Understanding Sample Rate

[esldude]

44 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.  You are wrong.  Your mistake is thinking you look at straight lines from sample to sample.  So more samples mean it follows the curve better. The reconstructed wave doesn't connect the dots with a straight line. More samples doesn't change the shape of the wave exiting the DAC.

 

Adobe Audition shows the real reconstructed waveform.  Other softwares don't.  Maybe someone with Adobe could post 1 khz at both low and high rates.

[esldude]

22 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

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.

Incorrect.  You are operating under misconceptions that will prevent you from understanding this until you let go of them.

[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.

[beerandmusic]

6 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

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?.

 

 

 

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.

 

[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.

[Andyman]

Beer. You're getting a hard time here. Somewhat unfairly but you're not helping yourself much either with your refusal to consider alternative views (facts!)

 

To me, it's clear you're thinking of something akin to representing a waveform on graph paper; and that using finer graph paper will give you a more accurate representation. Perfectly intuitive and obvious. Except as others are at pains to point out - incorrect. But shouting at you isn't going to help. You should realise though, there are enough here who understand the theory and are telling you, that they might just be right. It will dawn eventually if you read with an open mind.

 

To get your head around the addition of wave forms. Assuming you have a basic understanding. Consider a synthesizer playing a pure sine wave. Doesn't matter what frequency as long as within band. And an identical synth playing the exact same note but it's output (loudspeaker, whatever) half of its wavelength closer (or further) from your ear. Do you get that these two sounds sum to silence?

 

Also. The question you should maybe have asked. From the same master (etc....) what is the advantage of a 96k recording over 44.1? I'd be quite intrigued to read some answers myself.

 

Cheerio and good luck.

[beerandmusic]

27 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

 

 

 

this is actually very good....for debate and understanding which i will elaborate on in future.

 

I am raising your scale from a negative 5 out of a possible negative ten to a negative one for this submission....but you have a long ways to go before you can catch jabbrs or miskas current rating of 10 (wink).

 

you may not give a hoot what i think of you, but i felt bad for inferring previously that you are a worthless piece of trash (grin)....so it is more for me than for you (wink)

[crenca]

10 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.

 

 

Very good!  NOW we are getting somewhere.  Tell me, are you a god or a man?  If you are a god, then you have the ability to change your name at an infinite rate (if you so choose) and since I am a man I could not sample your name fast enough to accurately reproduce your name.  However, if you are a man, then you are limited by the laws of the universe - you are a creature, and you are not infinite.  Thus, there is a limit as to how fast you can change your name. Tell me, what is this limit?  

 

How fast can you change your name???  

 

I ask because I can then tell you (even better, I can prove it too you) how fast I need to sample, to accurately, fully, without any errors or "gaps", reproduce your name...

[beerandmusic]

6 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Very good!  NOW we are getting somewhere.  Tell me, are you a god or a man?  If you are a god, then you have the ability to change your name at an infinite rate (if you so choose) and since I am a man I could not sample your name fast enough to accurate reproduce your name.  However, if you are a man, then you are limited by the laws of the universe - you are a creature, and you are not infinite.  Thus, there is a limit as to how fast you can change your name. Tell me, what is this limit?  

 

How fast can you change your name???  

 

I ask because I can then tell you (even better, I can prove it too you) how fast I need to sample, to accurately, fully, without any errors or "gaps", reproduce your name...

 

i changed my name the moment that you did not sample....i changed it back the next moment you did not sample....you have the correct current name but you have no knowledge of the moment i changed my name....you are missing the details....but it doesn't matter now, because it is in the past.

[hsmeets]

4 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

i only changed my name for the moment that you did not sample....you have the correct current name but you have no knowledge of the moment i changed my name....you are missing the details....

 

that is outside the "bandwidth limited" that is part of the Nyquist theorem.

[jhwalker]

The math really comes down to this - to reconstruct a sine wave / curve, you only need a certain number of samples; i.e., at least twice the frequency of the wave.  

 

There is one (and only one) wave that fits into a given set of coordinates - which is why in the diagram above the two curves are IDENTICAL even though there are more samples "defining" one than the other.

 

This was the "aha" moment for me.  I agree it's not "intuitive" and that big companies like Sony and Phillips, etc., have made it confusing by dumbing down the idea of sampling for the masses.  But the math is right.

[crenca]

5 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

i only changed my name for the moment that you did not sample....i changed it back the next moment you did not sample....you have the correct current name but you have no knowledge of the moment i changed my name....you are missing the details....but it doesn't matter now, because it is in the past.

 

Ah, you are a god then.  You can change your name at an infinte rate.  I am but a man, and I live in the world which you created - this orderly world where men can only change their names up to a certain frequency.  True, bats and other animals can change their names at a greater frequency, but even they have their limits.  Man, being a creative and intelligent creature (made in your image of course) through his art can make machines that can change their name even faster (much faster) than creatures, but alas, even these machines have  their limits.

 

What is it like to be a god, such that you can not be sampled accurately?  Tell me please, I am but a lowly man...

