The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
if higher sample rate doesnt matter then why .... Effects Pedals, Units & Accessories
Old 19th September 2011
  #391
Lives for gear
 
doug hazelrigg's Avatar
I wasn't familiar with the Everest book, but it looks like it's a bit more digestible (and much cheaper, too).
Old 19th September 2011
  #392
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
The effect of the moon is measurable, calculable, predictable, visibile and provable - and probably lots of other words ending in "ibble" (random Red Dwarf quote there).

I'm not sure if that's the same for supersonic frequencies.
Supersonic frequencies are also measurable, calculable, predictable, and provable. I think what you are driving at is that they are not perceivable by humans. The same applies to effects of a moon we can't see (or even one we can see) on humans and their behaviour despite popular belief: Lunacy and the Full Moon: Scientific American

Alistair
Old 19th September 2011
  #393
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboJets View Post
We may not be able to hear ultrasound but it does affect the human body.
Yes but not at audio SPL levels. I'm not saying you claimed it did. Just clarifying to avoid the "we can perceive ultra sounds so we need higher sample rates" fallacy.

Alistair
Old 19th September 2011
  #394
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
Supersonic frequencies are also measurable, calculable, predictable, and provable. I think what you are driving at is that they are not perceivable by humans. The same applies to effects of a moon we can't see (or even one we can see) on humans and their behaviour despite popular belief: Lunacy and the Full Moon: Scientific American

Alistair
Yes, I think what I meant was that there's no proof (yet) that they have an effect on what we hear - the only way to prove that would be through blind testing, which as we know audiophiles aren't big fans of.
Old 19th September 2011
  #395
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveUK View Post
Did you see a lambretta in the sea? At beachy head .
For the blue1
I hope that doesn't relate to the lonely cross on that bluff... although, of course, it's hard not to assume that there's definitely a story there...
Old 19th September 2011
  #396
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
I think with this post, I finally see what you're saying.

The reason everyone is arguing with you is because it's pedantry of the highest order, it hinders people's understanding of digital audio, and really goes against the whole idea of what digital audio is (digitising an analogue audio signal).

Technically, you are "right". If you read out a list of sample values of an AD conversion of an audio signal, such as the sine wave repeatedly posted, there will be no phantom "peak" reading in between any two actual samples, even if (as in narco's diagram above) the actual voltage level of the analogue waveform is higher than the samples captured. In the digital domain, it's just a list of numbers, and to actually "see" the wave, we need to plot this on a graph against time (which is what a DAW visual display does).

Then, we recreate the wave, the numbers go to the DAC and are changed into electrical signals and the wave is back in the analogue domain - where you are arguing there are "peaks" but no "samples". Correct again.

However - and this is a big however - you are completely missing the point that when plotting the wave out of the samples you've taken there will be values REPRESENTED in the digitised audio data that do NOT fall on the actual samples taken - there may be no ACTUAL peak reading, because as you've stated to death, there's no "intersample-sampling" going on, but the sample you've captured stores enough information to recreate this value upon reconversion to the analogue domain.

If (for example) we sampled the same audio signal at a higher sampling rate, these "gaps" in the samples will be filled in to some extent, and there may be (gasp) samples in between where the original samples (at the lower rate) would have been taken, which in some cases will be (again,gasp) higher than the previously recorded samples. In other words, the "phantom" peaks that others refer to as "inter-sample" have been captured exactly (although of course, there will be some analogue peaks that won't be represented by exact samples because we can't sample at an infinitely high rate).

So - as has been argued before, all that you're actually doing on here is doggedly sticking to your own specific terminology, that is not only contradictory to what the rest of the digital world understands, but you're also doing those at a more formative level of their development a disservice, because you're confusing them. Anyone paying for a lecture with you on this subject deserves their money back, because you're not teaching them any curriculum but your own.

Effectively you're a mechanic teaching someone how to repair an engine, but giving the parts your own names. When that same mechanic goes to work for a commercial enterprise, they'll have to spend a large amount of time relearning everything with the accepted names, and cursing their teacher for hindering their learning.

