Spacehound Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 2 minutes ago, rickca said: My TV (which is off) just said exactly the same thing to me. And thus it descends...... Link to comment
crenca Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 Just now, beerandmusic said: are you suggesting that an infinite amount of frequencies don't exist? or just that they may not be discernible to hearing? Yep. Band limited hearing, your hearing (and every other humans - or living creatures) is in no way "infinite". Also, see my earlier post, frequency is not complex in the way you are imagining it to be. Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
jabbr Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 1 minute ago, beerandmusic said: are you suggesting that an infinite amount of frequencies don't exist? or just that they may not be discernible to hearing? I know they aren't relevant to hearing. They don't exist for sound transmission in air. According to my understanding of physics, they don't exist in the universe. Custom room treatments for headphone users. Link to comment
crenca Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 Another thing that might help - imagine how a dynamic driver works. Now imagine how it would produce more than one frequency at any point (or more accurately, a defined period) in time. How would it produce a "complex" number of frequencies during this period? Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted February 18, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted February 18, 2018 13 minutes ago, beerandmusic said: are you suggesting that an infinite amount of frequencies don't exist? Frequencies are continuous, just like real numbers, so in that sense they are infinitely many. In the real world, they are, however, not unbounded. It is physically impossible for air to carry a sound wave with a frequency above a few GHz, and even at 1 MHz it is attenuated to oblivion withing a couple of inches. For the purposed of recording music, there can be no frequencies above 250 kHz or so. In practice, the highest frequencies encountered by a microphone are less than 100 kHz. The sampling theorem allows for any number of frequencies within a limited range (bandwidth), so with a sufficiently high sample rate, nothing is lost. esldude and tmtomh 1 1 Link to comment
beerandmusic Posted February 18, 2018 Author Share Posted February 18, 2018 12 minutes ago, crenca said: Yep. Band limited hearing, your hearing (and every other humans - or living creatures) is in no way "infinite". Also, see my earlier post, frequency is not complex in the way you are imagining it to be. Let me ask this.... is it possible to have an infinite amount of frequencies between 600hz and 700hz? e.g. is it not possible to have 600hz 600.001, 600.002, 600.003, etc... whether it is discernible to hear the difference from one person's voice to another, not being the question. Link to comment
mansr Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 1 minute ago, beerandmusic said: Let me ask this.... is it possible to have an infinite amount of frequencies between 600hz and 700hz? e.g. is it not possible to have 600hz 600.001, 600.002, 600.003, etc... whether it is discernible to hear the difference from one person's voice to another, not being the question. I believe I just answered that question. tmtomh 1 Link to comment
beerandmusic Posted February 18, 2018 Author Share Posted February 18, 2018 1 minute ago, mansr said: I believe I just answered that question. that is the part the confuses me...every time where it is suggested that is above our hearing (e.g. higher than 40Khz)? I am talking about an infinite number of frequencies WITHIN the boundaries of 20-20khz Link to comment
jabbr Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 23 minutes ago, mansr said: I don't see the photoelectric effect being of particular relevance here. Its rather interesting history of our quantum understanding of physics. Series of papers not just the "photoelectric effect" but essential for the concept of a light "wave" being understood as a quantized photon. Thus we understand the universe, and via other papers including Einstein's general relativity but many many papers all together, where space-time itself via not a smooth continuum equation rather a quantized equation. The point being that our fundamental understanding of the universe is quantized, and hence an infinite number of frequencies do not physically exist. I was asked this very question. crenca 1 Custom room treatments for headphone users. Link to comment
Spacehound Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 5 minutes ago, beerandmusic said: Let me ask this.... is it possible to have an infinite amount of frequencies between 600hz and 700hz? e.g. is it not possible to have 600hz 600.001, 600.002, 600.003, etc... whether it is discernible to hear the difference from one person's voice to another, not being the question. If all else fails RTFM. It's linked in my first post. Link to comment
beerandmusic Posted February 18, 2018 Author Share Posted February 18, 2018 Another example singer A+singerB sing and together when they sing in perfect harmony their frequency is 700hz 4 minutes ago, jabbr said: Its rather interesting history of our quantum understanding of physics. Series of papers not just the "photoelectric effect" but essential for the concept of a light "wave" being understood as a quantized photon. Thus we understand the universe, and via other papers including Einstein's general relativity but many many papers all together, where space-time itself via not a smooth continuum equation rather a quantized equation. The point being that our fundamental understanding of the universe is quantized, and hence an infinite number of frequencies do not physically exist. I was asked this very question. before i get to deep into the weeds, and before i forget...i wanted to ask about something you said.... I believe you inferred that you don't believe above 88K (or somewhere there abouts, but you like DSD and highres for other reasons)? If there is no discernible difference, then why? Just curious.... Link to comment
