[Music818]

Per my understanding, the sampling rate is talking about the numbers of sample acquired per second. The more the samples acquired, the higher the accuracy when converting back to analog signal as compare with the original signal. Is it correct?
By therory(not talking about audible or not), higher sampling rate should get a better resolution than lower one. Right?

 

[castleofargh]

  Per my understanding, the sampling rate is talking about the numbers of sample acquired per second. The more the samples acquired, the higher the accuracy when converting back to analog signal as compare with the original signal. Is it correct?
By therory(not talking about audible or not), higher sampling rate should get a better resolution than lower one. Right?

if the analog conversion was done stupidly like on a good old barrel organ with paper sheets and holes in it, then you would be perfectly right. in reality the digital to analog process is a little more than adding dots and pray that it will make an ok line. I suggest you to go read about that conversion if you're interested.
so in effect, the added precision isn't automatic, and the value of it is far below what pro highres people imagine(aka audible).
the most obvious effect of having higher sampling rate is to be able to record higher frequencies. but hearing ultrasounds is a very doubtful theory and so are the perks of recording them.
so benefits= yes . useful ones= mehhh
(of course I'm saying this for the recorded music on our album and us music listeners, else there are great uses for high sampling in audio).

 

[limpidglitch]

  Per my understanding, the sampling rate is talking about the numbers of sample acquired per second. The more the samples acquired, the higher the accuracy when converting back to analog signal as compare with the original signal. Is it correct?
By therory(not talking about audible or not), higher sampling rate should get a better resolution than lower one. Right?

 
A similar question was asked (and answered) here.

 

[Music818]

Quote:

 
if the analog conversion was done stupidly like on a good old barrel organ with paper sheets and holes in it, then you would be perfectly right. in reality the digital to analog process is a little more than adding dots and pray that it will make an ok line. I suggest you to go read about that conversion if you're interested.
so in effect, the added precision isn't automatic, and the value of it is far below what pro highres people imagine(aka audible).
the most obvious effect of having higher sampling rate is to be able to record higher frequencies. but hearing ultrasounds is a very doubtful theory and so are the perks of recording them.
so benefits= yes . useful ones= mehhh
(of course I'm saying this for the recorded music on our album and us music listeners, else there are great uses for high sampling in audio).

Thanks for the reply. Do you mean the "sampling rate" has some special method using in audio's ADC process? That's higher sampling rate doesn't has more data acquired per second? Appreciate if there's any information can be shared.

 

[castleofargh]

  Quote:

 
if the analog conversion was done stupidly like on a good old barrel organ with paper sheets and holes in it, then you would be perfectly right. in reality the digital to analog process is a little more than adding dots and pray that it will make an ok line. I suggest you to go read about that conversion if you're interested.
so in effect, the added precision isn't automatic, and the value of it is far below what pro highres people imagine(aka audible).
the most obvious effect of having higher sampling rate is to be able to record higher frequencies. but hearing ultrasounds is a very doubtful theory and so are the perks of recording them.
so benefits= yes . useful ones= mehhh
(of course I'm saying this for the recorded music on our album and us music listeners, else there are great uses for high sampling in audio).

Thanks for the reply. Do you mean the "sampling rate" has some special method using in audio's ADC process? That's higher sampling rate doesn't has more data acquired per second? Appreciate if there's any information can be shared.

http://xiph.org/video/ should be a good start.

 

[RRod]

  Quote:
Thanks for the reply. Do you mean the "sampling rate" has some special method using in audio's ADC process? That's higher sampling rate doesn't has more data acquired per second? Appreciate if there's any information can be shared.

 
It does mean more data is acquired per second. What that extra data allows the ADC to do is to capture higher frequencies before running into the problem known as "aliasing." The usefulness of this depends entirely on how useful those higher frequencies are, and if we're talking about human hearing, they aren't very useful.

 

[Music818]

   
It does mean more data is acquired per second. What that extra data allows the ADC to do is to capture higher frequencies before running into the problem known as "aliasing." The usefulness of this depends entirely on how useful those higher frequencies are, and if we're talking about human hearing, they aren't very useful.

