Hay!!  more posts  than the Happy Thread ..*.*

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.

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.
 
 

As are many posts and/or users, which is exactly why this place has become lame.  It's a wonder if some people ever actually make music since they spend so much time on here bickering.

rabeach

bitflipper maybe it's not me missing the finner points. I have stated that sampling higher than the nyquist rate on audio signals will produce a better reconstructed signal. I have made no claim that it can be heard. I have made no point of argument that one should do so.

If you can't hear it it is not audio. That seems to be the main point you have been missing all along. (And it isn't even a very fine point). You also seem to be confusing data with signal. If the data does not convey any information, it is not part of the signal. The same error is made by people that record cymbals (or whatever) and point out that they produce frequencies way beyond 20KHz. A cymbal probably produces frequencies into the Mhz region at some extremely low diminishing level assuming we use equipment sensitive enough in a room quiet enough to record it but the important thing to remember is that those frequencies are not part of the signal because we can not perceive them. (Look up the definition of the word signal). It isn't sound!

You keep hammering on the same point but fail to realise we understood your point but have dismissed it because it does not apply to audible sound.

You keep posting simple one liners thinking you are being really smart but can't actually back up anything you say with any real explanations. Talk about sophomorical... One more silly one liner post like that and I nominate you for the Dunning-Kruger awards.

UnderTow

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

This is indeed often a cause for confusion. Here is a sine wave as shown in Sound Forge:



Here is the exact same wave as shown in Audition (which shows a reconstructed wave):



What comes out of a DAC will look like the second image, not the first.

UnderTow

I use to rely on my gamma ray glasses... but now I just use the plug in.

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.
Guess I would prefer the 44.1 results for the Ultra Fast at least.

Tom

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.

No offence to Bub but I do not trust these kind of results. Not that I think that Bub (or anyone else on this forum) isn't being sincere, but I don't think that we humans (me included) can be trusted for this kind of thing unless we set up some very strict testing parameters.

UnderTow

Bub

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.

Can you elaborate on the two steps you mentioned?

1. Created a 1kHz tone and set my monitors to a comfortable volume.
> Was this a sine wave, square wave, ...?

2. I started at 0Hz and worked my way up to 20kHz by increments of 5Hz or more.
> What were you varying from 0Hz to 20kHz?

Don