Understanding Sample Rate

[beerandmusic]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

If you're not willing to put in the time yourself, you're going to have to trust those of us who have.

Or in sony that suggests more accuracy in higher sample rate...i think they have some smart people too....

I believe people believe what they preach...and what they have come to know as their truth.

Everyone's truth is true to them until they accept a different truth.

 

My truth is that SACD sounds better than CD, regardless of nyquist, and is based on all my understanding and experiences, the same as any other truth i have.

[beerandmusic]

also, my belief that SACD is better than CD is based on "details", not highest possible frequency range.

[beerandmusic]

2 minutes ago, Don Hills said:

SACD is actually slightly inferior in accuracy to equivalent PCM. There's a paper somewhere that describes the maths behind this, but since you don't plan to get the required degree to understand the math...  In real life, this is swamped by differences between individual DAC circuitries, and even more by differences in the actual masters used to make the CDs versus SACDs. There's no rule that says that the CD and SACD layers on dual discs are from the same master, either.

 

that probably has more to do with technology not up to speed with ability to properly decode higher sample rates...

what pcm goes higher than 8X DSD?

[beerandmusic]

3 minutes ago, Don Hills said:

Uh uh, no moving the goalposts. We're talking about SACD (DSD64).

no problem (wink)...i think that technology is mature enough already....

i would look at a "recent link" by a reputable authority that suggests SACD is inferior to CD with an open mind.

I am sure any obstacles with SACDs are overcome by now.

[beerandmusic]

3 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

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?

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.

[beerandmusic]

1 minute ago, firedog said:

Again, those "steps" have nothing to do with reality, or how sampling and the resulting analog output is produced. It's a graphic crutch that was adopted so the idea could be explained to laymen. Unfortunately it leads to misunderstanding. 

Both those digital signals - both lower and higher sample rate - will produce exactly the same result, as long as both sample rates are 2X the highest frequency sampled or more.

The fact that one has less non-existent "steps" is irrelevant.

 

So you are saying that was just a false doctrine...i will assume that is true for a moment (until i find a different source)...

 

ok, so what is the reasoning that sony or any of a million other resources suggest that greater sample rate means greater accuracy.

I don't buy it is just marketing...

 

[beerandmusic]

maybe it's not even about sampling...maybe this has something to do with it:

 

Instead of relying on sampling an analog signal into distinct separate pieces, digitizing them and then reassembling them later, the DSD system doesn't use sampling, but instead digitizes a continuous analog stream of musical information into a continuous digital stream. This methodology eliminates the timing and extrapolation errors inherent in the PCM process, which chops up, then reassemble a stream of data.

[beerandmusic]

 

maybe what i am more interested in is "bit rate" than "sample rate"... lol....

 

my interest has to do with accuracy in recording transitions....i think...lol

 

don't worry, i am even more confused than i was yesterday ...lol

 

My entire effort is why does SACD sound better than CD....so clearly a crowd that doesn't believe an SACD is capable of sounding better than CD based on their engineering background likely won't be able to get on same page as me.

 

Is there any likelihood that I may ultimately believe that an SACD can't sound better than a CD....highly unlikely, but I remain open...but it's a small opening.

[beerandmusic]

11 minutes ago, psjug said:

Really I can't believe anyone is still trying to help you with this at this point.  Your attitude reminds me of a Jehovah's Witness friend I had who called any scientific evidence contrary to his beliefs "fake".

 

Let's talk about jehova witnesses for a moment....I once had 2 jehova withnesses come to my door, and i was curious what they had to say.  For everything they shared in their book, I shared something else in my book....by the time they left, one took my book and the other was furious with the other....lol....

[beerandmusic]

7 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

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.

 

determined to be ignorant, means my belief is different and i am being honest with my opinon...i don't see that as a reason to ridicule, but we are in different places, so that's ok.  I would have less respect for someone that said they believe without truly believing.

[beerandmusic]

disregard....

[beerandmusic]

5 minutes ago, firedog said:

Belief has nothing to do with it. If I told you DSD sounds like crap because it is an evil technology hatched by Satan, does that make my belief true? No, because we all know where it came from. We aren't in the realm of belief here. We don't care if you like DSD better. That's in the realm of belief and personal preferenece. Here we are talking about a specific question that is scientific in nature and can be answered by science. 

 

Determined to be ignorant means you have been given ample opportunity to read and find out why your idea is simply factually incorrect, jbut refuse to do so. Believing it doesn't make it correct. 

 

Since you seem to prefer holding on to your idea than to put in the effort to understand why it is incorrect, one could logically conclude that you are being deliberately ignorant. There really is a parallel to your behavior to flat earthers. 

 

Have you given any thought to the fact that several of us have put more time into trying to help you than you are willing to spend reading and understanding the topic? You really should be embarrassed - your behavior is rude and shows a disregard for other forum members. 

 

agree....we have different agendas...

probably best to drop it....especially if it makes anyone "mad"

 

[beerandmusic]

1 minute ago, firedog said:

It means that your personal preferences are personal and can't be proven correct or incorrect. 

But when you move from saying "I like X recording better" - a matter or taste or a belief, if you will - to saying, "the reason X recording  sounds better to me it that is was recorded with a higher sample rate, and is therefore a more accurate representation"  - you then move from the realm of personal taste and belief to the realm of science, and in that realm you simply are wrong, and can be proven to be wrong. No personal preference or belief involved. 

I don't believe that was ever my quote...either way, i am ok to drop it.

[beerandmusic]

26 minutes ago, esldude said:

Quit being obstinate and watch it. This isn't bias. It's science and technology.  He confirms every aspect in that video using very high quality analog lab gear. You'll learn about accuracy instead of being uninformed.

 

Beyond that you're trusting the wrong authority.

 

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.

[beerandmusic]

28 minutes ago, firedog said:

 the quotes accurately reflect what you've been saying

 

not exactly...the difference is what i have been actually saying is "that is my belief", or "what I am suggesting is"  ...i never stated or meant to state anything as factual....all of my context has been "in questioning".

 

and to add, my belief is more confusion, but i still believe that a greater accuracy can be achieved by higher sampling rates...but i am open that there may be different reasons....i also believe there is no such thing as perfect reproduction, that cannot get better.

[beerandmusic]

5 minutes ago, esldude said:

Read about superposition.

 

Any event that happens to fast for sampling is by necessity too high a frequency.

 

You also need to understand simple ideas and principles before you can move on to complex ones.

 

the frequency of transition is different than the frequency of the instrument?

I am only talking a maximum instrument frequncy of 3000hz.

an event that happens too fast for sampling to me means that the sampling is too low.

 

[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)

[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.

 

 

 

 

[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"...

[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....

[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?

 

 

 

 

[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.

[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.

[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.