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
20th September 2011
#481
Moderator

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy
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
The DA won't change it's voltage output values willy nilly.

The samples still have a reference once set. You saying it doesn't just isn't right! You HAVE to assign some equivalence within the DA otherwise it would be a meaningless piece of equipment! That sample represented waveform on you DAW screen is translated into a continuous voltage over time. Those samples represent your voltage - if they don't then we dont have a DA. Assigning a value (as it happens according to various standards) is crucial to the operation of a DA!

N sample points taken from wave form t seconds long; W form the sample group S.

Each sample S[n] was taken from a voltage value within W at W[t].

If we have a calibrated system then when we interpolate all the S[n] we get a waveform Wr[t] (now with quantisation noise but this point isn't important to the picture).

Wr[t], if the calibration is correct will be the same as W[t]. If it isn't then we get G x W[t] where G is some gain multiplier.

At any given time the points in S[n] may not fall on a maximum of the sampled curve. This means that any voltages coming out of the DA may be higher than the voltage referenced by the sample points (the samples obviously are not voltages but references within a calibrated system). The continuous variation of the waveform is still measurable and referenced against the sample set and we can make a valid inter domain comparison, just like when I fill up my car my digital fuel gauge tells me how many gallons are in my tank, even though there are no digital gallons.

If we've calibrated our equipment to a standard (so that -18dbFS is equivalent to to 0dBVU where 0dBVU is +4dBU and +4dBU is 1.23Vrms) then we have absolute values that each sample represents. If the sample curve peaks at -18dBFS then it's reconstructed value will peak at 0dBVU which, will have a voltage as dictated by our calibration. It is entirely possible that no sample points are at -18dBFS. It is entirely possible that they're all below -18dBFS. That dumb ass curve illustrates that point perfectly although not accurately (duh!!). At any given reconstructed peak it is entirely possible the peak (indeed highly likely!) was reconstructed from samples either side of it which were lower in reference than the peak represents. That concepts does demand that you assign a reference between the digital and analogue domain. It doesn't say that a sample has a voltage but that a sample represents a voltage. You already know this.

NOW - the concept still holds even if you are one of the crazy types who decides to fek the standards off and go his own way. It'll be some other arbitrary reference voltage. If you decide to build a DA that just does what it feels like then I think we can argue successfully that what has been built isn't so much a DA but a cheese sandwich.

I know await some bizarre comment such as "samples are not voltages" (which I haven't said they are) or some otherness.
20th September 2011
#482
Gear Guru

Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC
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...
Ignorance galore in this thread. It isn't a theorum (which isn't an English word) it is a theorem and a theorem is:

theorem
In mathematics or logic, a statement whose validity has been established or proved.

In other words, it is fact!

Quote:
I'm starting to lean towards the Ocean here...sinply because you guys aren't making sense
If it isn't making sense to you it is because you don't know enough about the subject. That is ok but then you should have the common decency not to call things ridiculous simply because it doesn't fit what you expect. Science often turns out anwsers that go against expectation. If everything was obvious and intuitive we wouldn't need science would we?

Quote:
unless someone can explain without being negative and sarcastic.
If you come here with comments like "if a line is drawn between two samples to connect the dots as it were, then why on earth would a machine decide to draw an arc as opposed to a straight line...and the four samples making a wave...is ridiculous..." simply because you don't understand it, you deserve all the sarcasm and negativity you get. The same goes for OAG. If you want respect, you should earn it. Voicing your opinions on subject you clearly haven't researched enough is not the way to earn respect.

If you want an explanation for something that you do not understand then come with an open mind and ask for an explanation without calling things "ridiculous".

Alistair
20th September 2011
#483
Gear Guru

So how do we go from seemingly jagged lines to nice curves in Digital Audio? Here is some background that might help to understand.

First a quick reminder of what we are talking about:

This is the way some applications represent a wave file, this is the characteristic join-the-dots view:

This is what the exact same signal looks like in an application that shows the reconstructed waveform as it comes out of your converters:

This is a perfectly smooth 10Khz sine wave. So how do they do it?

The clue to this whole story is the way that complex waveforms can be seen as a series of added up sine waves. (Thanks to Mr Fourier for figuring that out).

To illustrate this, the following animation starts off with a single sine wave and adds an increasing number of odd harmonics to form what approaches a square wave:

The more odd harmonic one adds, the closer one gets to a square wave. With an infinite number of odd harmonics, we could create a perfect square wave. (And as we can never have an infinite number of anything, there are no perfect square waves in nature).

Here is a similar animation but this time we create a triangle wave:

The reason it becomes a triangle wave is because the level of the harmonics rolls off faster as they get higher compared to the harmonics of a square wave.

And here we have an animation of a sawtooth wave being created: (In this case we add even and odd harmonics)

Now, if you go in the opposite direction and start with a waveform that is a theoretical square, sawtooth or triangle wave and start removing the harmonics, as you progressively remove them, the rounder and more curve like the waveform becomes. The exact same thing happens if we start with a more complex but jagged and pointy waveform like the first picture in this post. Remove the harmonics (or upper frequencies) of the signal and you end up with a smooth rounded waveform just like you see in picture two.

What are harmonics and how do we remove them? Harmonics are higher frequency sine waves that have a mathematical relation to the base frequency. And how do we remove higher frequencies? We filter them out with a low-pass filter and a low-pass filter is exactly what you will find in the output of any quality DAC.

If one were to start with a perfect square wave and remove all the harmonics and just keep the fundamental base frequency we would get a perfect sine wave. Not only that, we can mathematically predict every single aspect of that sine wave before we even start removing the harmonics. The same rules apply to sawtooth waves or triangle waves.

Thanks to the work of geniuses like Mr Fourier, Mr Shannon and Mr Nyquist, we also know that the same thing applies to complex periodic waveforms and even random waves. We can predict mathematically exactly what will happen when we filter out higher frequencies. That is why an application like Adobe Audition or iZotope RX can show us exactly what the reconstructed waveform (the one that has been filter by your DAC) will look like before it gets anywhere near your DAC. Let this sink in. It is important!

This also brings us to the extremely important point in all these discussions about increasing sampling rates: It does not give us any more resolution! The increased sampling rate just allows us to sample higher and higher (inaudible) harmonics. There is not any more precision in the output within the frequency range we want to sample. The stuff we can hear. Again, let this sink in. It is important!

That waveform that looks like a jagged mess in some audio applications, just like in the first picture in this post, will look like the nice smooth wave in the second picture by the time it comes out of your DAC.

To drive the point home it is important to understand that our ears also function as low-pass filters. Even if you increase the sampling rate of your system, your ear is filtering out all those upper harmonics anyway!

Which brings us back to the topic of Inter Sample Peaks: Certain signals, or rather I should say certain combination of sample points (it isn't an audio signal until it has gone through the reconstruction filter of your DAC), when filtered at the DAC will cause wave forms that "overshoot". This example I created a few years ago illustrates the point well:

Although all the sample points are within 0 dB FS, if you look at the highest peak this signal causes after filtering by the reconstruction filter, it is at above +6 dB FS! If your DAC has enough headroom in the analogue components, it will happily recreate that +6 dB FS peak (or rather a peak 6 dB higher in voltage than whatever level 0 dB FS represents depending on what analogue level your DAC is calibrated to). If there is not enough headroom in the design, this signal will cause analogue clipping in your DAC.

I hope this brings some clarity to the topic.

Alistair
20th September 2011
#484
Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC
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.
You do realise the by persisting in this line of thought, you're kind of saying to a pilot that planes don't stay aloft by the bernoulli (sp?) principle, that it could just as well be magic strings....despite the fact that you've just taken a flight in his plane?

Why on earth are you continuing to deny the way this thing works? you've used a DA converter right? This is part of the theory in it's design!

PS can you please clarify who you mean by "ocean"? is this your word for Oldanalogueguy, or are you referring to some other "authority"?
20th September 2011
#485
Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC
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.
Assuming your "ocean" is OAG, he may not have belittled anyone in this thread directly, but he certainly has in others (in fact, he mocked my degree in another one, albeit quite lamely) and in persisting in this train of confusion, he's kind of belittling the work of everyone.

Narcoman likewise has not made ANY snarky remarks to my knowledge - if you knew the guy personally, you'd know that he has the credentials to back up his comments, and whilst you may have been doing this stuff as long as he has, your comments show you don't understand the science behind it anything like as well as he does. Which is absolutely fine, no one's saying you have to to make good recordings, but don't pretend like you do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC
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.
....and no-one is denying that! well, not "non-functioning" but poorly designed (and often cheap) DA conversion. That's not the point. The whole argument has stemmed from OAG's stubborn assertion that "intersample peaks do not exist", and it's taken 17 pages to ascertain that he's not arguing with the way things work, merely the terminology - basically thinks the world should realign itself to his way of wording things. However, his poor way of communicating this (along with the provocative stance and way of posing questions, which no-one else on this thread has done!) makes 17 pages of confusion, several knowledgable people explaining things in simple words, whereas if he'd actually stated what he meant in plain English at the start, that would have all been avoided! Really, a 2 page thread at most has been turned into a 17 page argument because of one person's lack of ability to communicate what they mean, along with a stubborn streak.
20th September 2011
#486
Gear Guru

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey
The whole argument has stemmed from OAG's stubborn assertion that "intersample peaks do not exist", and it's taken 17 pages to ascertain that he's not arguing with the way things work, merely the terminology - basically thinks the world should realign itself to his way of wording things.
You, Narcoman and Theblue1 are giving him waaaay too much credit! With comments like "infinite sample rate is identical to analog !!" it is clear he really does not understand Digital Audio.

Just look at this post: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/6866622-post27.html

I state very clearly "If you have your converters calibrated so that 0 dB FS is equivalent to say +4 dBu, this signal in this picture will cause a peak of over +10 dBu in the analogue domain!"

and he responds: "digital Samples do not equate to analog signals that way!! thta is the way you drew them. you cannot mix domains!!!"

He just does not get it at all.

Also let's not forget his very first post in this thread. "Some have derided my observation that higher sample rates do improve quality." It doesn't increase quality. It increases bandwidth.

He has also claimed he can make a linear compressor that could compress things as much as you want with zero distortion. Compression and linear in the same sentence is already an oxymoron. Compressing as much as you want with zero distortion is plain stupid.( https://www.gearslutz.com/board/6883786-post11.html )

oldanalogueguy does not understand the most basic principles of analogue audio let alone digital audio.

Alistair
20th September 2011
#487
Gear Nut

Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman
NOW - the concept still holds even if you are one of the crazy types who decides to fek the standards off and go his own way. It'll be some other arbitrary reference voltage. If you decide to build a DA that just does what it feels like then I think we can argue successfully that what has been built isn't so much a DA but a cheese sandwich.

I know await some bizarre comment such as "samples are not voltages" (which I haven't said they are) or some otherness.
LOL! Mmm... grilled cheese!
20th September 2011
#488
Deleted 6ccb844
Guest
Sample rates? I learnt this crap in college, I don't understand why people don't just google **** and bitch for god knows how many pages.. It explains everything.. JEEEZ! :P

Higher sample rates good, but there are up's and downs to everything..

There are potential sources of impairment implicit in any PCM system:
• Choosing a discrete value near the analog signal for each sample leads to quantization error.[note 2]
• Between samples no measurement of the signal is made; the sampling theorem guarantees non-ambiguous representation and recovery of the signal only if it has no energy at frequency fs/2 or higher (one half the sampling frequency, known as the Nyquist frequency); higher frequencies will generally not be correctly represented or recovered.
• As samples are dependent on time, an accurate clock is required for accurate reproduction. If either the encoding or decoding clock is not stable, its frequency drift will directly affect the output quality of the device.[note 3]
Pulse-code modulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Audio converter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nyquist frequency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There that should get you started!!
20th September 2011
#489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannyvect
Sample rates? I learnt this crap in college, I don't understand why people don't just google **** and bitch for god knows how many pages.. It explains everything.. JEEEZ! :P

Higher sample rates good, but there are up's and downs to everything..

There are potential sources of impairment implicit in any PCM system:
• Choosing a discrete value near the analog signal for each sample leads to quantization error.[note 2]
• Between samples no measurement of the signal is made; the sampling theorem guarantees non-ambiguous representation and recovery of the signal only if it has no energy at frequency fs/2 or higher (one half the sampling frequency, known as the Nyquist frequency); higher frequencies will generally not be correctly represented or recovered.
• As samples are dependent on time, an accurate clock is required for accurate reproduction. If either the encoding or decoding clock is not stable, its frequency drift will directly affect the output quality of the device.[note 3]
Pulse-code modulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Audio converter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nyquist frequency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There that should get you started!!
Maybe read at least some of the thread before posting? this is much less about sample rates, and much more about one poster's attempt to bend the entire audio world around to his way of describing things - which is less than crystal clear (and barely in English a lot of the time!).

We're all aware of what higher sample rates do....
20th September 2011
#490
Deleted 6ccb844
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey
Maybe read at least some of the thread before posting? this is much less about sample rates, and much more about one poster's attempt to bend the entire audio world around to his way of describing things - which is less than crystal clear (and barely in English a lot of the time!).

We're all aware of what higher sample rates do....
Sorry PM I got to the third post and that was err.. about as far as my attention span went..
20th September 2011
#491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannyvect
Sorry PM I got to the third post and that was err.. about as far as my attention span went..
Can't say I blame you! Sorry for the sharp tone...
20th September 2011
#492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannyvect
Sorry PM I got to the third post and that was err.. about as far as my attention span went..

20th September 2011
#493

Undertow, great post mate. If they can't understand the basics after reading that, then forget it. This is really audio principles 101 stuff.
20th September 2011
#494
Gear Nut

Quote:
Originally Posted by child of Gaia
Undertow, great post mate. If they can't understand the basics after reading that, then forget it. This is really audio principles 101 stuff.
+1!
20th September 2011
#495
Gear Guru

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow
You, Narcoman and Theblue1 are giving him waaaay too much credit! [...]
I'm always getting in trouble for something... heh

Good explanations.

I'd probably maintain that signal exists in the digital domain in the form of the sample values and the reconstruction formula. But that's semantic.
20th September 2011
#496
Gear Guru

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1
I'm always getting in trouble for something... heh

heh

Quote:
Good explanations.
Thanks.

Quote:
I'd probably maintain that signal exists in the digital domain in the form of the sample values and the reconstruction formula. But that's semantic.
Yes you are right although one might argue that it isn't yet an audio signal until decoded. But yeah, semantics. :-)

Alistair
20th September 2011
#497
Gear Maniac

Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman
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.

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?
Alright narc...again you keep insisting that O is being pendantic...which is like me saying you're being evasive..

anyway..I could direct you to a thousand links...links to papers that are a mile long have no useful purpose when trying to figure an argument like this...perhaps you could be more specific narc...this is at least the third time I've asked you to SPECIFICALLY explain to us...you just outright refuse...maybe you hate to repeat yourself, but I thought I was asking kindly...so to our questions in questioning my understanding

1. last time I looked MOST sounds were NOT sine waves... a combination of many perhaps...but I'm not sure that pink noise is a sine wave...is it?

but...I would be willing to concede that for simplicity sake yes sound comes in the form of sine waves..no one really disputed that in the first place.

2. three points?

sure you can construct a sine wave from those point, but as I said, I can also construct a condo, a bicycle and a ladder...for it to be relevant to this argument we need at least 44,100 dots on that page...wouldn't you say at that point that any guess work between those samples could be fairly accurate

3.no I dont think the points have to be anything...that's the problem...you can draw whatever you like in between those points...

let me ask you this...is this semantics again?...are you just saying that because sound in its' purest form (a sine wave) exists on a curve always...that any point between two symetrical points (samples lets say) at the top of the curve is greater in amplitude than those same two points?
20th September 2011
#498
Gear Maniac

jeez I just realized I've been calling him Ocean this whole time...like an idiot...no wonder you guys wont listen to me
20th September 2011
#499
Lives for gear

Aaw :+)
20th September 2011
#500
Gear Maniac

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey
You do realise the by persisting in this line of thought, you're kind of saying to a pilot that planes don't stay aloft by the bernoulli (sp?) principle, that it could just as well be magic strings....despite the fact that you've just taken a flight in his plane?

Why on earth are you continuing to deny the way this thing works? you've used a DA converter right? This is part of the theory in it's design!

PS can you please clarify who you mean by "ocean"? is this your word for Oldanalogueguy, or are you referring to some other "authority"?
yes I get your points and they are valid...let me throw this out to you....what if all of a sudden we realized that gravity wasn't the earth pulling us towards it, but displaced space pushing us against it and that every mass doesn't actually have a gravitational pull but rather displaces the fabric of space which then pushes towards that mass...I know this is not on topic, but it's plausible and at the very least possible...so again...considering a possibility is not such a bad thing...let's face it, if the idea was completely ridiculous this thread would be over.
20th September 2011
#501
Moderator

Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC
1. last time I looked MOST sounds were NOT sine waves... a combination of many perhaps...but I'm not sure that pink noise is a sine wave...is it?

but...I would be willing to concede that for simplicity sake yes sound comes in the form of sine waves..no one really disputed that in the first place.
All sound is ONLY sine waves. ALL harmonic motion is sine waves. All harmonics are multiple based sound waves. there is NOTHING else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC
2. three points?

sure you can construct a sine wave from those point, but as I said, I can also construct a condo, a bicycle and a ladder...for it to be relevant to this argument we need at least 44,100 dots on that page...wouldn't you say at that point that any guess work between those samples could be fairly accurate
This leads me to think you believe that sampling involves joining up dots. It doesn't. You do not need 44,100 samples to make one sine wave. We have 44,100 samples (at that particular sample rate) to describe many many sine waves. Sound is absolutely and only sine waves.

It absolutely could not be guesswork - you cannot draw anything else between those three sample points with respect to audio sampling. This is a hole in your knowledge so, with muchos friendliness and respect - go and read an article on sampling basics. No insult intended but your answer tells me you don't understand Nyquist-Shannon which is crucial to being able to enter this debate. It doesn't make you silly not knowing this, but you are (in the least insulting way I can possibly say it) low on knowledge of digital audio and even the way sound (and all other wave propagation from wobbling bridges to strings to sea waves) actually works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC
3.no I dont think the points have to be anything...that's the problem...you can draw whatever you like in between those points...
We're talking about wave sampling. You cannot draw what you like between those points. Shannon et al shows us this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC
let me ask you this...is this semantics again?...are you just saying that because sound in its' purest form (a sine wave) exists on a curve always...that any point between two symetrical points (samples lets say) at the top of the curve is greater in amplitude than those same two points?
Sound in it's ONLY form is sine waves. There is nothing else. Pink noise is sine waves. White noise is sine waves. A kick drum sound, a guitar, a violin, the human voice - all sine waves. Complicated and many many of them, but sine waves none the less.

All sound is on curves. All of it. Square waves? No such thing - merely harmonically related sine waves. Triangle? Same thing. The sound of you saying "blob" lots of complicated sine waves. NOTHING else.
20th September 2011
#502
Gear Maniac

narc...I've already said sound is a combination of sine waves...are ou not reading the resultant wave looks like anything but...see? it's your semantics and inability togive a semantic inch that is a huge problem here...I JUST SAID SOUND IS A COMBINATION OF SINE WAVES...now could you plaes answer my specific question as I have tried to answer yours
20th September 2011
#503
Moderator

Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC
yes I get your points and they are valid...let me throw this out to you....what if all of a sudden we realized that gravity wasn't the earth pulling us towards it, but displaced space pushing us against it and that every mass doesn't actually have a gravitational pull but rather displaces the fabric of space which then pushes towards that mass...I know this is not on topic, but it's plausible and at the very least possible...so again...considering a possibility is not such a bad thing...let's face it, if the idea was completely ridiculous this thread would be over.
Gravity mathematics are not waveform mathematics. There is no grand unification theorem as yet to tie quantum mechanics and spacetime. We have no finished theorem of gravity - only theory; classically via Newton (which was not exact) and now through Relativity.

However this is an entirely different argument and I have no research beyond math interest in the field.

How sound propagates through air (and other media) is known and the correctness of the maths behind sampling presented as a theorem.
20th September 2011
#504
Lives for gear

Don't bother Narco
20th September 2011
#505
Moderator

Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC
narc...I've already said sound is a combination of sine waves...are ou not reading the resultant wave looks like anything but...see? it's your semantics and inability togive a semantic inch that is a huge problem here...I JUST SAID SOUND IS A COMBINATION OF SINE WAVES...now could you plaes answer my specific question as I have tried to answer yours
That combination of sine waves makes no difference. The sampling system completely and correctly notates the values at the sample points and they are absolutely recoverable via an inverse operation. I'm not operating in semantics at all. I'm purely and simply extolling the brilliance of Shannon's work.

What was the specific question? nobody has asked me a question that I haven't answered in a scientifically accurate way. I've tried not to put any subjective opinion into it (even going so far as to mention man times I don't care about inter sample peaks being a problem, they aren't - but they are a facet of digital audio. It should be seen as a strong point that the samples don't need to fall onto peaks!!).
20th September 2011
#506
Moderator

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveUK
Don't bother Narco
but it's so much FUN

Nothing is so simple in an argument than just presenting facts. When it's subjective and you have something to lose it's brutal. But this isn't subjective. It's not even me being right - it's the math and theorem being irrefutable!

That's why math is so lovely !! And I'm a geek.
20th September 2011
#507
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC
yes I get your points and they are valid...let me throw this out to you....what if all of a sudden we realized that gravity wasn't the earth pulling us towards it, but displaced space pushing us against it and that every mass doesn't actually have a gravitational pull but rather displaces the fabric of space which then pushes towards that mass...I know this is not on topic, but it's plausible and at the very least possible...so again...considering a possibility is not such a bad thing...let's face it, if the idea was completely ridiculous this thread would be over.
Actually this is already a theory, but it's not necessarily only true at the expense of the "pull" theory being wrong. Lack of something can't push, only pull, like a vacuum. If space were displaced around an object with gravity, the only way for an outside object to be pushed towards that object would be the object with the gravitational "pull" pulling space and time towards it. If it were a pushing phenomenon, the gravity theory would have to be reversed so that the larger object had a lack of gravity comparatively, and this can very easily be demonstrated wrong the next time you stand on the earth and don't float away.
20th September 2011
#508
Lives for gear

Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman
but it's so much FUN
To me debating is fun, but it's no longer fun when one side refuses to accept or understand basic fundamentals.

On another forum was trying to have an economics discussion, was called some harsh names by people who didn't even understand the definitions of the underlying terms You can argue the appropriate use and effectiveness of monetary policy, but at least first understand what monetary policy actually is before you form an opinion. Is that too much to ask?

Kind of a tangent, but have seen similarities here. Best to all.
20th September 2011
#509
Gear Guru

Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman
Sound in it's ONLY form is sine waves. There is nothing else. Pink noise is sine waves. White noise is sine waves. A kick drum sound, a guitar, a violin, the human voice - all sine waves. Complicated and many many of them, but sine waves none the less.
All periodic waves can be de-constructed into sine waves. Noise is aperiodic, isn't cyclic and thus can not be de-constructed into sine waves AFAIK.

Fourier said something to the effect that all music is sine waves (that might be what you are referring to) and indeed all musically recognisable tones can be seen as series of summed sine waves which means that almost all music is sine waves but it is not 100%!

That said, any series of sample points still can only have one possible de-constructed wave form.

Alistair
20th September 2011
#510
Lives for gear

Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC
1. last time I looked MOST sounds were NOT sine waves... a combination of many perhaps...but I'm not sure that pink noise is a sine wave...is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC
narc...I've already said sound is a combination of sine waves...
Hope this helps!
Top Mentioned Products

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
• The ability to reply to and create new discussions
• Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
• Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD \$20/year
• 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.