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 20th September 2011
  #451
Lives for gear
 

This is astonishing!
Old 20th September 2011
  #452
Moderator
 
narcoman'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.
We're on the same page!!! heh (although for different reasons....)
Old 20th September 2011
  #453
Lives for gear
 
Old Goat's Avatar
 

Jesus Christ! I'm just a dumb folksinger and I get it! narcoman, Psycho Monkey, timlloyd, thank you! I understand the concept (ignore my previous post).

You guys have the patience of Job--and I ain't religious.

If ODB didn't do anything else, he beat the concept into a non-tech brain, although the writer's brain took a bit of a beating.

Thanks also to theblue1 for perspective.
Old 20th September 2011
  #454
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by timlloyd View Post
This is astonishing!
my even temperament?

heh
Old 20th September 2011
  #455
Lives for gear
 
Old Goat's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
my even temperament?

heh
Your astonishing good looks.
Old 20th September 2011
  #456
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

i blush!!
Old 20th September 2011
  #457
Lives for gear
 
Old Goat's Avatar
 

I digress...
Old 20th September 2011
  #458
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
my even temperament?

heh
quite! ... also it took me far too long to spell astonishing

Old Goat's right though, you're a lovely shade of green.
Old 20th September 2011
  #459
Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
Yup. That place. Very very high, very beautiful and crazy to peak over the edge.
I have fairly extreme acrophobia. If I were to peak over the edge, I'd end up a babbling crazy person.

Hmm...

Uh, I'll skip the next thought.
Old 20th September 2011
  #460
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
Not trying to mock ya! My PhD thesis was about wave propagation in virtual environments and how we can detect interference between signals (or understand at what moment a wavefront interacted with its environment in the time domain).

Just providing some background info.

Other papers besides Shannon? One of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century, the father of information theory and you want a better paper!! eek! Well - I'm a little taken aback!

The diagram is a diagram of interpolation of four points. It shows how none of the points need to lie on a peak to give a correct wave description. Or looking at it the other way it shows that samples don't fall on peaks (apart from very occasionally).
narcs you aren't getting it...that diagram is pointless..anyway whatever man...as you were
Old 20th September 2011
  #461
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC View Post
narcs you aren't getting it...that diagram is pointless..anyway whatever man...as you were
Can you explain why you think it's pointless? Shannon seemed to go to great lengths with it!!

It's not an arbitrary diagram. It just shows samples aren't on peaks. If I can be bothered to patiently re-explain time and time again the science behind this part of the argument (I am only interested in the EXISTENCE of inter sample peaks - somewhat like Oldanalogueguy I say they aren't an issue with a properly designed DA) then surely you can tell me why you say the diagram is bunk?
Old 20th September 2011
  #462
Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC View Post
uh huh...proved how when? I dont think so narcs...a PHD in intersample peaks?...interesting

that diagram is a joke...four dots...which seem to be connected with a line narcs...but the line is drawn to suit the purpose of the argument...absolute dung for proving anything...shall I take the time to draw a condo with four dots on a page?...I am not saying you are wrong...I AM saying that the lot of you are MORE guilty than Ocean when it comes to not providing anything concrete to back up your arguments...point me to something other than Shannon/Nyquist (most of us dont have a PHD in this stuff actually, but that doesn't mean we can't get it...I've been doing this as long as you narcs)...show us like we are all two years old...instead of mocking me narcs..you know that it's the easiest thing in the world to cut someone down...anyone can do that.
Utterly willful ignorance.

I certainly don't have a PhD in anything. I don't even have a bachelor's degree. I haven't had a math class since high school algebra. I started out as a poet, for heaven's sake. I was a punk rocker. I managed a warehouse after I dropped out of college.

I get Shannon-Nyquist. Once you understand or at least accept a few fundamentals that no serious scientist argues about, it's really not hard to grasp the basics or to understand why, indeed, one is not connecting the dots between samples but rather using the values those samples represent via well-understood mathematical and physical principles to 'reconstruct' the original waveform via interpolation, which, as has been clearly demonstrated over and over in this thread and is thoroughly explained by the Shannon-Nyquist Sampling Theorem.

The Sampling Theorem is fundamental to our everyday technologies.

It's not necessarily shameful to not understand it.

But it is shameful to willfully reject learning about it but then to proceed to spout nonsense about it and the processes it describes.
Old 20th September 2011
  #463
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
It's not necessarily shameful to not understand it.

But it is shameful to willfully reject learning about it but then to proceed to spout nonsense about it and the processes it describes.
So true. That's the part that bothers me. I'd very much like people to understand this stuff fully, even the unimportant things like inter sample peaks. They just aren't really an issue but they are a facet of digital sampling.
Old 20th September 2011
  #464
Your patience and good humor astounds me, frankly.



(I would ****-can that last diagram, though. It's just going to confuse folks. Heck, it kinda confuses me. heh OK... maybe not really. It shows why not frequency bandlimiting causes alias error, right?)
Old 20th September 2011
  #465
Lives for gear
 
Old Goat's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Your patience and good humor astound me, frankly.
As I so inadequately mentioned earlier..
Old 20th September 2011
  #466
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Your patience and good humor astounds me, frankly.



(I would ****-can that last diagram, though. It's just going to confuse folks. Heck, it kinda confuses me. heh OK... maybe not really. It shows why not frequency bandlimiting causes alias error, right?)
yeah. That be right. Crap diagram - i agree.
Old 20th September 2011
  #467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Goat View Post
As I so inadequately mentioned earlier..
I don't want to go all touchy feely here, but I've been feeling the gentle good humor of your presence. Same goes for a lot of other folks who've passed through. A little good natured humor can really lighten the overall tone.

I aspire to the cheerful patience of some of you guys. In my head (or gut, more like it), I guess I'm always kind of arguing with my (flat-earther) great-grandmother when I get in a discussion like this one.

But after getting caught red-handed on the wrong side of the uneven-sample-rate-conversion thang (by none other than the oft-mentioned Mr Lavry, whose authority I did not immediately recognize -- but whose rep I'm damn glad I checked out before further shooting off my mouth), I do try to check my facts a little better now. heh
Old 20th September 2011
  #468
Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
yeah. That be right. Crap diagram - i agree.
Right horse. Wrong course.

Or however that works.
Old 20th September 2011
  #469
Lives for gear
Does analog tape have intersample peak envy?
Old 20th September 2011
  #470
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
Can you explain why you think it's pointless? Shannon seemed to go to great lengths with it!!

It's not an arbitrary diagram. It just shows samples aren't on peaks. If I can be bothered to patiently re-explain time and time again the science behind this part of the argument (I am only interested in the EXISTENCE of inter sample peaks - somewhat like Oldanalogueguy I say they aren't an issue with a properly designed DA) then surely you can tell me why you say the diagram is bunk?
its fine in the a/d direction

in the d/a direction it is meaningless
you cannot assign a voltage to the digital values
the analog can be higher or lower depending on the d/a
so you cant draw those nice samples on the analog diagram and have it mean anything
Old 20th September 2011
  #471
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Utterly willful ignorance.

I certainly don't have a PhD in anything. I don't even have a bachelor's degree. I haven't had a math class since high school algebra. I started out as a poet, for heaven's sake. I was a punk rocker. I managed a warehouse after I dropped out of college.

I get Shannon-Nyquist. Once you understand or at least accept a few fundamentals that no serious scientist argues about, it's really not hard to grasp the basics or to understand why, indeed, one is not connecting the dots between samples but rather using the values those samples represent via well-understood mathematical and physical principles to 'reconstruct' the original waveform via interpolation, which, as has been clearly demonstrated over and over in this thread and is thoroughly explained by the Shannon-Nyquist Sampling Theorem.

The Sampling Theorem is fundamental to our everyday technologies.

It's not necessarily shameful to not understand it.

But it is shameful to willfully reject learning about it but then to proceed to spout nonsense about it and the processes it describes.
you may think you understand it

what is sad are all the people who read some internet whizdumb and parrot urban myths as if they were high school seniors who know

and I had it in grad school. I *know* it. read the book, proved the theorems, worked the problems, passed the tests, got my A. and when I say know it I mean I also understand it not just be able to regurgitate it.
Old 20th September 2011
  #472
Lives for gear
 
Alexey Lukin's Avatar
 

I think that I've come up with a formulation that we can all agree upon (including OAG):

The concept "intersample peaks" barely means that analog waveform may peak between time instances where it has been (or will be) sampled. It is not necessarily a problem, but may become a problem when such peaks are unaccounted for and clipped, which would be called "intersample clipping".
Old 20th September 2011
  #473
Lives for gear
 
TurboJets's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexey Lukin View Post
It is not necessarily a problem, but may become a problem when such peaks are unaccounted for and clipped, which would be called "intersample clipping".
Be careful (tongue in cheek), I think you're opening a can of worms by introducing intersample clipping to this discussion.
Old 20th September 2011
  #474
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
you may think you understand it

what is sad are all the people who read some internet whizdumb and parrot urban myths as if they were high school seniors who know

and I had it in grad school. I *know* it. read the book, proved the theorems, worked the problems, passed the tests, got my A. and when I say know it I mean I also understand it not just be able to regurgitate it.
Gee, and here you earlier said I was the one guy who understood...


Your act has grown increasingly tiresome.

I don't know where attention-seeking trolling leaves off and other, more serious issues begin, but it's become clear this is not really about your singular attempts to reform the language of digital sampling science and technology.
Old 20th September 2011
  #475
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Gee, and here you earlier said I was the one guy who understood...
How the hell did you forget so fast?

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
this is not really about your singular attempts to reform the language of digital sampling science and technology.
You mean I need to erase all those notes I scribbled in my books? Crap, just when I thought my math minor was starting to pay off. Is this like the Third Coming of Usenet? Can I please get a moderator to referee on the physics we're debating here? I want every test to involve triple blind studies, actually conducted by the blind, and we need some help from the deaf as a sort of blank subtraction correction. We've got to be sure our results are defensible and harbor no bias. Serious science, right? Let's use that system of a down tune...

Does the Internet have Internet Sample Peaks?
Old 20th September 2011
  #476
Gear Maniac
 

Blue you are completely out of line. Time and again you spout off about how ignorant and unwilling we are yet you provide no positive info about it...please try to explain something relevant or dont address me again.

Like I said Ocean may be right may be wrong...he certainly is presenting a solid case and has NOT ONCE belittled anyone.



...and I still waiting for narc to stop making smirky remarks and provide us with a simple reason as to why he thinks Ocean is incorrect.

I'm leaning towards the idea that it is only non functioning DA that seems to have problems with program @ digital 0 and that proper DA "properly" converts and represents that digital info in the analog world.
Old 20th September 2011
  #477
Here for the gear
 

just saying hello to everyone!
Old 20th September 2011
  #478
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by tablepad View Post
just saying hello to everyone!
Duck!
Old 20th September 2011
  #479
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC View Post
...and I still waiting for narc to stop making smirky remarks and provide us with a simple reason as to why he thinks Ocean is incorrect.

I'm leaning towards the idea that it is only non functioning DA that seems to have problems with program @ digital 0 and that proper DA "properly" converts and represents that digital info in the analog world.
I've already shown you both via Shannon and by supplying a FS to VU reference (which is mandatory). But you both keep answering with the same completely irrelevant responses.
Old 20th September 2011
  #480
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC View Post
Blue you are completely out of line. Time and again you spout off about how ignorant and unwilling we are yet you provide no positive info about it...please try to explain something relevant or dont address me again.
Wilful ignorance - like giving him the wrong name?

We've pointed you to the papers. Read them. If you don't have the math then we can't help you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC View Post

Like I said Ocean may be right may be wrong...he certainly is presenting a solid case and has NOT ONCE belittled anyone.
Oldanalogueguy does at least seem to understand maths, but is being pedantic. I don't think he disagrees with the concept at all. He wants to win an argument that doesn't exist!

A quick quiz to see where we are:

1 Does anyone here think that sound is anything other than sine curves?

2 If we have three sample points does anyone think (under band limited conditions) you can't reconstruct a sine curve from the points?

3 If we have three sample points does anyone think the points will have to be at maxima and minima?
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