Room treatment and how a room is designed is why you'll hear a major difference Paul. Most audiophiles I know have a high end system in their living room but their room measures terrible accoustically.
@Antoon55 Жыл бұрын
Don't forget the quality of the recording. It's garbage in garbage out no matter how resolving your system is :)
@benwu7980 Жыл бұрын
Especially true for some of the early age of those 44.1Khz onto cd, that simply were not mastered well.
@shipsahoy1793 Жыл бұрын
👍So true.. Also worth mentioning that the same holds true in a purely analog system. 😉
@jamesfarrow6752 Жыл бұрын
Absolutely. I have heard some awful 24/96 files where there has been an overuse of compression.
@joepostle3561 Жыл бұрын
I certainly agree with all these comments. I have some early CD masters which sound terrible. I have subsequently read interviews with mastering engineers where they have admitted they have simply ‘run the tapes off’ and not paid any attention above going off for a coffee! & that’s also admitting they used the vinyl or cassette tape mastering copies and not the originals! I have bought 24/96 downloads which are compressed highly and they sound horrible and certainly don’t take advantage of the available dynamics, I have a couple of times bought 24 bit hi-res downloads which sound little different from the CD which certainly makes me wonder where some supposed hi-res masters are sourced from, let alone what work has been done (meaning little)! Obviously disappointing as 24/96 (and above) can certainly, if done correctly sound fantastic, natural and dynamic, spatial and full sounding. I have some very well recorded and mastered recordings which certainly makes you feel like being in the room during the recording, which is certainly (in many cases) what it should be about!
@shipsahoy1793 Жыл бұрын
@@joepostle3561 👍👍👍👍👍👍Exactly!!! Why do so many hi-fi enthusiasts NOT realize this??? Or worse, argue with your stance on the matter!! 👨🏻🥂
@Alamo-cz5xc Жыл бұрын
Although I'll probably never buy any of his products, I still watch all the videos. Paul seems like a nice guy, and that counts for a lot with me.
@UltimateGattai Жыл бұрын
If I ever win the lotto one day...
@great100m Жыл бұрын
Old ears & damaged hearing saves me a lot of money. I listen mostly to background music played through ceiling speakers so sampling rate is not something that I worry about. However, when comparing free Spotify (always lossy) to Amazon Prime HD (192 kHz) on my mid-priced home theater setup I did perceive (imagined ?) a bit of difference but not so much that I'd run out and spend many thousand dollars to reproduce, CD level (and lower) is fine for most listening situations in my case.
@Trojan570 Жыл бұрын
I absolutely love your uploads 👍🏾 Thanks again from London
@donaldchamble6897 Жыл бұрын
Yes sir you are an amazing person thanks for giving away your knowledge for free to the young and older people. You've earned my goal stamp of approval.
@edfort5704 Жыл бұрын
Bless you Paul. You are doing an awesome job with these videos. Oh, and with your business and DSD studio! :)
@mickolesmana5899 Жыл бұрын
As long as it is in the Nyquist-Shannon theorem: "You need at least twice the bandwidth to perfectly capture the signal you are trying to sample", Be careful now, it is for capturing the signal. quality of reproducing the signal is, just like Paul said, dependent on your system. No, there will be no square-ish sounding, it is a myth. Real-world speaker physics simply cannot produce a perfect discontinuity
@ThinkingBetter Жыл бұрын
I just want my DAC to see the exact bytes that came out of the mastering process without any lossy transcoding. It also means I would rather prefer to play DXD PCM than the derived lossy version in DSD.
@fabieneldridge3414 Жыл бұрын
My system is always ,the better the source the Better the sound !
