The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
if higher sample rate doesnt matter then why .... Effects Pedals, Units & Accessories
Old 24th September 2011
  #661
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveDaveDave View Post
I want to believe


saw?
saw the effects of for sure
electron shot out of electron gun
speed measured
purple glow seen as it slows down in water

nobody can see the electron itself without more gear than our lab could afford
Old 24th September 2011
  #662
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dcollins View Post
Thank you, as always, for your accurate and considered responses to the queries presented.



To allow for those inter-sample peaks that don't exist, no doubt..............


DC
to allow for affordable real life circuits

and like katz said
you need a CUSHION not just headroom
Old 24th September 2011
  #663
Gear Maniac
 
ArnieInTheSky's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by swim View Post
Perhaps some of you [any of you] that are claiming that increased sample rate provides a better result in the audible band of interest could state the mechanism by which you say the better result is achieved, and in what way the result is deemed to be better.

I may be able to offer some assistance in clearing this up, but first I think the people who are arguing either side should at least state some basis for their argument, so we know what the argument is actually over.

As it stands in this thread, it appears that some [on either side of the argument] may be arguing potentially valid points, but from erroneous premises / bases.
I clearly stated that Hot Dogs and Sausages could not be compared so the term better is irrelevant, and the term different is implied.

Hey when's this **** about taking samples 20x beyond the human hearing capacity is a valid form of recording going to close? I thought I made my point when I joked about sampling one and a half tetrahertz per second would have cleared things up. Especially since tetrahertz isn't a real word with real meaning but in this thread it's in total relative context and a valid point.
Old 24th September 2011
  #664
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by swim View Post
Perhaps some of you [any of you] that are claiming that increased sample rate provides a better result in the audible band of interest could state the mechanism by which you say the better result is achieved, and in what way the result is deemed to be better.

I may be able to offer some assistance in clearing this up, but first I think the people who are arguing either side should at least state some basis for their argument, so we know what the argument is actually over.

As it stands in this thread, it appears that some [on either side of the argument] may be arguing potentially valid points, but from erroneous premises / bases.
more accurate a/d and d/a that more closely resembles the original signal

it has to do with real life not math theory
nyquist and sinc functions are perfect in the math domain
in the real life domain there are no sinc functions
you do things like ZOH with a LP filter following
the more samples the better real life circuits work to recreate an accurate signal not a badly misshapen one

even lavry paper shows that in the diagram with the distortion due to finite sinc functions. it might be easier to grok if you looked at an older ZOH method diagram.
Old 24th September 2011
  #665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syncamorea View Post
Obviously, but people believed the CD hype in droves, just like the masses that swallowed 128kbps itunes downloads and apparently were happy with the product. The idea that any current "best available" format has no room for improvement is flawed logic.
But we weren't talking about room for improvement. Practical implementations of technology will always have room for improvement in some aspect or other, if not performance, then size, or convenience, or price... etc.


What we were talking about was market resistance to adoptions of higher fidelity formats -- particularly in the face of trade-offs with factors like convenience and cost.

I think lack of vinyl surface noise -- which doesn't require a fancy stereo and golden ears to hear -- and, indeed, requires a fancy turntable and careful handling to avoid -- and relative durability -- resistance to wear under normal use -- were more deciding factors in the move to CD.

Also, it didn't hurt that the delivery medium was a much more convenient size, either, which was a factor in the move to cassettes, as well. Heck, it probably didn't hurt that the delivery medium was shiny.

Also, it didn't hurt that -- on the overwhelming majority of playback systems in use -- replacing the phono with a CD player produced a sound that was obviously higher fidelity, and when I say obviously, I mean obvious even to average consumers. Anyone who thinks differently is either unfamiliar with the turntables, arms, and cartridges used by the overwhelming majority or is simply delusional.


Now, consider this: the fastest selling playback systems in the 70s were component stereo systems (many even still had class A amps) with relatively wide-range speaker systems. In the 80s, they were those 'fake component rack' monstrosities, with crappy electronics hidden behind facades made to look like separate components. In the 90s and later, the biggest selling stereo systems are those all in one pieces of junk, many of them small with small speakers with hyped mid-bass instead of any real bass, and frequency response every bit as uneven as in the past.

