Do you want to see if something can be measured before you see if it can be heard?
Thank you.
I had to look it up Sinc filter - Wikipedia
This is good for people who use mathematical SW packages to do their signal processing.
I am not up to that, so I hope to have acceptable results with fading in/out at the two ends of sine files.
A healthy and productive New Year to all
George
If SY did that I'm sure lots of people would try it. Of course, it might not work for everyone...
One difference here is I don't insist because I don't believe all humans on earth hear exactly the same way.
It would have to be your way since I don't have a good demonstration for reverb tails. Happy to have your help to figure one out.
Only because they all had a big white 'b' on them
I rather liked the performance. I am glad I can step back from worrying about decisions made in protools. I will take raw musicianship over polished dung any day.
This sentence sounds very sophisticated, almost impressive.
I would expect someone being able to formulate all this, first of all tries to find the answers by selfstudy before going out on a forum and dumping his concerns. It is easier than ever before to google answers on the internet.
But then, why should there be a such a thing as a superposition linearity problem in a linear system and why this concern that NRZ modifies the content. And as a matter of fact, NRZ is not dropped into a brickwall, the brickwall comes before NRZ.
To me it gives the impression that you are not really interested in answers but just want to have fun in participating a forum by repeating over and again the same stuff, sorry when I’m wrong.
This is in the same category as above. At 1500Hz only the difference in amplitude can tell wether the sound comes from 90 degrees or from 0 degrees because the phase of the signal is exactly the same at both ears.
No zero crossing can help you, apart from the fact that more recent studies reject the zero crossing theory.
In less than 5 minutes you can find this all out yourself on the internet, much less time as you have spent repeating your ITD concern on this forum.
So again, are you really interested in answers ?
Hans
JN,
IMO, problems with localization in reproduction are not a problem of Redbook per se. They are usually more a practical problem of reproduction equipment performance.
Of course, it could be that low-cost, low-performance systems can, on average, more easily reproduce satisfactory-to-most-people localization information at higher sample rates.
IMO, problems with localization in reproduction are not a problem of Redbook per se. They are usually more a practical problem of reproduction equipment performance.
Of course, it could be that low-cost, low-performance systems can, on average, more easily reproduce satisfactory-to-most-people localization information at higher sample rates.
Yes the ignorance of the basics in some of the comments here is disappointing. Picture below shows an ideal impulse at Redbook sampling that happens to be placed at an exact sample point. The solid line is the locus of samples for an ideal anti-aliasing (or reconstruction) filter. This should be familiar to anyone who has seen any number of DAC reviews showing up-sampling with a linear phase filter. Shifting this solid line left or right gives a new set of samples representing the impulse delayed or advanced in time. Even at Redbook (16/44.1) a shift of even a micosecond involves several 100 codes i.e. easily resolvable. In the frequency domain this is done by rotating the phase of the Fourier components proportional to frequency. Either of these operations can be done to arbitrary resolution using a CPU or DSP.
It is useful to remember one always ends up listening to a continuous analog version of the signal no matter what filtering is used.
Attachments
Last edited:
You are too easily impressed..
I am quite surprised you would even write that, given that the last few posts I put up with Richard were all about collaborative effort between individuals of multiple disciplines.
It's also easy to find a very large amount of incorrect information on the internet as well.
If you were to more carefully read, you would realize that the question deals with the fact that NRZ may not be linear. Are you now going to start spouting garbage about my saying linear systems do not support superposition? That is exactly how you framed your question. So stop trying to strawman me.(yah, it's a verb now)
I am fully aware of the need to limit the input to the A/D to below nyquist.
However, I also read the links that are posted as information. If you were to peruse Lavry's paper, you will note on page 25 and 26 he elaborates on the need to brickwall the NRZ stream as there is "lots of hf error energy". His words, not mine.(edit: he actually states the need to put NRZ into the filter on page 20.... 25 and 26 show results with discussion).
You have every right to be sorry when you are wrong..😀 I suspect however, you actually meant to say sorry if your wrong. And that's quite ok, I've no problem with your assessment, albeit incorrect as it is.
Localization of a constant amplitude sine as your math would suggest, is quite troublesome.
As researchers over the years actually have proved by measurement that "3.5K" or "5K, or even 12K jittered can be localized, your math falls apart based on actual measurements.
I actually was not the one to introduce zero crossing into the discussion. But I have indeed seen research papers that model the ear as such. And if you had read the posts carefully, I pointed out the problem of localization of a signal riding on a larger envelope low frequency such that very few zero crossings occur at the frequency of interest. Note that I also mentioned possible LP filtering of the cochlea as possibly a support of that hypothesis and contrary to my statement.
I make a wild guess here...had there been relevant content on this, you would have slapped it up here to prove me incorrect.
Given none of that, you seem to prefer to attack my motives.
The direct answer. Yes.
The indirect answer: Very knowledgeable people such as yourself should spend less time attacking people and motivations (and really, I should say focussing on instead of attacking, as that is far less problem causing).. , more time actually reading the content of posts, trying less to take others down, but to instead try to collaborate, or at least learn.
I am here to learn. What about you?
jn
happy new year..
Last edited:
Maybe it would be useful to explain what effect 16/44 resolution does have, if not what some suspect. Noise floor, for one thing. Trade-offs in practical filters commonly used, for another...
Just not ITD problems for humans that are attributable to Redbook itself, is about all that has been focused on.
Last edited:
A few hours left to vent all the negative energy guys. Soon we all have a very Happy New Year. 🙂
😀 Nope I'm not. But over a 3 day test drive I like to test and measure a car's limits... 🙂
Yes, some are deafer than others. 🙂 Or, do you mean some people's hearing has evolved differently than others or something else?
"Noise floor" is up to the dither used (TPD x noise shaped dither). Not sure that the term "noise floor" is well understood. Shall we rather restrict to noise spectral density at the frequency of interest and expressed in dBV/sqrt(Hz), or dBr/sqrt(Hz)? Even Arta can do it. Otherwise I am quite sure that the "noise floor" is very often misinterpreted as noise. Could we be exact for once instead of those touchy tearful posts?
However it is the absolute basis in signal processing and understanding is necessary to have a meaningful discussion.
IMHO, humans are born with some brain neuron organization prepared in advance. From there, genetics and everything else that happens to the human during the brains's development affects its subsequent organization and functioning. A virus may alter DNA. A mother singing to a baby, and or speaking Chinese, may increase likelihood for development of perfect pitch. All sorts of things can have some influence.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.