[beerandmusic]

15 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Ah, you are a god then.  You can change your name at an infinte rate.  I am but a man, and I live in the world which you created - this orderly world where men can only change their names up to a certain frequency.  True, bats and other animals can change their names at a greater frequency, but even they have their limits.  Man, being a creative and intelligent creature (made in your image of course) through his art can make machines that can change their name even faster (much faster) than creatures, but alas, even these machines have  their limits.

 

What is it like to be a god, such that you can not be sampled accurately?  Tell me please, I am but a lowly man...

 

even man can create sound at an "infinite rate"...the plucking of a guitar for instance.

the complex waveform has an infinite number of frequencies, at an infinite number of time slices,  within it's own frequency range (between 50 and 300hz) that man just is not able to record accurately.

[crenca]

1 minute ago, beerandmusic said:

 

even man can create sound at an infinite rate...the pluck of a guitar string for instance.

the complex waveform has an infinite number of frequencies within it's own frequency range that man just is not able to record.

 

Man?  no.  Demigod?  Perhaps.  Do you speak of the winged Cupid, plucking on his strings?  These strings produce frequencies of an infinite rate?!?!  Oh, to be a god and hear the infinite sounds of the heavens!!  Tell me noble beerandmusic, your highness, what is it like to hear the infinite sounds of the gods and their heavens!!??  Please tell me, for I am but a man, and when men pluck on our crude and limited strings, only finite frequencies come forth from them....OH, MY SOUL my soul,  I lament at my mortality, my finiteness, my limitations.  PLEASE, please noble and great beerandmusic, tell me what do the sounds of the gods sound like??

[beerandmusic]

13 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Man?  no.  Demigod?  Perhaps.  Do you speak of the winged Cupid, plucking on his strings?  These strings produce frequencies of an infinite rate?!?!  Oh, to be a god and hear the infinite sounds of the heavens!!  Tell me noble beerandmusic, your highness, what is it like to hear the infinite sounds of the gods and their heavens!!??  Please tell me, for I am but a man, and when men pluck on our crude and limited strings, only finite frequencies come forth from them....OH, MY SOUL my soul,  I lament at my mortality, my finiteness, my limitations.  PLEASE, please noble and great beerandmusic, tell me what do the sounds of the gods sound like??

"infinite rate" was taken in your context.

 

But i have heard "things" that you would never believe in the material world you know....but i won't go into because it is off topic (lol)...only sharing because you asked....it was in deep meditation, and a state I have never been able to get back to...

 

it was in my quest for trying to undestand what God would want praise and adoration....when i discovered it wasn't for God, it was for unity of man.

 

 

[esldude]

7 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

even man can create sound at an "infinite rate"...the plucking of a guitar for instance.

the complex waveform has an infinite number of frequencies, at an infinite number of time slices,  within it's own frequency range (between 50 and 300hz) that man just is not able to record.

Maybe you can approach it like this.  Otherwise your infinite BS will keep you from ever getting how this works. 

 

Fourier analysis says any waveform no matter how complex can be broken down into a series of sine waves that combine to the complex waveform.  If you have a system like digital audio that can handle any sine wave below half the sample rate, it can handle any combination of sine waves as well.  There is no level of waveform complexity that cannot be broken down into an equivalent group of sine waves and no waveform of any complexity that cannot be reconstructed from a digitally sampled waveform at half the sample rate or less.  

 

So you need to let go of the infinite slices BS.  You are wrong, it is demonstrably wrong.  And your insisting otherwise will never make it right.  

 

So, do you wish in any way to learn something about this 

 

or

 

you have an idea and will  not accept anything that doesn't support that idea?

 

An idea btw which in this case you are wrong about without question.  

[beerandmusic]

2 minutes ago, esldude said:

Fourier analysis says any waveform no matter how complex can be broken down into a series of sine waves that combine to the complex waveform.  There is no level of waveform complexity that cannot be broken down into an equivalent group of sine waves

 

this i agree with

[beerandmusic]

as long as people stop responding, i will let it rest and ponder...for future consideration.

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

"infinite rate" was taken in your context.

 

But i have heard "things" that you would never believe in the material world you know....but i won't go into because it is off topic (lol)...only sharing because you asked.

 

 

 

 

I hear you noble beerandmusic!  I too believe in the gods!!  I have seen their shadows on the walls, seen the shapes out of the corners of my eyes.  But, alas, I am but a man and have also seen that a stone is just a stone as well.  When I walk home, after a weary day, the distance is always the same.  The gods, yes yes they are infinite, but the world that they created for us is not arbitrary.  They are also not facetious or cruel - they help us lowly men by creating order and limits.  Our names and the notes that our instruments create, alas, they are finite as well, and can only be manipulated so fast.  Thank the gods!  This means that they can be measured!!  If men were infinite, then men would have no names, and music would have no frequency, just as you point out noble beerandmusic!!!

[esldude]

2 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

as long as people stop responding, i will let it rest and ponder...for future consideration.

Okay think about Fourier analysis. 

 

We know PCM can have any single sine wave below half sample rate.  Even 600 hz and 600.00000001 hz. We know it can combine any two sine waves possible.  Any 3 sine waves possible so on and so forth.  So we know the system can recreate any waveform of any possible complexity correctly. 

