Talk:Sampling rate

message: Question: should this be at Sampling frequency or Sampling rate? The latter seems to be linked a bit more often. (Or is there some obscure difference between the meaning of the two terms that I'm not aware of?) --Brion
:Google reveals far more hits for "sampling rate" than "sampling frequency", so I have moved the page there per Wikipedia:Use common names. —Lowellian (reply) 09:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of article

message: Regarding video: the sampling frequency is the frame/field rate, rather than the notional pixel clock. All modern TV cameras use CCDs, and the image sampling frequency is the repetition rate of the CCD integration period.  -- Anon.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.158.229.208 (talk) 16:57, March 18, 2003
: "All modern TV cameras use CCDs" - Not true: some modern TV cameras use CMOS sensors.  Ikegami's new HD cameras come to mind. Ehusman 23:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CCDs

message: Regarding:
:96,000 or 192,400 Hz - DVD, BD-ROM (Blu-ray Disc), and HD-DVD (High-Definition DVD) Audio
They seriously are doing 192.4 KHz sampling rate for audio?  Or is 192 two-channel 96 KHz or something?  I seriously can't believe they would waste that much space on audio considering that's many times higher than our hearing can hear. Cburnett 04:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be surprized, but many professional recorders digitize sound at 192kHz.  Remember that recording at a higher resolution will better sample the soundwave and therefore less interpolation is required to recreat the sound when you play it back.  A standard cd can only play back sound up to 20,500 Hz in theory, but if you have sound at 20,000 Hz you only have two samples representing the sound wave.  Hopefully you can appreciate that 192kHz, although capable of reproducing every high pitched sounds, is used to produce more accurate sound in the range of human hearing. --129.173.105.28 21:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: A good rule of thumb for high fidelity sampling is to sample 7-10 higher than the highest frequency of interest.--User:Ehusman 23:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD/BD-ROM/HD-DVD 

message: Question: Usually, voice is sampled at 8000 samples per second, but video may be sampled at 6000000 samples per second. Why do the two types of signal require different sampling rates?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.251.53 (talk) 04:20, April 3, 2006
: Human hearing operates between 20 Hz and 20 kHz, so the human voice operates well within these two extremes.  The human eye only gets "refreshed" about 24 times per second; anything that happens more frequently than that gets blurred together (known as "persistence"). You must sample at a frequency twice the highest frequency you wish to store (something called Nyquist's sampling theorem).  Thus, sound is sampled at relatively low rates (you can probably still preserve most voices at 8000 Hz), but video is only at 60 Hz.  Your figure of 6000000 Hz is way off - unless you are counting individual pixels or ultra high speed photography, which is a specialized field. Ehusman 23:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Audio vs. video sampling rates

message: I looked up this article to find out the sampling rate for audio CD, DVD audio, studio quality audio etc., but could not find it. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article could be improved 

message: Yes, there is one particular problem about the introduction of this article, namely that sample (for which you seem to use the letter "S") is not a physical unit according to SI. Are you sure that RF Design Magazine is a so-called reliable source? Akilaa (talk) 08:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are a few hundred books that could be used as alternative sources.  Dicklyon (talk) 17:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with introduction 

message: This article contains contradictory statements:
"The Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem states that perfect reconstruction of a signal is possible when the sampling frequency is greater than twice the maximum frequency of the signal being sampled"
and
"It is a common error to interpret Nyquist theorem that with a sampling frequency of twice that of the original signal is enough for perfect reconstruction."
I suspect that the first passage is in need of some sort of qualifier, but I do not know enough of the subject to fix this. Tomyhoi (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictions 

message: Ms/s or MS/s redirects here, but the current page doesn't talk about that .  I understand it is mega samples per second, but this should be included in the text (maybe briefly referring to the debate , included above, over whether this is a correct measurement or not).  I mean, National Instruments use MS/S so it is surely in common use.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirkjot (talk • contribs) 11:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is MS/s? 

message: This article needs audio examples, so we can hear the difference.--RaptorHunter (talk) 05:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Proposed examples would be material low-pass filtered at 1/2 sampling frequency. In many cases the difference would not be obvious. --Kvng (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples 

message: The second paragraph currently reads, "Sample rate is usually noted in Sa/s (non-SI) and expanded as kSa/s, MSa/s, etc. The common notation for sampling frequency is fs which stands for frequency (subscript) sampled."
* What does "Sa/s" mean? 
* What does "kSa/s" mean?
* What does "MSa/s" mean?
* Why is "fs" a "notation" and not an "abbreviation"?
I would fix this if it was abundantly clear what it stood for.
--Kebman (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a bit confusing, and I merged parts of the paragraph to where it should make sense. Basically, "Sa/s" is "samples per second", and the "k" and "M" are SI prefixes for ×103 and ×106, respectively. However, I don't think that this article really needs to explain all of the SI prefixes, so I didn't keep or elaborate them (as there are potentially many of these). "Sa/s" is not very common and is essentially the same as 1/s or Hz. Hope it is a bit more clear. +mt 10:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unexplained Notation 

message: Technically, you could be sampling something that is a function of some variable other than time, like a scanner's resolution of "1200 dpi" is also a sampling rate, or you could be doing image processing at arbitrary pixel spacings.  Time and hertz are common and easy to understand, but maybe throw in some mentions of other applications.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justanothervisitor (talk • contribs) 17:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro to Sampling (signal processing) does not have this issue. Another small benefit of doing the proposed merge. ~KvnG 21:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time centrism intro