Except it's worse than that, because the theory behind the term "intersample peaks" helps with visualising the issue. If I explain the capture of a waveform using the term "intersample PEAKs", then I ask a student why there might be a problem if a sample is normalised to 0dBFs and played back, should be able to see that the reconstruction of the waveform could contain peaks in that might clip the DA conversion (the "phantom" peaks not represented by samples captured). If I doggedly insist there are no peaks in a digital domain, beyond the value of the actual sample captured, this is more confusing for a student.

Like I said - you're a crap teacher if this is how you think you should educate people. And thank f**k I didn't have the same sort of person teaching my degree!

As an addendum, on my bookshelf right now, I have a book called "fundamentals of acoustics" - we referred to it at uni as "Kinsler + Frey", the two primary authors - I think I've got the F. Alton Everest around somewhere too. Unless you've written a tome on digital audio that has the authority of these 2 books, please for f's sake either accept the existing terminology, or just bugger off and stop confusing people.
and narcos diagram is wrong
because it ASSumes a given d/a voltage level

you can design the d/a so that the maximum analog value is way below the peak narco assumes by
MIXING THE DIGITAL DOMAIN WITH ANALOG AND DRAWING
SAMPLES OVER AN ASSUMED ANALOG SIGNAL.

As I have said you ahve to confuse the digital and analog domains as well as have a badly designed d/a to have a peak like that diagram shows.
Old 19th September 2011
  #397
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
You can reconstruct a fairly boring waveform from 4 samples alone. And baby - listen, in the science world once we're IN a debate all parameters are assumed. We've already said we're talking about digital audio - therefore it's 44.1, 48, 88.2, 96, 176.4 or 192. That also predefines what bandwidths we're talking about. It's a pointless argument to talk about unbounded PCM sampling.

As zero crossings? That would absolutely be the signal of EXACTLY half nyquist rate for any particular rate. It would cause you issues as you'd have no idea about amplitude as you'd soon find out on the way out !! In other words - 0 0 0 0 won't happen.

However - it wasn't the point of the diagram. It was to show you that the values captured by samples are NOT the waveform itself but a set of interpolation descriptors.
how about 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

actually 0 0 0 0 CAN happen
its just DC - has no freqs so is band limited
Old 19th September 2011
  #398
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by doug hazelrigg View Post
I STILL don't know what this means
i have to agree that in that statement you have been correct
Old 19th September 2011
  #399
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dcollins View Post
Your next post?


DC
see the end of the thread
Old 19th September 2011
  #400
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by minister View Post
You guys, give up... Notorius O.A.G. has wandered into just about every forum and exclaimed that Inter-sample Peaks are the phlogiston of audio. All of the papers and links that you are putting before him were put before him before. His only refrain is, "you are confusing the analogue and digital worlds, there are no samples in analog and no peaks between the samples.". And he says it is all avoided if the DAC is designed well.

He makes assertions and provides no proof or sensical explanation and says all that the provided papers do nothing but make assertions and supply no proof.

To wit (not to be confused with Twit) :

Solutions for True Peak / Intersample Peak limiting that really work?

This includes a valiant effort by Alexy Lukin to spell_it_out. The recitations are remarkably consistent.
i have provided sensible explanation

people cling to internet whizdumb as if it were a religion
and continue to twist standard english as if nonsense jargon were intuitively true

that link above showed nothing of value or that was pertinent
Old 19th September 2011
  #401
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Yes, I think what I meant was that there's no proof (yet) that they have an effect on what we hear - the only way to prove that would be through blind testing, which as we know audiophiles aren't big fans of.
dont confuse sampling at higher rates with wanting to hear higher freqs

higher rates give better fi to the a/d/a when restricted to the audio band of say 20-20KCps . nobody is trying to "hear" freqs at supersonic values with higher rate sampling.
Old 19th September 2011
  #402
Lives for gear
 
doug hazelrigg's Avatar
That's interesting, sir, because a couple of the assertions you've made, such as a fs that is a multiple of 2 is better suited for SRC, is exactly that -- internet whizdumb
Old 19th September 2011
  #404
Lives for gear
 

read devrys paper everyone points to
fair summary of sampling
NO MENTION OF INTERSAMPLE PEAKS AT ALL
does note the problems with sinc in real life

but all in all totally irrelevant to teh discussion here
Old 19th September 2011
  #405
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
actually 0 0 0 0 CAN happen
its just DC - has no freqs so is band limited
If it is all zero's, there is no current so it certainly can't be DC.

