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 25th September 2011
  #691
Lives for gear
 
bigbone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveUK View Post
Imagine being stuck in a control room with either of these! Rude I know but
they spend to much time in here, they got not time to be in a control room.
Old 25th September 2011
  #692
Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC View Post
Again...incredibly rude and unnecessary...if you disagree with something I say, then just say so or not...I'm pretty sure that the above is a clear violation of the forum rules, but no offense taken...it just goes to my point all along...you dont care to share knowledge, otherwise you would...I have made absolutely ZERO statement of fact on the topic of intersample peaks. I have have only suggested that OAG semms to have some good points and that there have been no arguments to the contrary that make me think he's not on to something. I could care less who says that have what PhD. Show me don't tell me please.



I haven't said that I specialized in this stuff...I make music for a living and am interested in a discussion.

OAG has displayed a ton of patience and tolerance and is only guilty of having an opinion.
I didn't actually call you stupid. I just pointed out that saying stupid stuff makes you look stupid. There's a very distinct difference between the two.

If you reread. this thread, you'll see many posts where I've "shared knowledge", putting my viewpoint in a polite and clear way.

As for OAG displaying patience, which thread are you reading?! All I see is someone babbling random technical details, not making themselves clear whilst repeatedly stating things that are contrary to the way things work in practice! It took us 16 pages to work out that it wasn't the theory he disagreed with, just the terminology - how's that for displaying patience.

I don't know if you've read any of oag's other posts in the forums, but he generally likes to pop up with 2 line inflammatory stuff whatever the topic, when he's not starting argumentative threads like this one (how many threads like that hsve you seen narco, tim, blue, daveuk or me start? Precisely none - we're generally here to learn and share, OAG apparently wrote the textbook back in the 60s and could even teach the guys ar CERN a thing or two, if hes to be believed). The good news zone in particular, I've seen at least 2 threads where he's popped up with negative stuff to say about other people's good news - how's that for common politeness?!

I'm sure you're not at all stupid in the flesh, I just think you've chosen the wrong underdog in this argument. You really should read some of the papers, make sure you understand how things work in practice, before trying to defend an argument with "well, why not?!". For the sake of your own rep, its worth doing that!
Old 25th September 2011
  #693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syncamorea View Post
[...]



Early CD players were not inexpensive and again, most were replacing cassette decks, not turntables. Many CD early adopters paid $600 and above for a CD deck. A $600 turntable/arm/cartridge in the early 80s was plenty of competition in terms of sound quality, especially when comparing a recording that had been remastered for CD, to the original on vinyl. And I mention that comparison because most CDs sold over the first few years of the format were remasters of music that people already knew through cassette, vinyl and the radio. Lack of vinyl noise was easy bait, but ease of use, that convenience factor, was the dominant issue for most of the people I was selling them to, back in the beginning.



[...]
But of course, we were speaking of rise of the CD as the dominant purchase medium, and that didn't take place until CD players were fairly affordable.

Also, as you'll recall, I directly referenced the "overwhelming majority of playback systems in use" at the time, and those did not, by a long stretch, incorporate $600 turntables. Heck, my rig didn't have a $600 turntable. (Maybe when you added up all the phony list prices... heh ) Most folks had whole hi fis that didn't cost half that.


But, of course, unless I missed or am forgetting something, we don't have much real disagreement on any major points, anyhow, I don't think.
Old 25th September 2011
  #694
Lives for gear
 
doug hazelrigg's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
You really should read some of the papers, make sure you understand how things work in practice, before trying to defend an argument with "well, why not?!". For the sake of your own rep, its worth doing that!
I don't disagree with this at all... it's just that, I've read SO many papers, and had lengthy discussions with the incredibly patient Dan and Nika, and my comprehension is STILL wanting
Old 25th September 2011
  #695
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC View Post
Again...incredibly rude and unnecessary...
The irony is that your retorts started with a heated tone applying contentious expressions like "ridiculous", "is a joke" and "a Phd in intersample peaks".

Quote:
I have have only suggested that OAG semms to have some good points and that there have been no arguments to the contrary that make me think he's not on to something.
Look, it's all condominiums between the samples.

Happy?

