W A R N I N G !

W A R N I N G !

This page is full of non-facts and bullsh!t, (just like the internet and especially forums and other blogs), please do not believe entirely without exercising your intellect. Any resemblance to real things in reality is purely coincidental. You are free to interpret/misinterpret the content however you like, most likely for entertainment, but in no case is the text written on this blog the absolute truth. The blog owner and Blogger are not responsible for any misunderstanding of ASCII characters as facts. *cough* As I was saying, you are free to interpret however you like. *cough*

Friday, November 14, 2008

Random noob find of the day:

"So, back to audio... I'm very happy with 16 bits of resolution, although the sampling at 44.1 K lacks... Really that's only about 3 samples at 15k Hertz. It amazes me that cymbals actually sound like cymbals at all. They did an amazing job with the technology they had at the time.

Now the problem is the audio sampling will be so fast and so high a resolution, it will pick up everything, and that also means allot of noise too.

Controlling all that noise that these new formats will be capable of hearing / recording will be VERY challenging!

I myself will step up to the 24 Bit, 192K soon, as that seems to be very popular, but really it is obsolete already.

With computers anyone can pretty much come up with any sampling rate and resolution, as long as you can record the data.

Video recorders for instance, go super fast compared to audio, why not use a digital video recorder to record music ???

Maybe 4 Million samples at 64 bits is too high, LOL."

This guy has no understanding of how audio reproduction and our ears work.

44.1k sampling rate actually translates into 20.5khz maximum frequency, because you need 2 samples, up and down, to create a wave.

Which is not a problem, since we can only hear that high anyway.

"3 samples at 15k Hertz", what the hell is he talking about? That we can have three 15khz sounds at 44.1khz?

When you have 2 1khz sound sources, what you get isn't a 2khz waveform, but it could be 1khz, 2khz, or requiring even higher depending on the phase.

Fortunately, all this sound will combine into a single complex waveform, which is all we need to hear and record.

However, however complex the resultant waveform is, we will still only hear frequencies that are below 20khz. Even if the waveform has e.g. 40khz waves, those will be inaudible.

So there's nothing wrong with the 44.1 sampling rate, at all, except perhaps a few of us with musician ears can hear past 20.5khz, but few humans will ever reach 24khz (for 48khz sampling frequency). The extra hertz at 96/192khz will be useful in more carefully reproducing the complex waveform which is the result of interactions between instruments, but you would be able to sense less distortion at most instead of actually hearing something missing or extra.

Next, video and audio recording are two different things. The most major difference - sampling rate. With video, 600fps is possible with high-speed cameras. Compare it to the 44.1khz sampling rate, or 44100 samples per second.

If you can find any video sensor that can handle 44100khz let me know, you should patent it.

And the saddest part is that this guy is the owner of an audio forum.

No comments: