 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (2)big datautel ...and 370 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614089 Today 2 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
sample me :/? no , im wondering ? 44..1kh 48kh 96kh 192kh etc... digital not analoge how far can we go? ... is there a limit? infinite sample frequency machines? in the future a planet created to house your own hard drives for storage?? ...but they would not be bigg enough to store infinte sample frequency material would they?!! so perhaps your own universe is created to store the info on the latest nano chip thingys but even then...that would not be infinte would it !? unless...trillions + quintilions of little robots in this unvierse are dedicated to build storge systems that grow and get bigger like a BIG BANG OF STORAGE!! ! just so you can have logic /cubase vst ..but with the abillity to zoom into a waveform for ever .......as the little robots in your own storage unverse build the storage.thingy poos ...s.. by ebyee...x |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
There's a limit based on the processing power/data storage time of your digital device.... but in the analogue world I suppose there is a very high limit, if one even exists. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
WTF are you on about? The Nyquist sampling theorem states that you must sample a frequency with a sampling rate of at least double the highest frequency. For audio, let's say you have ears that can hear to 22kHz. Sample at 44kHz and you can reproduce all your audible frequencies exactly. Of course higher frequencies can intermodulate down to lower audible frequencies, so you have higher sampling rates, like 192kHz. 192kHz can reproduce an audio frequency of 96kHz. This is about 4 times higher than the average teenager can hear! (Providing they don't have ipod deafness) You've also completely failed to appreciate the quantisation errors introduced by ADC/DACs and how 24bit sound is better that 16bit, also clock jitter and ADC/DAC non-linearity, but I'm sure all you wanted to do was type out some gibberish on here again. How about next time type "sample frequency" into google and follow the first link to this nice wikipedia page explaining the basics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_rate That way we won't have to put up with more of your pathetic unfunny nonsense. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
dave mothefuckin gee throwing some mad knowledge on yo ass holla |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
lol |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You are amazing. Hold me. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah... what dave said... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I like to record and pitch/slow down samples ...i need more samples a second i want to record insect sounds pitch them down and create weird noises with smooooth yummy waveforms ! or record sweet lovely tweety birds , pitch em down make em sound like thunder ..big birds that eat and chew Negative humans so to make the world a lovely place to be.. peace :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
look it's freqy. everybody: :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
its me. :P dave smells of limitations , we must not make cars faster than the speed limit thats silly :P he clever tho but mean and spitful. , still i bet the women love him.:P |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it's about what you can do with it. slace to the rythm was recorded in 12 bit. and i sounds awesome. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I couldn't agree more. DJ Shadow did all of Endtroducing on a MPC60 with 12 bit sampling with 13.1 seconds sampling time. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i love the sounds of a spectrum 48k but its not gonna help me record pitch down the sounds of insects and let me hear things beyond my hearing range.. i cant wait its gonna be awesome when i find the time very soon after my lovely peace offering projects. :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
and loads of david axelrods music |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
if i have a telescope and i take a picture of the sky at night i can look at that image on my computer and zoom in to various locations so far before the pixels become large and offer little information. but in the future perhaps it could be possible to take a picture of the sky at night and then zoom zoom zoom zoom to any solar system that is available ( which are unblocked by black holes or whatever) sampling exactly what is there no pixelation . with only the lense made in 0 gravity limiting us as to what we see but what i was saying was would we have to create an entire universe to store this information? haha? :P come on dan your clever go wiki that. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If you want to sample sounds which are above the audio range, replace your microphone with an ultrasonic transducer or something similar. Use 192kHz sampling to capture upto 96kHz. Of course if it is higher than this you could use a sampling oscilloscope with a high sampling rate, i.e. something like . Once you have captured the "sound" export it to a computer and pitch it down using DSP. Alternatively you could use some form of mixing to reduce the high frequency to a low frequency, then sample it with your soundcard perhaps have a look at "super hetrodyne" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheterodyne) The latter approach is better in my opinion because it operates in realtime and you have much more selectivity over the input signals. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
lol indeed. of course digital recordings are only an approximation of their physical originals. Freqy only technically asked about sampling rates though, not bit resolution. obviously to get "infinite" resolution you're going to have to get one hell of an ADC and also a lot of storage for the massive amounts of digital data collected. at this point you may as well go analogue if you're after infinite resolution... though then of course you get noise problems etc. etc. and then "infinite" sampling frequency is also going to require firstly an immensely high frequency clock (which can be done but as you said, clock jitter is going to screw stuff up) and again a very high-spec ADC. then taking "infinite" sample frequency AND resolution is reallllly gonna take up a lot of space. Frequency x bits = a lot in this case. Freqy - put it this way if you're being serious to any degree, you'll need a fuckload of storage, better components than supercomputers as used by government services, etc.; and bloody good hearing to get anywhere near "infinite" sampling frequency/resolution. In short, what Dave said. :P |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
isn't that a bit useless ? i mean i haven't met anyone able to tell the difference between 192 and 96 khz yet. maybe i should talk to batman. but that's totally useless. i mean look - in computer graphics they already stopped highering the frequency rates, resolutions, bitrates. because it's nonsense. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't bother going any higher than 44/16bit anymore. I used to work in 24bit for a while, but my ears just cannot hear the difference when it's dithered down to 16bit anyway (and yes, i have decent headphones). I spose I can appreciate it if you're working with sound for more scientific/technical purposes, but for music, i'd rather spend my time worrying more about writing a decent melody or rhythm structure than frequencies I can't even hear. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I believe frequency of sample is limited by CPU speed. But sometimes is unpractical to rise it, sadist said true. Sometimes it is practical when you want recreate music in exactly how it is, becouse when sample is decoded and sine wave is recreated sample rate raise its resoliution. Hoever I think low sampling freq can mess amplitudes top when it is high frequency, becouse there is highest speed of change. So u can be sure sometimes when u use less toothy sines u can lower rate, and vice versa. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
thanks for advice dave future image and everyone else. im going to start another thread on light. with my other post i shall copy over. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Nah me neither. My ears are shit. I don't tell much of a difference beyond 128kbps I gotta admit (I know that's a crime, it's most probably down to my equipment but to be honest, it doesn't really bother me a great deal. that definitely is worrying). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
if u listen very carefuly you can heare the diference... But you must stay in silence before that. If you could slow down time you can hear mess with using low bitrate. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
