[sander99]

Oh, bigshot says something that the rest of the audio community disagrees with, so my content can't keep him content.
Do you also agree that your gear playing tracks that only play each sample for 192kth/second before the next one taken will introduce noise to the playback, for some reason only that one engineer who's in his signature claims will happen?

The reason why your other thread was locked was that you refused to read up on how digital audio really works and kept on repeating this nonsense. The output of a DAC is a perfectly continuous wave form that is reconstructed from the sample points. No sample is "played for 1/192kth second"...

 

[sander99]

@castleofargh: may as well lock this thread also, or better: delete it completely

 

[Audiophiliac]

The reason why your other thread was locked was that you refused to read up on how digital audio really works and kept on repeating this nonsense. The output of a DAC is a perfectly continuous wave form that is reconstructed from the sample points. No sample is "played for 1/192kth second"...

The continuous waveform is created by playing each sample for 1/44kth of a second, until it alters. Your continuous waveform is highly stairstepped, and spends to much time not knowing what's next.
You will have to ask moderators to use ai to refuse any posts that mention higher res digital music. You'll also have to campaign against gear makers, for making gear that supports higher sample rates.
Oh oh, what do you think about SACD, compared to your primitive "perfection"?

 

[Audiophiliac]

@castleofargh: may as well lock this thread also, or better: delete it completely

If you can read between my samples, how can I be dangerous to you for supporting higher resolutions, or the lack of compression?
Why do you have to ask for a thread to be closed, so that people can't talk about the subject?
Hmm, it's starting to seem like I'm supposed to tell you you're a total audio loser for not caring about compression or higher bitrates, to know why you're upset about it. Oh sh-t, does this mean you're actually trying to support porn?

 

[Audiophiliac]

Heads up to all the audiophiles on head-fi: There ARE people who sign up for accounts, and then become Headphoneus Supremus for how many times they argue against people who talk about higher resolution being better than even lower than max mp3 compression. In fact, unless you tell everyone at head-fi that 128kbps mp3 is still just as perfect as cd's somehow automatically are, they will be offended, because you will be trying to make them have to be losers.
They will even report you to moderators for it, and try to get your thread closed...

 

[sander99]

Why do you have to ask for a thread to be closed, so that people can't talk about the subject?

Because it is useless to repeat the same discussion, especially because you don't understand how digital audio works and you refuse to learn how it works.
(There are no stair steps in the output of the DAC. (Perfect) stair steps are a summation of an (infinite) set of sine waves at different frequencies. The reconstruction filter removes the frequencies above the band limit and then only the original signal remains, no stair steps.)

 

[BS5711]

You have some strange theories that don't hold water, think you know better than people that do actually understand how this stuff works, poor comprehension about what others are saying to you, poor ability to communicate your ideas and seemingly and far too much time on your hands.

The creates a cluster f....k of a thread, people want your thread closed because of that not for any other reason.

For me personally you comparing yourself to Einstein was the clincher

 

[Audiophiliac]

Because it is useless to repeat the same discussion, especially because you don't understand how digital audio works and you refuse to learn how it works.
(There are no stair steps in the output of the DAC. (Perfect) stair steps are a summation of an (infinite) set of sine waves at different frequencies. The reconstruction filter removes the frequencies above the band limit and then only the original signal remains, no stair steps.)

Digital music is the playback of timeless snapshots of the audio that was originally played. Nothing before your dac recorded what was going on in between the snapshots, so it can't be played. Yes, I'm sorry, but your dac is only holding the sound of that sample continually, for the duration of time that the rate is recorded in. It's very fast, and hard to tell, unless you're already picky about vinyl or "$yeah, sure" reel to reel. Those people can tell right away that your waveform is NOT continuous, with a digital version. High end TT people who are also reviewers for publications will sometimes say that a particularly good performing dac keeps them from complaining, however.
If people disagree that 128k mp3 still makes your world perfect anyways, what will you have to be? Hard drives are super cheap now, did you get your whole mp3 collection because they were all free, too?

