Understanding Sample Rate

[beerandmusic]

10 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

I just accept known physics is all.  Even that part of physics  known to  others but not to myself.

 

You have demonstrated that you only accept your 'beliefs and have on occasions actually admitted ("I don't want to know that")  that you are wilfully ignorant.

 

Thus only the very staunch remain 'on topic' in this thread. The others have long left.

 

There is nothing wrong to have different beliefs based on any reason or set of reasons.

The problem is when one demeans others purposely in a hurtful way, or to make personal attacks, or even stupid ass troll statements....those should never be acceptable or tolerated behavior.

[beerandmusic]

26 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

I do attempt to be factual, Got nothing to to with 'smart ass'.

 

Again, i have no issues with beliefs (factual or not)...what i have a problem with is demeaning personal attacks or idiotic troll posts..

[beerandmusic]

19 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

 

That's two insults you just made.

and that is a stupid troll post..

 

You are the one that said yourself that many think you are a jackass.  This is exactly why.

Don't you think it is time you grow up, so you don't have to call yourself a jackass.Maybe you have some valuable knowledge to share that you can be respected for if you made a conscious effort not to be disrespectful and hurtful to others..

 

Look at miska or judd or many others here that have a lot of information to share.  They share in a meaningful and helpful way and are respected.  They won't get caught up with the idiots...they know when to move on. 

 

I do think you have some knowledge and you can learn to be an asset to this site, without your admittance that others say you are a jackass....try to put your self proclaimed jackass behind you...

 

..the choice is yours...

[beerandmusic]

10 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

"Only wise people can  afford to play the fool now and again" - Einstein.

And you won't see me doing it with people I  "believe" to be wise.

 

 

do not deceive yourself. 1CO 3:18

[beerandmusic]

7 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

 Goodbye on this.

 

i wish you would take "your wisdom" and goodbye on everything....

 

[beerandmusic]

EXCERPT

Though you can't make a direct comparison between the resolution of DSD and PCM, various experts have tried. One estimate is that a 1-bit 2.8224MHz DSD64 SACD has similar resolution to a 20-bit 96kHz PCM. Another estimate is that a 1-bit 2.8224MHz DSD64 SACD is equal to 20-bit 141.12kHz PCM or 24-bit 117.6kHz PCM.

In other words a DSD64 SACD has higher resolution than a 16-bit 44.1kHz Red Book CD, roughly the same resolution as 24-bit 96kHz PCM recording, and not as much resolution as a 24-bit 192kHz PCM recording.

Both DSD and PCM are "quantized," meaning numeric values are set to approximate the analog signal. Both DSD and PCM have quantization errors. Both DSD and PCM have linearity errors. Both DSD and PCM have quantization noise that requires filtering. In other words, neither one is perfect.

PCM encodes the amplitude of the analog signal sampled at uniform intervals (sort of like graph paper), and each sample is quantized to the nearest value within a range of digital steps. The range of steps is based on the bit depth of the recording. A 16-bit recording has 65,536 steps, a 20-bit recording has 1,048,576 steps, and a 24-bit recording has 16,777,216 steps.

The more bits and/or the higher the sampling rate, the higher the resolution. That translates to a 20-bit 96kHz recording having roughly 33 times the resolution of a 16-bit 44.1kHz recording. No small difference.

[beerandmusic]

11 minutes ago, mansr said:

That's a nonsensical comparison.

Excerpt Cambridge Audio

 

There are some important details worth knowing when making a comparison between DSD and a FLAC file, for example. The first is that DSD is not magically better than its rivals. A ‘standard’ DSD file- often referred to as DSD64 is roughly equivalent to a sample rate of 24/88.2kHz. ‘Double DSD’ or DSD128 samples that single bit of information 5.6 million times a second to give you a signal equivalent to 24/176.2kHz. Again, this is a sample rate that can be reproduced by formats that are not DSD. Higher rates exist but they are very, very rare.

 

Against this, there are some more logical answers why many DSD recordings sound very good indeed. Studios that master music in DSD specialise in high quality recordings of extremely good musicians. Because of this, DSD material includes some sensational music and if you’re a fan of classical music in particular, you’ll find that some of the finest performances by orchestras and composers have been captured in DSD and thanks to the care and effort that went into them, they sound fantastic even before any of the benefits of the format come into play.

DSD isn’t currently a mainstream format and there’s a chance it won’t ever truly be something there’s a huge choice of music in. Despite this it does have some truly stunning recordings in exceptionally high quality and thanks to its inclusion on our network streaming products, it’s something you can enjoy as part of your wider listening.

[beerandmusic]

7 minutes ago, Summit said:

 

Yes it is. What’s stipulated in a theorem is not always working in real practice, because those theorem assume thing like perfectly band limited etc. If all that was needed was to follow Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem, no filtering for example would be needed.

i agree, there is no problem with the theorem itself, where the problem is, is in the misappropriation of the theorem....

 

e.g. it's just semantics that mansr is challenging you on.

[beerandmusic]

13 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

What has any of that got to do with what he said?

absolutely nothing...i am just finding and posting excerpts that state why DSD can be superior to CD.

he can choose or ignore any excerpts i post....his argument isn't with me, but with the manufacturers.

