Understanding Sample Rate

[Ralf11]

particles are just waves in drag

[crenca]

3 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

Let's talk about real...

 

what does 600hz sound like

what does 600.000001 sound like

 

no one can discern the difference, but both are very real and both are very easily heard.

one can be a composite of 2 frequencies at T1 and the other at T2, but if T1.5 was averaged in (that doesn't exist) , it would be 600.000005, which would be more accurate...

 

And sampling at 44.1khz fully captures this waveform...fully...

[bobbmd]

@beerandmusic I have skimmed through this thread you started and you seem to have answered a questions(?s) I have have asked in various other threads and on different forums particularly ROON Community. I suddenly only have 16/48kHz through my delta sigma(pre multi bit) Gungnir yet I can tell or hear no real significance in SQ then when it gave me 24/192 or 24/176.4 and I commented is all this concern about sample rates BS since our ears basically can't hear better than 16/44.1. Yet at the same time I 'thought' the sound improved vastly when I got my first Modi and then even more when I got the Gungnir-at the same time when I went back and listened to my SACD and DVD-A recordings(the actual discs not ones I ripped) THEY sound better than anything I get now 'streamed' to my ears. Now when comparing the same song/album using my ME2(giving me MQA or non MQA) at anywhere from 24/48 24/96 etc and up or my DFRed at either 44/88/or 96 regardless of the 'player' used TIDAL or Qobuz desktop app or ROON or A+3 they all sound the same more or less( are my ears/brain 'burnt in' as someone else on this thread stated?).

Bottom line is I agree with you. Have we all been duped or has our perception of SQ been manipulated by God forbid FAKE NEWS or the Russians and everyone else on this august forum . It ALL sounds pristine to my ears and I may not buy anything new or better ie a multibit Modi/Gungnir(my CFO will be very happy).

bobbmd

[beerandmusic]

2 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

Calling hogwash on digital sampling theory is like calling hogwash on the theory that a feather and a bowling ball dropped from the same height will (in the absence of air resistance) hit the ground at the same time. It's not a matter of opinion; it's a proven scientific theory. If digital sampling theory were untrue in the way you are suggesting, then digital music systems simply wouldn't work.

 

 

 

DSD samples higher than CD, right?

So everyone in this thread believes DSD is hogwash, right?

[beerandmusic]

2 minutes ago, bobbmd said:

@beerandmusic I have skimmed through this thread you started and you seem to have answered a questions(?s) I have have asked in various other threads and on different forums particularly ROON Community. I suddenly only have 16/48kHz through my delta sigma(pre multi bit) Gungnir yet I can tell or hear no real significance in SQ then when it gave me 24/192 or 24/176.4 and I commented is all this concern about sample rates BS since our ears basically can't hear better than 16/44.1. Yet at the same time I 'thought' the sound improved vastly when I got my first Modi and then even more when I got the Gungnir-at the same time when I went back and listened to my SACD and DVD-A recordings(the actual discs not ones I ripped) THEY sound better than anything I get now 'streamed' to my ears. Now when comparing the same song/album using my ME2(giving me MQA or non MQA) at anywhere from 24/48 24/96 etc and up or my DFRed at either 44/88/or 96 regardless of the 'player' used TIDAL or Qobuz desktop app or ROON or A+3 they all sound the same more or less( are my ears/brain 'burnt in' as someone else on this thread stated?).

Bottom line is I agree with you. Have we all been duped or has our perception of SQ been manipulated by God forbid FAKE NEWS or the Russians and everyone else on this august forum . It ALL sounds pristine to my ears and I may not buy anything new or better ie a multibit Modi/Gungnir(my CFO will be very happy).

bobbmd

 

I believe Man doesn't give God enough  credit (wink).

I think men are simpletons with big egos.

[crenca]

1 minute ago, beerandmusic said:

 

DSD samples higher than CD, right?

So everyone in this thread believes DSD is hogwash, right?

 

How would you describe DSD - it samples very high, but how does a single bit (i.e. a 1 or a 0, a left or right, an up or down) describe sound?  What is it about a waveform that can be accurately described by a single bit (or perhaps more accurately, a bit-that-describes-a-change- in the waveform)?