I hate to sound a pessimistic note, but any adoption of a superior format is going to have to hit average consumers where they live, and that is, in large part, cost and convenience.
Old 24th September 2011
  #666
Lives for gear
 
doug hazelrigg's Avatar
Even IF using a higher sample rate yields more accuracy -- which it doesn't, assuming we're at fs>2B -- what is this FETISH for accuracy? People love analog because it's inaccurate!
Old 24th September 2011
  #667
Lives for gear
 
doug hazelrigg's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
I hate to sound a pessimistic note, but any adoption of a superior format is going to have to hit average consumers where they live, and that is, in large part, cost and convenience.
That is a perfect summation of why this whole discussion, while interesting and fun, is ultimately just pedantry.

I am now going to get out my old Folkways records that are on 78 rpm which I believe are on shellac and are in no way "accurate" with regards to the source material but which are truly magical -- and haunting -- to listen to
Old 24th September 2011
  #668
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
dont believe everything you read

in my chemE class in the 60s
we saw an electron go faster than light

THIS IS OLD NEWS

lots of things can go faster than light IN A MEDIUM

that neutrino was in earths atmosphere
and there are experimental measurement errors too

dont count einstein out yet

not until the 248 dimensional model is finished
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveDaveDave View Post
I want to believe


saw?
Seems like OAG has decided to redefine yet more terms.



Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC View Post
Listen Narc...there most certainly are alternative possibilities, but really you just love to sit up there on your PhD...FTR the folks that I know with PhD's are usually the ones with a problematic senses of entitlement, have spent tax payers money fumbling around from their twemties to their late thirties really not giving anything back to society until they become "experts" somehow based on their inability to leave the security of the school yard (never having to hold a job) and walk around with their noses in the air...a PhD means nothing to a discussion if you aren't going to direct someone to something specific when they ask you kindly 5 times if you would, but yet still find it necessary to take personal shots time and again at your credibility, ability and brain power.

You really need a lesson in common courtesy. Like I said, I've been doing this as long or longer than you, so chill out and try explaining yourself al little better to me...or stop addressing me. I'm not into being berated OK? just answer the questions if you like. If you think my statements are stupid, that's your problem.

Proof doesn't make something worthwhile. Proof just gets other people on board. I'm a recording engineeer not a scientist...and we were having a friendly discussion until you and Blue decided that your patience with us mere peasants has run out...go away if you don't like this topic.

I'm happy considering what O says might be right and at this point. So you can just stop worrying about my abilities now..I'm fine.
If you don't want me to address you -- per your rather quaint request -- maybe you'd ought to stop referring to me.


"[...] we were having a friendly discussion [...]"

On the contrary, OAG had posted a contention that many felt flew in the face of common sense and scientifically accepted fact in a manner that had many of the earmarks of trolling for contention -- a rhetorical trope, a combative tone, even bolded, colored, oversesized fonts (the BB equivalent of yelling while jumping up and down and waving your arms like Tom Cruise, in a sense).

You didn't even appear until post #265 (assuming you only use one screen name/identity). I had already posted a few times by the time you got into the dialog. (My first post was #89.)


You say you're not a scientist, then you pick a fight with a trained mathematician/scientist (narcoman) over... wait for it... the intersection of math and science.

Pardon my characterization of your behavior, but it seems to argue a serious lack of basic common sense and logical ability on your part.

And if you don't have science and you don't have logic and common sense, you're going to have a tough time sorting out the technical aspects of record "engineering."
Old 24th September 2011
  #669
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by doug hazelrigg View Post
Even IF using a higher sample rate yields more accuracy -- which it doesn't, assuming we're at fs>2B -- what is this FETISH for accuracy? People love analog because it's inaccurate!
nonsense
analog is totally accurate

what is NOT accurate
is bad a/d
schtupping the signal creating harmonics and peaks up the gazooly followed by
bad d/a
and expecting to get accuracy in the analog domain
Old 24th September 2011
  #670
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Seems like OAG has decided to redefine yet more terms.

If you don't want me to address you -- per your rather quaint request -- maybe you'd ought to stop referring to me.

"[...] we were having a friendly discussion [...]"

On the contrary, OAG had posted a contention that many felt flew in the face of common sense and scientifically accepted fact in a manner that had many of the earmarks of trolling for contention -- a rhetorical trope, a combative tone, even bolded, colored, oversesized fonts (the BB equivalent of yelling while jumping up and down and waving your arms like Tom Cruise, in a sense).