@NoEgg4u Жыл бұрын
@3:10 "Do higher sample rates sound better?" With few exceptions, CD quality (44.1 kHz) will sound the same as higher sampling rates. Why? The songs that you are playing have to have been recorded properly, in order for higher sampling rates to make a difference. Consider two photos of the same scenery: -- Photo #1 was taken expertly, where on a quality, hi-res monitor, you can see into the breathtaking image as though you were there. -- Photo #2 was taken by an incompetent enthusiast, and although you can see everything in the image, the depth perception and the contrasting colors and shadows, etc, are nothing special. Look at both photos on the same quality, hi-res monitor. Photo #1 will look amazing. Photo #2 will make you yawn. And no matter how many advances in display monitors become available, photo #2 will remain a yawn. The same goes for playing music at higher sampling rates. You must have an outstandingly, well done song to hear the benefit of the higher sampling rate. Alas, 90%+ of songs (perhaps even 98%) are not mixed and mastered well enough to hear the benefits of higher than CD quality sampling rates. If Paul is able to get his hands on the initial capture tapes (multi-track masters) of our favorite songs from yesteryear, then one day we might be treated to properly mixed and mastered releases where the sampling rate will matter. But for "rock", "pop", "disco", etc, and other genres, the stuff released over the decades is not up to the job, because the people in the studios were incompetent. They never heard FR30s, or anything close. So they are clueless about their shoddy work. There are exceptions. The shoddy work should be the exception, but sadly it is the rule.
@budgetaudiophilelife-long5461 Жыл бұрын
🙋♂️THANKS PAUL,FOR SHARING THIS MESSAGE and someday I hope to come and hear 👂 your systems or (as they say, in the UK, kits 😊 💚💚💚
@ptg01 Жыл бұрын
Sampling rate = how often digital electronics 'reads' the data ? Theoretically, the more the better but like anything, there are limits or diminishing returns. In my rather limited experience, the mastering of the recording makes the biggest sound quality difference, far and beyond high sampling rates.
@Vic_714 Жыл бұрын
True. A song will sound as good as it's recording. However I do feel it sounds better than listening from a different source of equipment.
@ThinkingBetter Жыл бұрын
Right, a phone call is heavily compressed from 8kHz of sample rate and clearly sound worse than 44.1kHz but human hearing will hear little difference above 44.1kHz as it already allows for full audible range reproduction and anything more is about time precision in the treble where you won’t notice the difference for much music.
@LeonFleisherFan Жыл бұрын
@@ThinkingBetter There's a basic misunderstanding, the preoccupation about filters working outside of the audible bandwidth: all filters are a tradeoff in that they will affect the passband in multiple ways (impulse response, i.e. phase and time, plus there are artifacts such as aliasing etc.). In general one might say, the more benign the digital filter, the better the sound (although again, some of the same caveats apply: digital filters are always about tradeoffs, none are "perfect").
@samg6046 Жыл бұрын
Of course the mastering makes a huge (in many cases larger) difference, but that does not diminish the fact that sampling rate also does. garbage in, garbage out- but if you have good masters to listen to, why limit them to 44.1?
@ThinkingBetter Жыл бұрын
@@LeonFleisherFan Filter artifacts are what makes this an audible topic.
@kevingest5452 Жыл бұрын
I think everyone knows that 44 khz doesn't go through the speaker with CD quality. Pretty sure he was talking about Nyquist theorem and the fact that 22 khz well outside the audible range of a middle age or older human.
@Chrisspru Жыл бұрын
capture accuracy is the false concept, as the nyquist tgeorem holds up. for dsd, where no nyquist restoration takes place, it defines the accuracy though. what is influenced by higher capture frequency is the rolloff filter so there is no higher order distortion in the audible range and a presence of higher harmonics that can interact with the audible musicaly in the recording. playback wise basicly all modern dacs, even cheap ones, use supersampeling to prevent d-a conversion filter distortion. for digital mudic processing and mastering sample rate makes all the difference, as it allows for more frequency shifts without loosing high.
@bobbg9041 Жыл бұрын
Paul, you know as well as I do. The key factor isn't so much the equipment but the listeners ears and trained ability to hear the differences. This plays the largest role. And everyone has difference in hearing. How we precise sound is more important then the play back device. I've yet to hear a recorded item sound like the live version but and this is big unless your in the sound studio when its recorded you wont have anything to base it on. The sound engineers going to change it that artist is going to ask for changes and the media reproduction will all have effects on the orignal tracks. What you basically hear is what the recording artist and sound engineer wants you to hear. Then you've got you play back equipment and then your ears. The only slight difference is somthing recorded live. But even thats been played with. And you almost can ever find a band recreat the same thing that was done in recording.
@xanderguldie Жыл бұрын
Please, audiophiles are just a bunch of snobs. Just like there are only a couple of "wine experts" that can tell different grapes apart, there are only a couple of audiopiles that can hear the difference between a class A and a class D amplifier.
