Highest resolution without quantization noise - Page 32 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Member Areas > The Lounge

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
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 17th August 2014, 10:39 AM   #311
Julf is offline Julf  Europe
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kastor L View Post
Yes sorry I was not clear, normal DSD fulfills Nyquist, so double-rate DSD and octa-rate DSD "does nothing", in terms of the time resolution in your view?
Well, "does nothing" is an oversimplification, but just like a 44.1 kHz sample rate PCM signal can reproduce timing differences much smaller than the sample interval, a standard-rate DSD file can represent timing differences way beyond what the human ear can detect.
__________________
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th August 2014, 11:14 AM   #312
diyAudio Member
 
Kastor L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: South-East Asia
Send a message via ICQ to Kastor L
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julf View Post
Oh, look! There's someone that is wrong on the Internet! Wow!
Haha =)

So far I can deduct that it has really high / unsatisfactory latency for audio/visual, plus unsatisfactory pre-ringing.

He says 192 kHz recordings have much higher timing resolution, within the 20 - 20 bandwidth.

If that is true, then they should sound different, if they don't then why would tap length?

Although SY said these are not related I think.

I'm really not sure, that's why I'm checking in detail, to shine light on these considerations.

Even if a 20,000+ filter tap length is perceivable, I'm pretty sure it could be made for a few dollars, not a few thousand =)

Or you'd think the equivalent could be made in PC software.
__________________
SKY reference

Last edited by Kastor L; 17th August 2014 at 11:40 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th August 2014, 11:21 AM   #313
Julf is offline Julf  Europe
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kastor L View Post
he says 192 kHz recordings have much higher timing resolution
That is of course patently false.
__________________
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th August 2014, 12:16 PM   #314
diyAudio Member
 
Tattoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Laniakea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kastor L View Post
Chord Hugo - Page 202

"I agree very much with these two quotes, and it is simply down to the very big WTA tap length that Hugo enjoys - 26,368 taps, way way bigger than any other DAC I have seen.

Having all those taps means the interpolation filter does a more accurate job of reconstructing the original timing of the recording. Timing is an incredibly important cue for the brain, and we know that the ear/brain can resolve down to 4 micro seconds - so the brain via the inter-aural network is sampling at 250 kHz!

///

Anyhow, if the interpolation filter has an infinite number of taps, then it will reconstruct the timing and amplitude of the original bandwidth limited signal perfectly. That is a mathematical certainty. So increasing tap length will give better sound, because you are reconstructing the timing more accurately. Is 26,368 the last word? No its not, there is a huge difference going from 18,432 to Hugo's 26,368, I can't imagine that increasing it further won't make a big difference. When would increasing tap length stop improving the sound - 100k? 1M? 10M?

Nobody knows

Since Hugo has more taps than any other DAC, then the timing problems of red-book CD will be better handled by Hugo than any other DAC, and so the timing benefits of higher sample rates will get much smaller.

But why the suggestion that red-book has maybe better than higher sample rate recordings? I am starting to see this too, and I think the problem maybe down to the problems that high sample rate has - they have better timing resolution than red-book, but they let in a lot of HF rubbish from the ADC noise shapers. Now I know out of band noise creates big SQ problems, as it inter modulates in the analogue sections, it increases the DAC's sensitivity to jitter, with the result of more noise floor modulation, giving a harder more aggressive SQ. I hear this with DXD recordings, a brightness that sounds just like noise floor modulation. I am experimenting on filtering out this noise, to see if there is some benefit in doing this. Now red-book has timing problems, but it has no noise above 22.05 kHz (if you do the interpolation filter correctly!). So Hugo goes a very long way to fix the timing problems, so high rez recordings no longer enjoys better timing than red-book"
This is just a lot of misinformation and as mentioned before it goes against sampling theory.
I believe this myth comes from people looking at sample editor software and thinking this is actually what a digital wave looks like.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th August 2014, 12:46 PM   #315
diyAudio Member
 
Kastor L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: South-East Asia
Send a message via ICQ to Kastor L
Disinformation to fill the bank account.
__________________
SKY reference
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th August 2014, 02:13 AM   #316
diyAudio Member
 
Kastor L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: South-East Asia
Send a message via ICQ to Kastor L
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tattoo View Post
/// as mentioned before it goes against sampling theory.

