Understanding Sample Rate

[crenca]

3 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

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....

 

How?

 

The average is not a guess - it is calculated and the above referenced theory (supported by a large body of research) reveals that this calculation is correct.  What is the calculation missing, and what kind of frequency "information" are you hypothesising as existent that the theory does not capture?

[GUTB]

5 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

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?

 

Study performed  in 1971 on the 10 microsecond figure. 

 

Also, listening tests have shown a clear preference for high res. There’s a reason why high res sounds better. Once you agree with reality you can move onto learning about why the phenomena takes place.

[beerandmusic]

1 minute ago, crenca said:

 

How?

 

The average is not a guess - it is calculated and the above referenced theory (supported by a large body of research) reveals that this calculation is correct.  What is the calculation missing, and what kind of frequency "information" are you hypothesising as existent that the theory does not capture?

 

probably something that physics doesn't allow (wink).

[beerandmusic]

13 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

How?

 

The average is not a guess - it is calculated and the above referenced theory (supported by a large body of research) reveals that this calculation is correct.  What is the calculation missing, and what kind of frequency "information" are you hypothesising as existent that the theory does not capture?

 

just for example....I would say that out of the billions of people on this planet, that if any two people are paired in harmony that they will all sound different although on paper probably a good 1% would sound the same to even the best listeners.

 

I am suggesting that sound has "dna" or uniqueness that man knows nothing about.

 

and beyond that, time slicing a second into 44000 samples is oblivious to what is possible.

[crenca]

1 minute ago, GUTB said:

 

Study performed  in 1971 on the 10 microsecond figure. 

 

Also, listening tests have shown a clear preference for high res. There’s a reason why high res sounds better. Once you agree with reality you can move onto learning about why the phenomena takes.

 

You have not connected the dots.  You have a reaction time (I grant it), and a study.  What is the relationship in the very terms that both accept (i.e. modern physics)?  How do they, when brought together in your imagination, "create" information for which current theory does not capture?

 

Your out of your depth - your a man who has heard a story about a man who found a  horn, and another story about a man who has a horse, and are now asserting that unicorns must be real...

[psjug]

1 minute ago, GUTB said:

 

Study performed  in 1971 on the 10 microsecond figure. 

 

Also, listening tests have shown a clear preference for high res. There’s a reason why high res sounds better. Once you agree with reality you can move onto learning about why the phenomena takes place.

You are referring to this again, which you posted in the other thread?

http://asa.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1121/1.1912374

 

I already told you that it is stated right in the abstract that the subjects were distinguishing between spectral differences of the two waveforms within the audible band.  So changing the number and width of those narrow pulses changes the spectral composition within the audible band.   Try creating a series of 20us wide pulses, with 500us between them.  Then run a FFT.  Then replace all the 20us pulse with pairs of 10us pulses and do a FFT on that.

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, jabbr said:

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)

I don't recall the sampling theorem relying on a quantised frequency. Clearly, a time-limited signal has limited frequency resolution. That limitation is unrelated to sampling. The relevant point here is that all frequencies that can meaningfully be said to exist in a given signal are accurately captured by sampling at a rate greater than twice the highest frequency.

[FredericV]

23 minutes ago, mansr said:

There's no problem with that. The sampling theorem has it covered.

 

indeed:

http://science-of-sound.net/2016/02/time-resolution-in-digital-audio/

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

just for example....I would say that out of the billions of people on this planet, that if any two people are paired in harmony that they will all sound different although on paper probably a good 1% would sound the same to even the best listeners.

 

I am suggesting that every sound has "dna" or uniqueness that man knows nothing about.

 

Well, like you said physics would not "recognize" your hypothetical.  What is it about a pressure wave, which is simply (simplistically) the mere movement (somewhat orderly) of a medium (in this case air), that has a physical "dna"?  Would you say the speed of your car has a physical "has a dna" different from every other car at the same speed?  Would you say that your wife's nagging has a physical "dna", something different than the complex almamorgation of her real dna, her emotions, and your behavior?

 

Your rather haphazardly mashing domains of knowledge, physical and non physical realities all together in your imagination to create something about sound that is...well, it's a unicorn

[beerandmusic]

2 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Well, like you said physics would not "recognize" your hypothetical.  What is it about a pressure wave, which is simply (simplistically) the mere movement (somewhat orderly) of a medium (in this case air), that has a physical "dna"?  Would you say the speed of your car has a physical "has a dna" different from every other car at the same speed?  Would you say that your wife's nagging has a physical "dna", something different than the complex almamorgation of her real dna, her emotions, and your behavior?

