John and Undertow, you are attempting to explain the finer points of sampling theory to someone who only possesses an intuitive understanding of the subject. Recommend a good book on the subject and invite him to come back in a year to discuss it further.

UnderTow

rabeach


To dismiss outright that a more accurately reconstructed signal has no value because you can't hear it in double blind studies with current technology is IMHO short sided at best. Obviously a more accurately reconstructed signal can be quantified and perceived just not with your auditory sensory receptors using current technology.

You don't get it: The audible signal will not be more accurately reconstructed by increasing the bandwidth.

Again, you are clearly out of your depth with this topic.

UnderTow

John

I have stated that sampling higher than the nyquist rate on audio signals will produce a better reconstructed signal

I am saying that isn't so. It wont create any better signal. Is that clear enough?

I have made no claim that it can be heard. I have made no point of argument that one should do so. 

Then why argue? What you are saying here is it has been a pointless exercise to you.

John

Is it clear enough that you are wrong get a frigging oscilloscope.

I own two of them.

John

It cannot be disputed that the 48k will provide a better reconstruction of the original analog finite time signal. To what degree and to what worth is what this thread has become about.

Wrong. All a 48 kHz sample rate will do is allow a 24 kHz signal to pass. Yes that 24 kHz signal will be accurate. But, and this is the point, at a 44.1 kHz sample rate a 20 kHz signal will also pass and it will be just as accurate as the same signal sampled at 48 kHz. This is what you don't get.

bitflipper

So at the end of the day, you are right: the higher sampling rate will indeed capture a broader bandwidth and thus preserve the original waveform better. However, it doesn't matter in the slightest.

Is it possible that some people are confused because they see the waveforms displayed in their DAW that look like a staircase and think that is what the audio "looks" like?

A1MixMan


Great response Bit, you and the others on this forum are truly a wealth of knowledge.

After reading through (most) of the posts in this thread I still find no compelling reason NOT to record at 24/96. It doesn't slow down my computer and I have lots of disk space. And it sounds fantastic as well.

sophomoric

rabeach

UnderTow

rabeach


It is plausable that sampling above the nyquist could provide a more accurate reconstruction of the signal than that offered by sampling at the nyquist frequency.

We do not sample at the Nyquist frequency even at 44.1Khz let alone at the higher sample rates available. You clearly did not understand the post you are responding to.

This is plausable because the nyquist theory doesn't offer to provide a perfectly reconstructed signal for the type of signals we are working with.

It only has to be perfectly reconstructed within our limited perception. We already do that.

Technology evolves and tomorrow all that digital data that is oversampled may have value. To say it canot or does not is rubbish. To say it may or may not is not.

Technology may evolve but our hearing isn't about to change in the near future. And as I have pointed out before, we can already sample at many times the needed bandwidth.

rabeach, you are clearly out of your depth with this topic.

UnderTow

 This post is sophomoric.
 
 

don4777


Bitflipper/John,

Is it possible that some people are confused because they see the waveforms displayed in their DAW that look like a staircase and think that is what the audio "looks" like?  Without understanding that analog audio is filtered and is NOT a staircase.  I can see where if they think the audio is a staircase that more stairs could lead to a more accurate representation.  I don't think some people understand that the filtering removes the stair steps because those discrete steps (square waves) would be representative of frequencies higher than the Nyquist Frequency.  I think you guys would do a better job than I can at explaining it.  Perhaps if you guys could explain that it might help.  But then again - maybe not.

Thanks for trying to stop the spread of misinformation. 

Don

DeeringAmps

Bub


I just fired up Sound Forge 9.0 and did some testing. I got some interesting results.

1. Created a 1kHz tone and set my monitors to a comfortable volume.
2. I started at 0Hz and worked my way up to 20kHz by increments of 5Hz or more.
3. Audio system: 2-Yamaha HS-80m's connected to an M-Audio Fast Track Ultra.

FTU set @ 96kHz

0 ~ 20Hz: Woofers vibrated but I could hear or feel nothing.
25Hz ~ 85Hz: I could feel the bass but couldn't distinguish tones.
90Hz ~ 18.5kHz: I could distinguish tones but had to raise the volume when I got in the upper kHz range. After 18.5kHz I could hear nothing.

Fast Track Ultra set at 44.1kHz

0 ~ 30Hz: Woofers vibrated but I could hear or feel nothing.
35 ~ 55Hz: I could feel the bass but couldn't distinguish tones.
60 ~ 15.6kHz: I could distinguish tones but had to raise the volume when I got in the upper kHz range. After 15.6kHz I could hear nothing.

Interesting results.

Interesting that no one wishes to discuss actual results.