Digital Facts and realities?

[struth]

...and prance around the place, dressed as you wish

Marco.

indeed, and in any dress i choose

[Stratmangler]

I have a friend who lives in a 4 storey house.
He has a wireless access point in the bottom storey, and another 2 floors up.
Add in the ISP's router, and he has superb WiFi coverage.

My friend lives in an old stone house, where the lowest level is below street level, but backing out onto a canal.

[Clive]

Mostly our wifi is fine, I use a similar placement to you friend with a 4 storey house but without a repeater - coverage even on the top floor is fine. Indeed my music room is just one wall and floor away, strength is good; it's the competing signals or router which can't cope with so many connections. It only gets its knickers in a twist every couple of weeks or so and it take seconds to sort out usually, but it's not fit for non-IT iterate people.

I use the powerlines if I need loads of bandwidth at the extremes of the range.

[Jimbo]

Basically for convieneince. The correct way is a lollypop graph, the stair step graphs that we've been fed with for decades are technically incorrect and confusing, there are no gaps in a sampled, correctly bandwidth limited signal. This is still a great video from Xiph.org FF to 6mins, explains it all....and at 20:55 https://www.xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml you'll need chrome or firfox to view.

What happens Inbetween the samples?

[Jimbo]

Surely sampling is by definition being selective, and so what a waveform is doing between sampling points is disregarded, which of course raises the question of whether or not the sampling rate is high enough to present a facsimile of the original waveform which is indistinguishable from the original.

The period between the samples is neglected, and what occurs in the waveform in this neglect, cannot be even detected, let alone reproduced.

Excellent post and questions I have pondered over for sometime.

[Clive]

What happens Inbetween the samples?

Seems like it's an educated guess which will mostly be correct....then we're told that nothing weird can happen between samples....this is where my original question came in. Are we relying of 1940's theory here is what I'm wondering; at what point does the theory break down?

The output of a DAC is not a staircase (or collection of lollipops) but the raw data surely is. If it's incontrovertible that the linking of two samples can only ever follow one curve then fine but at my superficial level it's hard to believe.

[mikmas]

What happens Inbetween the samples?

At a rate of 44100 samples per second, how big would you expect any 'gap' to be?

As an experiment you might try cutting a hundredth of a second slice out of a guitar note wave form (using an audio editor)

Listen back to the result - do you hear the jump?

[Clive]

At a rate of 44100 samples per second, how big would you expect any 'gap' to be?

As an experiment you might try cutting a hundredth of a second slice out of a guitar note wave form (using an audio editor)

Listen back to the result - do you hear the jump?

I worry that's the logic that's been used. If you don't hear the jump there can't be any sonic impact whatsoever.

[mikmas]

I worry that's the logic that's been used. If you don't hear the jump there can't be any sonic impact whatsoever.

I think most of the confusion stems from our complete inability to grasp just how ridiculously fast the sample rate is - and therefore come up with all kinds of straw-clutching problems that don't actually exist.

[Clive]

I think most of the confusion stems from our complete inability to grasp just how ridiculously fast the sample rate is - and therefore come up with all kinds of straw-clutching problems that actually don't hold up.

I expect that is true is reality but it seems 44,100hz isn't overkill, it's just enough but here I'm conflating frequency extension with the gaps between samples.

Is though "there are so many samples, of course it's good enough", a good scientific proof? Can we double the gap or make it 10 times bigger without issue or are we on the edge?