The science of sample rates

bitflipper
It's like saying Roger Waters was the genius behind Pink Floyd.

bitflipper
Isn't that the same article that credits Harold Nyquist for "providing the mathematical proof" for what was to become the "Nyquist Theorem"? I may sound like a nit-picker, but that's just wrong.
 
Claude Shannon was one of the greatest minds of the 20th century and deserves credit for not only providing the proof that elevated Nyquist's concept to the status of "theorem" but also for proposing the idea of using binary numbers as the basis for electronic computing.
 
It's like saying Roger Waters was the genius behind Pink Floyd.

gswitz
He didn't talk about capturing the recordings and the fact that most of the data about fidelity depends on using every available bit. If you are only using 6 of your 24 bits b/c you have your levels set dangerously low, then you might get a recording like an analog cassette tape at 44.1. Now I've loved my analog cassette tapes but... just saying.

I know you don't fix this by doubling the sample rate, btw. :-)

bitflipper
Claude Shannon was one of the greatest minds of the 20th century and deserves credit for not only providing the proof that elevated Nyquist's concept to the status of "theorem" but also for proposing the idea of using binary numbers as the basis for electronic computing.

ampfixer
I guess the Cliff notes for that article would read something like "44.1 or 48k is just fine for most things".

John
"This is probably a good place to ask this question. I did my first-ever sampling last weekend, and ended up using Audition to do the task. I recorded them 44.1KHz mono (drums), but Audition defaulted to a 32-bit float on saves so I just used that. Is that 32-bit buying anything at all, or just wasting space on me?"
 
 
For recording yes its wasting space. Keep in mind that your converters are incapable of recording anything above 24 bits. So the file that was created is 24 bits plus a lot of padding. This adds nothing useful to the recording at all.  
 
Now for processing it a very different story. However, I am of the opinion that the file on disk doesn't need to be greater than 24 bits even after processing.   I am sure I am alone in this view.  

John
 
...I am sure I am alone in this view.  

bitflipper
 
It's like saying Roger Waters was the genius behind Pink Floyd.

Goddard
Sigh... wotta buncha hooey. Facetious scientist indeed.
 
Surprise! ADCs actually sample at frequencies in the MHz even if they only output PCM streams at 44.1/48kHz. And DACs oversample 44.1kHz audio streams (in MHz) too! That's not ultrasonic, it's radio frequency (and relates to why the use of a CD player is prohibited at times on airliners). Not to worry though, decimation and lowpass (and often highpass) filtering fortunately keeps the out-of-band nasties from getting through (at least, its supposed to if things are designed and working properly).
 
Another surprise: the cheapo onboard 'high definition audio" codec chip inside the typical PC/Mac can handle 192kHz digital audio (such as one might find as a primary audio stream on a Bluray disc) just fine (by design).