Nyquist relates frequency and rate of change of frequency amplitude.
It is not arbitrary probing, but an inspection of what we expect the system to be capable of vs what nyquist requires.
Jn
Of course.
All this is a lot too complicated for me. Ask SYN08 ;-)
You know how we proceed when we have a new mic under test. We put-it in parallel with the one we use daily for it, and compare without telling nobody ;-).
And, to please Mr Harmonics, we carefully mark its reference on the mixing desk to know who is who ;-)
If it sound better for this instrument, or less expensive fore close result, we keep-it . Or not.
In fact, I think we know very little about what matters. By example, I was very surprised by the Sennheiser MD 441 the first time I tried-it. It sounds very dry with fast (subjective) transients, and hypercardioid (fantastic for drums). Looking further, it uses a horn in reverse and have the same character. What are the factors in action ? Damping ?
Anyway, my point was just that, yes, we have informations in the contents out of the mics above 20kHz.
My believe is just that what our ears dislike are unnatural brutal breaks in response or phase curves. Brick walls as an example. But it can be anything else.
60 kHz ? Like those plasma tweeters that seems to modulate a white noise by the music ? Not very successful !
Last edited:
🙂 When the excusses come... sort of like -- well a lot of mics dont go high enough, anyway.....I know there has been an acceptance to a large degree.
I tried using practical examples.... TEK scope's single-shot signal capture using at least 5-10 sample minimum for a spec.... 2 samples didnt fly.... Zoom. I used musicians who listen to cymbal for a living hear dullness and blur compared to real ... Zoom. ETC. Lots of practical.. and myself... just listen and then figure out the solution. The sampling rate is from experience is obviously, intuitively too low. So, try a higher sampling rate... yes, that sounds more accurate now. And lot of trash talk. Nothing meant anything until JN could explain it in a very certain way that explains why. Then the excuses begin.
All I can say is... wow.
Some of you, after a good nights rest, should go out in the morning and hang yourself.
THx-RNMarsh
I tried using practical examples.... TEK scope's single-shot signal capture using at least 5-10 sample minimum for a spec.... 2 samples didnt fly.... Zoom. I used musicians who listen to cymbal for a living hear dullness and blur compared to real ... Zoom. ETC. Lots of practical.. and myself... just listen and then figure out the solution. The sampling rate is from experience is obviously, intuitively too low. So, try a higher sampling rate... yes, that sounds more accurate now. And lot of trash talk. Nothing meant anything until JN could explain it in a very certain way that explains why. Then the excuses begin.
All I can say is... wow.
Some of you, after a good nights rest, should go out in the morning and hang yourself.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
I am just annoyed and frustrated with the straw man, one upmanship and trash talking everytime I open my mouth. I try to tell the truth and get a lot of trash in return.
Anyway, thank you for explaining it in such elegant terms and with clarity and focus. And, not giving up.
You are also then stubborn. 🙂 🙂
-Richard
Last edited:
Never said that, just making sure everyone realizes that in general simple math does not have any source of non-linear behavior. Except of course to Ed and the exponentials are never straight lines. 🙂
Unfortunately, I do. It took over a week of confusion, starting with examples violating Nyquist, NRZ linearity BS, ITD being affected by Nyquist, etc... bla... to end up in the place we could be if pertinent questions would be asked in the first place. But then asking questions is for the wusses, it implies the knowledge is not there, hence, for some, an ego bruise.
And the comedy of BS continues, now we are essentially discussing the (more or less) brickwall filtering effect on a pulse shape, like this is the ultimate novelty. Ridiculous.
K. Wasn't sure.
Hey, you mentioned Ed and Iron Sky... I started watching the first episode while I workout, it's not exactly floating my boat yet. Does it, like, get interesting at some point?
Went through this with the reborn lost in space, it was going good until they kept Dr. Smith... Every episode, they get into trouble, she does something bad, they live through a close call...sigh. At least Jonathan Harris was funny.....next
Speaking of floobydust, 34009....
Ps... Gotta love the "I knew it all along/everyone else is stoopid" schtick from 08..such a low bar. Reminds me of the "plucky comedy relief" in galaxy quest. Except without the plucky, or relief.
Jn
Last edited:
Guess I'll have to watch more. Another 600 calories lost to the exercise bicycle.
Jn
Mhm, did I question that?
Presumably you misunderstood my post; as this discussion is related to something that could happen if you use a system (like "Redbook") with a very small safety margin and I somehow doubt that such usage of a system was what he would had intended.
@Syn08,
A bit of self-reflection would be nice.
Just as one example, endless discussions about why amplifier THD measurements with sine waves can't be called "steady state measurements" do not support your case.
IOW, those comments like yours and (others) should only posted by members who never posted questionable content. Which means such posts would never happen again, IMHO of course...... 😉
Sampling scopes are the most extreme example of requiring an exactly repetitive input over many cycles and of course have nothing to do with the subject at hand.
I used to own a prototype of Tek's first sampling scope designed in part by Barrie Gilbert while in the UK in 1963. It contained almost every exotic semiconductor ever made, but the sampler was the grid capacitance of a 6CW4 nuvistor.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
JN, Do you yet understand the remaining objections to your sorta-hypothesis well enough to be able to restate them in your own words? This seems doubtful to me.
In other words, it is one thing to be able to explain your own point of view or your own arguments. Another thing to understand objections in a very technical subject nearly so well.
As I said (afair quite at the beginning) it is a bit disturbing that we seem to have to start over everytime at point zero, considering that it is a topic discussed before (numerous times) and that we are more or less always the same bunch of guys talking about it.
Of course you've to admit that the "2 samples don't fly" line is misleading, but as you were advocating for higher sampling rates before, I'd say it could not have been _that_ difficult to get that you were talking about the nonsufficient sampling rate ("Redbook") to record something like a cymbal crash......
No. A clarification perhaps, as it read like the trade off between rise time and bandwidth we use to buy scope probes worrying about.
We are in violent agreement. I was only thing of a "probe" as a windowed sample, you clearly didn't intend that..sorry for any misunderstanding on my part.
Jn
I understand what I said completely. I understand everything everybody else misunderstands, they are all crushed like a grape, and it's all your fault..
That was fun to type...😉
As far as I know, I provided a pretty clean explanation, and for the most part I think I understand the roots of the objections.
Not sure how to better embellish. But certainly willing to try..
Later though, got my workout stuff on, gonna watch some more Iron Sky.
Jn
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.