[beerandmusic]

8 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

And sampling at 44.1khz fully captures this waveform...fully...

 

it can't capture it accurately because it doesn't even take samples when much of the changes are taking place....and the only rebuttal can be the time it takes to transition...but the transitions are taking place infinitely as well.

[beerandmusic]

12 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Sample rate does not describe the points (i.e the discernable differences), but rather the rate of change in the waveform - and it calculates this fully (i.e. there is no error) and thus it fully describes the waveform.

 

Think of it this way - you are counting the atoms - no, the subatomic particles in the paint of the Mona Lisa - you have forgotten what a painting is - she is a waveform, not the particles themselves...

I didn't ignore this...i will come back to it later....

[fas42]

8 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

DSD samples higher than CD, right?

So everyone in this thread believes DSD is hogwash, right?

 

You've decided to refuse to try and understand - hence all will be in vain against that desire ...

[crenca]

1 minute ago, beerandmusic said:

 

it can't capture it accurately because it doesn't even take samples when much of the changes are taking place.

 

It does not have to - it only has to describe the rate of change.  Your assuming that because a change takes place, that it is an unordered change, a random change.  If that were the case, it would not be a frequency, a waveform, a sound.  Your describing heat, not sound (and yet, even heat can be measured).

[beerandmusic]

1 minute ago, crenca said:

 

It does not have to - it only has to describe the rate of change.  Your assuming that because a change takes place, that it is an unordered change, a random change.  If that were the case, it would not be a frequency, a waveform, a sound.  Your describing heat, not sound (and yet, even heat can be measured).

there is not enough bits in the world to describe the rate of change in a complex waveform with an infinite number of frequencies, even in the single pluck of a guitar string, let alone 10 million singers.

[crenca]

1 minute ago, beerandmusic said:

there is not enough bits in the world to describe the rate of change in a complex waveform with an infinite number of frequencies, even in the single pluck of a guitar string, let alone 10 million singers.

 

Complex waveforms, as you imagine them, don't exist.  Remember how this conversation started, folks were correcting you on what a waveform (a "frequency") actually is.  It is simple (one), not complex (many).

 

You never really answered my question - how many waveforms do you hear when 3, or 300, or 3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 singers sing at the same time?

[crenca]

3 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

there is not enough bits in the world to describe the rate of change in a complex waveform with an infinite number of frequencies, even in the single pluck of a guitar string, let alone 10 million singers.

 

 

Also, bit's (i.e. math) dont describe the thing itself (the particles moving in the air), they describe a waveform, a rate of change, a frequency (which despite the ambiguous claims of MQA is a description of both the shape of the wave and the time that this occurs in)...

[beerandmusic]

4 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Complex waveforms, as you imagine them, don't exist.  Remember how this conversation started, folks were correcting you on what a waveform (a "frequency") actually is.  It is simple (one), not complex (many).

 

You never really answered my question - how many waveforms do you hear when 3, or 300, or 3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 singers sing at the same time?

 

one composite waveform with a bazillion different frequencies changing in an unordered fashion in a gazillion different times

 

if you are defining the waveform as one waveform per song, but i will leave that up to you.

 

 

[ralphfcooke]

That's called noise

[beerandmusic]

Just now, ralphfcooke said:

That's called noise

If it's metal it is noise.

anything else is music (wink)

[crenca]

Just now, ralphfcooke said:

That's called noise

 

If he granted the existence of waveforms, it would be.  However, he does not so what he is really describing is an infinite number of points moving randomly...is that quantum noise?

[beerandmusic]

ok, correct me

3 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

If he granted the existence of waveforms, it would be.  However, he does not so what he is really describing is an infinite number of points moving randomly...is that quantum noise?

 

ok, correct me, on this simple exercise in correct verbiage.

 

a song has a guitar and a vocalist.

the singer sings 10,000 different frequencies in one song and plays the guitar with 20,000 different frequencies.

 

one song = one complex waveform with a multitude of different frequencies always changing and in an unorganized manner (e.g. singer sneezes in middle of song).

 

[ralphfcooke]

Ok, it's pretty  obvious beerandmusic  that you're just a wind-up merchant, why not try reading something about  Nyquist-Shannon, and maybe also Fourier Analysis. Then we might be able to have an intelligent conversation.

