Go Back   Home > Forums > >
Home Forums Rules Articles diyAudio Store Blogs Gallery Wiki Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Digital Source Digital Players and Recorders: CD , SACD , Tape, Memory Card, etc.

sampling-rate calculation
sampling-rate calculation
Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 15th November 2016, 10:04 PM   #1
Grasso789 is offline Grasso789  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Juelich
Smile sampling-rate calculation

Hello,

i ask you to tell me, provided a constant sampling interval, how hi a sampling rate f is necessary in order to capture any signal of F dynamic range, retaining p power bandwidth and introducing neither ringing nor aliasing. Clear is, that only lopasses of first order, possibly cascaded, may be used. Also clear is, that the filter must attentuate signal components above half sampling rate to belo dynamic range.

If only one reactance is allowed, it gets f=2*p*F, well two Gigasamples/second for p and F of the stereo Compact Disc. This also is the formula for F equal 2, in case of which a cascade of lopasses is of no use. Optimizing for greater F, one uses multiple reactances and must take into account passband response of a first-order lopass. For example, for F equal 8 (~18dB) one would apply three equal lopasses, one of which attentuates ruffly -1dB at p, -3dB at 2p and -6dB at 4p. Compared to using only one reactance, one can halve f.

I guess, one uses as many reactances as the logarithm of F to base of 2, which is 16 for the Compact Disc. I also guess, that now f must be 2p times the root of F. For a New stereo Compact Disc one needs f=2*2*16KHz*256, well 15 Megasamples/s.

If one allows moderate ringing at and above p and does not make a fuzz about F, f=MagneticFrequency=2*Pi*p.

Last edited by Grasso789; 15th November 2016 at 10:17 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th November 2016, 08:19 PM   #2
Grasso789 is offline Grasso789  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Juelich
Talking Grasso filters

A cascade of two first-order filters of equal corner frequency is also called a second-order filter with Q=1/2 or a second-order Linkwitz filter. But a cascade of more first-order filters of equal corner frequency has no name yet, or has it? It is useful, as it has the fastest transition from pass- to stopband of all filters without ringing. The key is equal corner frequency of each first-order filter element.

Calculating it, one chooses n elements, that each one attentuates for 6dB at the frequency, at and above or below which everything shall be discarded. Power bandwidth is then calculated as (root of ((nth root of 2) minus 1) times corner frequency of a single element), see Filter". Should resulting power bandwidth be too small, then one must think over one's goals of dynamic range, power and discard frequencies, because it ain't getting any steeper without ringing anyway.

Last edited by Grasso789; 17th November 2016 at 08:26 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th November 2016, 04:24 PM   #3
lcsaszar is offline lcsaszar  Hungary
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Budapest, Hungary
Check Bessel filters in any textbook.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2017, 03:20 PM   #4
Grasso789 is offline Grasso789  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Juelich
Hello, Bessel filters have maximum flat phase, just like Butterworth filters have maximum flat amplitude. But Bessel filters ring. At lo filter orders not much, but I would not use a Bessel lopass of 100th order as aliasing-preventer for recording 20KHz bandwidth to 44KHz 16 bits samples.
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2017, 09:09 AM   #5
DF96 is offline DF96  England
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Bessel filter
Gaussian filter
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2017, 09:58 AM   #6
Grasso789 is offline Grasso789  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Juelich
Quote:
Originally Posted by grasso789
Bessel filters have maximum flat phase
No, they have maximum flat group delay. Still this does not mean freedom from ringing.

Thanks for not ignoring me anymore, DF96! Gaussian filters cause pre-ringing, because their impulse response rises as an asymptote to flat. Perfectly this only works with an infinite time delay. In contrary to that, a minimum-phase filter or allpass, say an analogue filter, shows an impulse response, which jumps out of flat, not necessarily vertically but with a lift-off point. This does not need a time delay.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd March 2017, 12:34 AM   #7
Ken Newton is offline Ken Newton  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Ken Newton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania
Since you're thinking theoretically, not practically, I suspect you may be making the problem more complex than is necessary. The required sample rate is determined by the signal's bandwidth. If the maximum signal frequency falls to the level of the system quantization floor by frequency F, then the system Nyquist frequency can be set to F. So long as the sample rate is => F*2, no anti-alias filter is required. In other words, the signal would be incapable of provoking aliasing, therefore, no anti-alias filter is required. Anti-alias filters become necessary where the signal's maximum bandwidth is not completely known or guaranteed.

Last edited by Ken Newton; 3rd March 2017 at 12:42 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd March 2017, 11:04 AM   #8
Grasso789 is offline Grasso789  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Juelich
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Newton View Post
Anti-alias filters become necessary where the signal's maximum bandwidth is not completely known or guaranteed.
And is it? Natural acoustic sources are not strictly bandwidth-limited, neither microphones are. A microphone may record a pair of cymbals with -12 dB at 32KHz. In order to provide for this fact, we must either set sampling rate to at least 64 KHz or further lopass-filter the signal, further than what the microphone already does.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd March 2017, 12:58 PM   #9
Ken Newton is offline Ken Newton  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Ken Newton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grasso789 View Post
And is it? Natural acoustic sources are not strictly bandwidth-limited, neither microphones are. A microphone may record a pair of cymbals with -12 dB at 32KHz. In order to provide for this fact, we must either set sampling rate to at least 64 KHz or further lopass-filter the signal, further than what the microphone already does.
In what way are natural acoustic sources not bandwidth limited? Even if they weren't, microphones and their amplifiers are certainly bandwidth limited. The Nyquist frequency only need extend to the frequency where their output has fallen to the level of the channel quantization noise floor, and even that may easily prove a more demanding requirement than necessary for an application intended for human auditory perception.

The only study on the ultrasonic spectrum of live instruments I readily found via Google is by James Boyk. His spectrum analyzer test limit was 102KHz, where the output was roughly 70dB below the peak output. My eyeball estimation of the charted roll-off rate is that it would be down roughly 100dB by 200kHz. If we double that figure to 400kHz for an additional octave of margin, an roughly 1MHz sample rate seems likely adequate to capture any music without recourse to an anti-alias filter. Without suffering audible aliasing.

If you like, double the sample rate again to 2MHz. Whatever is the minimum required rate, it seems orders of magnitude lower than the 2GHz you had calculated for supporting the ultra wide transition band of an non-ringing anti-alias filter.
Attached Images
File Type: jpeg image.jpeg (78.1 KB, 30 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd March 2017, 02:51 PM   #10
DF96 is offline DF96  England
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grasso789
Thanks for not ignoring me anymore, DF96!
I have a poor memory, so fortunately for you I cannot remember why I put you into my 'ignore list'. Let us hope that you can now stay out of it.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


sampling-rate calculationHide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A Question about the sampling rate and range??? jeronomije PC Based 5 15th April 2011 10:46 AM
spdif soundcard with auto sampling rate vincent_brient PC Based 2 21st December 2009 06:24 AM
AES3 and SPDIF sampling rate jasonkee111 Digital Line Level 0 26th August 2009 09:43 AM
Why are more bits/ higher sampling rate better? preiter Digital Source 42 23rd September 2007 08:41 PM
AD1890 sampling rate converter problem nFORCE Digital Source 1 25th November 2002 03:53 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:26 AM.


Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 15.00%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2018 diyAudio
Wiki