@goodsound4756 Жыл бұрын
I always wonder about how many people still think we (audiophiles) are using higher sampling rates to capture higher frequencies instead of more samples per second.
@Kronkulus9282 Жыл бұрын
Higher sampling rate is the same thing as more samples per second.
@goodsound4756 Жыл бұрын
@@Kronkulus9282 yes, but still many people ask me why do you want hi-res Audio, you don't have bat ears, indicating that I don't hear above 20 Kilohertz... Like I said, they miss the point.
@richardsmith2721 Жыл бұрын
The Tesla must really be impressive in high altitudes. I remember fairly quick ICE cars being gutless in the mountains when I was living in SLC.
@jonbutcher9805 Жыл бұрын
Correct.Higher altitude= less Oxygen=less power. Battery power=Awesome power, even on the Moon. I know you were being Rhetorical but still it's worth repeating. Bye the Bye. Rolls Royce has less (not by much) Acceleration than a Tesla but it's still enough to push you into the back of the seat and exclaim "Holy Balls." A better comparison he could have used would be a VW Bug Vs Tesla. LoL
@andydelle4509 Жыл бұрын
44.1k vs 48k There's a story here. When digital audio recording was first implemented the only tape machines that could record that bandwidth was VTRs. The popular choice was 3/4inch industrial VTRs as a true broadcast grade machine was a bit overkill. So since NTSC video is 60fps, let;s make our sample rate divisible by that so we can pack the data neatly into video frames. As industrial VTRs worked fine at true 60hz no problem. But real NTSC video is not 60.0hz. It's 59.94hz since the 1954 induction of color TV. Due to some frequency interleave problems they shifted the H&V frequencies very slightly to compensate. So when digital audio was eventually married to video, 44.1k no longer worked at 59.94hz. Furthermore the European PAL standard at 50hz was a problem as well. So they moved to 48khz to make digital audio compatible with NTSC and PAL TV. This frrequency relationship remains today even with HDTVand UHDTV.
@Paulmcgowanpsaudio Жыл бұрын
Fascinating. Thank you, Andy!
@joesmith4443 Жыл бұрын
I always thought that multiples of 48 were used because of frame rate align. For instance all multiples of 48 lowest common denominators is 24 frames per second coincide with 24 hertz sample rate. So video is also multiples of 48 and music is always multiples of 44.1 🤷♂️
@joesmith4443 Жыл бұрын
Not all higher sample rates will be “better” it all depends on the ADC and the production value. How it’s recording in its original sample rate and resolution is equally important. 24 bit isn’t really important on the consumer side but in the production side 24 is better for processing. There’s also the truncation of bits so keeping things as 24 bit avoids truncation and dithering/noise shaping. The ADC, the noise of signal ratio and avoiding clipping and distortion is what’s important and of course musicianship and sound engineering. The interesting thing is that a discrete ADC circuit may not measure well but may sound better than of the on the shelf ADC chip. Also some ADC the sweet spot isn’t always what it’s highest sample rate it can do. So you might find that an ADC that does 192/24 sounds better at 24/96. Usually the clue is in the default settings by the manufacturer. Music is subjective so it’s all a matter of taste and personal preferences.
@andydelle4509 Жыл бұрын
@@joesmith4443 In digital audio and video systems. the audio sample rate must be locked to the video sample clock. In many cases the audio is embedded within the video data payload as time compressed data bursts. Therefore the audio sample clock must be synchronous and derived from the video sample clock. This extends further to compressed delivery formats, DVD is an example. The only 44.1 digital audio/video format I am aware of was Laser Disk with a PCM sound track. Here the 44.1k PCM data was just modulated to an FM carrier as was the analog video and analog audio tracks. This frequency multiplexing technique did not care about the absolute digital audio sample rate as it was not locked to the video. But Laser Disk was an analog system. The rare DTS and AC3 capable laser disks also just used an FM carrier that was not locked to the video timing.
@joesmith4443 Жыл бұрын
@@andydelle4509 The syncing must be done after the video has been recorded using an external recorder that captures a soundscape, and sound fx are added later. That’s why a clapperboard is used to sync the audio with the video. I get what you are saying about clocks being in sync but it also have to do with frame rate. If something is running at 24 frames per second so does the audio since half of 48 is 24. For streaming everything is 24/48, for blu ray and ultra 4K it’s often 24/96 or 24/192 depending on how much data they can fit on a disc (ie multitrack, Atmos, etc) I also believe that’s why blu ray Audio is also at multiples of 48 kHz.
