Understanding Sample Rate

[beerandmusic]

6 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

DSD8192 DACs should be available in the next decade or so. Still not infinite sampling but probably close enough for your needs.

 

Super....then all they have to do is fix the recording to equal our ears.

[beerandmusic]

4 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

Do an experiment for yourself:

 

1) start with a CD source.

2) compare sending the CD source files directly to your DAC vs. convert to DSD and send to your DAC

 

Which do you like better?

i am not a fan of up-converting usually....i prefer native dsd....also i don't know why (probably has to do with usb interface, but i typically like playing from quality cd player over playing from pc.

 

[beerandmusic]

1 hour ago, LCC0256 said:

No his name is smart mouth  and he writes under the pseudonym Semente with over THREE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED posts on one website - pontificating to any who will read his dribble.   MAGA. 

semente is definitely in bottom 5%

I actually think i like GUTB better.

[beerandmusic]

11 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Others are telling you you came to the wrong conclusion but you already know that

 

There are DSP programs in beta now that will be able to fool you into thinking you are hearing your wife in the kitchen when you are lying in your bed headphones on!  Also, someone could sneak into your house and add room treatments and those little directional cues you are picking up would be skewed and you would be thrown off - and yes all this can be reproduced but it is hard, expensive, etc. to do.  In other words those waveforms you are hearing are just that, and can be  perfectly reproduced digitally.

 

Not that any of this has anything to do with recording waveforms accurately...

 

even if everything in the world told me i was wrong, that wouldn't change my belief.  "True Belief" is not something you can control...

 

but how would the recorded data be able to tell you that street noise is to the south of me and kitchen noise to the north of me so that whoever applies the DSP would know how to properly program.

 

 

[beerandmusic]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Ummm ... why you don't hear that 'realness' with normal playback is because the quality of playback chain is not to a high enough standard. I first heard that aspect in the sounds from recordings 30 years ago, and have investigated the relevant factors ever since ... just because the rigs you've come across can't get it right, doesn't mean that no rigs can get it right ...

 

i would suggest it has to do with the recording more, so i just agree to disagree...

[beerandmusic]

7 hours ago, mansr said:

At least not in a couple of days. To be fair, it took me a lot longer to learn it too. More like a couple of years, including all the prerequisite calculus etc.

 

I am not denying that it is beyond my desire to spend the time to fully understand.

 

I do know i had a recorded genius iq at one time, and likely much lower now, but I believe I am still very smart.

I believe there are many here that are much smarter than me, but anyone that suggests that I am not smart will not hurt my feelings....that would be the same as someone teasing me for my blonde hair, when i have brown hair.

 

I am able to accept that what others have posed that the nyquist theorem is not without reproach and gets "very close"

But, likewise, i will always believe that more samples means more accuracy to the point where engineering cannot compensate for errors in processing, for the simple fact that in real life there is infinite time slices and infinite frequencies and infinite complex waveforms and HUMAN ears.

 

Can we get close, sure....but isn't that what the continual effort to improve audio is all about?

Until a playback system can accurately reproduce what my ears are able to hear in live, there is room for improvement, and I am not willing to state it ends at 44.1Kpcm.

 

 

[beerandmusic]

32 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Do you read literature? 

 

 

I hate reading...I am ADD.  I have never read a novel in my life, only tech manuals, but i have bad eyes now...prefer videos.

I have multi-channel in family room for watching blu-rays but not for music...and rarely use it anymore...

I really have expended far more energy in this topic than i really care to...i am content with my current belief, and really my youthful science days are over.  I would rather watch big brother or blacklist (grin).

Although, I do like to debate even if i don't know what i am talking about...i find it challenging...if it was something i knew (like religion) it's not as fun....but this topic has wore me out...lol

[beerandmusic]

11 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Are you a wrencher?  Do you work on cars/motorcycles, or study/collect them?

 

addictive personality...i collect lots of things from vinyl to vintage toys, to anything I can buy and sell for profit for both hobby and income. i used to buy and sell convertibles, and always keeping one for myself, but ended that a couple years ago.

I am getting into home automation, and plan on getting back into multi-channel, but i only sleep 2-3 hrs a day and usually find it difficult to find any energy, beyond playing with the computer.

 

Are you going to suggest i do something else with my time than bothering people here (grin).

[beerandmusic]

2 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Yea, your ADD comes through   I know your writing helps you focus.

