Talk:Sampling (signal processing)

message: I was redirected from a page named "MS/s" . I think it means Mega-Samples per second, but want to confirm.  Unfortunately, the units S/s does not appear anywhere on the page. Anyone know the answer?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:DD01:2000:15:18F4:FB1D:F641:5A3F (talk) 08:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it to the page. Correct if wrong!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:DD01:2000:15:18F4:FB1D:F641:5A3F (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  MS/s 

message: The article talks about foldback aliasing in the sampling rate section (3.1.1). I know what is aliasing, but I've never heard this term, nor can I find any reference to it on the internet.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossengers (talk • contribs) 02:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This internet thing is a loss.  Look in books. Dicklyon (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foldback aliasing 

message: "When it is necessary to capture audio covering the entire 20–20,000 Hz range of human hearing,[5] such as when recording music or many types of acoustic events, audio waveforms are typically sampled at 44.1 kHz (CD), 48 kHz, 88.2 kHz, or 96 kHz."
I don't see what the sampling rate has to do with the range of human hearing. They have nothing to do with each other. Sampling is done in order to preserve and convert a signal from one format to another. I think this line here is incredibly misleading and gives the impression that sampling has something to do with being able to hear the full range of frequencies available instead of taking discrete samples of a waveform. Quite simply it is about accurate reproduction of a signal. Keyword being accuracy
"Sampling rates higher than about 50 kHz to 60 kHz cannot supply more usable information for human listeners"
Completely uncited, followed by this:
"There has been an industry trend towards sampling rates well beyond the basic requirements: such as 96 kHz and even 192 kHz"
Wow I'd really like to know if there's more to that, wish Wikipedia was still an encyclopedia worth a damn.
"Even though ultrasonic frequencies are inaudible to humans"
Once again, sampling has nothing to do with being able to hear greater than 20kHz or less than 20Hz. This entire section should ideally be rewritten as it's promoting this myth that sampling rate is somehow linked to hearing range or hearing a greater range of frequencies in audio. 86.41.241.197 (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I hear you! (pun intended). The white noise page has this same incorrect information. Embarassing, isn't it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.166.252.152 (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

text: How does one troll for attention when nothing points to me IRL - including dynamic IP. Audiophool techno-babble is like a weed that needs to be uprooted before it grows bigger. The user above (86.41.241.197) has a real concern that the same techno-babble is growing in this article and yet is not removed because people who think they know, don't, and don't know when to shut up... hence: "...wish Wikipedia was still an encyclopedia worth a damn." Address why wikipedia is becoming irrelevant then you can understand why knowledgable people are frustrated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.238.160 (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sampling Rate and Human Hearing Range