At the moment it just comes across as though you've had one or two too many beers

[crenca]

14 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

ok, correct me

 

ok, correct me, on this simple exercise in correct verbiage.

 

a song has a guitar and a vocalist.

the singer sings 10,000 different frequencies in one song and plays the guitar with 20,000 different frequencies.

 

one song = one complex waveform with a multitude of different frequencies always changing and in an unorganized manner (e.g. singer sneezes in middle of song).

 

 

All those "frequencies" (here I am misusing it as you are  - like it is a description of a point or a particle ) are related how?  Through time.  All these "frequencies" occur at the same point in time?  Nope.  How many frequencies do you hear at the same point in time?  One or many?  Is even a complex waveform (such as sound - it is three dimensional) continuous?  Yes.  Is the rate of change continuous or random?  Continous.  Can rate of change be described?  Have you ever taken calculus?  Can the area under a curve be measured fully?  If not, how does that bridge you drive over every day not collapse under the pressure of random, point like, infinite change?

 

You have a particle like, infinite mental image of waveforms and sound, which is simply not reality.

[GUTB]

2 hours ago, psjug said:

You are referring to this again, which you posted in the other thread?

http://asa.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1121/1.1912374

 

I already told you that it is stated right in the abstract that the subjects were distinguishing between spectral differences of the two waveforms within the audible band.  So changing the number and width of those narrow pulses changes the spectral composition within the audible band.   Try creating a series of 20us wide pulses, with 500us between them.  Then run a FFT.  Then replace all the 20us pulse with pairs of 10us pulses and do a FFT on that.

 

What the test showed was that humans’ time-domain perception is much higher than our frequency perception. 

 

Humans’ ability to receive high frequency information is shown elsewhere.

[psjug]

2 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

What the test showed was that humans’ time-domain perception is much higher than our frequency perception. 

 

Humans’ ability to receive high frequency information is shown elsewhere.

A narrow pulse, say 10us, repeated every 500us, is a kind of waveform.  Is it your position that if we can hear this we are hearing ultrasonics?

[beerandmusic]

5 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

All those "frequencies" (here I am misusing it as you are  - like it is a description of a point or a particle ) are related how?  Through time.  All these "frequencies" occur at the same point in time?  Nope.  How many frequencies do you hear at the same point in time?  One or many?  Is even a complex waveform (such as sound - it is three dimensional) continuous?  Yes.  Is the rate of change continuous or random?  Continous.  Can rate of change be described?  Have you ever taken calculous?  Can the area under a curve be measured fully?  If not, how does that bridge you drive over every day not collapse under the pressure of random, point like, infinite change?

 

You have a particle like, infinite mental image of waveforms and sound, which is simply not reality.

 

You hear a continually changing composite, with the gaps between samples averaged based on probability of samples, to keep the waveform continuous, but not based on factual samples between times?

[crenca]

7 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

What the test showed was that humans’ time-domain perception is much higher than our frequency perception. 

 

Humans’ ability to receive high frequency information is shown elsewhere.

 

Just now, psjug said:

A narrow pulse, say 10us, repeated every 500us, is a kind of waveform.  Is it your position that if we can hear this we are hearing ultrasonics?

 

I think his position is that frequency is independent of time, and vice versa.  It's this "particle like" mental image of waveforms again...

[davide256]

29 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

ok, correct me

 

ok, correct me, on this simple exercise in correct verbiage.

 

a song has a guitar and a vocalist.

the singer sings 10,000 different frequencies in one song and plays the guitar with 20,000 different frequencies.

 

one song = one complex waveform with a multitude of different frequencies always changing and in an unorganized manner (e.g. singer sneezes in middle of song).

 

a) If you have 10,000 identical synchronized Elvis's singing it wont sound any different than 1 except for volume... dynamic range = bit depth.

b) if you have two identical synchronized Elvis's singing and one of them has an off night, the sampling rate will let you know  as long as they both sing below 22 khz

 

The gap in all the theories above is that they are monophonic theorems, are insufficient  science for how animals and humans locate the spatial origin of a sound.