@marcbegine Жыл бұрын
Hi Paul, what cartridge do you use on this magnificent turntable? Perfectly explained the sampling rates and bit depth, great video
@davidfromamerica1871 Жыл бұрын
Everyone keeps saying: “It’s all about the journey” Watching this channel and reading the comments. The “journey” seems to be like driving on an interstate highway with speed bumps every mile while driving a Bugatti Chiron Super Sport. 🙄🥺
@Alamo-cz5xc Жыл бұрын
most of what "audiophiles" say is complete nonsense to make themselves seem like they can hear more than you
@JamesFeighnyIV Жыл бұрын
That's a nice CD rack where did you get it? It's hard to find CD storage these days!
@emiel333 Жыл бұрын
Great ❤ video, Paul.
@lbudt29 Жыл бұрын
So it's like a TV scan rate. 120 - 240 refresh rate results in a more accurate detailed picture quality.
@bobbobell7095 Жыл бұрын
Hey Paul…couldn’t help noticing that you are standing next to a $20,000 turntable with no cartridge mounted. How about throwing on a Hana Umami Red (or some other nice cart) and do some comparisons with the Direct Stream MK2. I’ve done it and it’s a lot of fun.
@PH-gm2qe4 ай бұрын
very simple explanation - sample frequency is the same as frame rate in video. How many time you make a snapshot in 1 second. Only numbers are quite higher.
@gtric1466 Жыл бұрын
imho after 16/44.1k the only audible difference that I have found is in the mastering. Now I cant say for DSD because I never heard it in it's native form but the fact that it goes from FLAC to DSD to me sounds more like a flavor then audible resolution.
@chriskobe4704 Жыл бұрын
3:53 "On this system you'll hear a lot of difference." Please make another video letting us hear the differences. That's much easier for us to understand it. Thank you,
@howardskillington4445 Жыл бұрын
Why don't you have phono cartridge installed in that fine turntable?
@thomaskandersen7250 Жыл бұрын
Hi 🙋🏼♂️ That beautiful competent turntable needs life ♥️ ✌️❤️🇩🇰
@garyharper2943 Жыл бұрын
Did you just invite me over ?
@Digiphex Жыл бұрын
Once you reach CD quality (44.1K) samples you will not hear any difference in any higher sample rate. It is not my opinion, it is physics and Nyquist-Shannon. But don't trust me, listen to the creator of Ogg Vorbis format and his lecture on it. I won't link here but do a search for D/A and A/D | Digital Show and Tell (Monty Montgomery.
@davidfromamerica1871 Жыл бұрын
It’s like trying to drive a Bugatti through the McDonald’s drive through.😀 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gp1-eM6iz7fTg2w.html
@Hyxtryx Жыл бұрын
I watched that video. Everything he said is true. However, he made no mention of phase shift being caused by the antialiasing filter. It would have been nice if he digitized his signal at 44.1KHz and 48KHz and showed the results of both on the scope at the same time. Measure the phase shift at 1KHz, measure the phase shift at 20KHz. Also, when he increased the frequency of the sinewave and it approached 20KHz, I think I saw the amplitude start to drop slightly. That would make sense, since the filter wouldn't be perfect, and maybe it's down 3dB at 20KHz, and 1dB down at 19KHz. Can you hear 19KHz? Probably not, but my point is that it's difficult to get a perfectly flat frequency response from 20-20KHz when your cutoff frequency is so close to 20KHz. This is why cheaper CD players in the 2000s often did oversampling. Oversampling at 8X means sampling at 352.8 KHz ... and I forget exactly how that was done when you have the bits already on a CD, but the result was that the manufacturers could put cheaper filters in with less slope, but cutoff frequency way up above 100KHz, providing flatter response at 20KHz and less phase shift.
@Alamo-cz5xc Жыл бұрын
@@Hyxtryx just shut up
@Hyxtryx Жыл бұрын
@@Alamo-cz5xc Didn't Ozzy urinate on the Alamo? No wonder you're salty.
@Alamo-cz5xc Жыл бұрын
@@Hyxtryx being a blind drunk Englishman, wearing a dress, I'm pretty sure he didn't know what the hell The Alamo was. Again, just shut up.
@joelowens5211 Жыл бұрын
With a CD or SACD they are getting one shot to read the sample whereas with a streaming high end DAC the sample can be read over many times to fill in as many pieces as possible. CD's or SACDS simply can't compete with a good dac. I ordered PS Audio's SACD played through my Rossini transport sounded better than the CD's but my DAC with streaming 96/24 files blew it out of the water no comparison. Now if you have just an okay dac and then a good SACD player then the SACD might seem to be equal or better.
@BronsonOsborne Жыл бұрын
TESLA no thanks
@kvbk Жыл бұрын
Also a note to properly mention the human hearing range as 2hz to 20khz and sampling rate of the analog signal to 44khz, 92khz and more specifically.
@garyedwards9617 Жыл бұрын
Anniversary edition table check best amp check best speakers check something's not quite right here hmmm..
@banginghats2 Жыл бұрын
I couldn't believe it when Rick Beato said that there was not only no difference between hi res audio and cd resolution audio, but that lossless audio files were no better than 320k mp3 files.
@Jorge-Fernandez-Lopez Жыл бұрын
I haven't seen that video. What I have seen is the spectrum of some "high-res" files with just noise over 24 kHz: no change with or without music, just stable noise.
@geddylee501 Жыл бұрын
Most of the time people can't hear the difference, he has a point
@benwu7980 Жыл бұрын
@@geddylee501 problem is, there are countless examples of even just cd quality, being transcoded to mp3 320,, that will highlight specific flaws in what mp3 does
@geddylee501 Жыл бұрын
@@benwu7980 it's not a problem if it sounds ok to many people's ears
@benwu7980 Жыл бұрын
@@geddylee501 fair, but generally, those people have no idea of what hi-fi is. Counter-point, is if they care, there's much types of music that simply doesn't care, it's about appealing to the masses. For good, or bad
@D1N02 Жыл бұрын
I hear a difference. It sounds more natural. You feel the music better.
@kevingest5452 Жыл бұрын
Like a fine wine with hints of oak flavors right? It's human nature to find differences whether they are there or not.kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ft6ceqxltODJcp8.html
@paulhammond2245 Жыл бұрын
Your cat can hear it, lol
@rasmus3236 Жыл бұрын
So higher sample rate is basically same as FPS (frames per second) in video?
@glenncurry3041 Жыл бұрын
Except that the human auditory system does not have built in storage/ persistence that vision has. We do not integrate the audible pulses the way we blur vision.
@Digiphex Жыл бұрын
No. Video is only showing you those 25 FPS in a cinema movie for instance and the rest is gaps of empty space. Digital audio is reproducing everything with no gaps if CD quality and no higher sampling rate is necessary due to Nyquist-Shannon.
@andydelle4509 Жыл бұрын
Not exactly. Higher frame rates provide better temporal resolution where that matters such as slow motion or with fast motion content, like a soccer game. But video resolution, i.e HF response still follows Nyquist. For example oversampling a still frame of video has the same benefits or lack thereof as oversampling audio. Higher video frame rates increase the overall data rate but the video sample rate remains the same be it 24fps or 60fps.
@alejandrorigonatto694 Жыл бұрын
I believe it is more like screen resolution... But certainly is captured like frames per second as samples are taken by second too, but in audio for you to understand it better, get a paper and graph a sine wave (just a single cycle) then put a tracing paper over it and make 10 even spaced dots over the sine, after move the original paper away and conect the dots with straight lines between them, looks like the original? Seems like you need higher sample rate to recreate the sine wave right...
@Digiphex Жыл бұрын
@@alejandrorigonatto694 No, that is not how it works. It doesn't connect the dots, it applies a mathematical function to the information. Watch the video done by the inventor of Ogg Vorbis audio on KZfaq and he shows that there are no dots and no imperfections at all. D/A and A/D | Digital Show and Tell (Monty Montgomery
@lwdp74 Жыл бұрын
Phase shift! The stonewall filters in a dac have it in spades. Higher sampling rates are more effective at reducing out of range spurious frequencies. Changing dac roll - off curves with varying music sampling frequencies can audibly lower sibilance and increase focus. It’s a pain in the buttocks but does sound better. My system seems to show improvements to 96 kh. Any higher is a waste of my file space and money.
