22nd January 2020

#

**691****Listen first**

Tom Barnaby, it is time for you to stand down.

For the record, I am in agreement with you that 96k recording has practical value for some kinds of program material. I am on record recommending that more engineers adopt 2x rate recording as standard practice. Now please stop.

Your arguments in favor of our shared position are not helpful. They are full of fundamental misconceptions about basic sampling theory. They are confusing to people who don't know that theory intimately and maddening to those of us who do. Fourier analysis works, and Nyquist was not wrong. These theorems are as true today as the day they were penned, but both are capable of being misapplied by people who don't understand their postulates and implications. The fact that audio reproduction is still imperfect is no reason to blame the mathematicians whose work underlies so much of modern electrical engineering. Likewise, if one day my house burns down, I won't conclude that Ohms Law is wrong.

I read through everything you wrote in this thread. It's pretty much all wrong. You clearly don't know enough math to be arguing these points at all.

I can't possibly teach a college class on linear systems theory in a forum post, and nobody wants to read it either. But that's the

We soldier on because some people here really

I'll close by saying this: If you want to understand why I think high-rate digital audio has practical value, my answer is "first hand experience". If you'd like to know why I think my ears hear what they hear, it seems to me two facts suffice:

There's no need to drag Nyquist et al. through the mud because of either point.

David L. Rick

For the record, I am in agreement with you that 96k recording has practical value for some kinds of program material. I am on record recommending that more engineers adopt 2x rate recording as standard practice. Now please stop.

Your arguments in favor of our shared position are not helpful. They are full of fundamental misconceptions about basic sampling theory. They are confusing to people who don't know that theory intimately and maddening to those of us who do. Fourier analysis works, and Nyquist was not wrong. These theorems are as true today as the day they were penned, but both are capable of being misapplied by people who don't understand their postulates and implications. The fact that audio reproduction is still imperfect is no reason to blame the mathematicians whose work underlies so much of modern electrical engineering. Likewise, if one day my house burns down, I won't conclude that Ohms Law is wrong.

I read through everything you wrote in this thread. It's pretty much all wrong. You clearly don't know enough math to be arguing these points at all.

Quote:

Please, explain your point of view as clearly as you can .

I am ready to learn.

I am ready to learn.

*minimum*background required to truly understand how the work of Fourier, Nyquist, and Shannon applies (or doesn't) to digital audio. So when the people on this thread who do have such background (Hi Fabien!) try to explain the theory to those who don't, they're forced to explain it in words rather than in mathematical notation. Please understand that what you're getting then is an imprecise analogy to the actual mathematics. If you find fault with it, that doesn't mean the underlying math is wrong.We soldier on because some people here really

*do*want to understand the basic theory as best they can, rather than inventing half-baked explanations of their own. I've even done my best to explain some "non-Nyquist" sampling theory in earlier posts on Gearslutz -- do a search if you're interested.I'll close by saying this: If you want to understand why I think high-rate digital audio has practical value, my answer is "first hand experience". If you'd like to know why I think my ears hear what they hear, it seems to me two facts suffice:

- Real-world sounds are not brick-wall band-limited
- Human hearing is not perfectly linear.

There's no need to drag Nyquist et al. through the mud because of either point.

David L. Rick