Alistair
Old 19th September 2011
  #406
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by unitymusic View Post

This is the only link oldanalogueguy needs: illusion of superiority - YouTube

Alistair
Old 19th September 2011
  #407
Lives for gear
 
doug hazelrigg's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
dont confuse sampling at higher rates with wanting to hear higher freqs

higher rates give better fi to the a/d/a when restricted to the audio band of say 20-20KCps . nobody is trying to "hear" freqs at supersonic values with higher rate sampling.
Actually... I can't disagree with the above statement. Hooray!
Old 19th September 2011
  #408
Lives for gear
 
dcollins's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
read devrys paper everyone points to
fair summary of sampling
NO MENTION OF INTERSAMPLE PEAKS AT ALL
does note the problems with sinc in real life

but all in all totally irrelevant to teh discussion here
Well, here's a waste of time:

http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/le...per_aes109.pdf

Including actual pictures of actual D/A's making actual overshoots in the analog output.

From actual windowed sinc filters.

Hope this helps!


DC
Old 19th September 2011
  #409
Lives for gear
 
DaveUK's Avatar
Teh every f'in time you taking teh p**s ! And I'm typing wtih my tuhmb wilhe feeding a 2 year odl
Old 19th September 2011
  #410
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
how about 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
What are you proposing here? A signal sampled 20 times with a bit depth of 1? Or the value of a single sample point at a bit depth of 20?
Old 19th September 2011
  #411
Lives for gear
 
minister's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcollins View Post
Well, here's a waste of time:

http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/le...per_aes109.pdf

Including actual pictures of actual D/A's making actual overshoots in the analog output.

Hope this helps!


DC
This was already presented to him in the thread I linked to. He dismissed it then by saying :

Quote:
i read that paper long ago and just re-read it
no facts
just claims over and over
assertion is not proof
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/6875944-post74.html

In this thread, he says of that thread:

Quote:
i have provided sensible explanation

people cling to internet whizdumb as if it were a religion
and continue to twist standard english as if nonsense jargon were intuitively true

that link above showed nothing of value or that was pertinent
So Dave, please don't confuse him with facts and warranted assertion.
Old 19th September 2011
  #412
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcollins View Post
Well, here's a waste of time:

http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/le...per_aes109.pdf

Including actual pictures of actual D/A's making actual overshoots in the analog output.

Hope this helps!


DC
Nice read Dave, thanks!

I recieved a few masters a few years back, that would clip on car stereos, computer converters etc.

I would then go and tell the ME "Hey, can you lower the peak level just a bit, it's lighting up several cheap converters here on my end?"

One's response, was to listen through a better converter, the other could not possibly see this was happening, as it wasn't happening on his end.
They did lower the peak level though.

Frustrating.

The end listener on an ipod or something, is hardly going to be persuaded to go out and buy a $4000 d to a to listen through. I mean, if everyone else's music sounds fine on their "system", and my master is clipping, who looks like the idiot.?

Needless to say, I did not use these people's services again after those episodes.

Good to see that people are acknowledging it.

Thanks man,
john
Old 19th September 2011
  #413
Lives for gear
 
dcollins's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by minister View Post
So Dave, please don't confuse him with facts and warranted assertion.
My apologies. At this point in the proceedings, the information is no longer for OAG anyway..................


DC
Old 19th September 2011
  #414
I think it should be pretty clear now that OAG understands what people are saying, probably more or less understands at least some of the scientific fundamentals behind it but, for reasons of his own, simply refuses to use or even accept widely accepted terminology.

As narcoman, who has both the academic/scientific credentials to back it up, as well as what appears to be a rather large amount of real world experience using gear to make commercial pop, rock, classical, and other recordings, has pointed out, the terminology in question is common and widely understood in the academic and scientific realms, in manufacturing, in software design, and in the real world of practical end use, as well.

