Ok, so we have 2 persons that do not understand how sampling works and apply math laws without understanding the context...
Tell us more! To me it seems there is only one person who doesn't understand how sampling works... 🙂
I was talking about a bass instrument. Wasn't it clearly written?
If you have 440 samples in a second, perfect reconstruction is filter-dependant, but surely it will never be exactly identical to analog waveform, because analog real phenomenons are never "perfect" and never conform exactly to simple mathematical functions. Too many variables.
Then the fact that you said 200Hz is irrelevant. You need to be able to reproduce the harmonics as well so that the sound of the bass instrument is not corrupted
Ah, so you want to reproduce not just a 200 Hz frequency, but all the audible harmonics too. In that case you need a sample frequency that is twice the highest audible frequency. Thus the 44.1 kHz sample rate.
Thus we are back where this started, "A higher sampling rate than 44.1 kHz is meaningless since frequencies above 20 kHz can not be heard by anyone."
It's more or less what i wanted to say. 200 hz is irrelevant, the problem is how much data is needed for a much, much complex waveform as real waveforms are.
Reductionism is not good in hifi - IMHO, of course.
It's not that simple. 90/100 khz is a better limit IMHO, because hearing is - again - a complex phenomenon. And between pure math laws and practical/technological problems there is a substantial gap sometimes.
But sure, i think that more than 300 khz is a total waste. Maybe - but i don't know it for sure - someone wanted a large margin to make up for practical faults.
Anyway, you sometimes find 384 khz files to play, so being able to do so can be "convenient"... 😉
Last edited:
I was trying to find a link that was posted on this site to a YouTube view which explained this very clearly, I'm having trouble finding it, I believe it was in the last month or so, it was by someone who designed digital amplifiers and explained why very high sampling rates are not necessary. I don't think the poster got many or any replys......I wonder why.....
All of you forget digital noise..
Consequently we had sharp digital filters, and analog reconstruction filter, both have influence in sound..
If sampling rate in start was couple times greater, sound degradation of filters will be lower..
In the beginning they don't know what is jitter, can't be expected to realize benefits of higher sample rate ..
Consequently we had sharp digital filters, and analog reconstruction filter, both have influence in sound..
If sampling rate in start was couple times greater, sound degradation of filters will be lower..
In the beginning they don't know what is jitter, can't be expected to realize benefits of higher sample rate ..
Last edited:
Well, we know the answer to that. We need to be able to reproduce all the audible information - so everything up to about 20 kHz or so. Thus, once again a sample rate of 44 kHz...
Indeed. Which is why you don't want any of that stuff in the signal, so a sample rate of 44.1 or 48 kHz is actually better than the higher rates.
Same question, never mind that you not understand how hi-fi electronics work..
Do you think that humans are able to hear above 20kHz, sounds or distorsion or noise..
Humans will hear intermodulation products caused by high frequency noise. That is why it is better not to have the noise there in the first place.