crenca Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 4 minutes ago, beerandmusic said: Let me ask this.... is it possible to have an infinite amount of frequencies between 600hz and 700hz? e.g. is it not possible to have 600hz 600.001, 600.002, 600.003, etc... whether it is discernible to hear the difference from one person's voice to another, not being the question. Yes and no. The problem is how you are framing the question, which is in turn related to how you are thinking about frequency (no offense intended). You are imagining that frequency, and thus sound, and thus the sound energy that your organic ear/brain converts into what you hear, is a "complex" composite of multiple frequencies values that all occur at the same point in time. The truth is closer to this: what is the average of all those "infinite", or even finite, frequencies? That average is what is in fact the reality of sound, sound recording, sound reproduction, and hearing. As manser said, frequency is "continuous", it is one thing - not many. What I just said is still a laypersons explication and is itself "wrong" but I hope it helps. Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted February 18, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted February 18, 2018 4 minutes ago, beerandmusic said: that is the part the confuses me...every time where it is suggested that is above our hearing (e.g. higher than 40Khz)? I am talking about an infinite number of frequencies WITHIN the boundaries of 20-20khz There's no problem with that. The sampling theorem has it covered. sarvsa, tmtomh and semente 3 Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 25 minutes ago, Spacehound said: that looks more like a trout... how about: However, because of filter characteristics, a smoother sound can often be gained by increasing the sample rate above 44.1 KHz in digital audio. Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 22 minutes ago, jabbr said: I know they aren't relevant to hearing. They don't exist for sound transmission in air. According to my understanding of physics, they don't exist in the universe. I'd bet money that a good String Theorist could come up with an untestable "hypothesis" on this... jabbr 1 Link to comment
mansr Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 5 minutes ago, jabbr said: The point being that our fundamental understanding of the universe is quantized, and hence an infinite number of frequencies do not physically exist. The quantisation is small enough that for practical purposes it doesn't exist. More importantly, the sampling theorem is fine with a true continuum of frequencies whether or not they can all physically exist. tmtomh 1 Link to comment
GUTB Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 Some of you guys are confused about something very basic. We don't hear "frequencies", we hear pressurized atmosphere. That does seem like a pedantic distinction, but still helpful for grasping the situation -- the situation being that high res sounds better than Redbook. It's an established fact that human beings can't hear anything beyond 20 kHz -- with the exception of children who can sometimes sense sound beyond that. 20 kHz is a unit of measurement of a frequency. A 20 kHz tone is a frequency that represents an oscillation every 50 microseconds. This 20 kHz tone exists in the atmosphere as a 1.7 cm long wavelength of pressurized air travelling at 343 meters a second. This wavelength of pressurized air does oscillate at 20 kHz, ie, one oscillation every 50 microseconds, but our ear-brain system does not also operate at 50 microsecond intervals. When the wavelength of pressurized air hits your ear, your auditory system reacts at least as quickly as 10 microseconds -- not that this is the lower limit, just what has been shown in one experiment. A 10 microsecond oscillation period results in a 100 kHz tone, which we obviously can't hear, but we CAN distinguish moments of sound at least as short at 10 microseconds. The situation is thus summed up: we can't hear beyond 20 kHz, but high resolution audio supplies more audio information which makes it sound better. Link to comment
jabbr Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 11 minutes ago, beerandmusic said: Let me ask this.... is it possible to have an infinite amount of frequencies between 600hz and 700hz? e.g. is it not possible to have 600hz 600.001, 600.002, 600.003, etc... whether it is discernible to hear the difference from one person's voice to another, not being the question. Ah ... this is a good question, actually! The uncertainty principle limits the number of closely spaced frequencies to be resolved in the same way as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle does for position and time i.e. the fourier transform The number of resolvable frequencies is determined by the SNR of the signal and is not infinite. tmtomh 1 Custom room treatments for headphone users. Link to comment
beerandmusic Posted February 18, 2018 Author Share Posted February 18, 2018 10 minutes ago, crenca said: Yes and no. The problem is how you are framing the question, which is in turn related to how you are thinking about frequency (no offense intended). You are imagining that frequency, and thus sound, and thus the sound energy that your organic ear/brain converts into what you hear, is a "complex" composite of multiple frequencies values that all occur at the same point in time. The truth is closer to this: what is the average of all those "infinite", or even finite, frequencies? That average is what is in fact the reality of sound, sound recording, sound reproduction, and hearing. As manser said, frequency is "continuous", it is one thing - not many. What I just said is still a laypersons explication and is itself "wrong" but I hope it helps. Actually that is the exact point i am trying to get to....that the average may appear to have no discernible difference, but in actuality they do....e.g. 9 million singers may sound exactly like 10 million singers, but clearly they are not the same. Link to comment
