I always re-format my cover art to 16:9 for a wider sound stage.

Quote from: Hotsoup on 2016-07-13 15:48:58

I always re-format my cover art to 16:9 for a wider sound stage.

I hate the silent strips at the top and bottom.

I always re-format my cover art to 16:9 for a wider sound stage.

I think it is because the calculus and fourier analysis required to understand the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem proof is quite advanced mathematics, it is difficult to translate an explanation to laymen so the myth persists. If there was a simple way to explain to someone with three balls and a glass of water on a table high school science style, this myth wouldn't persist, but there is no easy way to explain it lol

I think you are way over-estimating how difficult this is to explain. There have been several easy-to-understand videos on this exact topic. The problem is to get the doubters to watch them.

Quote from: opis on 2016-07-22 23:01:09

I think it is because the calculus and fourier analysis required to understand the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem proof is quite advanced mathematics, it is difficult to translate an explanation to laymen so the myth persists. If there was a simple way to explain to someone with three balls and a glass of water on a table high school science style, this myth wouldn't persist, but there is no easy way to explain it lol

I think you are way over-estimating how difficult this is to explain. There have been several easy-to-understand videos on this exact topic. The problem is to get the doubters to watch them.

Quote from: pdq on 2016-07-22 23:10:25

I think you are way over-estimating how difficult this is to explain. There have been several easy-to-understand videos on this exact topic. The problem is to get the doubters to watch them.

True, but I think you might be overestimating the intellectual capacity of many of the doubters.

Link me a video of the proof of the theorem that is easy to understand for people with little maths experience. Not what the theorem says, the proof.

Sure, but the Monty videos have a generous amount of show and tell, opposed to reports that almost exclusively contain technical prose.

While I do doubt the intellectual capacity of placebophile believers (I would prefer to use opposite terminology for those who exercise open-minded skepticism, no matter how mundane), I also doubt that opis has seen the presentations pdq is talking about since they contain very little math.

Have you seen them?

Not what the theorem says, the proof.

... If there was a simple way to explain to someone with three balls ...

Quote from: pdq on 2016-07-22 23:10:25

Quote from: opis on 2016-07-22 23:01:09

I think it is because the calculus and fourier analysis required to understand the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem proof is quite advanced mathematics, it is difficult to translate an explanation to laymen so the myth persists. If there was a simple way to explain to someone with three balls and a glass of water on a table high school science style, this myth wouldn't persist, but there is no easy way to explain it lol

I think you are way over-estimating how difficult this is to explain. There have been several easy-to-understand videos on this exact topic. The problem is to get the doubters to watch them.

really? Link me a video of the proof of the theorem that is easy to understand for people with little maths experience. Not what the theorem says, the proof.

I've seen them, I watch them frequently, Monty is one of my geek heroes.

Honestly I think the biggest problem analog fans have is they don't understand a DAC puts out an actual analog wave form. Analog fans I know seem to think they put out a stair-stepped wave form, and many of them think ultra high sample rates and high bits per sample lessen "that effect", not realizing "that effect" isn't even how it works.

Quote from: opis on 2016-07-23 01:28:46

Not what the theorem says, the proof.

I actually think that the theorem statement is hard enough to grasp, and to relate to reality (or to myths perceived as truth because of their plausibility, cf. the "ragged curve" misconception). And then it is the not-even-pronounced assumption that a sine wave basis is sufficient to the relevant application, which is really a spherical cow in a vacuum - in the sense that it is an empirical question whether pure-tone audiometry is good enough. That is no theorem.

Have a take then at the "ragged sine curve" and single out what errors underlie it, and what assumptions are really made in order to "disprove" it. Indeed, it all boils down to the "raggedness" being beyond the audible range (irrespective of whether the "raggedness" is filtered away, as that also relies upon being above the audible range). And that is not math. Maths alone cannot tell you whether the threshold is 15 kHz or 30 kHz or above or below or between, or whether it matters that you quote the threshold in "pure tone" (i.e. a sine wave signal).

I think it is because the calculus and fourier analysis required to understand the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem proof is quite advanced mathematics, it is difficult to translate an explanation to laymen so the myth persists. If there was a simple way to explain to someone with three balls and a glass of water on a table high school science style, this myth wouldn't persist, but there is no easy way to explain it lol

Quote from: opis on 2016-07-22 23:01:09

I think it is because the calculus and fourier analysis required to understand the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem proof is quite advanced mathematics, it is difficult to translate an explanation to laymen so the myth persists. If there was a simple way to explain to someone with three balls and a glass of water on a table high school science style, this myth wouldn't persist, but there is no easy way to explain it lol

I think this situation is being over-complexified.

Which of us demands knowledge of the derivation of the Laws of Thermodynamics before we ride in an automobile?

Same thing for audio. There is no controversy over the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorum. It works.

Next!

Someone who refuses to get in the seat because they believe it will take off to the moon!

the thing you quoted was a guess on why the myth persists.

Quote from: opis on 2016-07-23 15:28:26

Someone who refuses to get in the seat because they believe it will take off to the moon!

Maybe it does! It isn't impossible for things to take off to the moon, so there's a certain possibility that the car does.

Given enough thrust, pigs fly.

Quote

the thing you quoted was a guess on why the myth persists.

Part of the reason may be in the engineering, not the theory. The theory says that pigs can be made to fly (or cars made to take off to the moon). From that point on it becomes an engineering problem. Whether a particular pig or car is actually capable of doing the trick, is dependent on a number of parameters inherent in the setup, and it takes some skill to work out how those parameters combine to the end result.

In other words, if you haven't got a minimum of those engineering skills, you can't work out what the result would be. Your real life experience may indicate to you that pigs don't fly, but you can't prove it.

Interestingly, the engineer that makes a calculation to show that a particular pig setup can't possibly fly, uses approximate calculations based on approximate parameters. That's almost universally so, because exact calculations are too complex, and exact parameters aren't available. In that sense, you will always have a pretext that allows you to mistrust the calculation.

I Just have got to learn to put the lid on and accept and move on while others make tons of cash off of others on false promises.