 

here's another:

The sound quality difference between DSD and PCM is subtle, and primarily in the very low level information we hear as spaciousness cues.

[beerandmusic]

19 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

What has any of that got to do with what he said?

 

It also appears in wikipedia:

Because of the nature of sigma-delta converters, one cannot make a direct comparison between DSD and PCM. An approximation is possible, though, and would place DSD in some aspects comparable to a PCM format that has a bit depth of 20 bits and a sampling frequency of 96 kHz.^[25] PCM sampled at 24 bits provides a (theoretical) additional 24 dB of dynamic range.

 

So if mansr has an itssue with it, he should simply modify it in wikipedia.

 

I have done this on a few things where my edits became the accepted "wikipedia answer"....if mansr's disagrees with above statement, he should take the time to correct it, so the world isn't misinformed.

 

It's not easy to get your final input in wikipedia because you are challenging the world, not just CA. 

[beerandmusic]

Just now, pkane2001 said:

 

Please tell me it wasn't the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem page!

I have no issues the the nyquist theorem...i have issue with it's misappropriation.

[beerandmusic]

10 minutes ago, mansr said:

Good thing there isn't any to speak of then.

anyone that thinks or suggests that the theorem can be used to suggest that all real life bandwidth of human hearing can be captured at 44.1K sample rate have misappropriated the theorem.

if they use it to suggest it is "good enough" then that is fine....where "good enough" is subjective.

[beerandmusic]

2 minutes ago, semente said:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misappropriation

 

try a dictionary

 

Dictionary: misappropriate - to put to wrong use

[beerandmusic]

18 minutes ago, mansr said:

And this is the reason you should always verify anything you read on Wikipedia with independent sources.

 

That, or correct it yourself.

[beerandmusic]

2 minutes ago, semente said:

 

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/misappropriate

 

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/misuse

 

Example: you've misused misappropriation.

no i didn't....you simply haven't checked all the dictionaries yet....keep looking.

[beerandmusic]

2 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Similar to your approach to asking the same question repeatedly until you hear an answer you like? 

 

sure, if that makes you happy...thanks for your valuable input...does semente keep you in his back pocket?

 

[beerandmusic]

5 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I'd report you to Chris for this but I'm not a snitch...  

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....

[beerandmusic]

19 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Isn't that insulting Chris, not me?

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.

[beerandmusic]

20 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Could you point me to the believers' dictionary?

try dictionary.com

 

I didn't have to look up the word to know how it can be used in a sentence.

 

or you can search appropriate: fitting for a particular purpose, person, occasion, etc.:

an appropriate example; an appropriate dress.

[beerandmusic]

it's amazing how someone is willing to go to such lengths to show me i used a word incorrectly, when in fact they are wrong!  And even if i was wrong, I would just admit it....no big deal...anyone that would get "kcks" out of finding someone that used a word incorrectly, clearly has real confidence issues within themselves....best sement keeps kuma in his back pocket or he likely would melt down.

[beerandmusic]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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

 

 

I am all for rules especially if Chris enforces them. as there are many here that should be dealt with, and I am getting tired of them.

 

Yea, what do we have to do to get you to enforce the rules?

Can we just show you posts where people post troll posts or look to stir the pot.

 

I am perfectly content staying in-line, as long as every one will to the same.

 

For example is it ok for someone to say: "My view is that your comments were crass"

e.g. is it ok if we say someone has moronic views as long as we don't say they are a moron?

Where do we draw the line, as there is so much disrespect on this board, and would love to see the haters be dealt with.

[beerandmusic]

6 minutes ago, Don Hills said:

 

"Be careful what you wish for..."

I know that I can act mature...i usually only stoop to others level when antagonized...i would MUCH prefer that everyone act like adults, especially since I know the people that i like least, are not capable of acting like adults.  There are some blatant disrespectful trolls on this site, that this site would be a whole lot better without.

[beerandmusic]

nvm

 

 

 

[beerandmusic]

15 minutes ago, Don Hills said:

Consider my comment as analogous to holding up a mirror.

And this is a troll statement, stirring the pot, and one that Chris should deal with.

This is analogous to name calling, and specifically what Chris was referring to.

 

Chris, how do you want us to report posts?

 

[beerandmusic]

12 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

I know you believe this.  It got me thinking, I am down to a cheap commodity LG usb powered/connected disc reader connected to my computer via usb with not a decrapifier in sight.  This thing had to be made in China with parts that cost less than $2. My belief is that, if I ripped the same CD (regular - neither "blue" nor "gold") over and over again for the lifetime of the unit (for argument sake, let's say 1 year of man hours) the checksums would agree >99.5% of the time.  Even in the cases where they would not, the stray bit here or there would be inaudible in all but a handful of rips.

 

Anyone ever actually published the results of such a test?

 

 

there is a chart that shows the most accurate cd drives for rips and i believe all of the top 100 on the list exceeded 98%

 

edit to add----

 

this isnt the actual list, ..i am sure a quick google will pop the list i was talking about.

https://forum.dbpoweramp.com/showthread.php?37706-CD-DVD-Drive-Accuracy-List-2016