Understanding Sample Rate

[adamdea]

19 hours ago, 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

 

 

Really good news. Jim Lesurf has made his "information and Measurement", an excellent undergraduate text, available for free

http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/InformationAndMeasurement_PDF_Book.pdf

If you really want to learn something read this.

 

If you don't understand why a book on information and measurement is relevant, you really need to read this.

 

If (with very few exceptions) you think you don't need to read this, you really really need to read this. 

[mansr]

1 minute ago, adamdea said:

If (with very few exceptions) you think you don't need to read this, you really really need to read this.

I've read other books that probably cover most of the same topics. Is that a good enough excuse?

[adamdea]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

I've read other books that probably cover most of the same topics. Is that a good enough excuse?

You might be one of the exceptions.

[beerandmusic]

8 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

You aren’t even addressing the comparisons between SACD and CD. 

 

Its not all like “if SACD is better than CD them I’m right” ... whether you prefer one format over the other has nothing to do with the mathematical concepts.

 

what is true about SACD namely single bit SDM, is that increasing bit rate does increase SNR and hence frequency resolution to a certain degree but unless you understand the math you won’t understand why. 

 

agree, this is more along my interests, and probably instead of starting a thread "understanding sample rate", in hind sight, i should have started a topic "why does sacd sound better than a cd for the layman". (wink)

[adamdea]

My view is that at some point one either says I don't actually care about how this all works, or one tries to work out how it all works. Of all the things that get boring on the internet, fairly high up the list is -people pretending to want to understand something without being prepared to admit that what they think they know might be wrong.

[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.

 

 

[beerandmusic]

11 minutes ago, adamdea said:

My view is that at some point one either says I don't actually care about how this all works, or one tries to work out how it all works. Of all the things that get boring on the internet, fairly high up the list is -people pretending to want to understand something without being prepared to admit that what they think they know might be wrong.

 

for me, i had a genuine curiosity initially, but i see it is more complicated and I don't want to devote the time to understanding.

 

If it was something that could be spoon fed allowing a better understanding with minimal effort, where people wouldn't get upset, that would have been great, but seeing that is not the case, and i doubt I will get on the same page, i personally have no desire to explore it deeper...but my belief has not changed that SACD can sound better and can be more accurate, has not changed.

 

 

 

 

[adamdea]

Just now, beerandmusic said:

 

for me, i had a genuine curiosity initially, but i see it is more complicated and don't want to devote the time to understanding.

If it was something that could be spoon fed where people wouldn't get upset, that would have been great, but seeing that is not the cae, and i doubt I will get on the same page, i personally have no desire to explore it deeper...but my belief has not changed that SACD can sound better and can be more accurate, has not changed.

 

 

I see. Well learning and questioning your own beliefs can be tiring and it might get in the way of all the attention-seeking. Onto a new thread?

[beerandmusic]

1 minute ago, adamdea said:

I see. Well learning and questioning your own beliefs can be tiring and it might get in the way of all the attention-seeking. Onto a new thread?

who's attention are you trying to obtain with "your value add"...

[kumakuma]

4 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

my belief has not changed that SACD can sound better and can be more accurate, has not changed.

 

In my experience, SACDs usually sound better/different because the mastering is better/different. In other words, it has little to do with the sample rate or format (DSD vs PCM).

[beerandmusic]

Just now, kumakuma said:

 

In my experience, SACDs usually sound better/different because the mastering is better/different. In other words, it has little to do with the sample rate or format (DSD vs PCM).

in most cases the SACD has a cd track from same master....

[kumakuma]

2 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

in most cases the SACD has a cd track from same master....

 

therefore ?

[beerandmusic]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

 

and...

 

so in your opinion, in those cases where they are from same master, the cd track will sound same as sacd track?

 

 

 

 

[kumakuma]

9 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

so in your opinion, in those cases where they are from same master, the cd track will sound same as sacd track?

 

 

This has been my experience that there isn't much difference between them.

 

Do you have some examples of Hybrid SACDs where the DSD layer sounds significantly better than the PCM layer and the masterings are identical?

[esldude]

1 hour ago, beerandmusic said:

 

ok, so i watched it...it doesn't really touch on my confusion about a more complex signal...i am sure the suggestion would be the same applies...but he really doesn't go into complex waveforms.

 

if anyone cares to share, great, if anyone is frustrated then please don't waste any more time on me....it will serve us both better.

 

i saw the nice sine for a simple tone of 1khz.

 

lets expand on that a little (not a lot, a very little)

lets assume a singer that when sings, sings an infinite number of frequencies between 300 and 3000hz

a guitar playing has an infinite number of frequencies between 100 and 500hz

and a drum set has an infinite number of frequencies between 20 and 500hz

 

And all 3 instruments are stopping and starting at undefined moments in time.

 

That is the music.

 

my confusion has more to do with the infinite number of frequencies that exist, compounded by more than one frequency at the same time....that someone suggested averaging.

 

What is the composite waveform or the frequency at any time, and can a higher sampling capture the transitions more than a lower sample rate....say a sample rate of 50 times per second vs 1000 times per second?

 

This is more where my head is at....having nothing at all to do with the highest frequency of 3000hz.

