John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II - Page 913 - diyAudio
 John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II
 User Name Stay logged in? Password
 Home Forums Rules Articles diyAudio Store Gallery Wiki Blogs Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Search

 The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion.

 Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you. Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
 26th January 2011, 02:40 AM #9121 diyAudio Member     Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: berkeley ca Please continue on, Ed, if you will, with your experience with CEPSTRUM analysis. This is just out of my experience, but I am willing to learn, and I probably have the equipment to do it, as well. __________________ "Condemnation without Examination is Prejudice"
diyAudio Member

Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
 Originally Posted by scott wurcer Ed, you can have the last word. Let's get back to what an FFT's misses.
What does FFT miss? Plenty.

Here's a quick tutorial.

http://www.ele.uri.edu/~hansenj/projects/ele436/fft.pdf

As the tutorial shows, the number of points N determines how badly FFT misses the mark compared to the Continuous Time Fourier Transform. As N increases, FFT approaches the correct continuous time answer asymptotically. For precision, depending on how large N is, that may not be good enough.

The one exception I take to the tutorial is that the transform does not have to be applied from T=-infinity to T=+ infinity. If it did, the measurement would have had to have begun at the big bang and continue to the end of the universe. Continuous Fourier analysis gives the right answer for any waveform capture in the time domain between two arbitrary points T1 and T2.

The use of spectrum analyzers where band limited noise is used as the test signal is another perversion of Fourier Theory. A real spectrum analyzer uses a sweep generator, the slower the sweep the more accurate the results. The use of a tracking filter to eliminate spurious noise may be of value if it is absolutely flat within the required precision of measurement over its required range. If it is not, then it will distort the results unacceptably.

The measurement of frequencies beyond the capabilities of human hearing is a rejection of the very concept of Fourier analysis itself. Measurement of the noise floor below the threshold of hearing is also a canard. The information window for audibility is the limits of frequency and amplitude of human hearing, the required resolution no greater than the ability of human hearing to distinguish between differences in frequency and loudness. To be valid, any test should be at least one order of magnitude greater in resolution.

The AIA design criteria for an absolutely quiet concert hall where live music performed with the greatest dynamic range is NC 25 which I think is C weighted. In the real world with a real audience, the noise floor is much higher.

 26th January 2011, 12:24 PM #9123 diyAudio Moderator     Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Chicagoland Blog Entries: 2 It's not that the FFT "misses" anything, it's just that if the process isn't understood and appropriate parameters chosen for the specific things you're looking for, you won't get a valid measurement. No different than any other measuring tool (e.g., a voltmeter used to measure a high impedance node) used incorrectly. __________________ "You tell me whar a man gits his corn pone, en I'll tell you what his 'pinions is."
 26th January 2011, 12:26 PM #9124 diyAudio Member     Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Prague JC: CEPSTRUM is a tool to find periodicity in the SPECTRUM, not sure if it helps in a link level audio design at all. __________________ Pavel Macura http://pmacura.cz/audiopage.html
diyAudio Moderator

Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
 Originally Posted by john curl Please continue on, Ed, if you will, with your experience with CEPSTRUM analysis. This is just out of my experience, but I am willing to learn, and I probably have the equipment to do it, as well.
Take a look at Bill Waslo's excellent article "Reflecting on Echoes and the Cepstrum: A look at Quefrency Alanysis and Hearing" in Speaker Builder, Aug 1994. Bill also had a very nice paper on cepstral theory on his website, but it doesn't appear to still be there. It's an interesting technique- we played around with this during my Nicolet days.
__________________
"You tell me whar a man gits his corn pone, en I'll tell you what his 'pinions is."

diyAudio Member

Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
 Originally Posted by SY It's not that the FFT "misses" anything, it's just that if the process isn't understood and appropriate parameters chosen for the specific things you're looking for, you won't get a valid measurement. No different than any other measuring tool (e.g., a voltmeter used to measure a high impedance node) used incorrectly.
It is clear from the tutorial that when N is low, FFT gives grossly invalid results in the frequency domain in exaclty the same way digitizing an amplitude gives invalid results depending on what level of resolution you require compared to what the measuring instrument is capable of. Thus for example if you need to measure voltage to six places and your DVM only resolves to two places the measurement will be unsatisfactory.

