But the sampling oscilloscope has nothing to do with audio. You need to join the insects and specialize.
You dont see a connection with 2 samples and CW. Its in the def of NYq. CW.
Every def I found makes it a point to say for a continuous signal, then you can get away with as few as 2 samples per cycle.
Maybe its just me.
I agree it is not what is being done in audio. At least not as applied to CD. But, Now it can be done. We have no BW limitation imposed by physical (disc) media any more and mem is cheap.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Hi Richard, I am confused by the difference between the old fashioned 'sampling scope' where extended BANDWIDTH was gained by sampling a REPETITIVE SIGNAL and storing the samples over time, and a 'digital scope', that samples the waveform to get the picture, but it seems that there is a difference, yet the term 'sampling' is used for both.
Personally, I agree with you that you need more samples to do a 'picture perfect' high frequency waveform than just 2, if it is at all complex or non-continuous.
What is the problem here? Why can't some engineers give us fair definitions of what we are seeking, without quibbling about our definitions, etc?
Personally, I agree with you that you need more samples to do a 'picture perfect' high frequency waveform than just 2, if it is at all complex or non-continuous.
What is the problem here? Why can't some engineers give us fair definitions of what we are seeking, without quibbling about our definitions, etc?
Attachments
Last edited:
I understand what you are saying Scott. Like I said already, no laws need to be broken but we need more than CD... greater BW and sampling rates. I am not arguing the math used. It is perfect. It needs to be extended way beyond CD 16/44. The TEK info is for back-ground info.
IT needs explaining regarding the greater sampling rates sound better. Thats what I am waiting to know more. I dont find the 2x relavent to audio sound any more once BW and sampling rate is much higher. .. further away from audio freqs.
Here is an interesting comparison..... I first heard major differences between my own analog Master tapes and CD.
YouTube
Do they all sound the same to you... i am using the earphones for listening thru my computer DAC and hear very different sounds from each format. As I do differences between CD and 24/192+
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
I first heard major differences between my own analog Master tapes and CD.
I used 30 ips 1/2 track and wide band, flat cond mics. See any pattern starting to be developed, yet?.
That is when the cymbals jumped out at me as very much improved compared to CD.
Keep your Nyq but increase BW and sampling rate. Then we dont care what happens at the bands Nyq freq end., cw or not, filtering etal. It will be too far removed to matter any more to audio sound freqs.
Just sayin' even as a practical matter. ...
THx-RNMarsh
I used 30 ips 1/2 track and wide band, flat cond mics. See any pattern starting to be developed, yet?.
That is when the cymbals jumped out at me as very much improved compared to CD.
Keep your Nyq but increase BW and sampling rate. Then we dont care what happens at the bands Nyq freq end., cw or not, filtering etal. It will be too far removed to matter any more to audio sound freqs.
Just sayin' even as a practical matter. ...
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Real-Time Versus Equivalent-Time Sampling | Tektronix
Had the cold blooded TEK engineers were in charge of CD specs (and been forced to adopt the 44100Hz sampling rate), the accurately reproducible audio waveform would have been specified to an upper limit of 17540Hz.
I could happily live with that when my hearing was still healthy.
George
Had the cold blooded TEK engineers were in charge of CD specs (and been forced to adopt the 44100Hz sampling rate), the accurately reproducible audio waveform would have been specified to an upper limit of 17540Hz.
I could happily live with that when my hearing was still healthy.
George
All you insects, you make it so hard for the non-specialized species to decipher your words!
GIC:generalized impedance converter or gyrator
FDNR: frequency dependent negative resistor
MFB: multiple feedback
And I was about to ask what is the theory behind Scott’s antiimaging filter design. 😱
Frequency dependent negative resistor - Wikipedia
(thanks Chris🙂 )
George
That sort of side steps the issue I have with CD. The sampling rate is too low from listening comparing with higher sampling rate music files.
Sure make it larger and Nyq still works. Transform will work on any BW. Thats obvious. But then it isnt a CD spec any more.
So, what do you think is a better sampling rate and freq; BW? Or is everything just fine with CD spec, IYO?
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
I think I'm getting a handle on the issue. You're comparing totally different masters in different formats and choosing preferences as if all the masters were the same and the only differences heard came from the formats.
For a really horrible example of how far wrong this can go, listen to the Warner Brothers factory CDs of your favorite early Van Morrison album in the first (pre-1990), the second (1997) and the third (2008) CD masters. The remasters are terribly botched, but they're all factory CDs, same tapes, same (CD) format.
In a modern context, new masters _must_ be made for any HiRez format. Is it any surprise that they would sound different? And hopefully better? Better modern converters, etc. But this is completely independent of the release format chosen.
All good fortune,
Chris
Last edited:
I agree with you. They are different. Do you hear any differences in the sound quality not related to formats?
My own comparison is with CD and my own analog master tapes. I take my tape and record it on Red Book recorder and then listen. Nothing has been EQ'ed etc.
None of my CD collection sound as accurate and realistic as a master tape. However, 24/192+ rec/play sounds amazing better.
Now if we could just get better music and microphones... be in heaven. Its been a long quest but IMO we are just about there. But better speakers are needed at more affordable prices for all to enjoy.