 

So if you get that, you have one good step toward understanding this.  

 

 

[beerandmusic]

1 minute ago, crenca said:

 

I hear you noble beerandmusic!  I too believe in the gods!!  I have seen their shadows on the walls, seen the shapes out of the corners of my eyes.  But, alas, I am but a man and have also seen that a stone is just a stone as well.  When I walk home, after a weary day, the distance is always the same.  The gods, yes yes they are infinite, but the world that they created for us is not arbitrary.  They are also not facetious or cruel - they help us lowly men by creating order and limits.  Our names and the notes that our instruments create, alas, they are finite as well, and can only be manipulated so fast.  Thank the gods!  This means that they can be measured!!  If men were infinite, then men would have no names, and music would have no frequency, just as you point out noble beerandmusic!!!

 

 

don't cut yourself short.

[beerandmusic]

19 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

I hear you noble beerandmusic!  I too believe in the gods!!  I have seen their shadows on the walls, seen the shapes out of the corners of my eyes.  But, alas, I am but a man and have also seen that a stone is just a stone as well.  When I walk home, after a weary day, the distance is always the same.  The gods, yes yes they are infinite, but the world that they created for us is not arbitrary.  They are also not facetious or cruel - they help us lowly men by creating order and limits.  Our names and the notes that our instruments create, alas, they are finite as well, and can only be manipulated so fast.  Thank the gods!  This means that they can be measured!!  If men were infinite, then men would have no names, and music would have no frequency, just as you point out noble beerandmusic!!!

 

P.S. Thanks for spending so much time patiently with me.  Where it may not be apparent that I have gained anything, i believe I have....and the results may not be immediately forthcoming, but in the overall big picture, it has and will continue.  you are a good man, and better than most.  I am not saying this as some may suggest that i am full of myself or that my opinion even matters...i am merely acknowledging your time and effort.

 

[Audiodinosaur]

I'm 61 and everything I'm about to write is from school classes I took before I was 18, so forgive me if I get a few details wrong.

 

Let's start with a standard A 440 tuning fork.  Give it a wack and it will vibrate at 440 Hz. Hit it gently: it vibrates at 440.  Hit it harder and it vibrates at 440. This is the concept of resonance.

 

If something has a resonance and you expose it to sound waves at that resonance, it will vibrate. Other frequencies may cause it to vibrate a little, but sound at the resonant frequency will cause it to vibrate the most.

 

When vibrations from sound reaches the inner ear, they cause little "hairs" in the inner ear to resonate. When a particular group of "hairs" resonates, a signal is sent to the brain and we hear sound at a frequency.  Different frequencies cause different groups of 'hairs" to resonate and we hear different frequencies.

 

If nothing resonates, we hear no sound.

 

There is nothing in the inner ear that responds to frequencies much above 20,000 Hz. (In my ears the threshold is well below 20,000 Hz. Gone is the high frequency hearing of my youth.)

 

Going back to the earlier part of this thread, if you have one sound source generating a particular frequency, a particular group of "hairs" is going to resonate.  Add a second sound source at the same frequency and the "hairs" vibrate more, but it is the same group of "hairs." 10,000,000 or 10,000,001 makes no difference if the frequency is the same.  My voice is different from your voice because, in addition to the fundamental frequency of the note we are singing, we produce other frequencies.  If the additional singer in our hypothetical 10,000,000 voice choir produces frequencies not found in the other voices, additional groups of "hairs" will vibrate.  If it produces more of the frequencies already present, the "hairs" that resonate at those frequencies will vibrate more. (I tend to sing out of tune, so i would probably start a different group of "hairs" vibrating than the other 10,000,000 singers.)

 

A few minutes with google and you can put correct names to all the parts of the ear.  You can find a map of the inner ear that shows where different frequencies stimulate the inner ear.

 

All of you doctors, engineers and professors out there - did I get this approximately right?

[crenca]

1 minute ago, beerandmusic said:

 

P.S. Thanks for spending so much time patiently with me.  Where it may not be apparent that I have gained anything, i believe I have.

 

 

No worries.  I know upstream you mention your education.  Have you considered reading Plato?  The dialogues of Socrates you would find very very interesting.  Rather than trying to teach you Fourier math, these dialogues can teach a man to think, such that you can under-stand ALL ideas including Fourier math. (think about that term, it means to "stand under" some thing or idea  - you uphold it, it does not "inform" you)

 

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/131793/the-dialogues-of-plato-by-plato/9780553213713/

[jabbr]

With Sigma Delta Modulation, increasing the sampling rate does improve the “accuracy” but the presumption on this thread is that we are dealing with PCM. That’s why if you are trying to use this concept to compare SACD to CD it’s frought. In all cases whether increasing the bit depth in PCM or sampling rate SDM the limit is the SNR of the signal itself so blindingly increasing ceases to be a benefit. 

 

@beerandmusic you stated “CD” in the OP, hence the pushback but perhaps DSD/SDM is a more natural way for you to think? Hmmm ... it’s often though that SDM is less intuitive than PCM but it’s also described as “analog” and however, perhaps that’s how you are thinking about this?