This is not a comment about the adequacy of what FFT is being used to measure, it is a comment about the technique of FFT itself within the context of approximating the correct values obtainable by continuous fourier transform. It seems odd to me that those who are so vocally adamant about quantization errors of an insignificant order in RBCD have so completely missed the obvious potential flaw in FFT measurements. For those who use FFT, what is N in your measurement? FFT is certainly much cheaper than a real time analog spectrum analyzer. Are there computer programs which perform the equivalent of continuous fourier transform from an analog data capture device? Even using a very high number for N such as say 10,000 or 1,000,000 would be better than using a low number.

 26th January 2011, 02:12 PM #9127 diyAudio Moderator     Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Chicagoland Blog Entries: 2 Dude, it's the 21st century, not 1980. For even cheap analyzers, N can easily be set to 1M or higher. I can't remember the last time I used N smaller than 64k or so. Higher when I need to resolve closely spaced sidebands or drop the measurement floor. Add in the multiplex and throughput advantages, and you can see why the swept tone stuff is a relic. __________________ "You tell me whar a man gits his corn pone, en I'll tell you what his 'pinions is."
 26th January 2011, 02:24 PM #9128 diyAudio Member     Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: berkeley ca Ed, your EXPERIENCE with Cepstrum analysis, and where you have found it important. I agree that it can be most useful in loudspeaker analysis. I like understanding loudspeaker problems, as I have measured them myself, in the long past. __________________ "Condemnation without Examination is Prejudice"
diyAudio Member

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: away
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Soundminded A real spectrum analyzer uses a sweep generator, the slower the sweep the more accurate the results.
Agreed. Non-linear and/or multi-modal systems behave differently if the excitation frequency moves by too fast.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Soundminded The measurement of frequencies beyond the capabilities of human hearing is a rejection of the very concept of Fourier analysis itself.
Actually, if one intends to measure a system's impact on localization in the 2 to 5 uSec range, there are not many options available.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Soundminded The information window for audibility is the limits of frequency and amplitude of human hearing, the required resolution no greater than the ability of human hearing to distinguish between differences in frequency and loudness.
I'd add interchannel criteria as well, but that is not within the scope of what you've been stating...a scope which I do generally agree with.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Soundminded To be valid, any test should be at least one order of magnitude greater in resolution.
This is perhaps the most important statement in your post.

Cheers, John

ps..welcome back

diyAudio Member

Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
 Originally Posted by jneutron Agreed. Non-linear and/or multi-modal systems behave differently if the excitation frequency moves by too fast. Actually, if one intends to measure a system's impact on localization in the 2 to 5 uSec range, there are not many options available. I'd add interchannel criteria as well, but that is not within the scope of what you've been stating...a scope which I do generally agree with. This is perhaps the most important statement in your post. Cheers, John ps..welcome back
"Actually, if one intends to measure a system's impact on localization in the 2 to 5 uSec range, there are not many options available."

The critical importance of the ability to hear difference of arrival of the same sound between two ears of 2 to 5 uSec demonstrates that there is at the very least a fatal gap in the conventional understanding of sound localization, in fact the accepted model may be dead wrong. I am not at liberty to tell you what is lacking but its implications go far beyond localization. The proof that the theory is wrong is the fact that binaural sound recording/reproduction doesn't work. That system meets every criteria of the model, if the model was right it would work perfectly.

The frequency of a sound wave with a period of 5 uSec is 200 Khz, the frequency of one with a period of 2 uSec is 500 Khz. The limit of human hearing is in the vascinity of 20 khz. The understanding of how the human brain interprets the neural information it gets from the ears determines not only what is and is not important in accurate sound reproduction but the specification criteria for performance of a sound system intended to reproduce it accurately. The two go hand in hand. Between lack of knowledge of how sound works and lack of knowledge of how the brain hears means that current sound systems cannot be designed with the expectation of reproducing the subjective experience of a live musical performance. Until that gap is closed, investment in expensive sound reproducing equipment is a waste of money and trying to perfect a failed paradigm is a waste of time and effort. Meanwhile the claims of vast superiority for the most expensive equipment and technological breakthroughs never lets up. The reaons are not only commercial but also relate to egos.

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is OffTrackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are Off Forum Rules

 New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:22 AM.