It's dangerous to ascribe motivations to the inexplicable behavior of others. Perhaps OAG likes the attention. Maybe he likes to feel like Jeremiah, crying out in the wilderness, casting pretty much the entire scientific, manufacturing, and software design communities in the role of those willfully 'misusing' language -- although it's been pointed out to him repeatedly that it's actually his use of language which is most suspect and is, itself, out of step with that of those communities.

Certainly many of us have grown tired of his feigning incomprehension of the rationale behind the use of these terms.

Really, I think it's probably time for us to abandon OAG to his private interpretation of reality, where he can define language in any way he sees fit.

And it's probably time for him to stop trolling for arguments on this issue and get on with whatever it is that he does to feel productive in life.

That's my advice.
Old 19th September 2011
  #415
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
and narcos diagram is wrong
because it ASSumes a given d/a voltage level
No it doesn't. It assumes that 0dBFs is the maximum output level from the converter. Which is kind of necessary, otherwise you'd be able to go, in the words of the immortal Nigel Tufnell, "one louder".

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
you can design the d/a so that the maximum analog value is way below the peak narco assumes by
....

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
MIXING THE DIGITAL DOMAIN WITH ANALOG AND DRAWING
SAMPLES OVER AN ASSUMED ANALOG SIGNAL.
This sentence is not in English - please clarify.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
As I have said you ahve to confuse the digital and analog domains as well as have a badly designed d/a to have a peak like that diagram shows.


Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
i have provided sensible explanation
This is the exact opposite of what you've done. Every other sentence you write is total nonsense - as in non sense, as in doesn't follow English sentence construction. It's actually so bad that I'd have assumed that English wasn't your first language, were it not for all the big words you throw in randomly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
people cling to internet whizdumb as if it were a religion
and continue to twist standard english as if nonsense jargon were intuitively true
And others like to throw big words around despite the fact they can't formulate a coherent sentence, and think the established world should conform to their way of thinking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
that link above showed nothing of value or that was pertinent
Kind of like every post you make where you quote someone, then write a stream of babbling huh?
Old 19th September 2011
  #416
Lives for gear
 
DaveUK's Avatar
Yep ! He had 390 posts grace!
even if some of them were obscure references to the quadrophenia film:+)
Old 19th September 2011
  #417
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
No you couldn't. You don't join dots. There is only ONE outcome from sampled points in Nyquist-Shannon. The re-construction is a smooth curve exactly mirroring what was samples. All waveforms are sine waves (there is no such thing in the real world as a square wave or triangle wave - all harmonic motion is sinusoidal).


This isn't open for debate or interpretation. This is well understood and complete wave mechanics. If you think that you can draw arbitrary points or you join up samples then I'm afraid you don't understand how sampling works. No insult intended.

ridiculous narcs!...you drew four dots and made a sine wave out of it...I'm contending that I could take the same four dots and draw a condo...the point being there are liberties being taken...a theorum is just that ...it's educated specultaion...otherwise it would be called a fact...I'm starting to lean towards the Ocean here...sinply because you guys aren't making sense when it comes down to it, Ocean has clear reasons as to why ISP don't exist and your side of this argument consists of quoting a theorum...which may or may not be actual fact...probably not actually...probaly like more of a guide than fact...unless someone can explain without being negative and sarcastic.

PS we draw lines because we are humans describing something that we can't do....sample...so we all find the best way to describe it...
Old 19th September 2011
  #418
Lives for gear
Marty, who is ocean?
Old 19th September 2011
  #419
Lives for gear
 
DaveUK's Avatar
Can we get mods to delete
This whole thread apart from links to actually recognised papers/ pdfs and one or three excellent simple explanations . Maybe credit OAG with provoking such a stickie of accepted whizzdumb/ universal/understandable terms ;+)

Sent from my X10i using Gearslutz.com App
Old 19th September 2011
  #420
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dcollins View Post
Well, here's a waste of time:

http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/le...per_aes109.pdf

Including actual pictures of actual D/A's making actual overshoots in the analog output.

From actual windowed sinc filters.

Hope this helps!


DC
seriously THIS is the proof? wow...a picture showing that some crapolla CD player that has crappy DA that outputs too hot...perhaps the manufacturer should attenuate that signal so that it doesn't "overshoot"...wow...this is getting really funny...I honestly thought you guys would be able to bury Ocean by now...but really
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump