The aim of this analogy is to bring accross the abstract idea that a signal can be completely reconstructed from a limited number of sample points mathematically, just like a circle can be reconstructed mathematically from a limited number of points. The aim is not to explain exactly how this reconstruction can be done in the case of signals, that is a lot more complicated compared to the circle example.
Yes but that’s not the case here, chimmy is questioning his understanding.
But all that is likely to achieve in this case is just to scare him away, which would be a shame because he actually wants to learn. IMHO, it’s way better to start him off with an oversimplified understanding (which he can expand later if he wants) than scaring him off from any sort of understanding except that offered by audiophile marketing!!
PS Audio makes money selling DSD. Money is known to create biases...
Yeah, but as Paul said, it would not make a lot of sense to invest in all of this when it really isn’t that good. I still need more time to see what PCM can really do.
I would be careful with McGowan's claims and videos. He uses audio myths to push his products, even though he knows better. For example, his claims about null tests which contradict his snake oil claims about cables.
That’s a shame, he really is full of it. I’ve seen several videos by him over the years and while I can’t categorically prove that he’s not just misinformed, rather than a deliberate liar and scam artist, it’s difficult to imagine he could ever get some of his products to even function if he really believes all the nonsense he spouts!
There’s a long history of audiophiles and DBT/ABX, going back to the early 1980’s and the famous Carver Challenge. Top reviewers from the most respected audiophile publications were challenged to tell the difference in a DBT between a $400 amp and top of the line amps costing 10+ times more, that they all raved about. They were certain the challenge would be easy but they completely failed. For a while they tried to ignore the whole thing but as it had quite an impact on their credibility they had no choice other than to start falsely claiming DBT/ABX tests don’t work and obviously, not to participate in them again. Paul McGowan is just repeating the same tired and debunked falsehoods invented by others about 35 years ago!
It’s a test that’s been widely used for around 80 years or more. It’s extremely accurate and reliable, based on a simple mathematical principle and represents an incontrovertible standard of proof. Which is precisely why the audiophile market avoids any mention of the Null Test and why you haven’t heard of it. There’s even excellent free null test software that does all the work for you.
Again, it’s been done countless times, plus of course null tested and James Randi even offered a $1m prize to anyone who could tell a difference in a DBT. It ran for 15 years or so and was never claimed. Not to mention, the modern world depends on cables and there’s few things in human history that have been researched more thoroughly and are understood as comprehensively. All the audiophile companies combined have contributed absolutely nothing to the 140+ year history of governments and billion dollar companies’ huge R&D in this area, except of course for snake oil, in which they’ve contributed everything!
If you can make something "better" in placebo-sense (inside someone's uninformed mind), there are always audiophools to buy it. That's the whole idea of snake-oil business.
Digital audio is not easy to understand fully. It is often unintuitive and deceptively easy-looking. We all have needed time to understand these things.
Wow! Yes I did look at the study, but I need some more time to digest and understand that before I can voice my concerns regarding that.
Slowly I am changing, right now I am digging in how nynquist theorem states two data points can fully represent a signal. Once that is accepted I shall accept PCM redbook with all my heart and the love it can give.
There are some concerns with that study but they’ve been examined in great detail, with responses from the authors. That’s one of the reasons why I linked it. So it would be interesting to hear what your concerns are.
If you need any supporting evidence; the world’s top commercial recording studios all use pretty standard cabling. A few bucks a metre and Neutrik connectors, also about $3 each. None of them use audiophile cables despite them typically having spent many millions on equipment.
At sampling rate 44.1 kHz there are 2 samples every 0.000045351 seconds. That's why you get transparent audio (for human ears) out of it. Don't think about "just" 2 samples. You can think of it this way: Sampling theorem tells you how much time you can spend taking 2 samples (0.00005 seconds or less). At CD quality every second contains 44100 samples (per channel).
“We know mathematically how the signal must move between the sample points, so adding more sample points don't give anything new.”