Remember in the video where he shows for any given waveform there is one and only one series of samples that fit? Understand that and you'll see how multiple sources starting and stopping at different times. Even stopping and starting between samples the actual wave form shape at all points will be reconstructed.  Having extra samples as unintuitive as it seems will improve accuracy of reconstruction not at all.

[beerandmusic]

11 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

This has been my experience.

 

Do you have some examples of Hybrid SACDs where the DSD layer sounds significantly better than the PCM layer and the masterings are identical?

 

my use of significant is probably different than yours....my use of significant would likely only be used in comparison of speakers.

 

For SACDs i have listened to, I probably would say steely dan gaucho is probably most obvious, but i never checked to see if it was from same master or not..., but i did compare cd track to sacd track.

[kumakuma]

5 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

my use of significant is probably different than yours....my use of significant would likely only be used in comparison of speakers.

 

For SACDs i have listened to, probably would say steely dan gaucho is pretty obvious.

 

Haven't listened to that one. 

[beerandmusic]

12 minutes ago, esldude said:

Remember in the video where he shows for any given waveform there is one and only one series of samples that fit? Understand that and you'll see how multiple sources starting and stopping at different times. Even stopping and starting between samples the actual wave form shape at all points will be reconstructed.  Having extra samples as unintuitive as it seems will improve accuracy of reconstruction not at all.

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.

[hsmeets]

13 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.

 

No.

[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).

[beerandmusic]

I do concede to a few things though....

 

whereas i believe that on paper the higher the sample rate the higher the accuracy, that the processing and technology to actually implement at some point will outweigh the accuracy on paper (currently i believe to be around 8xDSD)

 

Additionally, i concede that just because something is more accurate doesn't mean that it is discernable (think can someone really tell the difference between a 600hz and a 600.00000001 hz signal.

 

But I also believe that our inability to recognize a difference doesn't mean they are not different, and i believe that our ability to hear some things (not talking about upper and lower ends of audible frequency range only), is not really measurable, especially when taking into consideration the infinite amount of chords....e.g. assume a person singing a note at 300hz at same time as a 20hz drum...someone suggested you average, ..but does the average really sound exactly like the two unique frequencies occuring at same time?  maybe?  but a higher sample rate would be better to identify the differences.

[beerandmusic]

11 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

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).

 

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.

[kumakuma]

6 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

assume a person singing a note at 300hz at same time as a 20hz drum...someone suggested you average, ..but does the average really sound exactly like the two unique frequencies occuring at same time?  maybe?  but a higher sample rate would be better to identify the differences.

 

Averaging is the wrong way to think about it. The two sound waves combine to make one sound wave.

 

Perhaps this video would help:

 

 

[miguelito]

18 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

 

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)

Ten trillion singers and a dog singing and barking... The Nyquist theorem proves that if you sample at 44KHz, your sampled data will EXACTLY reproduce the signal below 22KHz in sound frequency. That is it. Increasing the sample rate will increase the range you can encode.

[crenca]

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.

 

I'mmm baaaccckkkk

 

No, because of the nature of sound, more samples does not mean more accuracy.  Once you reach a certain point, any further samples add nothing, zero, nada, to the sound's accuracy.  This truth has been measured and can be described - like other physical phenomena like the speed of light, or energy of a hydrogen atom, etc.

 

Beerandmusic, your still thinking of sound as a quanta, a series of "infinite" events in "infinite" time.  You are thinking of sampling as a real sample of the music - like the sample is a "capture" of the sound itself just like when a person goes out into their front yard and collects a "sample" of the grass.  You also think that these samples are put back together again in a series, like a puzzle, so that the more pieces you have the better or "more accurate" the picture is.   None of this is true.

 

(tangent:  You see folks, is it not unfortunate that the term "sampling" has been used - laypersons have a completely different understanding of what this term means)

 

Question beerandmusic:  I am 6'1 in height.  If I "sample" my height once a year, or once a day, or once a second, does the "accuracy" of my measurement change?  If I set my cruise control in my car at 60 miles per hour (and it is reasonably accurate - it always keeps my car within 2 miles per hour of 60 miles per hour), if I "sample" my speed 100 times a second, would me speed be more "accurate" then if I sample my speed about once a second...or once a minute...or just a few times between point Albuquerque and San Diego?

 

A true sampling story that occured on the internet one day:

 

beerandmusic, what is your name?

 

Crenca, my name is "beerandmusic"

 

But beerandmusic music, I only know you "digitally", not in the real world, so I need to be more accurate  - what is your name?

 

Crenca, I already told you, my name is "beerandmusic"

 

Yes, but this is digital sampling, so for accuracy I will need to ask  you several times a second - what is your name?

 

Crenca, obviously you don't understand, your initial sample is an accurate sample of my name, and doing more samples does not give you a more accurate understanding/measurement of my name.

 

Why?  Because some engineers told you?  Logic dictates that because we know each other digitally, the more samples I get from you the more accurate I can hear you, see you, and know you - a sample is just a sample after all, and the more the better because I only captured a few instances of your name, I must need more for accuracy - what is your name?

 

But Crenca, names don't work that way, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of names

 

beerandmusic, I have already told you how sampling works...more is better because it leads to more accuracy - what is your name?

 

....