IndianEars
Well-Known Member
Well, then it could be argued that this thread does not exist at all !
Jest Kidding
Jest Kidding
I think it has been answered that, no. more won't make it better, it might even make it worse. I've been away from the net for a whole day, and have a page of posts to catch up on...
EDIT... now I see this post is a page or so behind the times...
Let me hurry to add that, for anything other than a simple curve (remember my metal strip from earlier in the thread?) I'd be inclined to agree with you. My pencil could connect those points in infinite ways.
Thad, Let me ask you a question about this. With 44100 sampling rate, what are the no of samples taken per wave for 20 hz, 200 hz, 2000 hz and 20000 hz?
How would that matter*?
I'm not clever enough to work that out (reminder: I was thrown out of maths class at 15) but I don't believe it matters. We get the music. The wave formare recreated including all the frequencies up to and including 22Khz, which none of us can hear anyway.
But, as others have said, this has not been a straight plug-and-play transition of theorem to practice, but one with many engineering challenges which are continuing to this day.
*Take a look at this presentation by jj Johnston. Some of it is relevant to this thread, and all of it is interesting. (When he talks about the ear/brain feedback mechanisms, bear in mind that this is one of the guys who invented and developed MP3, and, whether we like/use lossy compression or not, it could not be developed without extraordinary expertise in the mechanisms of audio perception). IIRC, there is some point there where he talks about being taken by surprise, at some point in the digital-music-development histroy, that some frequencies were working, and others were not. To be honest, I don't remember clearly, but it is a good video, worth an an hour of our time, even if I have got that bit wrong.
If you think that sampling rate more than double is actually harmful.
It's not that I do necessarily... see the Xiph articles. When it is in a bad mood, I do get aliasing on my sysem. I have no clue why it is only occasional. I'm glad
A sine wave is abut the representation of a certain kind of tone. It also (in ways that are beyond my understanding) seems to be a very basic building block of all sound. It is not about perfect worlds. Apparently, if you are listening to music right now, you are listening to sine waves right now. Is the world perfect?
(well, I hope your music is making your world perfect for you )
DSD is something that I have barely begun to get my head around yet, but have a vague clue that it works not by saying "what is the value of the number in this sample," but by seeing how many times a bit switches its value. Resolution is not really a digital-audio term, it is a digital visual term which audio sales people like to use because audiophiles like it, but it is not like if 24 bit is better than 16 bit is better than ...duh? 1 bit is best? Counter-intuitive stuff again, I suppose. Presently, this part of the subjects beats me entirely!
It's not that I do necessarily... see the Xiph articles. When it is in a bad mood, I do get aliasing on my sysem. I have no clue why it is only occasional. I'm glad
A sine wave is abut the representation of a certain kind of tone. It also (in ways that are beyond my understanding) seems to be a very basic building block of all sound. It is not about perfect worlds. Apparently, if you are listening to music right now, you are listening to sine waves right now. Is the world perfect?
(well, I hope your music is making your world perfect for you )
DSD is something that I have barely begun to get my head around yet, but have a vague clue that it works not by saying "what is the value of the number in this sample," but by seeing how many times a bit switches its value. Resolution is not really a digital-audio term, it is a digital visual term which audio sales people like to use because audiophiles like it, but it is not like if 24 bit is better than 16 bit is better than ...duh? 1 bit is best? Counter-intuitive stuff again, I suppose. Presently, this part of the subjects beats me entirely!
Good time to ask this:The frequency of the sine wave is the representation of a certain tone we hear. It could have been a triangular wave for all that matters.
I don't understand what you are getting at? Nyquist doesn't have anything to do with tuning forks or any sound in analogue domain, ie any sound other than digital sound.If one was to use a tuning fork vibrating under the influence of a steady impulse, with a frequency of 1 unit and amplitude of 1 unit, that is all one needs to know to have the fork reproduce an identical vibration/sound from a digital recording of that impulse using Nyquist.
I don't understand what you are getting at? Nyquist doesn't have anything to do with tuning forks or any sound in analogue domain, ie any sound other than digital sound.
Why a curve? Because it is a curve. If you find one of those diagrams of sound in air, showing the compression/decompression of the air molecules, you can see that it is a continuous change from one to the other.
My question is that if the frequency and amplitude data points I referred to for the tuning fork earlier are plotted on a paper, and joined by straight lines, will this be an wrong representation?
if the right representation is a curve, can it be drawn in exactly the same way each time using just those data points?
I am fuzzy about lots more on digital audio
For simplicities sake, let stay with a tuning fork, vibrating at the same frequency and amplitude for a fixed time period of say 1 minute. All that can be picked up for this fork as data points is amplitude and frequency? Which will be the same for the entire minute?Yes. A square wave does not sound the same as a sine wave.
Time for you to go play with synthesiser software, or even an audio editor like Audacity
For simplicities sake, let stay with a tuning fork, vibrating at the same frequency and amplitude for a fixed time period of say 1 minute. All that can be picked up for this fork as data points is amplitude and frequency? Which will be the same for the entire minute?
To continue with this line of exploration, I think I can safely assume the answer to the above to be yes, to both.
Here is where it gets into unknown areas for me, staying just with the tuning fork because I have a slow intellect.
If just joining these data points by straight lines results in an incorrect representation of the sound the tuning fork is making, why is that the case? I use straight lines just because even I understand that to draw a straight line connecting two points doesn't need any more information. My reasoning tells me that drawing anything else, does. Or am I wrong here? I don't know what a sine wave is other than what it looks like in general terms - is it the case that there is only one possible sine wave that can be drawn to connect the data points of constant amplitude and constant frequency?
PS: Assume here that the tuning fork has the same amplitude because of an external energy source.