Sampling Rate

[dirddey_iddler]

sampling rate is just a discussion of the truth

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

understand the physics and the basic principles in digital recording

[oblioblioblio]

it's not just a discussion of the truth. His opinion is clearly biased and his choice of data is weighted in favour of what he wishes to show.

He says that bit depth is just related to noise floor, that is not physically true.

(lol, don't think the above post was replying to me! who's biased now )

[dirddey_iddler]

yes you are right and i`m with you.

my post was just to show where are the basics of this problem. if he understand what is behind the game, he could answer the most of his questions.

[Toloache]

If i wanted the wikipedia explanation i could have googled myself wikipedia it's good and all but if you don't know about a subject it's sometimes difficult to comprehend fully the text.

For example: "The sampling rate, sample rate, or sampling frequency (f_s) defines the number of samples per unit of time (usually seconds) taken from a continuous signal to make a discrete signal. "

Ok, all good, then i went to look discrete signal: "A discrete signal or discrete-time signal is a time series consisting of a sequence of qualities. In other words, it is a type series that is a function over a domain of discrete integral."

Or the sampling theorem "If a function x(t) contains no frequencies higher than B hertz, it is completely determined by giving its ordinates at a series of points spaced 1/(2B) seconds apart."

You know, i want to make music, not learn physics or advanced mathematics. Hence my simple question Thanks aniway for the link!

[dirddey_iddler]

If i wanted the wikipedia explanation i could have googled myself wikipedia it's good and all but if you don't know about a subject it's sometimes difficult to comprehend fully the text.

For example: "The sampling rate, sample rate, or sampling frequency (f_s) defines the number of samples per unit of time (usually seconds) taken from a continuous signal to make a discrete signal. "

Ok, all good, then i went to look discrete signal: "A discrete signal or discrete-time signal is a time series consisting of a sequence of qualities. In other words, it is a type series that is a function over a domain of discrete integral."

Or the sampling theorem "If a function x(t) contains no frequencies higher than B hertz, it is completely determined by giving its ordinates at a series of points spaced 1/(2B) seconds apart."

You know, i want to make music, not learn physics or advanced mathematics. Hence my simple question Thanks aniway for the link!

no, it depends on what is between the ears

okay for you a little bit in depth:

as i wrote "a discussion of the truth!"

if you have a true analog signal (normal sinus wave) and want to convert it into a digital one, you have to "sample" it. the sampling frequency keys periodically different points of the sinus wave (on y-axis and x-axis).

if you want to get the analog signal back from the digital informations you got with the procedure i described above, you lost informations. cause the computer isnt an augur and cant say what is between the parts of the sample points. Keep in mind, that an analog signal has unlimited values! Thats why you have to consider the bit solution as well. Therefore you can say: y-axis: bit solution; x-axis: sampling rate

in other words if you have noise, the noise doesnt come from a bad sampling rate. the artifacts which opuswerk mentioned is the phenomena of aliasing.

With this major problem you will have the rules e.g. of nyquist (nyquist theorem) etc., to reconstruct the information nearly lossless.

The most DA/AD convertes works like this.

Ah, and with just do music, you wont understand some things behind it

[Toloache]

Thanks for the clarification aniway , here the problem is not me not knowing what sampling rate is. I know. But the question was different: i don't have to do any analog to digital conversion, so i was wondering if a higher sampling rate would increase the quality of bounced synths . It appears it does (and if someone is interested, here there is a comparison and to my ears the difference is VERY apparent, in particular in the 2nd samples posted http://www.gearslutz.com/board/gear-sho ... rates.html)

My response to your first statement had a little annoyed tone because in my book telling someone with a one-liner to look on wikipedia is first of all stating the obvious, because in 2013 i think everyone can do that before asking in a forum (and it does) , and on a second thought not even of much help, because you have to know physics and read 10 pages of different terms because wikipedia goes really in depth, when really you can say simply sample rate is the resolution to which a sound is sampled from the analog to the digital domain. And if sample rate is this, maybe if someone is working only into the digital realm, it doesn't matter much, and that's what i asked. Not what sample rate is "per se"

You see, when you look on the web and google about sample rate, or even in books, the discussion goes in depth on AD / DA conversion, every single time. But there are not much resources that look at the problem from an ITB only perspective.

Aniway i'm not here to argue and maybe i have even over reacted. It' easy on a forum to misunderstand because there isn't tone of voice and body language involved.

So, peace

[dirddey_iddler]

And now? You expected an answer, you got it.

Just a YES or NO won't give you a right direction.

Are you moaning about that you had to read a little bit and use your brain?

You gave the answer by yourself after you read a little bit!!

Maybe i'm wrong but your answers read like this.

[Toloache]

You don't get it don't you? Ok i will try to explain it again. Sure, a yes or no answer is not really what i wanted. Opuswerk posted an interesting vid, and then expanded with an helpful answer. Same AK, which has everytime a friendly attitude here in every topic to which he answer to.

Then you came with a semi philosopical one liner and a link to wikipedia, which was about what sampling rate is, which, again, was not the point of the topic. But the worse is not your misunderstanding of the question, is the fact that with your cool, well thought and and snob line and a wikipedia link, it's like telling someone "ehi you idiot, go to wikipedia before asking such idiotic questions", and even if you don't wanted to come off like this, the impression you gave was of being rude.

Then you continue along the line of "it's a matter of what it's in between the ears", implicitly restating that i'm an idiot and confirming i have well understanded the tone of your first post. I will tell you one thing, take it as a friendly advice: intelligence is more about how you behave than how many axioms you know.

Aniway im out, no point in discussing this further.