Never mind the multiple links to Wikipedia, pdfs of published papers by industry experts, or people who've studied digital sampling for years as part of an advanced degree program, or almost a dozen images inlined in this thread, some of them animated. Ignore "Ocean"'s posts, who ALSO agrees that it's basically a normalized sin function that shapes the converter output. He does contend that nothing is perfect and the DAC's reconstruction filters won't create perfect sinc shapes. Never mind that either.

It's all condos.
Old 25th September 2011
  #696
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC View Post
I have have only suggested that OAG semms to have some good points and that there have been no arguments to the contrary that make me think he's not on to something. I could care less who says that have what PhD. Show me don't tell me please.
I did show you.

I showed you the papers.

I explained it as well. The PhD was to give you reason to follow my links - but you didn't! If you put no value in peer reviewed thesis' and science journals then there really isn't much more to be said.

Undertow and DCollins and a few others also showed ya!

Can't explain things to someone who puts it into belief systems rather than proof. That's up to you - you have to come to the table before you can be "taught".... up to you really!
Old 25th September 2011
  #697
Lives for gear
 
dcollins's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC View Post
I have have only suggested that OAG semms to have some good points and that there have been no arguments to the contrary that make me think he's not on to something. I could care less who says that have what PhD. Show me don't tell me please.
Really? Seriously? Hasn't every point been thoroughly debunked?

What do you think OAG is "on to?"

Undertow basically deconstructed the whole argument, and included lots of pretty pictures to support the explanation.

None of which is remotely controversial either, btw...............


DC
Old 26th September 2011
  #698
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by timlloyd View Post
He does have some points, but they are mostly points on a point which doesn't really have a point, making those points completely pointless (argumentum romanesco) ... ... know what I mean?

Re. you being shown things, have you read any of the material that has been alluded to, mentioned, referenced or directly linked to in this thread yet?
I have read a lot of material on the subject actually and still really dont quite get it actually...and I'm not that interested in being right either. SOME seem very concerned with being wrong...and shouldnt be...the greatest engineers ever say things that are completely ridiculous all the time...you guys should remember that actually...which brings me to...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveUK View Post
Imagine being stuck in a control room with either of these! Rude I know but

...you only wish...



I'm wondering how is it you guys cant see how rude you are...you haven't deconstructed anything except your reputations with this witchhunt....OAG is just a dude with a few ideas. Get over it already please.
Old 26th September 2011
  #699
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
I did show you.

I showed you the papers.

I explained it as well. The PhD was to give you reason to follow my links - but you didn't! If you put no value in peer reviewed thesis' and science journals then there really isn't much more to be said.

Undertow and DCollins and a few others also showed ya!

Can't explain things to someone who puts it into belief systems rather than proof. That's up to you - you have to come to the table before you can be "taught".... up to you really!

I'm sorry narcs, but you just have not...you talk in parables...I prefer straight answers myself....I'm sitting at the table...with OAG...having a burger and beer....you seem to be in another room laughing and snickering at us with your friends...not what I'd expect from you actually, as I do kinda respect what you do.
Old 26th September 2011
  #700
Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC View Post
I'm sorry narcs, but you just have not...you talk in parables...I prefer straight answers myself....I'm sitting at the table...with OAG...having a burger and beer....you seem to be in another room laughing and snickering at us with your friends...not what I'd expect from you actually, as I do kinda respect what you do.
He and Undertow and DC gave you plenty of straight answers and when those did not appear to reach you, people used pictures, animations, and, yes, in a sense, even parables.

People showed great patience and consideration to you -- even though you criticized them as not being helpful or informative on one hand and then several times turned around and said you weren't interested in learning when you were pointedly asked why you didn't investigate the information sources people pointed you to.

Rather than approaching this as a technical discussion, you seem to have come into it with some sort of notion there was a lonely, heroic iconoclast fighting off a pack of closed minded bullies. You don't appear to care about scientifically verifiable truth -- only the struggle -- and your unwillingness to educate yourself even to the basic extent necessary to participate in this discussion in a meaningful way seems to preclude the possibility of you gaining the understanding necessary to see why people responded as they did to the trollery of OAG.

In fact, it seems safe to say that you don't even understand what OAG was on about. Granted, it took a lot of cross-examination to pin down precisely what his claims were (although a careful reading of the thread will show that I was among those who got it relatively early on [#153, I identified the issue as one of terminology] -- though he didn't respond at that point, only later when I suggested a minor and unnecessary qualification to one of narcoman's statements did he 'anoint' me with his finally someone who gets it comment -- an approbation apparently later withdrawn).

