Not trying to bring this subject up or anything. I know it's been discussed to death. I found this and thought it was enlightening. aqt least to me.
 
http://www.trustmeimascientist.com/2013/02/04/the-science-of-sample-rates-when-higher-is-better-and-when-it-isnt/
 
 

Bill is dealing with high rates in that other thread right now! 

Hi,
 
I'll check this at home, but I think radio history is more fun! Sampling rates ... hmmmm .... probably gone tomorrow?

Moshkito
Hi,
 
I'll check this at home, but I think radio history is more fun! Sampling rates ... hmmmm .... probably gone tomorrow?

 
Eh?
 
FYI - 'Sample rate' is the number of samples of a sound that are taken per second to represent the event digitally.
The more samples taken per second, the more accurate the digital representation of the sound. For example, the sample rate for CD-quality audio is 44,100 samples.

jamesg1213

Moshkito
Hi,
 
I'll check this at home, but I think radio history is more fun! Sampling rates ... hmmmm .... probably gone tomorrow?

 
Eh?
 
FYI - 'Sample rate' is the number of samples of a sound that are taken per second to represent the event digitally.
The more samples taken per second, the more accurate the digital representation of the sound. For example, the sample rate for CD-quality audio is 44,100 samples.

I knew that ... was just having fun with it.
 
As time goes by, this will likely change since technology is forever moving forward, and a new standard will be in place. I doubt that a sample will ever be better than the recording sample, but it is very likely that the samples, sooner or later, will make any instrument sound terrible, because you can't tune it right or perfectly.

jamesg1213
The more samples taken per second, the more accurate the digital representation of the sound. For example, the sample rate for CD-quality audio is 44,100 samples.

Be careful  here -  it's only "more accurate" in that it contains higher frequencies.
 
What the sampling theorem proves is that if you filter out everything greater than one half the sample rate, then everything that happens between the samples is stored in the samples. It can't be any "more accurate" once you already have all of the data.
 
In theory it works perfectly, but in practice we end up with some filter artifacts and also have to start filtering things out a little below 1/2 the sampling rate. A higher sampling rate allows one to move artifacts to a higher frequency as well as capture higher frequencies, but otherwise it's not any "more accurate".

drewfx1
 
 
Be careful  here
 

 
Will do, Drew. I was just trying to point Pedro towards what the thread is actually about, as opposed to what he thinks it's about.
 
Given up on that now.

drewfx1

jamesg1213
The more samples taken per second, the more accurate the digital representation of the sound. For example, the sample rate for CD-quality audio is 44,100 samples.

Be careful  here -  it's only "more accurate" in that it contains higher frequencies.
 
What the sampling theorem proves is that if you filter out everything greater than one half the sample rate, then everything that happens between the samples is stored in the samples. It can't be any "more accurate" once you already have all of the data.
 
In theory it works perfectly, but in practice we end up with some filter artifacts and also have to start filtering things out a little below 1/2 the sampling rate. A higher sampling rate allows one to move artifacts to a higher frequency as well as capture higher frequencies, but otherwise it's not any "more accurate".

Wait a minute...  is your rebuttal about sampling rate or resolution (e.g., usually 16-bit for CD's)?  'Cause it sounds like you're talking about resolution.  Sampling rate shouldn't have much to do with the frequency, only in the accuracy of tracking the changes in the music, no?

craigb

drewfx1

jamesg1213
The more samples taken per second, the more accurate the digital representation of the sound. For example, the sample rate for CD-quality audio is 44,100 samples.

Be careful  here -  it's only "more accurate" in that it contains higher frequencies.
 
What the sampling theorem proves is that if you filter out everything greater than one half the sample rate, then everything that happens between the samples is stored in the samples. It can't be any "more accurate" once you already have all of the data.
 
In theory it works perfectly, but in practice we end up with some filter artifacts and also have to start filtering things out a little below 1/2 the sampling rate. A higher sampling rate allows one to move artifacts to a higher frequency as well as capture higher frequencies, but otherwise it's not any "more accurate".

Wait a minute...  is your rebuttal about sampling rate or resolution (e.g., usually 16-bit for CD's)?  'Cause it sounds like you're talking about resolution.  Sampling rate shouldn't have much to do with the frequency, only in the accuracy of tracking the changes in the music, no?

Sampling rate really only has to do with frequency, not resolution.
 
From a practical standpoint in the real world all anyone really needs to know about audio sampling can be summarized as follows:
 
Higher sampling rate = higher frequencies
Higher bit depth = less noise
 
So once you can reproduce a signal to the high frequency limits of your hearing with the noise too quiet for you to hear at a given listening level, you're done. Simple as that.

I read most of the article thought it was well written but what the sampling theorem actually states is; if you have a signal that is perfectly band limited to a bandwidth of f0 then you can collect all the information there is in that signal by sampling it at discrete times, as long as your sample rate is greater than 2f0. Perfect band limiting is not possible. Therefore we are left with optimal reconstruction not perfect reconstruction.