 

What sort of tech manuals did you used to have to work through?

been in computer technology all my life....so everything from basic EE to programming to netowrking to virtualization.

[beerandmusic]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

Then start acting like it.

what, like smart like you, by accepting everything ends at 44.1KHZ?

[beerandmusic]

1 hour ago, beerandmusic said:

i am not a fan of up-converting usually....i prefer native dsd....also i don't know why (probably has to do with usb interface, but i typically like playing from quality cd player over playing from pc.

 

 

Actually i probably should do more comparative testing since i got my ND8006....for the first time i played out usb (native 11.2mhz), the usb actually sounded REALLY good.  The ND8006 does state it has some usb isolation and it is possible that previous DSD dacs i have tried didn't have good usb isolation....

[beerandmusic]

14 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

The only way you can 'know' that it is in the recording, is via playback - so, which is the more "faulty"? The input, or the output? Men have big egos, so obviously their playback is doing the right thing - much simpler to blame the other chap; of course he didn't do the job well enough, I can hear he didn't!!

 

I don't think i have an ego or a good playback system, even if i appear to come off that way...i consider myself inferior to most....and i have heard many $500K systems...they sound really good, but still won't approach live.

 

I just don't think any microphone placement can come close to touching what the human ears are capable of.  I know native DSD recordings sound really good, but still don't believe they come even remotely close to what human ears can do...i believe better improvement in audio can be made in better recording studios and equipment for the mass market.

[beerandmusic]

20 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 If you believe something strongly, it must be so. Shannon? Nyquist? They are just alternate facts,

I know you are trying to be sarcastic, but you are actually getting it right..that's twice in a row!  (i removed fake news, as that part made your statement wrong, the rest is true).

[beerandmusic]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

You see, you "don't think any microphone placement can come close" - but that is based on what you're hearing through standard quality replay. There is no actual way for you, or anyone else, to "prove" that microphones aren't good enough - it's just a belief that's built over time. But I have actually heard what is on these recordings, yes, even "hopeless" 44.1kHz ones - and, it is all there.

 

as all beliefs are based....it is based on experience and knowledge.

it is based on my appreciation for the human body over man made digitization, and my experience hearing live sounds and hearing systems in the top 10% of systems with the likes of wilson, evolution, pass, levinson etc...

 

[beerandmusic]

39 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

whether it 'all' ends at 44.1 kHz depends on what the ear can hear - if you are a dolphin (which I doubt) you will need a higher sampling frequency

 

 

it is not about being very smart - it is about having an adequate technical background

 

I have no audio technical background, but i have enough knowledge to dispel myths that misappropriate theorems.

[beerandmusic]

4 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

wrong - see the link I posted above

 

no thank you...but if you want to tell me what is in the link that is not experience or knowledge i will entertain you.

[beerandmusic]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

These kinds of directional cues and sounds are already being used in multi-channel recordings - do you have a surround sound system at your home?  

 

Ok...i didnt catch where you were going with this ...

 

I really have been planning on getting back into multi-channel.

Can a CD do multi-channel well, or only higher formats?  Probably a silly question, but i really don't know the answer.

 

[beerandmusic]

2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

you can get more help if you avoid acting like an ass

 

I have no clue what you are saying....what help are you offering that I am looking for?

I told you what I believe "belief" is based on and you told me I was wrong.

I am not looking for help on what belef is based on, but if you want to share why you believe i am wrong, i will entertain you if you take the time to tell me what is wrong with my thinking.  I don't want to read a link if it is not in your own words.

 

I am perfectly content stating belief is based on knowledge and experience.

If you don't want to discuss it, that is fine by me.

[beerandmusic]

wife is forcing me off computer for dinner and tv....chow for now.

[beerandmusic]

55 minutes ago, firedog said:

No you don't. You don't even understand the basic concepts. You don't even know what you don't know, and you glorify your ignorance. It's clear from what you write. 

 

Not knowing something is excusable, because you can always learn more.

 

But not knowing, refusing to learn, and glorifying your willful ignorance by saying "I have enough knowledge" - is the approach of a pre-scientific society based on legend and myth. 

 

Enjoy living with your blinders on. Living is so easy when you ignore facts and truth.

 

i am sorry it bothers you that i understand things you do not.

the theorem does not speak to infinite frequencies that really exist.