But even after those claims were finally pinned down and found to be essentially a semantic pet peeve of OAG, it seemed clear that you were still 'supporting' him despite what very much has appeared to be a lack of comprehension on your part as to what he was really on about. Granted, he did not make it easier with his only semi-coherent, nearly punctuation- and grammar-free rantings, but if you were going to participate and attack others, I think it really was your responsibility to at least understand what you were arguing.
Old 26th September 2011
  #701
Oh no... you've got it all wrong.


It's like this...


Old 26th September 2011
  #702
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC View Post
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
YES, It ACTUALLY IS! And and the whole POINT of the concern about intersample peaking or what-the-hell other terminology you want to use is that we have to master tracks to play on all systems, for better or for worse. Sure, I'd love to have my awesome home studio gear installed in my car, but I don't, and I won't - do you? Also, several of the models in the TC paper are actually higher end CD players - NAD and Marantz still make models that retail close to $1000.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC View Post
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.
The lines that he drew ARE IN FACT the ideal DAC outputs, not condos, not straight lines. It's really no big deal at all that you didn't know that, but do you have to call it ridiculous?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC View Post
actually...Ocean's theory (or is that theorum) makes a hell of a lot more sense than saying peaks higher than the preceeding sample and before the next one occur between samples...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...I could place four points on a piece of paper and draw a condo in between them...that serves no purpose ...place 44,100 dots on a sheet and tell me again why a piece of software would fill in the blank spots with arcs or partial triangles.
Which they did, again. You may have missed this post - but I think it's the best one on this whole stupid thread . https://www.gearslutz.com/board/7048758-post480.html



Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC View Post
I'm sorry narcs, but you just have not...you talk in parables...I prefer straight answers myself....
As far as I can tell, he HAS, you just don't want to believe it! Still, you have a good point that folks should not be short or rude. No insult to short people intended, and no I'm not calling you short

Quote:
I'm sitting at the table...with OAG...having a burger and beer....you seem to be in another room laughing and snickering at us with your friends...not what I'd expect from you actually, as I do kinda respect what you do.
I usually avoid doing this - addressing "off topic" stuff and going meta to the germ of a thread - the slippery slope of characterizing people is not cool at all. IMHO, it's odd that you're fine with saying "ridiculous narc" - when he took the time to draw a picture of to explain to you. Then you call him "narcisman". Then when he says he's got a "fuc.king PhD" - as in, legally qualified as a professor of THIS VERY SUBJECT at any university, you lump him in with all the PhDs you've met, who happen to be lowlife leeches. That sounds a little insinuative, doesn't it? Then you call him rude? Well, maybe he was getting a little unkind by that point - jus'saying - glass houses, y'know?

All the best,
Dave
Old 26th September 2011
  #703
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveDaveDave View Post
[...]

Which they did, again. You may have missed this post - but I think it's the best one on this whole stupid thread . https://www.gearslutz.com/board/7048758-post480.html

[...]
You know, that was a great post.

I didn't think I needed to read it, but I read it anyway just to make sure I wasn't missing something or operating under my own previous misconceptions. (I love the internet because it makes it so much easier to check my facts before I shoot off my mouth. Which I occasionally do. heh )

Also, I thought some of the illustrations/animations were really great. I wish I'd had educational materials like that years ago, I might not have labored in my own darkness on some issues.



BTW... with regard to why one can't 'draw condos' between sample points -- it's because (as noted earlier) we've already bandlimited the audio, filtering out the high frequencies that would be required for drawing those condos.

Once we filter out everything at or above half the sample rate, we're left with audio where the smallest 'detail' will be a little less than half a wave cycle between sample points. So, like I said a couple hundred posts ago, you could draw a 'rounded hill' or 'valley' (less than half a sinusoidal wave cycle) -- but no condo.

[That's not a parable. But it's a bit of a simplification.]
Old 26th September 2011
  #704
Gear Nut
 

Ok - something a little germain to the subject - I'm thinking of writing a plugin with some kind of a clip monitor/detector, and perhaps experiment with different kinds of limiting or signal shaping to quickly assist fixing up. I know there are a few plugins that do this, and I do own Izotope Ozone 4 and love what it does. I've have wanted to write a unique compressor plugin for some time - I have a couple unique ideas for multiband management. Part of my motivation is just to experiment and learn, but I can't help but wonder...