Popular Post crenca Posted February 18, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted February 18, 2018 2 minutes ago, GUTB said: Some of you guys are confused about something very basic. We don't hear "frequencies", we hear pressurized atmosphere. That does seem like a pedantic distinction, but still helpful for grasping the situation -- the situation being that high res sounds better than Redbook. It's an established fact that human beings can't hear anything beyond 20 kHz -- with the exception of children who can sometimes sense sound beyond that. 20 kHz is a unit of measurement of a frequency. A 20 kHz tone is a frequency that represents an oscillation every 50 microseconds. This 20 kHz tone exists in the atmosphere as a 1.7 cm long wavelength of pressurized air travelling at 343 meters a second. This wavelength of pressurized air does oscillate at 20 kHz, ie, one oscillation every 50 microseconds, but our ear-brain system does not also operate at 50 microsecond intervals. When the wavelength of pressurized air hits your ear, your auditory system reacts at least as quickly as 10 microseconds -- not that this is the lower limit, just what has been shown in one experiment. A 10 microsecond oscillation period results in a 100 kHz tone, which we obviously can't hear, but we CAN distinguish moments of sound at least as short at 10 microseconds. The situation is thus summed up: we can't hear beyond 20 kHz, but high resolution audio supplies more audio information which makes it sound better. How does the reaction time lead to "audio information which makes it sound better", and what is the nature of this "information", and how do you know the organic system possess this "information"? Did you read all that in a Synergistic Research manual? mansr, sarvsa and Spacehound 3 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
Popular Post Spacehound Posted February 18, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted February 18, 2018 4 minutes ago, GUTB said: Some of you guys are confused about something very basic. We don't hear "frequencies", we hear pressurized atmosphere. That does seem like a pedantic distinction, but still helpful for grasping the situation -- the situation being that high res sounds better than Redbook. It's an established fact that human beings can't hear anything beyond 20 kHz -- with the exception of children who can sometimes sense sound beyond that. 20 kHz is a unit of measurement of a frequency. A 20 kHz tone is a frequency that represents an oscillation every 50 microseconds. This 20 kHz tone exists in the atmosphere as a 1.7 cm long wavelength of pressurized air travelling at 343 meters a second. This wavelength of pressurized air does oscillate at 20 kHz, ie, one oscillation every 50 microseconds, but our ear-brain system does not also operate at 50 microsecond intervals. When the wavelength of pressurized air hits your ear, your auditory system reacts at least as quickly as 10 microseconds -- not that this is the lower limit, just what has been shown in one experiment. A 10 microsecond oscillation period results in a 100 kHz tone, which we obviously can't hear, but we CAN distinguish moments of sound at least as short at 10 microseconds. The situation is thus summed up: we can't hear beyond 20 kHz, but high resolution audio supplies more audio information which makes it sound better. 100% irrelevant to what he's asking. esldude and tmtomh 2 Link to comment
jabbr Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 7 minutes ago, mansr said: The quantisation is small enough that for practical purposes it doesn't exist. More importantly, the sampling theorem is fine with a true continuum of frequencies whether or not they can all physically exist. That's a common misconception: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.3135.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.1348.pdf (you may need to read the references in these papers to understand) Custom room treatments for headphone users. Link to comment
fas42 Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 Just think of the waveform being capable of having an infinite variety of shapes - that covers an "infinite number of frequencies" - where at no point does the waveform ever have a shape that is only possible if there is frequency content above the audible range. Now, if you have a mechanism that captures the shape of those infinite variety of waveforms, and then a process that can reconstruct every single one of those waveforms, every time, with an error difference that is only limited by the quality of the implementation of the capture and reconstruction processes - here we have, digital audio, as that which exists in the real world. tmtomh 1 Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted February 18, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted February 18, 2018 As usual, pay no attention to GUTB. sarvsa, tmtomh, esldude and 2 others 4 1 Link to comment
Popular Post FredericV Posted February 18, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted February 18, 2018 2 hours ago, beerandmusic said: Back to my suggestion of 9 million singers singing at the same time, and every quanta (smallest time slice possible below pico seconds) one of the 9 million singers changes their tone. There are only 44K samples per second, yet there are many more changes. 28 minutes ago, beerandmusic said: Let me ask this.... is it possible to have an infinite amount of frequencies between 600hz and 700hz? e.g. is it not possible to have 600hz 600.001, 600.002, 600.003, etc... whether it is discernible to hear the difference from one person's voice to another, not being the question. esldude, tmtomh and marce 3 Designer of the 432 EVO music server and Linux specialist Discoverer of the independent open source sox based mqa playback method with optional one cycle postringing. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now