if i changed my name the sampling matters for accuracy.

i will ponder the rest.

 

Still wrong.

[Spacehound]

 I THINK:

What an odd thread this is. It's turned into a long discussion. 

How strange.

 

"It  works this way."   The end.

 

As 1+1=2   What's to discuss? Instruct yes. Discuss NO.

 

 

[Spacehound]

11 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

That has nothing  whatsoever to do with Nyquist/Shannon  sampling theorEM  which he admitted he did not understand, same as you.

 

Goodbye, we have tried. Dream on.

[Spacehound]

33 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Watch out! Beer is going to discover another well-known and well-studied topic: oversampling!

OMG.