 

it has criteria of a "band limited signal", which i do not understand, and it is my current belief, that it is in that criteria that makes it not applicable.

 

if you don't get it, i am sorry.

 

 

[beerandmusic]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

No you don't. You don't even understand the basic concepts. You don't even know what you don't know, and you glorify your ignorance. It's clear from what you write. 

 

Not knowing something is excusable, because you can always learn more.

 

But not knowing, refusing to learn, and glorifying your willful ignorance by saying "I have enough knowledge" - is the approach of a pre-scientific society based on legend and myth. 

 

Enjoy living with your blinders on. Living is so easy when you ignore facts and truth.

 

nothing can change my belief because i am not willing to devote more time to it, and it is my honest belief that others have it wrong.

no one can control another's belief, let alone the person.

and attacks, mockery, ridicule doesn't change that.

 

If someone has the "brilliance" to be able to spoon feed me in laymans terms why i have difficulty accepting that 44.1K sampling rate is enough to capture infinite frequencies, infinite time slices, and infinite complex waveforms, that is audible to man, i would change my mind, but i highly doubt that is possible....i believe i am realistic.

 

PS i doubt you even understand the basic concepts either.

[beerandmusic]

spaceman...i have you on ignore, but unfortunately i have just discovered even if you put someone on ignore, you still get messages that tell me you replied to me, even though i don't see the message.  You are the first person and only person i have put on ignore.  I am sure your response to me was disrespectful in the same way semente is disrespectful, but it took him a long time to get on my nerves, and i still haven't ignored him.  You have been here a very short time and i have never seen anyone that reaches your lows in such a short time.  I am sure whatever you said was a similar message, but i have no desire to read it, nor anything you ever have to say again, without a personal message of apology, which i am sure you are not capable of.

I am certain many people have put me on ignore, and i respect their decision.  Not everyone in this world will get along, and I would rather have no relationship than a bad relationship.  So i invite anyone that has ill feelings towards me and my views to please do the same.

[beerandmusic]

6 hours ago, crenca said:

@beerandmusic, As you already know, your past experience makes you good at gadget tinkering and hacking - trying this with that, questioning this recommendation and trying something new, and the like.

 

Have your tried HQPlayer?  If not check it out - it is cheap and there are many combinations of filters, modulators, etc.  That way, you can see for yourself the differences between PCM & DSD, upsampling with this filter vs. that, etc.  There are lot's of options that are not meaningless in these sorts of areas and for which one thing works for one person, one set of equipment, and one room - and another combination works for somebody else. 

 

As far as sampling theory, your trying to tinker in one of the few areas where there is actually a substantial body of scientific, mathematical certainty and proof in audio.  The differences in sound you experience and rightly question, the cause is not because of sampling method (i.e. the math and digital construction of the waveform), but rather because of the implementation of the equipment, room, music, and person.  

 

Divert to these other areas for fruitful and interesting things!

Yes, i have bought it and Miska, Jabbr, Superdad, Mansr, and barrows are probably the people i respect the most on this site.

They are always helpful.

I haven't played with any advanced features of HQPlayer and have diffiulty even with it's GUI....but i still use it nearly every day.

 

As far as the math goes in the reproduction of music ...i believe it gets close...that is all i can give it.

[beerandmusic]

9 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 It isn't.  24/48 would be better though, but even then ....

thank you for that....

it is nice to know that someone will accept that i am unable to accept something i do not believe.

 

I accept and love everyone, even if they are of different faith, and I will not pass judgement on them for their belief.

[beerandmusic]

I am not going to read this white paper,  as it is beyond my understanding, but I know that there are many people that believe as i do...and maybe someone else may be interested in reading...but I am not.

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0902.0026.pdf

 

excerpt:— Wideband analog signals push contemporary analog-to-digital conversion systems to their performance limits.

In many applications, however, sampling at the Nyquist rate is inefficient because the signals of interest contain only a small number of significant frequencies relative to the ban-dlimit, although the locations of the frequencies may not beknown a priori. For this type of sparse signal, other sampling strategies are possible. This paper describes a new type of data acquisition system, called arandom demodulator, that is constructed from robust, readily available components. Let K denote the total number of frequencies in the....

 

Even this paper suggests a criteria for K, and so it would not encompass an infinite number of frequencies in a signal...and I didn't even read very far into it...my guess is that there is a requirement for a divisible time period as well.