1) Is there any money in this idea?
2) How much would you pay for a plugin that just has a clip detection visual, perhaps with some other signal analysis in it? $5? $50?
3) I know there are lots of limiter plugins out there - would you really pay for another that just focuses on this problem? $5? $50? a few beers?
4) Would anyone be interested in beta testing, assuming I actually get my a$$ in gear and write this thing?

Thanks,
Dave
Old 26th September 2011
  #705
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveDaveDave View Post
Ok - something a little germain to the subject - I'm thinking of writing a plugin with some kind of a clip monitor/detector, and perhaps experiment with different kinds of limiting or signal shaping to quickly assist fixing up. I know there are a few plugins that do this, and I do own Izotope Ozone 4 and love what it does. I've have wanted to write a unique compressor plugin for some time - I have a couple unique ideas for multiband management. Part of my motivation is just to experiment and learn, but I can't help but wonder...

1) Is there any money in this idea?
2) How much would you pay for a plugin that just has a clip detection visual, perhaps with some other signal analysis in it? $5? $50?
3) I know there are lots of limiter plugins out there - would you really pay for another that just focuses on this problem? $5? $50? a few beers?
4) Would anyone be interested in beta testing, assuming I actually get my a$$ in gear and write this thing?

Thanks,
Dave
I don't want to sound the spoilsport... but I already use the free X-ISM intersample-aware meter from SSL and my favorite compressor plugin when I'm 'mastering' one of my tracks. (I went back to a computer day job in the late 90s, so I'm my only recording client these days -- and I'm the only ME there's budget to hire. heh )

I have a couple other compressors I'll occasionally try on the bus, but I keep going back to the same old fave, year after year. (Timeworks CompressorX.)


But I'd buy you a beer on GP, meter/compressor aside, even though I don't, myself, drink. (Anymore.)
Old 26th September 2011
  #706
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveDaveDave View Post
The lines that he drew ARE IN FACT the ideal DAC outputs, not condos, not straight lines. It's really no big deal at all that you didn't know that, but do you have to call it ridiculous?
I understand where you are coming from in the big picture, as well as what you mean by "ideal" DAC outputs. I'm sure you know that there are limits to how well A/D's can digitize audio signals and that there are a different set of limits on how well the analog signal can be reconstructed. So whereas my personal "ideal" DAC output would be identical to the original analog signal, I don't expect that to be true.
Old 26th September 2011
  #707
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
I don't want to sound the spoilsport... but I already use the free X-ISM intersample-aware meter from SSL and my favorite compressor plugin when I'm 'mastering' one of my tracks. (I went back to a computer day job in the late 90s, so I'm my only recording client these days -- and I'm the only ME there's budget to hire. heh )

I have a couple other compressors I'll occasionally try on the bus, but I keep going back to the same old fave, year after year. (Timeworks CompressorX.)


But I'd buy you a beer on GP, meter/compressor aside, even though I don't, myself, drink. (Anymore.)
Hey, thanks for the beer!

And thanks for X-ISM - you answered a question I forgot to ask, re: the availability of existing products that do the same thing. Meh, that probably won't stop me from experimenting... I've gotta try that out: Solid State Logic | Music

Thanks again!
Dave
Old 26th September 2011
  #708
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Syncamorea View Post
I understand where you are coming from in the big picture, as well as what you mean by "ideal" DAC outputs. I'm sure you know that there are limits to how well A/D's can digitize audio signals and that there are a different set of limits on how well the analog signal can be reconstructed. So whereas my personal "ideal" DAC output would be identical to the original analog signal, I don't expect that to be true.
Yep, I've been musing about that issue - I'm thinking about having flexible headroom controls, variable by range, allowing the user to er on safety's side. and possibly multple vu-meter style peak detectors.
The idea of profiles for different DACs crossed my mind, but that point it's getting into the realm of modeling, which is waaaay out of my league.

BTW, just being nit-picky, because this point has been bugging me a lot on this thread: if you're mixing ITB at all, even just summing, there is no "original" analog signal, it's a new signal with transients and all kinds of clipping potential that never existed in analog form.

Thanks for the input!
Old 26th September 2011
  #709
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveDaveDave View Post
Hey, thanks for the beer!

