KVR Audio

Sascha Franck · Post by **Sascha Franck** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 4:24 am

schriftsteller wrote:At higher sample rates you'll have higher quality high frequencies, effecting clarity of the sound.

Yeah, for the dogs and bats among us.

afreshcupofjoe · Post by **afreshcupofjoe** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 4:26 am

schriftsteller wrote: With digital audio, quality decreases as frequency increases. 22kHz @ 44.1 is a saw wave... i'm sure you know.. it's called the Nyquist criteria.

You have a very poor understanding of the Nyquist-Shannon Theorem. Go back to school. You do not understand what you are talking about.

schriftsteller · Post by **schriftsteller** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 4:29 am

Michael Benjamin wrote:
schriftsteller wrote:
eduardo_b wrote:
hifiboom wrote:22kHz @ 44.1 is a saw wave... i'm sure you know.. it's called the Nyquist criteria.
uh, yes, but you dont hear that.

[facepalm] it doesn't matter if you can't hear that particular frequency, it still effects clarity. come on people, if higher sample rates didn't effect sound, companies wouldn't be producing products with those capabilities.

why don't we argue that mp3 sounds the same as cd while we're at it?

this thread is hopeless.

jackson · Post by **jackson** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 4:37 am

zircon · Post by **zircon** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 4:43 am

afreshcupofjoe: Well... a few things. Mix magazine didn't conduct the study. They simply ran an editorial about it.

Also, "common sense is not common." Despite all the facts that should be obvious, there are clearly still LOTS of people - including people posting here - that steadfastly believe there is a difference between a 44.1khz and 96khz end product. The demand for the latter is so great that we have physical media designed specifically with that in mind.

Since there exists continued debate on the topic, and people apparently are ready and willing to waste money on snake oil/placebo products, the existence and promotion of a highly scientific study might help put a stop to it.

eduardo_b · Post by **eduardo_b** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 4:44 am

schriftsteller wrote:
Michael Benjamin wrote:
schriftsteller wrote:
eduardo_b wrote:
hifiboom wrote:22kHz @ 44.1 is a saw wave... i'm sure you know.. it's called the Nyquist criteria.
uh, yes, but you dont hear that.
[facepalm] it doesn't matter if you can't hear that particular frequency, it still effects clarity. come on people, if higher sample rates didn't effect sound, companies wouldn't be producing products with those capabilities.

why don't we argue that mp3 sounds the same as cd while we're at it?

this thread is hopeless.

You'd make a wonderful audiophile. They hear what they believe they hear.

Lunch Money · Post by **Lunch Money** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 4:44 am

schriftsteller wrote:[facepalm] it doesn't matter if you can't hear that particular frequency, it still effects clarity. come on people, if higher sample rates didn't effect sound, companies wouldn't be producing products with those capabilities.

I hope you were being sarcastic. You can't HONESTLY be saying that companies don't make technologies that are, in effect, pointless?

The lack of logic in that statement is face-palmingly absurd, if so.

"Why would they make Q-Ray bracelets, if they didn't actually give you an improved sense of well-being?"

"A TV with 1 meeeellion:1 contrast ratio is better than one with 1200:1! The manufacturers says so!"

"Uncle Bullrush's Tonic... it'll cure what ails you at only $12 a bottle!"

Come on, man. "Companies wouldn't be producing products with those capabilities if those capabilities didn't affect sound." For real?

I can only pray you were being jokey and I'm just being thick.

Greg

afreshcupofjoe · Post by **afreshcupofjoe** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 4:49 am

schriftsteller wrote:
Michael Benjamin wrote:
schriftsteller wrote:
eduardo_b wrote:
hifiboom wrote:22kHz @ 44.1 is a saw wave... i'm sure you know.. it's called the Nyquist criteria.
uh, yes, but you dont hear that.
[facepalm] it doesn't matter if you can't hear that particular frequency, it still effects clarity. come on people, if higher sample rates didn't effect sound, companies wouldn't be producing products with those capabilities.

It's called marketing, and it's not the first time companies have hyped up things that people don't really need. Actually, it's funny you should say that because one of the most respected digital coverter makers, Dan Lavry, initially refused to make boxes that recorded at 96kHz when all the other major companies first started coming out with them. He insisted that 96kHz was all marketing and wrote numerous technical white papers showing that it was all nonsense, and that the 96kHz was actually inferioir quality because clocking technology at the time couldn't clock that fast without a high amount of error. But his customers kept insisting that he make 96khz AD boxes because that's what all the other companies were doing and that's what their clients wanted.

Hink · Post by **Hink** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 4:49 am

Greg, I'll take a bottle of tonic...uhm, school vacation is next week, better make it two

schriftsteller · Post by **schriftsteller** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 4:55 am

afreshcupofjoe wrote:
schriftsteller wrote: With digital audio, quality decreases as frequency increases. 22kHz @ 44.1 is a saw wave... i'm sure you know.. it's called the Nyquist criteria.
You have a very poor understanding of the Nyquist-Shannon Theorem. Go back to school. You do not understand what you are talking about.

Nyquist criterion is sampling at a rate two times the maximum signal frequency to sufficiently describe that frequency without ambiguity. Tell me how I'm wrong.

Strictly speaking what I said is true; however it does not take into account time averaging.

Lunch Money · Post by **Lunch Money** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 4:58 am

Hink wrote:Greg, I'll take a bottle of tonic...uhm, school vacation is next week, better make it two

<shakes three times>

I can only produce about 2 bottles a day, but you're first on the list! This bottle contains an extra hint of antioxidants via asparagus. Don't mind the smell.

It'll cure what ails ya!

schriftsteller · Post by **schriftsteller** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 5:00 am

I said it before. This thread is hopeless.

Lunch Money · Post by **Lunch Money** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 5:01 am

schriftsteller wrote:I said it before. This thread is hopeless.

Only because you're oblivious to the irony of your own statements.

However, I DO think you're doing the right thing by getting out of dodge before someone feeds you the length. Me, I'm no Nyquist-Shannon expert, but I smell impending pwnage from miles away.

Spe3D · Post by **Spe3D** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 5:19 am

wikipedia has some stuff on nyquist, and a aliasing demo etc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist-Sh ... ng_theorem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliasing

not that it will help this thread

schriftsteller · Post by **schriftsteller** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 5:23 am

Lunch Money wrote:
schriftsteller wrote:I said it before. This thread is hopeless.
Only because you're oblivious to the irony of your own statements.

However, I DO think you're doing the right thing by getting out of dodge before someone feeds you the length. Me, I'm no Nyquist-Shannon expert, but I smell impending pwnage from miles away.

eh, it's obvious I'm outnumbered here. So I'll have my cake and eat it too. Y'all can have your own cake. Maybe I am oblivious, maybe I'm not. I'll leave it at that.

44.1 vs 96khz music - double blind study conducted...