To be precise, you haven't heard the 500 kHz oscillation, you have heard the audible results of it.
No prob - I knew what you meant, but was afraid some people here might misunderstand.
I'll try then...
By pure and perfect math and assuming no frequency above 20khz has a significant effect on listener and/or his gears, 44khz would be enough.
Because many of us (i'm among them) want to have an higher data density to take into account any technical issues, hardware limitations, jitter, unperfect filtering, math limitations in complex analog phenomenons insight (Nyquist-Shannon's is a theorem, not a postulate, isn't it?), effects of HF on subconscious (that are demonstrated) and all the sad things that happen in our lives, 96 khz seems to someone a more reasonable ceiling.
But as current hardware allows even higher sample rates without a big price to pay and you never know in your life, then someone thinks 384 khz is a bonus, and IMHO he is absolutely allowed to think that, even if i don't agree (actually i listened to some 192 khz files and i find they sound worse than 96 khz counterparts...).
Audio gears manufacturers, as long as we live in a liberal world regulated by the market, tend to produce what people asks for.
N.B. As it happens about nearly 99% of all that we discuss in any forum, you'll see that many users won't agree with this answer. Biodiversity creates life.
Last edited:
I am not quite sure what "data density" actually means in the context of audio.
In what way do you feel the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem doesn't apply or is invalid, and how do you think a higher-than-required sample rate helps deal with jitter?
Data density does not refer strictly to audio context, but to digital domain: a 96khz stream is more "dense" that a 48 khz one, as in one second you have twice the samples to describe a waveform.
I never said Nyquist-Shannon theorem is invalid, on a mathematical base: it's clearly demonstrated.
If it applies? I'm not sure about that and i think very few peoples (if any) have the real knowledge to tell for sure when it does or doesn't. Surely it is well known and accepted (even Wikipedia reports it, if my memory doesn't fail) that it can't be strictly applied to actual gears and technical context.
So, IMHO, twice what Nyquist-Shannon suggests is a more reasonable level.
Last edited:
OK, but why not just say "higher sample rate", as that is the terminology the rest of us are familiar with?
Can you please point out where in the wikipedia entry that is suggested (or explain under what conditions it can't be applied)?
Do you have any rationale for that factor of two, or is it an arbitrary subjective coefficient?
Hard to believe that the intelligent folks here at DIYaudio are still arguing over sampling rate theorem. Assumed you all knew that the problem is not with Nyqust-Shannon, its just that at 44.1kHz Redbook rates the necessary filters are too audible. Hence why all S-D DAC chips oversample and why many using computers choose to do SRC/SDM in software--to deliver filter performance in excess of what can economically be done in silicon inside the DAC.
Not rocket-science, just audio electronics science.
Not rocket-science, just audio electronics science.
There you are
Counselling may be more appropriate
A variant of Parkinson's law?
I'm all for freedom of thought and speech, for example, it's nonsense to believe in fairies
Not quite, they first tell people what to want, then supply it
99% of statistics are made up on the spotN.B. As it happens about nearly 99% of all that we discuss in any forum, you'll see that many users won't agree with this answer. Biodiversity creates life.
Is Nyquist your Absolute Truth?
To me, that is the same level of close-minded superstition of thinking the Earth to be flat. Only newer...
In a small field of application, ground IS flat. Outside of it, IT'S NOT.
Who thinks to rigidly apply Nyquist-Shannon theorem (or any other math theorem) without taking into account its field of application, IMHO is just like superstitious people of the past.
Thinking that Christian Medioeval people was wrong about World Laws does not mean thinking that God doesn't exist. Thinking that today's rigid and close-minded scientific people is wrong about World Laws, does not mean thinking that Science is not valid.
Absolute and Definitive Truth (i.e. don't look for something) is the mistake, whoever thinks to have got it. Today as much as 1000 years ago.
That's what i think.
I'm perfectly familiar with that terminology. I thought you were too...
Anyway, i was trying to use a different terminology to make what i wanted to say clearer. By evidence, i failed...
It's not so easy to do for me, as i read it in a non-english version of Wikipedia. But other answers in recent posts do point out the same concept.
Oh, it's a very simple rationale! It's the next higher sample rate using a 48khz basis (as most recent digital converters actually do, due to 48khz clock).
In facts, calculating something more precise, considering the many variables in the game, it's beyond my reach - and i don't think it's possible to establish a calculated value valid for any audio system.
More, and this will scandalize you
, it's based upon my listening experience.Counselling may be more appropriate
Beyond theoretical (and ironic) discussions, i wonder if you ever listened to a good 96khz song file opposed to its 48khz counterpart. What you say with so much confidence makes me think you didn't yet - or simply you didn't ever find a GOOD 96 khz file?
Maybe someone is about to jump in telling mp3 is hifi enough and lossless files are not needed?
Maybe...
But is allowed - and i'm happy about that (even if i believe fairies are a ridicolous idea), as i don't have any particular reason to think i am always right and others are always wrong when they don't agree with me.
1000 years ago, believing a man could fly would have been considered superstition.
Oh! So there is someone believing in a conspiracy theory here? I wouldn't have guessed that...
99% of statistics are made up on the spot
Right!
STOP! Everybody...
Don't you think it's time to stop discussing days and days about epistemologic matters and keep on talking about Jlsounds very good products?
I think this thread would be much more appreciated if anyone could report about his own builds and share his personal experience with other readers.
Don't you?
Why each time a long and boring discussion has to follow simply because what he says is not agreed by some of the others? Can't you live if someone else does not 100% agree with you? Is that totalitarism?
What was the meaning of the question we started discussing about? Polemics? Was it useful and opportune in this thread?
If you think 48khz sample frequency is enough, then it's simple: just use 48khz files and please let the others do what they want and think what they think. Quit this thread and go post in a 48khz dac thread. Live and let live, please.
Don't you think it's time to stop discussing days and days about epistemologic matters and keep on talking about Jlsounds very good products?
I think this thread would be much more appreciated if anyone could report about his own builds and share his personal experience with other readers.
Don't you?
Why each time a long and boring discussion has to follow simply because what he says is not agreed by some of the others? Can't you live if someone else does not 100% agree with you? Is that totalitarism?
What was the meaning of the question we started discussing about? Polemics? Was it useful and opportune in this thread?
If you think 48khz sample frequency is enough, then it's simple: just use 48khz files and please let the others do what they want and think what they think. Quit this thread and go post in a 48khz dac thread. Live and let live, please.
Last edited:
I doubt I've ever heard any reproduction above CD quality but I've heard a lot of live music of most kinds. I believe the source and amplification is near enough perfect now that it is of very little concern to me. What does interest me is the final presentation of the speaker in the room, that is where 99%(ha) of the illusion is created to my mind. I really can't imagine how the highly accurate reproduction of a 20kHz anything is going to make much difference to the tweeter, the room, and my ears. Fun to argue about, but that is all
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.