Understanding Sample Rate

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, Cornan said:

@beerandmusic I am really impressed with your defensive and yet objective approach. Keep that spirit going and you will do good things over here! ? Keeping @mansr  at a distance is worth a gold medal of honour in my book!

What have I ever done to you? Seriously?

[tmtomh]

51 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

Snitching doesn't do anything....Chris continues to let semente keep you in his back pocket to run around making a nuisance and a muck to the community...rarely offering anything of substance....

I don't think it would be snitching. In any event, just so you know who it was, I've reported your post calling him a moron, and your follow-up accusing Chris of keeping him in his back pocket. My view is that your comments were crass, unnecessary, and insulting to Chris and kumakuma, and that's why I reported them. Just to be clear, if you don't care what I think, that's fine. And if Chris keeps those comments of yours up, that's fine with me too.

 

44 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

It's not an insult to Chris...he is just too busy to put up with pettiness.

 

Here the two of you have caused wasing of 10 posts "so far", (and will likely go to 20 when i have the last word), all because you want to attack me for semantics, when you are incorrect in the first place.

 

Chris doesn't have time for yours or Semente's pettiness and trolling behavior, but i would bet like hell he wishes you would stop your pettiness and act like adults.

"Act like adults" - says the guy who's resorted to name-calling; who has several times in this thread told others how he's rating them on a numerical scale, based on the quality of the information they provide (which information beerandmusic has proven himself manifestly unqualified to rate or evaluate); and who has happily taken in a wealth of information and multiple explanations from a large number of members here claiming he's interested in learning - only to keep sticking his fingers in his ears and refusing to listen to anyone.

 

 

18 minutes ago, Cornan said:

@beerandmusic I am really impressed with your defensive and yet objective approach. Keep that spirit going and you will do good things over here! ? Keeping @mansr  at a distance is worth a gold medal of honour in my book!

You have a very interesting understanding of "objective." Beerandmusic has engaged in name-calling and stubbornly embraced a completely delusional and willfully ignorant set of claims about digital sampling theory. That's the opposite of an objective approach. It is, however, an approach that allows one to comfortably continue to believe in one's preconceptions.

[Spacehound]

1 hour ago, semente said:

 

Could you point me to the believers' dictionary?

Sure. But this  one isn't true. I has to be in Arabic. Seriously - prevents it getting gradually screwed up by dopey new translations, each one based on a previous one,  and ego trips by 'scholars' with their latest new (mis)interpretations. So I'm told, I've never looked at it. It's how  a perfectly believable parrot in the Garden of Eden got changed into a talking snake. And it was an olive, not an apple:

 

 

 

[davide256]

23 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Regarding sampling rate, there was a time when I was fully on board with the notion that 44.1kHz was simply outdated and a reflection of consumer electronics processing power and data capacity of the era of CDs.

 

But I've gained a newfound respect for good old Redbook over the last 3 years or so.  Not saying higher rates and bit depths don't have merit depending on where/when they're used, but I am saying I could live with Redbook only if I had to.

Ditto. 16 bit can do well as long as the recorded data density  doesn't push the envelope of the recording medium.  I'd rather have a well engineered 16 bit recording than a poorly engineered 24 bit recording. But if its well recorded and dynamic, 24 bit is a must for stereo sound. The additional bits  gain from 192 khz  is a minor SQ improvement in comparison

[Cornan]

26 minutes ago, mansr said:

What have I ever done to you? Seriously?

Well, I do like you and question just about anything I'll post. Seriously I think you have a LOT to offer, but instead of giving advices you guide members by giving them your "honest" approach as a proffessional IMO. More of own experience in your own setup and less theory in your EE world will show people what you truly believe in or not.

[Spacehound]

8 minutes ago, Cornan said:

Well, I do like you but you question just about anything I'll post. Seriously I think you have a LOT to offer, but instead of giving advices you guide members by giving them your "honest" approach as a proffessional IMO. More of own experience in your own setup and less theory in your EE world will show people what you truly believe in or not.

You have to have a relevant professional - try asking your fortune teller to design a  Boeing 747.

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, Cornan said:

Well, I do like you but you question just about anything I'll post.

I hardly ever respond to your posts, so I wonder what gave you that idea. In fact, I completely ignore most of the threads where you are active.

[Ralf11]

AFAIK, the problems with 44.1kHz are:

 

1. it does not give recording engineers much room to play with

2. it is always possible that human hearing on complex musical waveforms requires higher limits than on sine waves

 

3. bonehead conduction

[The Computer Audiophile]

@beerandmusic This is your warning. Personal attacks are prohibited. Calling someone a moron is clearly a violation.

[Ralf11]

Just for the record, is there a list of the Rules somewhere?

 

or is rule-making being done by adjudication?

[Cornan]

6 minutes ago, mansr said:

I hardly ever respond to your posts, so I wonder what gave you that idea. In fact, I completely ignore most of the threads where you are active.

