linuxaudio.org

--e89a8ff2459b93b5fa04d193fe80

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Chris Bannister  wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 12:39:17PM -0500, Thomas Vecchione wrote:

quoted text
> > And for the record, the basic reasoning for what I said is simple, and

> has

> > existed for quite some time, that 44.1kHz is capable of containing more

> > than the entire human hearing range of an undamaged ear (Reproducing all

> > frequencies up to just above 22k).

>

> Yeah, but what about harmonics? For truly PRO work, analog should be

> used. CD's came out as the poor mans quality stereo, it was a compromise

> for high quality vinyl. Just as McDonalds is a poor compromise for a

> quality restaurant. But with the proliferation of advertising, huge

> product selection, the rising cost of the real quality goods; digital

> and McDonalds soon became the norm.

>

No for many reasons.
1. Harmonics, while they do extend above our range of hearing, and then

above the limits of a 44.1k recording, in that order, the amount of energy

in that high of a frequency generally is so low that even if we could hear

that high it would be questionable whether we would hear it.
Your McDonalds analogy would be a better analogy if applied to lossy

compression, and MP3 in particular, rather than Digital vs Analog.  A more

suitable analogy for digital vs analog is going to the fine restaurant,

having an amazing meal, and then being able to reproduce the exact same

meal every time(Digital), whereas a chef might make small changes to the

recipe(Analog).
>

quoted text
> I believe it was Shannon's law which basically stated that the sampling

> frequency should be twice as high as the highest frequency (or

> bandwidth, if the lowest is zero). This was used in telecomunications

> where a 4kHz (actually 3.4kHz but usually rounded off to 4kHz) bandwidth

> was

> considered to be ample to convey human speech at a quality which was

> considered acceptable. Therefore, an 8kHz sample rate was used.

>

> I believe the same reasoning was used when they started fabricating CDs.

>

>

The Shannon-Nyquist theorem was absolutely the primary inspiration behind

the choice of sample rates of CD.  The theorem states that you can

reproduce exactly any frequency that you sample at over twice the

frequency.  So when 44.1 was chosen, it allows for any frequency up to just

above 22kHz to be reproduced exactly.  The limits of the average undamaged

human hearing is 20kHz, and the average limit for typical adult hearing is

probably closer to the 18k range if the ears were well taken care of.  For

most people that listened to loud music, etc. that limit is probably much

lower.

>

quoted text
> So, consider a musician playing a Stradivarius violin. You'd want to be

> able to reproduce all the tonal richness, and harmonics during the

> recording phase. Some people say the ear can't hear above a certain

> frequency anyway, so it doesn't matter whereas there are others who can

> pick the difference between a Stradivarius violin and an "ordinary"

> violin.

>

>

The harmonics in question for a violin are all within the range of human

hearing.  Harmonics occur at a regular mathematical interval above the

fundamental frequency, and the fundamental frequency is generally very low

in the range of our human hearing, for instance, since we are using a

violin as an example, concert tuning a is only 440Hz, meaning your second

harmonic occurs at 880, etc.  very low in the overall range of human

hearing.

The only exception to this I know of is when you have an interaction of two

different frequencies that create a third 'phantom' frequency that can be

lower than the fundamental of either of the other two (I know there is a

better term for this, but the term I use to describe this in RF/wireless

mics is harmonic intermodulation).
> I also understand that vinyl is now increasingly (very slowly though)

quoted text
> becoming the preferred medium for listening to music.

>

>

Not according to any resource I can think of.  Apple certainly isn't

selling portable vinyl players.  100% of the systems I design and install

for commercial, house of worship, etc. applications have not used vinyl.  I

can't think of the last time I pulled out a vinyl record player.  Not going

to say that some people don't prefer it, and I encourage them to if that is

what floats their boat, but the VAST majority of people are using digital

for many reasons that were listed by Monty Montgomery.

> Remember: If you sample at an infinite frequency you have analog, and

quoted text
> isn't the idea of quality digital to have a high sample rate.

>

>

Actually no you don't really.

The universe is actually closer to digital to analog, as you either have

matter or not.  To have high pressure compressions and low pressure

rarefactions that make up sound waves, you are still moving individual

molecules and the components that make them up.  In the end you end up with

spaces that contain matter and spaces that don't.  So if you were talk

above an infinite sampling rate, you would still end up with a digital

representation really.  And of course at that level you are really only

doing 1 bit sampling, closer to DSD than PCM, and honestly it would be

fairly useless.
        Seablade
--e89a8ff2459b93b5fa04d193fe80

Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Chris Bannister =

<cbannis=

ter@slingshot.co.nz> wrote:

On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 12=

:39:17PM -0500, Thomas Vecchione wrote:

quoted text
> And for the record, the basic reasoning for what I said is simple, and=

 has

quoted text
> existed for quite some time, that 44.1kHz is capable of containing mor=

e

quoted text
> than the entire human hearing range of an undamaged ear (Reproducing a=

ll

quoted text
> frequencies up to just above 22k).