I believe this myth comes from people looking at sample editor software and thinking this is actually what a digital wave looks like.
Strictly speaking you can't say it goes against "the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem".

It's in conflict with the chain of events, Nyquist-Shannon --> oversampling --> reconstruction filter.

In a filterless, non-oversampling DAC, a recording with 192,000 samples per second will have higher timing resolution in 20 Hz - 20,000 Hz than a recording with 48,000 / 96,000 samples per second, right?

Just trying to be concise and factual.



Nyquist?Shannon sampling theorem
__________________
SKY reference

Last edited by Kastor L; 18th August 2014 at 02:25 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th August 2014, 07:35 AM   #317
Julf is offline Julf  Europe
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kastor L View Post
Strictly speaking you can't say it goes against "the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem".

It's in conflict with the chain of events, Nyquist-Shannon --> oversampling --> reconstruction filter.

In a filterless, non-oversampling DAC, a recording with 192,000 samples per second will have higher timing resolution in 20 Hz - 20,000 Hz than a recording with 48,000 / 96,000 samples per second, right?

Just trying to be concise and factual.

Nyquist?Shannon sampling theorem
"If a function x(t) contains no frequencies higher than B hertz, it is completely determined by giving its ordinates at a series of points spaced 1/(2B) seconds apart."

If it is completely determined, it is completely determined. So the timing is completely determined too. So if your signal is bandwidth-limited to 20 kHz, it will be just as completely determined with a 48 kHz sample rate as with a 192 kHz sample rate.
__________________
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th August 2014, 07:39 AM   #318
diyAudio Member
 
abraxalito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hangzhou - Marco Polo's 'most beautiful city'. 700yrs is a long time though...
Blog Entries: 109
Send a message via MSN to abraxalito Send a message via Yahoo to abraxalito Send a message via Skype™ to abraxalito
All bets are off in Nyquist-Shannon land with a filterless NOS DAC since bandlimiting is a tenet of the theory.
__________________
Seek not the favour of the multitude...rather the testimony of few. And number not voices, but weigh them. - Kant
The capacity for impartial observation is commonly called 'cynicism' by those who lack it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th August 2014, 07:43 AM   #319
Julf is offline Julf  Europe
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by abraxalito View Post
All bets are off in Nyquist-Shannon land with a filterless NOS DAC since bandlimiting is a tenet of the theory.
Well, a truly filterless NOS DAC is broken by definition. In practice, they all have some sort of low-pass filter due to the limited bandwidth of the amp and speaker they are feeding, it is just sub-optimal and not under the control of the designer.
__________________
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th August 2014, 07:46 AM   #320
diyAudio Member
 
abraxalito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hangzhou - Marco Polo's 'most beautiful city'. 700yrs is a long time though...
Blog Entries: 109
Send a message via MSN to abraxalito Send a message via Yahoo to abraxalito Send a message via Skype™ to abraxalito
My comment wasn't intended as a criticism of your post Julf, rather to indicate that the question posted by Kastor about 'timing resolution' contained what seemed to me to be an inherent contradiction.
__________________
Seek not the favour of the multitude...rather the testimony of few. And number not voices, but weigh them. - Kant
The capacity for impartial observation is commonly called 'cynicism' by those who lack it.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Best way to highest efficiency? Carlp Full Range 75 4th March 2012 08:12 PM
Quantization Levels and Dynamic Range percy Digital Source 29 22nd May 2006 07:11 AM
Highest Quality 2-way amirmk Multi-Way 52 23rd August 2005 11:01 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:58 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2