My biggest problem is a really flexible and accurate sounding electronic cross-over. I have a few brands/models but they are not up to high audio standards... though quite good other wise. So, I ordered 2 Super-X Pro CX3400 to try next. Has most of what I need and maybe some tweaking inside can produce some quick and easy improvements, if needed. I have one now here and will take the cover off today and see what its make of.
-RNM
Last edited:
If you have CD copies of your own tapes, that's a pretty good start, and unlike the youtube thing resolves the issue of source. So the next step is to make a HiRez transfer of one of your tapes and a 22.05KHz bandlimited version of that, maintaining the original sample rate. Anything less is ambiguous, and frankly, sloppy science.
It might be fun to compare the tape to both formats too. Just as a reality check.
ps: our posts have overlapped, but not fatally.
Much thanks, as always,
Chris
Last edited:
I mentioned a while ago that it may be better to base the sample rate on the temporal spectrum required. The real limitation are mics and speakers.
I see this argument a lot - can't you see that if you stoped your subscription, you would still have access to the music. Your guess is wrong.
//
Yes. and on the microphone side of things, many new condens types which are affordable now exist and are being used. Take a look at the very popular new line up here, as an example....
Studio | Audio-Technica
Press Release - GRAMMY® Awards Show Uses Audio-Technica Microphones for 16th Straight Year || Audio-Technica
Billie Eilish...The singer went on to sweep up four of the biggest awards that night, making her the first female artist to do so. Her debut album When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go? was crowned Best Album of the Year, while the song "Bad Guy" won Song of the Year and Record of the Year.The production setup was relatively simple, too. According to a Pro Sound Network interview with O'Connell, all there was in this bedroom was a pair of $200 Yamaha HS5 nearfield monitors with an H8S subwoofer ($450), a Universal Audio Apollo 8 interface and Apple's Logic Pro X. Oh, and a bed, of course, against one of the walls, on which Eilish sat to record with an Audio Technica AT2020 mic
Better mic are being used a lot more now that they are affordable. Even musicians can afford them. 🙂
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
I've wondered for a while if JC could make some line-level stuff like crossovers or equalizers, maybe an adjustable Linkwitz transform. But he's not really in the manufacturing biz, more design. It would be cool for a few very wealthy Blowtorch owners to have some related bits I guess. Leaves me out of course.
All the best fortune,
Chris
Aaaand, I've come to find that regardless of sample rate / bit depth, you can still build something unlistenable - once spoiled.
I bought an Asus U7, hoping to do xover in software, supplying HP and LP outputs simultaneously. Testing to see if my fleabay purchase even worked, it took a minute of listening to hear its inferiority to my Aune T1.
These have different 192K / 24 bit DAC chips; Cirrus for the U7 and Burr-Brown for the T1. I'd think my hearing would NOT be able to distinguish any difference, but I can - and quickly. Even with a paltry 64 kbs aac stream as source. My question is, how can this possibly be, in this day and age's specs?
So it must be how the silicon parts are used and the supporting circuitry design and components causing even a greater negative effect than the goodness either the high sample rate or the high bit depth the DAC components provide. Pisses me off on one hand, on the other I'm glad I can still hear such subtleties.
The Aune paints a wide swath of gorgeous, captivating 3 dimensional image between the speakers, the Asus is like flat, unfocused with instrument placement warped toward each speaker. Images are there, but not even close - and I cant even listen to it. Had I never owned the Aune, I could probably plug along happy as a clam with the Asus...
So I'd lay money on a finely done low sample rate DAC, beating a high sample rate unit - with all its specs and dynamics and filters set way out beyond audibility, advantages which can all be easily obscured by other circuit design aspects - apparently. AFAICT, the Asus uses good silicon for both analog and digital signals. I have no idea what the root cause of it sounding so different in the sound-stage imaging aspect could possibly be.
I bought an Asus U7, hoping to do xover in software, supplying HP and LP outputs simultaneously. Testing to see if my fleabay purchase even worked, it took a minute of listening to hear its inferiority to my Aune T1.
These have different 192K / 24 bit DAC chips; Cirrus for the U7 and Burr-Brown for the T1. I'd think my hearing would NOT be able to distinguish any difference, but I can - and quickly. Even with a paltry 64 kbs aac stream as source. My question is, how can this possibly be, in this day and age's specs?
So it must be how the silicon parts are used and the supporting circuitry design and components causing even a greater negative effect than the goodness either the high sample rate or the high bit depth the DAC components provide. Pisses me off on one hand, on the other I'm glad I can still hear such subtleties.
The Aune paints a wide swath of gorgeous, captivating 3 dimensional image between the speakers, the Asus is like flat, unfocused with instrument placement warped toward each speaker. Images are there, but not even close - and I cant even listen to it. Had I never owned the Aune, I could probably plug along happy as a clam with the Asus...
So I'd lay money on a finely done low sample rate DAC, beating a high sample rate unit - with all its specs and dynamics and filters set way out beyond audibility, advantages which can all be easily obscured by other circuit design aspects - apparently. AFAICT, the Asus uses good silicon for both analog and digital signals. I have no idea what the root cause of it sounding so different in the sound-stage imaging aspect could possibly be.
Last edited:
When differences are very obvious, check if some embedded effects get into play.
In ASUS Xonar U7, is it possible to bypass the Dolby surround decoder & virtualiser?
Ditto for the intelligent equalizer, dialogue enhancer
Headphone out also deliberately alters the dynamics (to satisfy gamers)
George