Understanding Sample Rate

[beerandmusic]

42 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

I find it difficult to interpret those  tables.

One wonders what they mean.   Inaccurate compared to what? All the others? There is no '100% accurate' reference.

 

Personally, using both EAC when I was obsessive  some time  ago and the JRiver one for two years or so since I was cured (equals not faffing around on pointless activities), only one in a hundred or better has come out less than 100%, and those I knew already made some odd but not intrusive sounds.  Some that have known  faults come out perfect.

 

I don't use any fancy power supplies, cables etc.

 

the perecentage is based on the final rips compared to known accurate rips in their database.

 

if it got 99% that means that 99 out of 100 rips were 100% accurate.

 

[beerandmusic]

 

wow, this site is crazy...and likely a good representation of what this world is coming to....

 

too soon is not soon enough....overdue for intervention....

[beerandmusic]

22 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

39 pages ago you began with the view that higher sample rates do not only enable the sampling of higher frequencies, but also "smooth out the sound"

 

Actually i said i DIDN"t agree that higher sampling rates "round" things.

I said, and still believe that it provides more detail and "airyness"....not round anything.

 

I don't refuse to accept a scientifc fact...the theorem has criteria, that allows me to accept it, which i have stated.

It is a scientific fact that nyquist theorem is bandlimited.

It is a scientific fact that the nyquist frequency is not perfect for capturing all sound in real world examples.

Those are scientific facts that i accept.

 

As long as i can hear more details in the live that cannot be reproduced, i cannot accept that 44.1k is the end all.

 

I may be wrong in my thinking, I don't deny that, but it is my honest belief.

 

 

 

 

[beerandmusic]

6 minutes ago, mansr said:

Whatever you think it does, it doesn't.

 

and i agree to disagree...in the poll that is running more than 2 to 1 believe that 44.1K is not the end all game.

[beerandmusic]

18 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

I do agree that it might be good for this thread to be closed.

 

PS i didn't mean to suggest the thread should be closed, although i would not be opposed to it....

 

my comment about intervention was more on a spiritual level (grin).

[beerandmusic]

7 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Why you hung up on this sample rate?

 

There is nothing special about it other than the fact that is the one used in the Redbook standard for CDs.

 

 

I am not hung up on it...and as I expressed much earlier in the thread, it really has nothing to do with my initial reason for starting the thread.  I learned that nyquist is not even used for DSD.

 

What i really wanted to explore was why DSD can be a superior format to PCM...but after this thread, I am NOT going to start that thread, because it would be even more complicated and likely follow the same pattern (lol).

[beerandmusic]

 

I corrected the part that was misquoted because it was incorrect.  I left out the part i agreed with because i agree with it.

To me smoothing out is nothing like more detail.

 

Anyway, it's just repetitive. 

 

My guess is that my belief has something to do with "bandlimited" because i don't really understand it...i just know that i can hear a lot more details in the "live" than i believe is possible to engineer a solution to reporduce the same details, and i attribute it to the infinite frequencies that exist in the real world, that are not "bandlimited"...at least that is my thinking.

 

I am perfectly content with the subject going away.  No one will change my mind, and i am not willing to take the amount of study time that would make me understand where i may believe i am mistaken...i believe my disbelief is related to the infinite frequencies that really exist and the bandlimited criteria of the nyquist theorem.

 

[beerandmusic]

15 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

Also, one more important point: You started this thread asking if we could all agree on a techterms.com definition as a starting point for sample rate discussion, and you provided that definition in your opening post.

 

As you can see by the part I've highlighted in bold and in red in the above quoted post of yours (you have to expand it by clicking "read more"), the definition you started us off with, and which you proposed was correct, says exactly what you have recently denied claiming: that higher sample rates can provide "smoother sound."

 

 

and probably a few posts down from that, i said i didn't believe that part....and that is why i refuted that part of what you said.

 

[beerandmusic]

In the end, i believe everyone here will know the truth.

If i was wrong, no big deal.  If i was right, no big deal....

but if i was right, I  will sneek in "i told you so" with a cheers, and hope everyone else would be able to say likewise, if they were right (wink).

 

I am sure there will be much bigger issues for everyone.

 

 

[beerandmusic]

38 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

Look, if you proposed that we all agree to a definition and then later said that you really meant all of a definition except for one phrase, I think that's needlessly confusing of you, but I will certainly be happy to accept your work on that.

But in return, I would expect you to acknowledge that whether higher sample rates are about "smoothness" or "detail" was not the point of what I was saying. If you cannot or will not acknowledge that, then you're not arguing in good faith, and it will not be possible or worthwhile engaging the content of what you say.

 

I proposed an excerpt from a link...it was open to discussion as a starting point....

the reason i quoted that part, was because that was the first part of what you said that i disagreed with.

i am happy to quit discussing any time you want to. 

I am not arguing you "in good faith or bad faith" or anythng else....i was just correcting you where i disagreed.

It seemed to me you were trying to make several points, and to be totally honest, i have no clue what point even needs to be discussed.

Everyone knows that I don't agree that that 44.1K sampling rate can accurately capture all possible sounds up to 20Khz...so i am not sure what else is to discuss.  I don't even think that 44.1K sampling rate can capture all possible sounds between 100 and 101 hz.

 

 

 

[beerandmusic]

2 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

This is flat out wrong and despite being told so, and provided literature and references, you maintain your fixed dogmatic yet incorrect viewpoint. 

 

I believe there are an infinite number of frequencies between 100hz and 101 hz, and the fact that the theorem has a criteria of bandlimited, that i don't believe the nyquist theorem can accurately capture all sounds between that range.

 

And like i said, it is possible i am incorrect...i just don't believe i am.

I don't know why people have such a hard time understanding that.

[beerandmusic]

1 minute ago, jabbr said:

 

You can believe that 1 + 1 = 3 despite being told that it equals 2. I have a hard time why you refuse to either accept this or do some reading and work the math out for yourself.

 

Math and physics aren't like art. Not all opinions are equally valid.

You can't force someone to believe something.  They have to understand it.  Some people may say they accept something because they were told it, but really don't know.  I don't accept it because I hear more things in life than what i can hear in reproduction.... I don't want to do the math to either prove or disprove it, because it is not important enough to me to take the time to understand it.  It seems to me that more people are concerned with my acceptance than my own desires, which i have no idea why...why does anyone care if i believe it or not?

 

[beerandmusic]

7 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

Because you keep pushing your beliefs and  if they are true they aren't beliefs and thus can be demonstrated. Please do so..

I am not pushing my beliefs at all...

I really could care less whether people believe me or not.

I am not trying to change anyone's mind...on the contrary people seem to be trying to force their beliefs on me.

I know i have belief in a lot of things others do not....

 

[beerandmusic]

2 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

Truth is not dependent on  people's understanding of it.

I agree....there is only one truth.

It is also possible i am wrong...no big deal.

[beerandmusic]

8 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

I can't force you to understand anything, but if you continue to say things in public that are blatantly and plainly wrong, I will note these so that other people don't being misinformed by your endlessly repetitive yet incorrect statements.

I highly doubt anyone would believe something just because someone said it was so.

Belief (in the non-spiritual sense) is based on knowledge and experience, not on what someone says.

 

 

 

[beerandmusic]

49 minutes ago, buonassi said:

@beerandmusic.  Because the human auditory system is capable of perceiving sound changes as fast as 5-10 millionths of a second, 44 thousand times a second isn't really sufficient resolution to match our hearing resolution - 10:50 in the below video:

 

 

 

I don't really know the actual math, i just know that i can hear a lot more details in live than i have ever heard in recordings.

If you followed the thread, you will see that for about a half a day i was willing to accept that 44.1K was sufficient to capture all audible sound, even though i didn't quite believe it, i was able to accept the possibility....but then while laying down and hearing my wife with a fork in a mixing bowl, i concentrated on the details of the different frequencies and realized that in the real world there are infinite frequencies "chords if you will" that just can't be reproduced with today's technology.  I am guessing the the microphones are the weaker link than the playback system, but our ears are far more capable than what man gives credit for.

[beerandmusic]

2 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

I'm sorry I'm not able to make myself fully understood to you. With respect, I feel fairly confident that the vast majority of folks reading and participating in this thread do understand why I'm trying to say, so I'll just leave it at that.

I am sure everyone understands everybody except for me...i am ok with that.

thanks for trying...

 

Peace.

[beerandmusic]

 

4 hours ago, Spacehound said:

Good for you. I try not to have any beliefs at all.

 

I already knew what i was up against....and I can probably guess with pretty good accuracy others with similar views.

[beerandmusic]

1 hour ago, audiventory said:

 

 

But accuracy of restoring depend on sample number that bend the "ruler". In ideal need infinite sample number. And analog filter must be "infinite brickwall".

Thus sample rate increasing is easier way to more accurate restoring of original sine at given frequency. Bit depth too.

But it is no need to worry more than accuracy of spectrum. Because it show any distortions more clear than oscillogram (in proper settings for considered case). Sometimes need to consider spectrum development in time (time-frequency diagram).
 

 

of anyone to post on subject, i agree mostly with you in my thinking or belief.

 

i can likely agree with this, and thus "good enough"

more accuracy obtainable with higher sample rate, but "good enough" where "good enough" is subjective...i have conceded that long ago.

 

i also think distortions you speak of are likely more prominent in production, than in live. 

 

I think you have a good grasp of my belief, and that you have more truth on subject than anyone here.

[beerandmusic]

31 minutes ago, audiventory said:

 

Distortions is very useful thing in development of audio tools. It allow to aim and exactly control results of work.

Though binding of figures and subjective perception is not simple work.

i "think" this coincides with my statement that with greater sample rate comes greater accuracy to the point where engineering cannot process without error?

 

in live, we have music and ears that are not so prone.

[beerandmusic]

15 minutes ago, audiventory said:

 higher sample rate give easier abilities to proper analog filter building.

what is your opinion regarding example  unlimited frequency band between 300 and 301 hz.....

 

example:

300.0000001

300.000000000000000000000001

300.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001

to infinite number of 0's?

 

these frequencies can exist in real world and are audible.

if you have many of these infinite frequencies starting and stopping in time, in your honest opinion can all be captured with perfect accuracy at 700hz sample rate.

 

 

 

 

[beerandmusic]

16 minutes ago, audiventory said:

Real digital-analog conversion always have errors.

 

can these errors that always exist be improved (not perfected but made more accurate) with higher sample rate?

[beerandmusic]

10 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

And an infinite  series of zeros can't have a one at the 'end' 

you understood what i meant....

for your sake, any number between 300 and 301, with any amount of decimal points

i merely take it to extremes for sake of better understanding.

 

[beerandmusic]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

Scroll down a little on that page. As esldude points out, a level above ½ LSB will be rounded up to 1.

rounded up..i thought it could capture perfectly