rabeach

UnderTow

rabeach

The Shanon-Nyquist theorem says you only need twice the audible bandwidth to perfectly reproduce any audible signal.

That is absolutely not what it says.

I love these statements with absolutely no backing.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem :

"the theorem shows that a bandlimited analog signal that has been sampled can be perfectly reconstructed from an infinite sequence of samples if the sampling rate exceeds 2B samples per second, where B is the highest frequency in the original signal."

UnderTow

And now you see your mistake. You should really try to post factual information.

It IS factual. I wrote "The Shanon-Nyquist theorem says you only need twice the audible bandwidth to perfectly reproduce any audible signal." I could have left out the word audible but that would not have made it any more factual. If something is true for ALL signals, then it must be true for a subset, the audible subset, of those signals.

Do you really not understand that?


UnderTow

If I can quote my own post..........

FastBikerBoy


I'm only surprised that someone hasn't claimed they can hear the difference yet.

I knew this thread would get interesting as soon as somebody did...............

FastBikerBoy


If I can quote my own post..........

FastBikerBoy


I'm only surprised that someone hasn't claimed they can hear the difference yet.

I knew this thread would get interesting as soon as somebody did...............

Haha :)

Loptec

Haha.. OMG.. :)
Is this kindergarten or what?
This really proves my point in my previous msg. :)

I think these distinctions are important in a world were marketeers (and politicians and priests and all sorts of other nutters) are trying to sell you all sorts of non-sense that you really don't need. You might find that I am being overly picky with the choice of words and analogies etc but why be imprecise? Why use vague analogies that are, when you analyse them, not actually technically accurate?

I know you are just reacting this way because people are disagreeing with you which is never a nice thing but honestly, why don't you leave the technical minutia to those that have a penchant for being nerdish if you couldn't be bothered with all these details?

UnderTow

UnderTow

Or because we understand how sampling works. There is no such thing as resolution in audio.

Umm, you understand what a metaphor is, right? Like, when someone says "easy as pie", there isn't always pie involved? That's what we're doing here when we're talking about resolution. Whatever word you want to use that makes you happy, we're all saying the same thing : it is better to record and mix in 24b than it is in 16b, even if the final output will be 16b.

I know you're going to try very hard to use all your trolling skills to refute this statement, but you will be no less wrong. I've worked in 24b and in 16b, and there is infinitely more clipping in 16b. More calculating room is never a bad thing. It's true here, and it's true in graphic editing as well.

At this point, I find it difficult to believe that you're posting in good faith, so this will be my last reply to you.

John

And 96kHz extends the dynamic range. People will argue whether "humans" can hear it, but it goes beyond that. Nature doesn't stop at 44.1 kHz, so why should I?

No, there is no extension of dynamic range. There is a bandwidth increase. Two very different things.

Whoops, you're right. I meant to say 24bit extends the dynamic range. That is correct, right?

UnderTow

Loptec

Haha.. OMG.. :)
Is this kindergarten or what?
This really proves my point in my previous msg. :)

I think these distinctions are important in a world were marketeers (and politicians and priests and all sorts of other nutters) are trying to sell you all sorts of non-sense that you really don't need. You might find that I am being overly picky with the choice of words and analogies etc but why be imprecise? Why use vague analogies that are, when you analyse them, not actually technically accurate?

I know you are just reacting this way because people are disagreeing with you which is never a nice thing but honestly, why don't you leave the technical minutia to those that have a penchant for being nerdish if you couldn't be bothered with all these details?

UnderTow

Anledningen till att jag kanske inte uttryckte mig helt korrekt i mitt första meddelande är kanske att engelska inte är mitt förstaspråk. Om jag hade skrivit det på svenska hade jag nog kunnat uttrycka mig på ett mer korrekt sätt. Jag tycker ändå att min metafor gav en ganska tydlig bild av vad jag menade. Nu förväntar jag mig ett välskrivet och genomtänkt svar av dig, Undertow, på svenska.

Summary in short, in english: Since english isn’t my first language, I’m sorry if I didn’t express myself as correct as you. If I’d written it all in Swedish I’m sure I could have expressed myself in a way that wouldn’t have created as much confusion. Never the less, I think the point in my metaphor was quite clear.
Now I expect a well written and thought through reply from you, Undertpw. .. IN SWEDISH, please.

I wish I had Undertow's passion for confrontation, but I don't so here's just a friendly message that comes from my heart:

- Please don't talk about the combination of sample rate and word length like if data size was proportional to sound quality.
- Word length (bit depth) and sample rate should be discussed as two separate things. Knowing what they mean is essential, not just that more is better.
- Comparisons to images/video are confusing at best. They do not help anyone better understand how digital audio works.


sincerely
Sven

SvenArne

jyeager11

I don't know why people are arguing with you on this. That's what you get when you give everyone freedom and anonymity, I guess.

No, I'm still pretty sure what you get is Avatars such as yours!

Wow, someone sure didn't like seeing me agree with the guy he was arguing with.

Tell you what; refrain from commenting on people's avatars, and I won't say anything about the receding hairline you're hiding behind that cap. Deal? ;)

Loptec


Anledningen till att jag kanske inte uttryckte mig helt korrekt i mitt första meddelande är kanske att engelska inte är mitt förstaspråk. Om jag hade skrivit det på svenska hade jag nog kunnat uttrycka mig på ett mer korrekt sätt. Jag tycker ändå att min metafor gav en ganska tydlig bild av vad jag menade. Nu förväntar jag mig ett välskrivet och genomtänkt svar av dig, Undertow, på svenska.

Det är inte min avsikt att konfrontera, men hittar du alla dessa detaljer viktiga. Din analogi är felaktig eftersom Sverige i engelska som han. Analogin stämmer inte sig själv. Inte bara de ord du använder.

UnderTow