You didn't even appear until post #265 (assuming you only use one screen name/identity). I had already posted a few times by the time you got into the dialog. (My first post was #89.)


You say you're not a scientist, then you pick a fight with a trained mathematician/scientist (narcoman) over... wait for it... the intersection of math and science.

Pardon my characterization of your behavior, but it seems to argue a serious lack of basic common sense and logical ability on your part.

And if you don't have science and you don't have logic and common sense, you're going to have a tough time sorting out the technical aspects of record "engineering."
thank you
have plenty of science engineering math and technology
plus LOGIC and the ability to THINK not parrot
Old 24th September 2011
  #671
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
thank you
have plenty of science engineering math and technology
plus LOGIC and the ability to THINK not parrot
...and all you lack is the language ability to actually convey what you mean, and convince the rest of us that you're not just trolling....
Old 24th September 2011
  #672
Lives for gear
 
doug hazelrigg's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
nonsense
analog is totally accurate
Ew boy

I don't know why I'm even bothering to refute this silliness, but...

Let me ask you a a simple question to demonstrate why you're 100% wrong: do you think the Naval Observatory place that has the responsibility for maintaining Precise Time and Time Interval (PTTI) uses an fricking ANALOG CLOCK to do this?

tutt
Old 24th September 2011
  #673
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
thank you
have plenty of science engineering math and technology
plus LOGIC and the ability to THINK not parrot
Of course, the only bit in that quote in your post that referred to you was your perhaps unfortunate use of the word saw in this 'sentence':

Quote:
in my chemE class in the 60s
we saw an electron go faster than light
I do believe you sat through classes and it's certainly within the flexibility of my credulity that you may have actually even received one or more degrees.

However, judging from your discourse in this and other threads, it would appear to me that your apparent inclination to troll for contention often seems to take precedence over clarity of thought and expression in what you write -- and that what you undoubtedly view as iconoclasm seems to me more like a rather perverse form of obstructionism.

In fact, that apparent desire to provoke contention and controversy seems to lead you to amusing statements like this:

Quote:
nonsense
analog is totally accurate
Precisely what are you saying, there?

Surely you are not claiming that an electrical analog audio signal represents a "totally accurate" representation of the original sound in air? How could one even contend that without reference at the very least to point of perception. And then, such a statement would fly in the face of pretty much everything we know about the real world limitations of microphone technologies.

If not that, then what?

Are you saying that analog is a totally accurate representation of itself?
Old 24th September 2011
  #674
Lives for gear
 
dcollins's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by doug hazelrigg View Post
Even IF using a higher sample rate yields more accuracy -- which it doesn't, assuming we're at fs>2B -- what is this FETISH for accuracy? People love analog because it's inaccurate!
Because all digital distortions sound bad, whereas most analog ones sound pleasing.

There is truth in the >44k origination argument as it can end up with better quality in the final 44k1 version. Not always, but it's certainly possible.


DC
Old 24th September 2011
  #675
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Of course, the only bit in that quote in your post that referred to you was your perhaps unfortunate use of the word saw in this 'sentence':

I do believe you sat through classes and it's certainly within the flexibility of my credulity that you may have actually even received one or more degrees.

However, judging from your discourse in this and other threads, it would appear to me that your apparent inclination to troll for contention often seems to take precedence over clarity of thought and expression in what you write -- and that what you undoubtedly view as iconoclasm seems to me more like a rather perverse form of obstructionism.

In fact, that apparent desire to provoke contention and controversy seems to lead you to amusing statements like this:

Precisely what are you saying, there?

Surely you are not claiming that an electrical analog audio signal represents a "totally accurate" representation of the original sound in air? How could one even contend that without reference at the very least to point of perception. And then, such a statement would fly in the face of pretty much everything we know about the real world limitations of microphone technologies.

If not that, then what?

Are you saying that analog is a totally accurate representation of itself?
yes that is what i am saying
as soon as you go to digital domain
expecially when you futz with it
then it is not accurate description of the analog signal
Old 24th September 2011
  #676
Lives for gear
 
DaveUK's Avatar
Bollocks then
Old 24th September 2011
  #677
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
nonsense
analog is totally accurate

what is NOT accurate
is bad a/d
schtupping the signal creating harmonics and peaks up the gazooly followed by
bad d/a
and expecting to get accuracy in the analog domain
Analogue accurate? Depends what you mean. Tape isn't accurate (in the sense of being exactly like source). Many valve based filter circuits too.