 

[castleofargh]

The last thread was locked because of the insults(most of which got deleted) coming on top of the admittedly very strange thread.
OP, people don't struggle with the complexity of your ideas, they struggle with how you write your sentences. I have a better understanding of special and general relativity than I have of what you tried to say in the first sentence of your opening post. I encourage you to make some efforts if you want others to even bother reading.

A lot of what you say that I manage to understand is wrong. A year ago, in the other thread, several attempts were made to explain digital reconstruction and sampling theory to you. You're back with the same misconceptions, having learned and understood nothing. I have no reason to lock a thread just because it makes little sense, but I don,'t advise others to engage with you on those subjects as you've already proved a year ago that it was a waste of our time.


Both threads were created in early April. Coincidence?

 

[bigshot]

The stair step theory of sampling is a myth. According to Nyquist, double the upper limit of the intended frequency response is a sufficient sampling rate to PERFECTLY reproduce the waveforms below that upper limit.

44.1 can PERFECTLY reproduce all frequencies up to 20kHz, the upper limit of human hearing. The level of distortion in CD audio is far beyond the limits of human hearing.

However LP records often have clearly audible distortion, especially at the inner grooves where the resolution of the sound is much less than at the outer edge of the record.

 

[Audiophiliac]

The last thread was locked because of the insults(most of which got deleted) coming on top of the admittedly very strange thread.
OP, people don't struggle with the complexity of your ideas, they struggle with how you write your sentences. I have a better understanding of special and general relativity than I have of what you tried to say in the first sentence of your opening post. I encourage you to make some efforts if you want others to even bother reading.


A lot of what you say that I manage to understand is wrong. A year ago, in the other thread, several attempts were made to explain digital reconstruction and sampling theory to you. You're back with the same misconceptions, having learned and understood nothing. I have no reason to lock a thread just because it makes little sense, but I don,'t advise others to engage with you on those subjects as you've already proved a year ago that it was a waste of our time.

Ok, so wee need to get to the bottom of this "higher resolution is 'better' makes us have to lose" topic. Do these few head-fi'res have an ai searching for threads who mention "uncompressed", to then go and chastise for believing that more frequent samples even can sound more detailed and analogue?
The reconstruction that you're describing has no math that can support consistent or realistic accuracy. The different algorithms used for up sampling are probably all attempts at different ways of makeshift-reconstructing the changes in the waveform to a more frequently changing one. What if I only used 2 samples per track? Do you really expect your dac to be able to reconstruct that performance perfectly? If you want perfectly, remember this: The same track on vinyl is one single sample that includes a duration of time. How does that compare?

Both threads were created in early April. Coincidence?

Oh shoot, it actually means I'm Illuminati?!
Damn, ok yeah, I'm the boss, because I actually do run the country, and you will always have to actually be complaining that your mp3's are never going to be good enough to be any higher than 128kbps, since you must be getting them all for free, and if you want to go with the women, the women should absolutely be the ones getting all your bandwidth duration on. Are you actually listening to music while you're with the women? At that point, too much bitrate could definitely make it Ariana Grande over the other one, and you probably haven't actually decided firmly which one is the one it's actually supposed to be, yet...

 

[Audiophiliac]

The stair step theory of sampling is a myth. According to Nyquist, double the upper limit of the intended frequency response is a sufficient sampling rate to PERFECTLY reproduce the waveforms below that upper limit.

44.1 can PERFECTLY reproduce all frequencies up to 20kHz, the upper limit of human hearing. The level of distortion in CD audio is far beyond the limits of human hearing.

However LP records often have clearly audible distortion, especially at the inner grooves where the resolution of the sound is much less than at the outer edge of the record.

Look at it this way: vinyl plays back an analogue recording that was a single sample, and included a duration of time. It can constantly change.
Your 44.1 is absolutely reproducing a 20khz frequency, and then in the next sample, reproducing a true 18khz frequency. The argument for higher sampling rates, is that that tone is actually continually descending, and that at least a double sample rate recording would have captured the 19khz part that was in between. Turntable people can laugh at you, because digital will never even resolve the actual 18.75khz part of the music, let alone only ever be made of multiple samples, which are only snapshots, like photographs are.
The electrification of records brought LP-ing to the table, but actually, records should have gotten a boost to 200rpm, to sound better. That's their part where they have to admit they could never reach perfection, same as with tape speed. But, both methods will play back the full time everchanging version for you, compared to tiny digital amounts of recording.
Hey, back to castleofargh, the conspiracy actually is to make sure nobody ever actually discovers how to make motion pictures. However, my elixirs and tonics will help you figure out how though, and are available at this time, only for you, for half price off!