Yeah, but what about harmonics? For truly PRO work, analog should be<=

br>

used. CD's came out as the poor mans quality stereo, it was a compromis=

e

for high quality vinyl. Just as McDonalds is a poor compromise for a

quality restaurant. But with the proliferation of advertising, huge

product selection, the rising cost of the real quality goods; digital

and McDonalds soon became the norm.No =

for many reasons.1. Harmonics, while they do extend abov=

e our range of hearing, and then above the limits of a 44.1k recording, in =

that order, the amount of energy in that high of a frequency generally is s=

o low that even if we could hear that high it would be questionable whether=

 we would hear it.

Your McDonalds analogy would be a better analogy if applied =

to lossy compression, and MP3 in particular, rather than Digital vs Analog.=

=A0 A more suitable analogy for digital vs analog is going to the fine rest=

aurant, having an amazing meal, and then being able to reproduce the exact =

same meal every time(Digital), whereas a chef might make small changes to t=

he recipe(Analog).

=A0
I believe it was Shannon's law which basically stated that the sampling=
frequency should be twice as high as the highest frequency (or

bandwidth, if the lowest is zero). This was used in telecomunications

where a 4kHz (actually 3.4kHz but usually rounded off to 4kHz) bandwidth wa=

s

considered to be ample to convey human speech at a quality which was

considered acceptable. Therefore, an 8kHz sample rate was used.
I believe the same reasoning was used when they started fabricating CDs.

The Shannon-Nyquist theorem was absolu=

tely the primary inspiration behind the choice of sample rates of CD.=A0 Th=

e theorem states that you can reproduce exactly any frequency that you samp=

le at over twice the frequency.=A0 So when 44.1 was chosen, it allows for a=

ny frequency up to just above 22kHz to be reproduced exactly.=A0 The limits=

 of the average undamaged human hearing is 20kHz, and the average limit for=

 typical adult hearing is probably closer to the 18k range if the ears were=

 well taken care of.=A0 For most people that listened to loud music, etc. t=

hat limit is probably much lower.

=A0

So, consider a musician playing a Stradivarius violin. You'd want to be=
able to reproduce all the tonal richness, and harmonics during the

recording phase. Some people say the ear can't hear above a certain

frequency anyway, so it doesn't matter whereas there are others who can=
pick the difference between a Stradivarius violin and an "ordinary&quo=

t;

violin.

The harmonics in question for a violin=

 are all within the range of human hearing.=A0 Harmonics occur at a regular=

 mathematical interval above the fundamental frequency, and the fundamental=

 frequency is generally very low in the range of our human hearing, for ins=

tance, since we are using a violin as an example, concert tuning a is only =

440Hz, meaning your second harmonic occurs at 880, etc.=A0 very low in the =

overall range of human hearing.

The only exception to this I know of is when you have an int=

eraction of two different frequencies that create a third 'phantom'=

 frequency that can be lower than the fundamental of either of the other tw=

o (I know there is a better term for this, but the term I use to describe t=

his in RF/wireless mics is harmonic intermodulation).

=A0

I also understand that vinyl is now increasingly (very slowly though)

becoming the preferred medium for listening to music.

Not according to any resource I can th=

ink of.=A0 Apple certainly isn't selling portable vinyl players.=A0 100=

% of the systems I design and install for commercial, house of worship, etc=

. applications have not used vinyl.=A0 I can't think of the last time I=

 pulled out a vinyl record player.=A0 Not going to say that some people don=

't prefer it, and I encourage them to if that is what floats their boat=

, but the VAST majority of people are using digital for many reasons that w=

ere listed by Monty Montgomery.

=A0

Remember: If you sample at an infinite frequency you have analog, and

isn't the idea of quality digital to have a high sample rate.

Actually no you don't really.=

The universe is actually closer to digital to analog, as you either have ma=

tter or not.=A0 To have high pressure compressions and low pressure rarefac=

tions that make up sound waves, you are still moving individual molecules a=

nd the components that make them up.=A0 In the end you end up with spaces t=

hat contain matter and spaces that don't.=A0 So if you were talk above =

an infinite sampling rate, you would still end up with a digital representa=

tion really.=A0 And of course at that level you are really only doing 1 bit=

 sampling, closer to DSD than PCM, and honestly it would be fairly useless.=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Seablade
--e89a8ff2459b93b5fa04d193fe80--