 

I agree, but that was'nt the case in the past. I just know from own experience that you question just about anything that does'nt fit into your EE book. If you just let some of it pass there will be no problem. Some things is not yet explained in books. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

Just for the record, is there a list of the Rules somewhere?

 

or is rule-making being done by adjudication?

I hate rules and writing them down makes it easier for people to figure out ways around them, but nonetheless here they are - 

 

[Cornan]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

@beerandmusic This is your warning. Personal attacks are prohibited. Calling someone a moron is clearly a violation.

 

I do agree! Calling people names due to audio is just low! 

[Cornan]

7 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Just for the record, is there a list of the Rules somewhere?

 

or is rule-making being done by adjudication?

 

If it was you would be in the fine line! ?

[Ralf11]

I think you missed at least one of the jokes

[sandyk]

9 hours ago, mansr said:

None of those things make him an authority on digital data storage and transmission.

 

 He has never claimed to be, and has in the HFC forum on several occasions asked more suitably qualified members for their insights. This also happened with the original Comparison .wav files that I sent him.

 

OTOH, in C.A. we often see some E.Es making dogmatic statements outside their normal area of in-depth expertise !
 

 Incidentally, attached is some information  about the earlier Sony 100khz Super Tweeters that I referred to previously.

http://www.ebay.it/itm/131535507587

[tmtomh]

9 hours ago, mansr said:

None of those things make [Martin Colloms] an authority on digital data storage and transmission.

 

13 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 He has never claimed to be, and has in the HFC forum on several occasions asked more suitably qualified members for their insights. This also happened with the original; Comparison .wav files that I sent him.

 

If he never has claimed to be an authority on digital data storage and transmission, then that actually weakens your argument, because you repeatedly have invoked his authority precisely on the alleged sonic impacts of digital data storage and transmission.

 

I presume you will respond to this with something to the effect that Colloms is not a technical authority on those subjects, but he is a respected set of hi-fi ears and claims to have heard differences in differently stored/transmitted versions of the same digital data. If that is indeed your strategy, by all means have fun. But waving his name around like a talisman doesn't seem to have done the trick for your argument here the first dozen (50? 100?) times you've tried it, so I don't know that the result will be any different this time.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 hour ago, Brinkman Ship said:

I can tell you that after meeting a few mastering engineers at a few electronics shows, 24 bit, 44.1 kHz is considered the new standard output for most new releases, across all genres, including classical. Anything over is seen as unnecessary.

 

Btw, I am just passing what I heard, I don't know. But I am slowly coming around to your way of thinking.

 

In my experience using a DAW, dithering from 32 to 24 bits results in little quantization noise.  32 to 16 results in much more, which is why I assume that 24/44.1 would be a preferred mezzanine format.

[tmtomh]

I also would guess that practical considerations factor in too: Increasing bit depth by 50% increases file size less than doubling the sample rate.

 

I too think redbook can sound very good indeed, but it's a little bit of a shame, because settling on a sample rate of 48kHz would allow for fewer sonic tradeoffs with antialiasing filtering - although perhaps modern filters are good enough now that the difference between 44.1 and 48 is minimal in terms of what can be done to preserve frequency and phase linearity.

 

Honestly, I kind of wish 44.1kHz filters would just cut off at 19kHz instead of 20 (or higher) - would give them more room to do their work, and no one over the age of about 20 would be able to hear the difference anyway. 

[sandyk]

Just now, tmtomh said:

If he never has claimed to be an authority on digital data storage and transmission, then that actually weakens your argument, because you repeatedly have invoked his authority precisely on the alleged sonic impacts of digital data storage and transmission.

 

 It doesn't make the slightest difference, as the series of DBTs weren't all performed by him.

 You don't need to know all of the technicalities of what you are listening to, just be able to correctly identify the different versions under proper  DBT conditions.

Neither does it mean that Barry, Peter, Mani, Anthony(acg) ,Roch (elcorso), Teresa ,Claude, coxhaus, Geoff from NYC(Siulverlight) and quite a few other C.A. members weren't correct with their confirming reports either !

Or Cookie Marenco either, who has been saying similar quite independently for years..

[Samuel T Cogley]

29 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

Honestly, I kind of wish 44.1kHz filters would just cut off at 19kHz instead of 20 (or higher) - would give them more room to do their work, and no one over the age of about 20 would be able to hear the difference anyway. 

On a DAW, you can easily change the filter steepness and cutoff shift to achieve this and more:

 

[Don Hills]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

...

3. bonehead conduction

 

There seems to be a lot of that around here at the moment.

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

3. bonehead conduction

 

Do you conduct Symphony Orchestras too ?

 

Hasn't this thread passed it's " use by date" yet ?

[wgscott]

Apropos to my avatar: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-spirit-airlines-flush-hamster-20180208-story.html

[Ralf11]

40 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Do you conduct Symphony Orchestras too ?

 

Hasn't this thread passed it's " use by date" yet ?

 

 

you seem to have some sample rate problems

 

and please stop violating the forum rules with personal attacks