You have yet to show that a high sample rate can reconstruct it as you put it any better then a lower one.

you are kidding right?

Maybe you don't  get it but I have been saying that 44.1 is all you need to reconstruct a frequency band from 20 to 20,000 Hz. That is what the dispute is all about. I have ask you to show where this is wrong. You have not done so so now you ask "are you kidding". You seem to think that one can get "finer" detail with a higher sample rate and that is where you are wrong. Its really a matter of either it can be done or not. It can't be halfway done. That is what you fail to understand. All a higher sample rate gives one is extended band width and nothing more.  It does not increase the accuracy of the frequencies sampled. 

John


Maybe you don't  get it but I have been saying that 44.1 is all you need to reconstruct a frequency band from 20 to 20,000 Hz. That is what the dispute is all about. I have ask you to show where this is wrong. You have not done so so now you ask "are you kidding". You seem to think that one can get "finer" detail with a higher sample rate and that is where you are wrong. Its really a matter of either it can be done or not. It can't be halfway done. That is what you fail to understand. All a higher sample rate gives one is extended band width and nothing more.  It does not increase the accuracy of the frequencies sampled. 

It is not disputed that sampling at a higher frequency will provide a more accurate representation of a signal that is bandlimited  from 20 - 20kHz.  What is disputed is whether one should do it or not. I have no problem with sampling audio at 44.1kHz that's what I do. I have a problem with statements to the effect that there is no reason to sample higher because nyquist says its not needed. Which is an incorrect statement.

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

double post

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

It is not disputed that sampling at a higher frequency will provide a more accurate representation of a signal that is bandlimited from 20 - 20kHz.

That is exactly what is being disputed because it isn't true. You can't have read this thread and still believe that.

"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
- Charles Babbage

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.

For reduced discombobulation all round.

I use 24/48

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.