The "evidence" occures when you use a faster sampling rate and it sounds more accurate compared to live.
Though it is not the kind of evidence you want to accept or use. Fine..
-RNM
Last edited:
you didnt read it, did you?
One type of sampling scope is for transients and the other type of sampling scope is for continuous waveforms.
The other ref. discusses the 5 times sampling rule.
[ IMO 10-20 times is more useful. ]
-RM
Last edited:
This is hard, almost impossible to define, particularly if we are still talking about recorded commercial material?
It seems to be? What do you mean by live?
I know it's not easy to answer, but have a go, don't be shy, it's not you.
I know it's not easy to answer, but have a go, don't be shy, it's not you.
Last edited:
Well, fortunately, we are not trying to design a single-shot DSO. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.
Which exactly applies to you as well, as much as to everybody else. So stop playing the content ueber censor and moral headlight role, and mind your own business of promoting the High End Audio FUD elsewhere. Based on Oohashi, of course.
Last edited:
For Jakob-
Thinking to this, i concluded that accurate was not the good word for me.
Believable should be better, and, if possible (and it is, most of the time) better than live.
(Oh, the real voice of most of the singers ;-)
That sounds like a reasonable goal T, coming from someone I choose to believe has experience in the recording industry 🙂 Words like accurate or better when applied to reproduction are very easy to define in my opinion. Words like "live" applied to reproduction seem the most meaningless of all to me.
I already and in details described what and how to know and to what degree your repo system is accurate. It requires a "live" instrument in the room to compare. I am not going to repeat myself for each person. Accurate as opposed to just different or Better or Like. More realistic is also fine as the evidence re. sampling rate increase.
THx-RNMarsh
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Presumably, you understand the objection that transient amplitude envelopes are also limited by Nyquist, since they are equivalent to a spectrum of continuous sine waves.
Another issue you raised was about there not being enough 'energy' in a near-Nyquist so-called fish-pattern for individual small samples to reproduce a full amplitude continuous sine wave, is that correct?
If so, don't know if anyone explained that the necessary energy should be stored in the brickwall filter from (recent) prior samples of the continuous wave (at least I can't think of an analog or FIR filter that reasonably approximates a brick wall that doesn't temporarily store/continue to use prior information or energy, and or information from the future in the case of some digital filters).
Last edited:
A week of argueing? Can someone record a 20k sine at 44.1 then measure the distortion and amplitude on playback?
My explanation included the fact that a filter with a high Z count will store energy so to speak, and will smooth out the sampling beat artifact. My use of Z count is the same as "number of taps". I would be concerned however, with the resultant amplitude as well. But a really large tap filter doesn't pick up the hf envelope if the envelope changes much faster than the content can prop through the filter.
Imagine the 22k as a gated signal, nothing to full amplitude starting at zero phase. We all agree this violates nyquist of course. The question is, as that sampled wave propagates through the filter to the end, how long will it take for the filter to reach full amplitude?
Lower frequencies will reach full amplitude faster.
Or, sampled faster, faster to full.
I provided the equational relationship to show how fast the sampled stream will provide sufficient knowledge such the transient will have died down.
Ah..perhaps this will help. If I amplitude modulate a 20k signal 100% using a 5 kHz signal, I have raised the 20k to full value in roughly 3 cycles. Neither component violates nyquist, yet there is 25k content now that does indeed violate.
When I hit a cymbal for example, how many cycles does it take to reach full amplitude, and what modulation envelope most defines the rising amplitude? Can the resultant spectra exceed nyquist, and does bricking at 22k remove too much information?
Jn
Ps..Scott, I just couldn't make it through a full hour of Iron Sky..sheesh.
Last edited:
Given the results of the analysis, that will show only that a sufficiently long FFT will show perfection in the reproduction of sines.
Jn
“Some of you, after a good nights rest, should go out in the morning and hang yourself”
😀
That’s the best line I’ve seen for months!
😀
That’s the best line I’ve seen for months!
It's called usually "filter settling time", it exists both in the analog and digital domain and some ADCs have counter measures built in to avoid acquiring data that is not stable after passing through the anti-aliasing filter.
AD7715: Filter settling time - Documents - Precision ADCs - EngineerZone
More details:
Transient Response, Steady State, and Decay | Introduction to Digital Filters
And even more details:
https://stars.library.ucf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5710&context=rtd
By all means, a non issue for music reproduction.
AD7715: Filter settling time - Documents - Precision ADCs - EngineerZone
More details:
Transient Response, Steady State, and Decay | Introduction to Digital Filters
And even more details:
https://stars.library.ucf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5710&context=rtd
By all means, a non issue for music reproduction.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.