Modern digital audio storage and playback

Status
Not open for further replies.

Thread Starter

PatrickMalarkey

Joined Oct 2, 2021
120
A CD is one of the better methods for storage and playback of music and other audio sources/signals. And "internet music" is, or should be, based on that kind of audio playback.
It does carry with it an inherent defect arising from too slow sampling rates of the original audio. During 1980 the proposed sampling rate was mathematically modelled for an ideal rate of 20Khz. Shortly thereafter 44Khz. was found, or thought to be even better, because of elimination of apparent "gaps" in the original audio.
This matter of "gaps" in the sampled audio signal can be expected to remain a defect in modern audio reproduction, regardless of magnitude. And as a note from the writer, this can contributed to the somewhat discordant sound of synthetic music, and some of the preference for vinyl music recording.
The matter with those "gaps" could be significantly reduced by using a 400Khz. sampling rate. Also the synthesis or conversion from digital to an audio signal should be significantly enhanced by using that 400Khz. sampling rate.
Agreed Ian?
 

Ya’akov

Joined Jan 27, 2019
9,249
I’m sorry but this is just wrong. The sampling rate of CD was never 40KHz, it was 44.1KHz from the start. The engineers inbolved were very aware of Nyquist and to be able to reproduce up to 20KHz they needed headroom. The reason for 44.1KHz was compatibility with video technology.

Current formats sample 24 bits at 192KHz with lossless compression. Rates as high as 384KHz are readily available for local (not streamed) content. Your unspecified “gaps” have no basis in reality.
 

Papabravo

Joined Feb 24, 2006
21,264
There is no arguing with the golden ears. To them it is a matter of religious principle and it is a hill they are prepared to die on. Trying to do anything in that industry is IMHO a complete waste of time and creative energy. Let 'em choke on their religion.
 

Thread Starter

PatrickMalarkey

Joined Oct 2, 2021
120
I’m sorry but this is just wrong. The sampling rate of CD was never 40KHz, it was 44.1KHz from the start. The engineers inbolved were very aware of Nyquist and to be able to reproduce up to 20KHz they needed headroom. The reason for 44.1KHz was compatibility with video technology.

Current formats sample 24 bits at 192KHz with lossless compression. Rates as high as 384KHz are readily available for local (not streamed) content. Your unspecified “gaps” have no basis in reality.
192Khz. or 384Khz. are both adequate for "near as necessary" lossless sampling and DAC, agreed Sir. Those "gaps" of mine are based on announced, 1980 news being that 100% of up to 20Khz. audio was captured with a sampling rate of 40Khz. And that is incorrect, "mid-wave" signal in 15Khz. audio is sometimes missed by sampling at 40Khz or 44Khz. (By sampling at a peak or valley in the audio signal). That's the reason for 192Khz or 384Khz. Didn't I mention the year 1980, as the date of that original mathematical model of 40Khz being ideal. I haven't any info on modern sampling rates, I just recall that 1980 beginning of digital CD music.
 

Thread Starter

PatrickMalarkey

Joined Oct 2, 2021
120
Yes, but don't rely on it for archive storage of vital data. I've had some CDs become unreadable after about ten years.
Sorry to hear about your ten year old CD's becoming unreadable. It seems very short lived. A harddisk drive isn't the answer either, and current state of the art non-volitile computer data storage is underdeveloped. What would you suggest as an answer for audio reproduction, I'm all ears.
 

BobTPH

Joined Jun 5, 2013
9,186
Yep, when I was in school, all the textbooks were carved in stone. I needed twenty servants just to carry my books.
 

MrChips

Joined Oct 2, 2009
30,988
Are you proposing that Edmund Whittaker, Harry Nyquist and Claude Shannon and everyone following who have been teaching Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem are all wrong?
 

Ya’akov

Joined Jan 27, 2019
9,249
192Khz. or 384Khz. are both adequate for "near as necessary" lossless sampling and DAC, agreed Sir. Those "gaps" of mine are based on announced, 1980 news being that 100% of up to 20Khz. audio was captured with a sampling rate of 40Khz. And that is incorrect, "mid-wave" signal in 15Khz. audio is sometimes missed by sampling at 40Khz or 44Khz. (By sampling at a peak or valley in the audio signal). That's the reason for 192Khz or 384Khz. Didn't I mention the year 1980, as the date of that original mathematical model of 40Khz being ideal. I haven't any info on modern sampling rates, I just recall that 1980 beginning of digital CD music.
The original design of the Compact Disc included the 44.1KHz sample rate. The CD is not a very good high fidelity audio medium but it's not because of "gaps". This is clearly not going to be a substantive discussion so this will be my last post.
 

Thread Starter

PatrickMalarkey

Joined Oct 2, 2021
120
Are you proposing that Edmund Whittaker, Harry Nyquist and Claude Shannon and everyone following who have been teaching Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem are all wrong?
If 44Khz is expected to capture most all of the acoustics wave, then yes I've got an issue with their theory
 

Thread Starter

PatrickMalarkey

Joined Oct 2, 2021
120
The original design of the Compact Disc included the 44.1KHz sample rate. The CD is not a very good high fidelity audio medium but it's not because of "gaps". This is clearly not going to be a substantive discussion so this will be my last post.
Alright by me, you and I've gone back and forth about 7-8 months ago. And I go by my best understanding, but I do appreciate your education. You're not stupid and maybe I'm a little off.
 

ronsimpson

Joined Oct 7, 2019
3,152
should be significantly enhanced by using that 400Khz. sampling rate.
No one is going to pay for 10x more storage.
Your PC speakers will not reproduce 20khz anyway. Many of us can't hear 20khz. FM radio is limited to 15khz. Many microphones can't accurately copy 20khz.
I thought you might be having a big problem with "loss less compression", long before 20khz.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,444
I don't have a problem at the upper hearing range but I do have the typical female voice hearing loss.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2005-08-07/men-do-have-trouble-hearing-women-research/2075194
Men who are accused of never listening by women now have an excuse - women's voices are more difficult for men to listen to than other men's.

Reports say researchers at Sheffield University in northern England have discovered startling differences in the way the brain responds to male and female sounds.
1657319989948.png
 

Thread Starter

PatrickMalarkey

Joined Oct 2, 2021
120
No one is going to pay for 10x more storage.
Your PC speakers will not reproduce 20khz anyway. Many of us can't hear 20khz. FM radio is limited to 15khz. Many microphones can't accurately copy 20khz.
I thought you might be having a big problem with "loss less compression", long before 20khz.
No, I can't hear much above 13Khz. (as a realistic guess). And the only time I listen to a PC is when I'm watching some good trampling porn. Usually I listen to YouTube Music by way of a Bluetooth connection between my mobile phone and a Onkyo reciever bought earlier this year for $250 bucks. And it's good enough for me. Model Tx 8220 available from Electronics Express, down in Tennessee as I recall their site's listing on google. As for compression, that's for video isn't it?
By lossless I'm referring to modern 192Khz-383Khz. sampling and Digital to Audio (or Analog) Conversion or "synthesis of music from modern digital data". And I wouldn't pay extra for a CD the size of an old vinyl record either. But maybe one of the online music sites would. That's where things are headed these days. And the circuits used for DAC work a lot simpler using 192-383Khz. state of the art synthesis or playback rates. Audio quality is up to the folks with oscilliscopes, not me. I just like my Onkyo reciever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top