@LuxAudio389 Жыл бұрын
Owning a very high end system, every time I hear from my dealer or a rep that something is better and then hear it, it's true. And I can't believe it Lol Now my fist is in my mouth. It's amazing what a good system and speaker can resolve .
@robertt7238 Жыл бұрын
192 KSPS, 44.1 KSPS, not KILOHERTZ!!
@andydelle4509 Жыл бұрын
I'm not following you here? Sample rate is the same as the sampling frequency. 44.1ksps still means the sample clock is 44.1khz?
@robertt7238 Жыл бұрын
@@andydelle4509 HZ is a analog frequency. KSPS ... samples per second. Not the same.
@andydelle4509 Жыл бұрын
@@robertt7238 Right, but the ADC clock frequency for 48KSPS is 48khz. When I worked heavily with early digital NTSC television equipment, the sample rate was typically expressed as 4fsc. That meant 4x the NTSC chroma carrier of 3.58mhz or 14.318.180mhz. I see what you are saying and agree the term KSPS is a more accurate definition, but in my career I have rarely seen sample rate expressed like that.
@ClaytonMacleod Жыл бұрын
Higher sampling rates are not more accurate. Higher sample rates are simply capable of reproducing higher frequencies. That is not the same as being more accurate. They are two different things. A 192 kHz sample rate is not more accurate at reproducing a 1 kHz signal than a 44.1 kHz sample rate. It doesn’t work that way. They would both reproduce it as well as the other. There could be any number of other reasons you think you’re hearing a difference, but it most certainly is not because of the sample rate itself. I’ve heard you mention many times that a higher sample rate lets it maintain phase relationships because it has a better time resolution at a higher sample rate versus a lower sample rate. That, too, is incorrect. 192 kHz does not do a better job of maintaining phase relationships because it is “higher resolution” than 44.1 kHz. It isn’t higher resolution. There is no resolution. It either works or it doesn’t. It is either below Nyquist or it isn’t. And it doesn’t do a better job of maintaining phase relationships or the timing of signals or anything else you’ve mentioned in your videos. 44.1 kHz maintains all those things exactly the same as 192 kHz does. The only difference between 192 kHz and 44.1 kHz is 192 kHz can reproduce everything below 96 kHz and 44.1 kHz can reproduce everything below 22.05 kHz. That’s it. That’s the only difference. And so for all signal content that remains below 22.05 kHz they both do exactly the same job at reproducing the source signal, including phase relationships and timing. Yes, including phase and timing. I don’t know why you still do not understand this. You’ve been in the business far too long to not understand this. Not only is this easily verified with an oscilloscope, someone has done it for you already, and I’ve posted this video of the testing to show you what actually happens with phasing and timing, which you either have refused to watch or could not understand. If you’ve refused to watch it, watch it. If you can’t understand it, watch it over again until you do. It is explained and SHOWN very simply and clearly. 44.1 kHz maintains phase and timing “between the samples.” That’s just how digital/analog conversion works. You’re shown what happens when you slowly change the timing back and forth so the signal starts and stops between the samples. And the result is the signal is still reproduced properly when you alter the timing of it in that way. What you claim is lost is in fact not lost at all. If you think you are hearing a difference it is because of something else in the chain that is behaving differently. The digital/analog conversions are not responsible for whatever you think you are hearing because they are not losing what you think they are losing. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ma-BbKyJuLvepYE.html
@stephenwong9723 Жыл бұрын
No, it doesn’t make sense, get a basic understanding on nyquist theorem, it doesn’t matter how much faster you sample, for 44.1kHz sampling frequency, you capture perfectly everything from 0-22.05kHz.
@Digiphex Жыл бұрын
Exactly! Signals and Systems 101 in Electrical Engineering. But it requires Calculus so nobody but us took the class.
@glenncurry3041 Жыл бұрын
Because twice the needed information rate is all that is needed? Like 12hr samples for a 24hr daily Earth cycle? Sample Noon and Midnight and you represent the entire daily Earth/ Solar Cycle? But then two samples sunrise/ sunset and the system could just as well be the Sun staying on the horizon all day! For those that have actually read S/N, it is about the data rate needed to capture a CONTINUOUS/ INFINITE sample set.
@robertt7238 Жыл бұрын
@@glenncurry3041 Brain injury?