But is a signal accurate? Well - sort of self evident I guess!
Old 24th September 2011
  #678
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by doug hazelrigg View Post
Ew boy

I don't know why I'm even bothering to refute this silliness, but...

Let me ask you a a simple question to demonstrate why you're 100% wrong: do you think the Naval Observatory place that has the responsibility for maintaining Precise Time and Time Interval (PTTI) uses an fricking ANALOG CLOCK to do this?

tutt
They employ a very strict and punctual block to wind it up every three days. It's very reliable. The back up is a small chap called "dom" counting "one chimpanzee, two chimpanzee....". He's a tom ish clock.
Old 24th September 2011
  #679
Lives for gear
 
doug hazelrigg's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by doug hazelrigg View Post

Let me ask you a a simple question to demonstrate why you're 100% wrong: do you think the Naval Observatory place that has the responsibility for maintaining Precise Time and Time Interval (PTTI) uses an fricking ANALOG CLOCK to do this?

tutt
I'm STILL waiting for an answer to this
Old 25th September 2011
  #680
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Seems like OAG has decided to redefine yet more terms.



If you don't want me to address you -- per your rather quaint request -- maybe you'd ought to stop referring to me.


"[...] we were having a friendly discussion [...]"

On the contrary, OAG had posted a contention that many felt flew in the face of common sense and scientifically accepted fact in a manner that had many of the earmarks of trolling for contention -- a rhetorical trope, a combative tone, even bolded, colored, oversesized fonts (the BB equivalent of yelling while jumping up and down and waving your arms like Tom Cruise, in a sense).

You didn't even appear until post #265 (assuming you only use one screen name/identity). I had already posted a few times by the time you got into the dialog. (My first post was #89.)


You say you're not a scientist, then you pick a fight with a trained mathematician/scientist (narcoman) over... wait for it... the intersection of math and science.

Pardon my characterization of your behavior, but it seems to argue a serious lack of basic common sense and logical ability on your part.

And if you don't have science and you don't have logic and common sense, you're going to have a tough time sorting out the technical aspects of record "engineering."
Blue...common courtesy runs outside the debate or argument...please show some and quit reffering to what you think I don't personally have upstairs. It's rude.
Old 25th September 2011
  #681
Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC View Post
Blue...common courtesy runs outside the debate or argument...please show some and quit reffering to what you think I don't personally have upstairs. It's rude.
But demonstrated...sorry, you argue stupid stuff, people think you're stupid. Can't be helped. Stop saying stupid comments about stuff you clearly know nothing about, and you'll come off as less stupid.
Old 25th September 2011
  #682
Lives for gear
 
Old Goat's Avatar
 

He wasn't in any way rude. He just told the truth.

This thread is like a NASCAR race--goes 'round and 'round forever and the only fun things are the wrecks. Although I've learned more from this thread than any of the three minutes I've watched NASCAR.

Sad to see a lack of basic reading and writing skills in what should have been an intelligent discussion.

...lasting about one page...
Old 25th September 2011
  #683
Lives for gear
 
DaveUK's Avatar
Ocean heh !
Old 25th September 2011
  #684
Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC View Post
Blue...common courtesy runs outside the debate or argument...please show some and quit reffering to what you think I don't personally have upstairs. It's rude.
I have no idea how much knowledge you may have of other topics. You may well be quite knowledgeable. I have no idea what your native intelligence is. I have no reason to think it's not quite high. And you may well be very good at the job of recording music. I have no evidence or predilection to think otherwise.


What I do think is that, in the case of this topic and discussion, you are neither prepared to argue with people like narcoman nor, apparently, aware of how unprepared you actually are.

As I alluded earlier, there's no shame in not having some specialized knowledge, but there is a wisdom in knowing when one is out of one's league.
Old 25th September 2011
  #685
Lives for gear
 
DaveUK's Avatar
Medic!
Old 25th September 2011
  #686
Lives for gear
 
DaveUK's Avatar
Mandyc=
OAC's intern?or worse!
Old 25th September 2011
  #687
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
But demonstrated...sorry, you argue stupid stuff, people think you're stupid. Can't be helped. Stop saying stupid comments about stuff you clearly know nothing about, and you'll come off as less stupid.