 

[bigshot]

This thread started off with an insult which was deleted. I think we can expect more.

The stair step argument is a myth. There's nothing missing between samples. It produces a continuous analog waveform that is identical to the source. You can keep repeating it and wrapping it in ever more convoluted language, but it's still wrong.

CD sound has no audible distortion. It has no timing error. With oversampling, it has every frequency humans can hear in perfect balance. It has a noise floor so low, no one would ever bump into it. It is audibly transparent.

You can't say any of that about LP records. Records are fine. I have over 10,000 of them myself. They have advantages. A lot of music only exists on records, and the covers are nicer than CD covers. But LPs are not capable of the fidelity level that CDs deliver. They are inferior on every metric. That doesn't mean they can't sound good. They just can't sound AS good.

 

[Audiophiliac]

This thread started off with an insult which was deleted. I think we can expect more.

The stair step argument is a myth. There's nothing missing between samples. It produces a continuous analog waveform that is identical to the source. You can keep repeating it and wrapping it in ever more convoluted language, but it's still wrong.

CD sound has no audible distortion. It has no timing error. With oversampling, it has every frequency humans can hear in perfect balance. It has a noise floor so low, no one would ever bump into it. It is audibly transparent.

You can't say any of that about LP records. Records are fine. I have over 10,000 of them myself. They have advantages. A lot of music only exists on records, and the covers are nicer than CD covers. But LPs are not capable of the fidelity level that CDs deliver. They are inferior on every metric. That doesn't mean they can't sound good. They just can't sound AS good.

It did not start off with an insult. It started off with me saying that 192khz was better than 96. The insult was the way that someone disagreed with me, which I refute.
Imagine playing a fast reaction video game: at the new standard 24hz for movies, someone who is a far away speck can be moving across your screen erratically. Can you get your crosshairs on him quickly and accurately? What if there were more FPS, like Bruce Lee complained about the old 29hz spec only providing? The same is true for video, with the frames per second factor already existing for it.
Explain the part where, if my cd player plays a tone sweep that takes 1 second, from 0-20khz, how does my dac ever get told when 440.75hz is getting passed through?
The clocks on your gear are nowhere near accurate enough for you to say there is no timing error. Furthermore, this factor, called jitter in digital audio, is created even in you cable's point. Nobody is talking about not playing up to 20khz frequency. Low noise floor is truly nice. I have a professional 32" 4k monitor using a higher than normal color spectrum, and have begun thinking that my streamers are providing a 4k friendly version of album covers, which I can display full screen during each track, and I have been thinking, while looking at the size being possibly slightly bigger than a 12" record now, that the detail of album covers is more apparent than when they used to be, with a 12". The higher resolution photography is really nice, sometimes I think that's just a tick of the 4k, but no, digital camera's are still getting better at the rest of the camera's job, while the resolution increases. Photo's have a medium-free factor too, same with video.
Care to explain why DSD recordings are said to sound more analogue than cd's? Even in only the original SACD resolution? Those were like 1bit, but 2.8 million samples per second, or something like that.
You guys who are complaining about how cd's can never be improved upon are trying to derail a valid thread. Fine, if you want cd's to already be perfect, why don't you go to another thread? People who don't already satisfy themselves with 128kbps mp3's don't want to listen to you complaining that higher resolution copies ruin what you already always have to be being with everyone else. You need to start your own thread where your topic is "Vote for banning discussion of higher than cd resolution on head-fi, because otherwise is insulting". Then people can decide whether or not this is the place to discuss anything besides headphones and headphone amps or not.

 

[bigshot]

You are wrong. You’ve been told you’re wrong. You’ve been given evidence and explanations showing you’re wrong.