 

Your rather haphazardly mashing domains of knowledge, physical and non physical realities all together in your imagination to create something about sound that is...well, it's a unicorn

 

I like that (smile)

[beerandmusic]

3 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Well, like you said physics would not "recognize" your hypothetical.  What is it about a pressure wave, which is simply (simplistically) the mere movement (somewhat orderly) of a medium (in this case air), that has a physical "dna"?  Would you say the speed of your car has a physical "has a dna" different from every other car at the same speed?  Would you say that your wife's nagging has a physical "dna", something different than the complex almamorgation of her real dna, her emotions, and your behavior?

 

Your rather haphazardly mashing domains of knowledge, physical and non physical realities all together in your imagination to create something about sound that is...well, it's a unicorn

 

I don't think physics can prove God either (wink).

[Ralf11]

19 minutes ago, mansr said:

As usual, pay no attention to GUTB.

 

however... this modified stmt. is true:

 

It's an established fact that the ability of human beings to hear sine waves beyond 20 kHz has never been demonstrated...

[Ralf11]

16 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

... if any two people are paired in harmony ...

 

 

I tried that once but she went off to NIH and never came back

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

I don't think physics can prove God either (wink).

God is by definition that which cannot be shown to either exist or not. God is thus irrelevant.

[Ralf11]

Beer, I appreciate you may not want to do this, but it might help people explain things to you, if you would outline your educational background in physics, biology, engineering, math and etc.

[crenca]

1 minute ago, beerandmusic said:

 

I don't think physics can prove God either (wink).

 

No, but physics (at least properly done - let's ignore certain popular writers who are philosophical materialists - the material is their "god") can explain to you why God is a hypothetical outside of its domain, and thus can neither prove, disprove, or even comment intelligibly on God.  Your imaginary hypothetical is something within physics domain, and is certainly not a comment on God either.

 

I hate to seemingly discourage the imagination, I really do - there is nothing that is more fully human.  However, even the imagination happens within a cosmos, a physis and imagination itself can bend, but not break the physis.  Otherwise, Chaos reigns in nature and there are no order to the universe at all...but even a child understand this is wrong...

[Ralf11]

physics & biology have shown the limits of action by any diety

[fas42]

23 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

just for example....I would say that out of the billions of people on this planet, that if any two people are paired in harmony that they will all sound different although on paper probably a good 1% would sound the same to even the best listeners.

 

I am suggesting that sound has "dna" or uniqueness that man knows nothing about.

 

and beyond that, time slicing a second into 44000 samples is oblivious to what is possible.

 

Your search is for the "specialness" that sound has in real life - luckily, so to speak, it's all actually there in recordings, but lack of refinement in the reconstruction process, as it occurs in nearly all playback systems, stops you hearing this.

 

Chasing after solutions in a checklist fashion as you are may eventually get you there, but it's a torturous path - there are better ways of making good headway. And most important of all, lose the obsession with formats, etc - just because you get better results with components via some format configuration of the source material means nothing more than, say, a certain brand of shock absorbers in a vehicle giving you a better ride on a particular bumpy road; change the road, its bumpiness, and those suspension parts, carefully chosen for one situation, now give you a worse experience.

[mansr]

10 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

physics & biology have shown the limits of action by any diety

And then you get crazy studies like Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial.

[Ralf11]

hey - confirmation bias works!

 

in fact witchcraft is known to be just as efficacious as psychotherapy

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

in fact witchcraft is known to be just as efficacious as psychotherapy

Is there a difference?

[beerandmusic]

57 minutes ago, mansr said:

The relevant point here is that all frequencies that can meaningfully be said to exist in a given signal are accurately captured by sampling at a rate greater than twice the highest frequency.

 

or to be said in a different way, all sound can be accurately captured by sampling 44000 times in a second or 264000 times in a minute ....i call hogwash.

 

I say all sound can't be captured in 264000 samples times 7 in a second.

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, beerandmusic said:

 

or to be said in a different way, all sound can be accurately captured by sampling 44000 times in a second....i call hogwash.

 

Did you even bother to read what he wrote?

[Ralf11]

7 minutes ago, mansr said:

Is there a difference?

 

witch doctors are a LOT less expensive than psychotherapists (and usually better adjusted)

[ralphfcooke]

2 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

or to be said in a different way, all sound can be accurately captured by sampling 44000 times in a second or 264000 times in a minute ....i call hogwash.

No , not all sound, but certainly all sound that falls within the range of human hearing