The band is new order
The track is Blue Monday.
Factory Records - Wikipedia were an odd bunch, but produced some great music if you were into that sort of thing.
The track is Blue Monday.
Factory Records - Wikipedia were an odd bunch, but produced some great music if you were into that sort of thing.
I am very content with the evening. I have found about 50 more to go in the cleaning pile though. Need to bribe the kids to help me with the cleaning production line.
I saw Durutti Column in London, a very "artistic" experience 🙂 Vini and a reel to reel and a harpist, probably Anne Van Den Troost
The sandpaper sleeve, genius
The sandpaper sleeve, genius
Last edited:
How many times have we heard this as Thee reason 44.1Khz sampling is fine:
"Just like Nyquist tells that the sample frequency Fs should be at least two times the highest signal frequency for correct reconstruction of the signal,"
Dont you know that only applies to a repetitive waveform? You cant construct a waveform from just 2 data points in one waveform cycle.
Anyone ever use a "digital" scope? Try to capture a single transient event with 2 samples. You need at least 5-10 data samples to even get a clue what the waveform shape and timing is. More data points and more detail is shown.
Nyquist works in both directions... more sampling needed for single cycle and fewer sampling points for many repeating cycles (2 being the minimum) With music it is of transient and never repeating waveform SO .... This is why (IMO) it sounds worse as the music content has higher frequencies... like cymbals. Not enough data points or too low sampling rate.
So, I answered the question of which is responsible for the improved sound... bits or rate. its mostly sampling rate.
Ok. sharpen your pencils... I am bracing myself for another wiz-bang EE101 thing. Remember though... keep in mind the central point -- Music is not repetitive waveforms ... and the phrase AT LEAST 2 points are needed really means with music waveforms you will need more than 2. More than 44.1Khz.
Someone told me at LLNL that if you run the sampling rate up high enough you will have the original analog signal. Seems he was right. But his problem with digitizing ultra fast transient signals was the sampling rate always had to be much higher than the signal being measured and they could barely keep up using wideband fast rise time analog techniques.
TEKtronix, when they first came out with digital scope techniques tried to use 2 times to make thier BW spec look better. They were called on it by people who really needed accurate waveform capture. Now they use 5 times. My TEK scope claims 300Mhz BW using 2 GHz sampling rate.
If you use the 5 times number, 44Khz barely gets you out of the midrange before falling apart. And that is exactly how it sounds, too.
THx-RNMarsh
"Just like Nyquist tells that the sample frequency Fs should be at least two times the highest signal frequency for correct reconstruction of the signal,"
Dont you know that only applies to a repetitive waveform? You cant construct a waveform from just 2 data points in one waveform cycle.
Anyone ever use a "digital" scope? Try to capture a single transient event with 2 samples. You need at least 5-10 data samples to even get a clue what the waveform shape and timing is. More data points and more detail is shown.
Nyquist works in both directions... more sampling needed for single cycle and fewer sampling points for many repeating cycles (2 being the minimum) With music it is of transient and never repeating waveform SO .... This is why (IMO) it sounds worse as the music content has higher frequencies... like cymbals. Not enough data points or too low sampling rate.
So, I answered the question of which is responsible for the improved sound... bits or rate. its mostly sampling rate.
Ok. sharpen your pencils... I am bracing myself for another wiz-bang EE101 thing. Remember though... keep in mind the central point -- Music is not repetitive waveforms ... and the phrase AT LEAST 2 points are needed really means with music waveforms you will need more than 2. More than 44.1Khz.
Someone told me at LLNL that if you run the sampling rate up high enough you will have the original analog signal. Seems he was right. But his problem with digitizing ultra fast transient signals was the sampling rate always had to be much higher than the signal being measured and they could barely keep up using wideband fast rise time analog techniques.
TEKtronix, when they first came out with digital scope techniques tried to use 2 times to make thier BW spec look better. They were called on it by people who really needed accurate waveform capture. Now they use 5 times. My TEK scope claims 300Mhz BW using 2 GHz sampling rate.
If you use the 5 times number, 44Khz barely gets you out of the midrange before falling apart. And that is exactly how it sounds, too.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
As usual, displaying 0 (zero) knowledge of Nyquist, sampling, discrete Fourier transform, and other basics in signal processing (waaaaaay before you could get into dithering and noise shaping). And yes, I know your opinion, knowledge is for losers only.
As I said multiple times, in my book, ingnorance is not a sin, proudly displaying it is.
This is not really true, although you'll hear it a lot. Two samples per cycle can perfectly reconstruct any waveform that doesn't violate Nyquist. Examples of exceptions always violate Nyquist if examined more carefully.