Oh! That's what I want to clarify. Thankyou!
Higher sampling rate -> more data acquired per sec. -> higher accuracy (terms may not correct, may use resolution or something else).

 

[RRod]

  Oh! That's what I want to clarify. Thankyou!
Higher sampling rate -> more data acquired per sec. -> higher accuracy (terms may not correct, may use resolution or something else).

 
Yes, you can get a more exactly reproduced analog waveform if that waveform has high frequency (> 22kHz) components. The problem is that we can't hear those higher frequencies, so while the waveform will be measurably more accurate, it's not *audibly* better to our ears.

 

[Music818]

   
Yes, you can get a more exactly reproduced analog waveform if that waveform has high frequency (> 22kHz) components. The problem is that we can't hear those higher frequencies, so while the waveform will be measurably more accurate, it's not *audibly* better to our ears.

Got it and as I mentioned, I'm not talking audible signal, just want to clarify the sampling rate issue. Thanks!

 

[Music818]

  http://xiph.org/video/ should be a good start.

Interesting...... Thank you!

 

[mmeysarosh]

Certainly, and even a better example is loud concert. The conversation you have afterwards is oddly loud for good reason. I'm also quite sure that if you measured the sustained dynamic range of hearing across various frequencies, it would also show some significant curves with wide variations among a large number of people. From a point of silence to a loud shot, an average person would have able to hear up to 120db in range. You will lose your hearing if subjected to that kind of abuse in any regularity. Again, not very usable or practical
 
You really wouldn't want even attempt a signal that would have that much of a dynamic impulse over the RMS power of the track from a reproduction standpoint. If a track is recorded at 24 bit with an RMS power of around -64db and was being played at a RMS volume at 80db. If you would send out a sample at -24db, the signal signal that would drive nearly any system into protection, overload, or physical damage. Its true if 16 bit recordings just lowered the RMS power to -16db RMS to -24 RMS, they would have plenty of room for most recordings out there. The loudness or recordings silliness has unfortunately given us otherwise.

 

[Skyyyeman]

Check out the lucid article on sampling rate by John Siau, Chief Engineer at Benchmark Media Systems, Inc., maker of audiophile and pro audio digital equipment (including the Benchmark DAC2):
 
http://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/news/14949325-high-resolution-audio-sample-rate?utm_source=Application+Notes&utm_campaign=72152862aa-

 

[RRod]

  Check out the lucid article on sampling rate by John Siau, Chief Engineer at Benchmark Media Systems, Inc., maker of audiophile and pro audio digital equipment (including the Benchmark DAC2):
 
http://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/news/14949325-high-resolution-audio-sample-rate?utm_source=Application+Notes&utm_campaign=72152862aa-

 
He puts an awful lot of stock in the audibility of frequencies above 20kHz, ignoring the fact that most people have to amp things WAY up to hear anything up there. If there are arguments to be made for these high frequencies, they probably need to look beyond the ear.

 

[mmeysarosh]

Setting the sampling rate this high was a solution to move the effect of the filters out of the audio band, and sometimes quite audibly so. You would still have a filter, but its effect in audible sounds was next to nothing since it would begin its work at the 40Hkz range. One of the many times this became evident was through the development of DSD. In order to deal with the noise rise and frequency gained, the engineers developed a filter that began to take effect in the upper 20's of FR response. This created a difference that in measured response in the hi frequency domain and had PCM engineers as their filters would start in the upper and of the audible band. Realizing the effects of their filters had, development went further to enhance them.
 
Gordon Rankin and Charles Hanson both have spoken about this at length. Both are lead engineers for their respective audio companies.

 

[coinmaster]

The limitation is in human ears. It doesn't matter how high a frequency you want your stereo to produce and how wide a dynamic range, it all comes down to whether human ears can hear it.

Audiophools love to spend lots of money pushing the decimal point further and further to the left and making the frequencies go higher and higher, but at a certain point, it all becomes moot because only bats can hear it.

Bats need good music too, ya'know.