@Digiphex Жыл бұрын
@@glenncurry3041 Audio becomes useful to humans at 20Hz but for the average guy, you can't hear that anyway. So the absolute least we are concerned with is 40 samples in one second if we want to only reproduce an ultra low sound that very few humans can hear. Earth cycles has nothing to do with hearing or audio.
@edfort5704 Жыл бұрын
No you don't. Because we can hear many different soundwaves simoultaneously. And we need to sample each sound frequency individually in a sum of samples in order to capture realworld sound in its fulness. The peddlers of the Nyquist-Shannon theorem have ignored or missed this fact for decades.
@geoff37s38 Жыл бұрын
All this hi-res nonsense needs to be exposed for the marketing fraud that it is. Higher sample rates and more bits are used in the recording and mastering to give the engineer headroom and the ability to deliver a superb 16/44.1 version to the listener. Many audiophiles have been misled into thinking that they are being denied access to the original masters and record labels are happy to “fix” the problem by selling them the same music again, only a so called hi-res version. The number of bits defines the available dynamic range/noise floor, this is all it does. 16 bits gives a huge dynamic range, and an inaudible noise floor, way more than needed. A recording with a larger dynamic range would be undesirable as quiet passages would be too quiet to hear or loud passages would be deafening. The sample rate defines the highest frequency able to be reproduced. 44.1KHz = 20KHz which is at the upper limit of hearing. This is all it does. Sample rates higher than 44.1KHz produces ultrasonic noise that was not part of the performance. If you buy a so called hi-res version you are buying a large file padded out with millions of useless bits. Several well designed ABX tests show audiophiles cannot pick hi-res recordings over CD quality.
@hoobsgroove Жыл бұрын
I think this might be easier to understand then Paul's waffling lol it's like a meat cutter You cut thin slices and thick slices of ham, the thinner the slice the greater the frequency. A better scenario is I've have ridden in a koenigsegg I know how crap a Tesla is, one of the most awful cars going very dangerous many people have died in them. lose control accelerate on their own accord break without any warning and don't have a kill switch inside the cabin I wouldn't be seen dead in one.
@robertt7238 Жыл бұрын
Brain injury? Deaths / Vehicle mile in Tesla is lower than any other similar vehicle. Are you stupid or just lying?
@Hyxtryx Жыл бұрын
WTH does ham and a Tesla have to do with any of this??!! Oh, I get it, the thicker the ham, the less slices you can eat per minute before getting full. The Tesla comment is a complete non-sequitor, though.
@hoobsgroove Жыл бұрын
@@Hyxtryx give that boy a biscuit You got it lol
@richardt3371 Жыл бұрын
"I wouldn't be seen dead in one" - spoilsport.
@designerfuzzi Жыл бұрын
nice one but completely utter total nonsense. When you talk about sample rate you should first explain what the Nyquist-Shannon theorem is and why Philipps chose to use exactly one particular sample rate for their digital stored replay system called CD. And only after that you can make impressions of impulse responses of systems that might play back close to a signal no matter if analog or digital. Embarrassing video here. It remembers me in one guy who owned one of those fancy high-fi shops selling super expensive stuff while telling his costumers the same nonsense of half knowledge to make them belief. Yes there are good systems that are expensive.. In example ever heard of Geithain speakers and why the BBC uses them? Thats not the only brand doing just fine if not to say perfect, and this perfection has really nothing to do with sample rate.
@robertt7238 Жыл бұрын
Wow ... this is really dumb. First say that nothing more than 20KHz is going to the speakers, then sort of try to justify higher sample rates which do NOTHING but pass higher frequencies. At the DAC, the sample rate is the delivery format. It is no indication of what the capture sample rate is. The ADC probably captures initially at high MHz Sigma-Delta, then decimates to 192 or 96KHz PCM. That is used throughout the editing process, before finally a 16/44.1 version is created.
@Hyxtryx Жыл бұрын
192 and 96 are not evenly divisible by 44.1, so downconverting like that causes distortion right there in and of itself. And the difference CAN be heard. As a matter of fact, upconverting a 44.1KHz CD to 96KHz will also cause distortion, and the difference can be heard. The 44.1 will sound better.
@robertt7238 Жыл бұрын
@@Hyxtryx Again talking out your ass. It is a mathematical translation. You can do the math easily with "distortion", 150+ db below the signal without even blinking.