All good fortune,
Chris
Beat me to it, stunning in fact blatant denial of the basic theory. The hired and fired experts must have humored him. There are limits to not being an expert in anything.
Last edited:
yeh yeh yeh I knew this was coming. here we go with the EE101 thing ... Sampling rate is too low and sounds like it too. Figure out why. I gave you some clues is all.
Address the point please. Nyquist works in both directions... more sampling needed for single cycle and fewer sampling points for many repeating cycles (2 being the minimum). Address a single fast rise time pulse recording with sampling theory.... what do you need for sampling rate for accurate reproduction?
JC gave clue also when he said the wide BW of mc analog... Tr was a factor in what was accurate sounding compared to CD.
The higher sampling rate sounds more real or more accurate.
THx-RNMarsh
Address the point please. Nyquist works in both directions... more sampling needed for single cycle and fewer sampling points for many repeating cycles (2 being the minimum). Address a single fast rise time pulse recording with sampling theory.... what do you need for sampling rate for accurate reproduction?
JC gave clue also when he said the wide BW of mc analog... Tr was a factor in what was accurate sounding compared to CD.
The higher sampling rate sounds more real or more accurate.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Sigh...
Sampling a sine at exactly 2x will give any value from full amplitude to zero, depending on phase.
Mr Marsh is close.
Jn
Sampling a sine at exactly 2x will give any value from full amplitude to zero, depending on phase.
Mr Marsh is close.
Jn
...and books or articles are boring for a CEO with 4 EEs on his payroll and a DIY Audio factory in Thailand. There’s always a bigger fish to fry than reading.
Now you're obfuscating talking about the Nyquist limit literally which has little to do with the prattle above. A 22.04kHz sine sampled at 44.1kHz is reconstructed exactly any frequency or amplitude modulation, etc. can violate Nyquist if not filtered out.
Last edited:
Not really.
At limit, the reconstructed amplitude is entirely phase dependent. Just above, amplitude reconstruction is modulated.
In my work, I would never sample less than 10 to 20 times bw.
Sometimes, the person you adamantly oppose says something accurate..
Jn
yeh yeh yeh I knew this was coming. here we go with the EE101 thing ... Sampling rate is too low and sounds like it too. Figure out why. I gave you some clues is all.
Address the point please. Nyquist works in both directions... more sampling needed for single cycle and fewer sampling points for many repeating cycles (2 being the minimum). Address a single fast rise time pulse recording with sampling theory.... what do you need for sampling rate for accurate reproduction?
JC gave clue also when he said the wide BW of mc analog... Tr was a factor in what was more accurate sounding compared to CD.
The higher sampling rate sounds more real or more accurate.
------
Sampling a sine at exactly 2x will give any value from full amplitude to zero, depending on phase.
Mr Marsh is close.
Jn
-------
Another clue from JN.
Now you experts go away and figure out why a higher sampling rate is needed for non-repetitive waveforms for accurate sound.
THx-RNMarsh
Address the point please. Nyquist works in both directions... more sampling needed for single cycle and fewer sampling points for many repeating cycles (2 being the minimum). Address a single fast rise time pulse recording with sampling theory.... what do you need for sampling rate for accurate reproduction?
JC gave clue also when he said the wide BW of mc analog... Tr was a factor in what was more accurate sounding compared to CD.
The higher sampling rate sounds more real or more accurate.
------
Sampling a sine at exactly 2x will give any value from full amplitude to zero, depending on phase.
Mr Marsh is close.
Jn
-------
Another clue from JN.
Now you experts go away and figure out why a higher sampling rate is needed for non-repetitive waveforms for accurate sound.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
This violates Nyquist. As do any of the other examples I've ever heard purporting to disprove sampling theory. The classic goes "music is complicated" or something equally fuzzy along those lines.
All good fortune,
Chris
No, it does not.
A 1khz sine sampled at 2k can be captured every zero crossing.
I said nothing of complicated...
Granted, I am fuzzy, but it's the weekend.. I'll shave Monday.
Jn
Here's a test you can perform yourself, using only Audacity, to attack your question. From a very high sample rate source make three "downsampled" files. First bandlimit appropriate for a 96kHz sampling rate, then sample at 96kHz. Second bandlimit appropriate for Red Book, then sample at 44k1Hz and 96kHz.
This will tell you which part of the A/D/A process is bugging you.
All good fortune,
Chris
This will tell you which part of the A/D/A process is bugging you.
All good fortune,
Chris
Yes, it does violate Nyquist, which requires the sampling rate to be greater than (note: *not* equal) twice highest frequency of interest.
All good fortune,
Chris
- Status
- Not open for further replies.