Topic: Sampling/Time Resolution - In search of sources (Read 9990 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

## Sampling/Time Resolution - In search of sources

##### Reply #25 – 2012-02-13 00:48:42
As the thread has been resurrected, and as the misconception it addresses is not likely to go away, it occurs to me (alas, mathematically illiterate) that a way to explain the basic point to the mathematically illiterate would be to start with the way that two points define a straight line and its extensions, three points a circle.

That should help to get over the difference between little bursts, as opposed to points defining a signal. You need to explain that first, you have to know the form of the line before you know how many points define it; but luckily, thanks to M. Fourier, we know we can work with sine waves.

Then on to frequency limits and the real stuff.

I hope I have got that right. My point in posting is that most people here know so much (but don't normally teach) that they find it hard to think their way back to just how basic you have to make things for beginners.

HTH

## Sampling/Time Resolution - In search of sources

##### Reply #26 – 2012-02-13 15:12:36
two points define a straight line
...but an audiophile would prefer to use ten points, and to put them in an oxygen-free listening room, illuminated by the warm glow of valves/tubes - otherwise the straight line might look too "digital"

Sorry, couldn't resist. But you make a good point. Problem is, people who don't "believe" in digital, don't "believe" that the maths behind it is just as correct, and just as applicable to music reproduction, as the maths behind straight lines, circles etc.

Once it gets beyond the point where they understand it, they don't trust it.

Cheers,
David.

## Sampling/Time Resolution - In search of sources

##### Reply #27 – 2012-02-13 21:21:51
Once it gets beyond the point where they understand it, they don't trust it.

The combination of not understanding/believing in mathematics and not understanding/trusting in blind listening tests is a strong one.

-k

## Sampling/Time Resolution - In search of sources

##### Reply #28 – 2012-02-13 22:02:31
Problem is, people who don't "believe" in digital, don't "believe" that the maths behind it is just as correct, and just as applicable to music reproduction, as the maths behind straight lines, circles etc.

Yes indeed, you're not going to persuade the ideologically committed. But there must be a lot of people who could have the basics explained to them. People who would run a mile rather than read the Wikipedia entry on FFT, who think of an analogy with pixelated digital images, and who are swayed by the persona of digitrolls. That persona is worth analysing: they come on, mostly, as real tweed-heads, with a rather old fashioned, mannered, scholarly way of pushing their stuff, and more importantly, using a language that actually makes sense in describing music performance. If someone talks about warmth of tone in a violin performance, I know what it means (compared, say, to the purity of Hilary Hahn or the edgy scrape of some Baroque original instrument players); it's subjective, of course, but that's right, because the whole point is the subjective effect on the listener. Analysis of wave-forms would be less informative to most listeners (though doubtless of real value to luthiers).

If it is worth while to help people save a bunch of money on useless electronics, there needs to be an appropriate rhetoric, that meets the nonsense with a rather tired amusement, rather than outrage, and that explains that music reproduction, actually, is an engineering issue, not an artistic one ("Do you want to leave the interpretation of The Quartet for the End of Time to a bunch of firebottles?"), and that the fundamental principles can be understood well enough to be happily ignored ever after.

Or, alternatively, what do you expect on the Internet?