Again...incredibly rude and unnecessary...if you disagree with something I say, then just say so or not...I'm pretty sure that the above is a clear violation of the forum rules, but no offense taken...it just goes to my point all along...you dont care to share knowledge, otherwise you would...I have made absolutely ZERO statement of fact on the topic of intersample peaks. I have have only suggested that OAG semms to have some good points and that there have been no arguments to the contrary that make me think he's not on to something. I could care less who says that have what PhD. Show me don't tell me please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
I have no idea how much knowledge you may have of other topics. You may well be quite knowledgeable. I have no idea what your native intelligence is. I have no reason to think it's not quite high. And you may well be very good at the job of recording music. I have no evidence or predilection to think otherwise.


What I do think is that, in the case of this topic and discussion, you are neither prepared to argue with people like narcoman nor, apparently, aware of how unprepared you actually are.

As I alluded earlier, there's no shame in not having some specialized knowledge, but there is a wisdom in knowing when one is out of one's league.
I haven't said that I specialized in this stuff...I make music for a living and am interested in a discussion.

OAG has displayed a ton of patience and tolerance and is only guilty of having an opinion.
Old 25th September 2011
  #688
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC View Post
I have have only suggested that OAG semms to have some good points and that there have been no arguments to the contrary that make me think he's not on to something. I could care less who says that have what PhD. Show me don't tell me please.
He does have some points, but they are mostly points on a point which doesn't really have a point, making those points completely pointless (argumentum romanesco) ... ... know what I mean?

Re. you being shown things, have you read any of the material that has been alluded to, mentioned, referenced or directly linked to in this thread yet?
Old 25th September 2011
  #689
Lives for gear
 
DaveUK's Avatar
Imagine being stuck in a control room with either of these! Rude I know but
Old 25th September 2011
  #690
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
What we were talking about was market resistance to adoptions of higher fidelity formats -- particularly in the face of trade-offs with factors like convenience and cost.
Right, which is why I said:

"Obviously, but people believed the CD hype in droves, just like the masses that swallowed 128kbps itunes downloads and apparently were happy with the product."

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
I think lack of vinyl surface noise -- which doesn't require a fancy stereo and golden ears to hear -- and, indeed, requires a fancy turntable and careful handling to avoid -- and relative durability -- resistance to wear under normal use -- were more deciding factors in the move to CD.
The cassette was the dominant audio media in terms of units sold prior to CD, not vinyl. And the audio quality of cassette was inferior to a mid priced, decidedly not fancy, LP playback systems. The dominance of cassette had much to do with ease of use in a car, much like the dominance of MP3 today, relative to CD, has much to do with the convenience factor you mentioned, and certainly not audio quality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Heck, it probably didn't hurt that the delivery medium was shiny.
That never entered into the picture for me but YMMHV.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Also, it didn't hurt that -- on the overwhelming majority of playback systems in use -- replacing the phono with a CD player produced a sound that was obviously higher fidelity, and when I say obviously, I mean obvious even to average consumers. Anyone who thinks differently is either unfamiliar with the turntables, arms, and cartridges used by the overwhelming majority or is simply delusional.
Early CD players were not inexpensive and again, most were replacing cassette decks, not turntables. Many CD early adopters paid $600 and above for a CD deck. A $600 turntable/arm/cartridge in the early 80s was plenty of competition in terms of sound quality, especially when comparing a recording that had been remastered for CD, to the original on vinyl. And I mention that comparison because most CDs sold over the first few years of the format were remasters of music that people already knew through cassette, vinyl and the radio. Lack of vinyl noise was easy bait, but ease of use, that convenience factor, was the dominant issue for most of the people I was selling them to, back in the beginning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
I hate to sound a pessimistic note, but any adoption of a superior format is going to have to hit average consumers where they live, and that is, in large part, cost and convenience.
I think the pessimism is natural considering the public's lack of concern with product quality. Convenience carries more weight in practice, because the market will only reap limited new tech bloated profits before prices of the newer stuff shrinks back towards the old. I've never bought a used MP3 download, but I buy loads of used CDs so cheap I know that cost is not the #1 issue today.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump