Jump to content
IGNORED

Understanding Sample Rate


Recommended Posts

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
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

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
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
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.

Link to comment
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.

Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Link to comment
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

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
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
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...

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment

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
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.

Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Link to comment
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
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

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.

Link to comment

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...