And thanks for X-ISM - you answered a question I forgot to ask, re: the availability of existing products that do the same thing. Meh, that probably won't stop me from experimenting... I've gotta try that out: Solid State Logic | Music

Thanks again!
Dave
It's a bit of a CPU-soak (but I have a very modest machine, too). But from my reading, I think that's endemic to intersample-aware meters. I just kick it in at the end.


On the beer, you're welcome! I generally only promise beers to people on other continents... but 2300 miles or so away in D.C. is beer-promise safe, I think. heh (Safer if this wasn't a convention town. But at least they never have AES or NAMM here. All those promised beers might come home to roost, then. )
Old 26th September 2011
  #710
Lives for gear
 

everybody needs to get and read lunds paper distortion to the people

DISTORTION TO THE PEOPLE
Thomas Lund
Program Manager
[email protected]
TC Electronic A/S, Denmark

Abstract
Despite new generations of converters, higher resolution and sample rates, lower jitter, and several other technical
improvements in audio production, many music lovers believe that quality on new CD releases has generally been on a
downward slope since the mid 90'ies.
In previous papers [19-21], one of the contributing factors was found to be the use of extreme level ("0 dBFS+") on new
albums, combined with the lack of headroom in reproduction. Clipping in production and mastering causes listening fatigue, while the sound can be additionally distorted in the digital to analog conversion at the listener. Purely digital processing, such as sample rate conversion, filtering and data reduction codecs, may exhibit the same behavior.

...
Introduction
...
Maximum loudness is also becoming a goal in itself in
new movies, so film operators more frequently now
have to turn down replay level to avoid complaints from
the audience.


Distortion, which cannot be removed again, is the price paid for trying to adjust the end listener's level control.

However, not all the distortion is recognized in the
studio, because it does not show on the meters,
and is
not heard before the signal goes through a reproduction
chain. Therefore, an additional penalty is added:
Unpredictable reproduction quality due to exhausted
headroom in DA converters, sample rate converters
and
... Today, production procedures have completely changed, but the way we measure level has not. Digital dynamics processors may have familiar names such as compressor or limiter, but there is no guarantee they won't invisibly pollute the signal in ways their analog counterparts would not.
This paper describes the consequences of current
leveling and distortion techniques,...

you should get and read the whole paper

see the problems with being too hot anywhere
and
see the terminology NOT using intersample peaks that is correct and meaningful
Old 26th September 2011
  #711
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dcollins View Post
Really? Seriously? Hasn't every point been thoroughly debunked?

What do you think OAG is "on to?"

Undertow basically deconstructed the whole argument, and included lots of pretty pictures to support the explanation.

None of which is remotely controversial either, btw...............


DC
the truth
the pictures still confuse digital and analog
and have no probitive value
Old 26th September 2011
  #712
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
DISTORTION TO THE PEOPLE
you should get and read the whole paper
I could swear this was posted on this thread last week.

Quote:
see the problems with being too hot anywhere
and
see the terminology NOT using intersample peaks that is correct and meaningful
See Page 4: "...Fig 5, level is judged to be lower than the reference
tone by the VU, 9 dB higher than the tone by the PPMs,
12 dB higher when samples are read one by one (meter
6), and 15 dB higher if intersample peaks are also taken
into account (meter 7). This meter therefore displays the
intrinsic level of a digital signal."
Old 26th September 2011
  #713
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
the truth
the pictures still confuse digital and analog
and have no probitive value
Where you see confusion, I see correlation.

Earlier you said "there is NO relation between dBFS and dBu other than random". If I take your words verbatim, "NO relation" - "random", as I said before, we'd have a noise generator instead of a converter.

After all, if there's no relationship between the average program dbFSl and dBu levels, there can be no correlation of instantaneous interpolated sample level to converter output voltage level. If analog and digital signals have no relationship at all is random, we don't have a converter, we have a noise generator.

So I'll ask you again, would it be pink noise, white noise or perhaps a brownian sound generator? I'd hope that it has a brown note filter! Brown note - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Old 26th September 2011
  #714
Gear Maniac
 

Dave 3...no one...addressed my questions on this topic directly...just vague references to previous posts which were vague references to a theorum that you actually need a Phd to understand...and when I asked for the angry side of the argument to explain like I was two...still nothing...NO DAVE there has not been any specific answers to my specific questions...just post after post questioning my intellegence....very telling actually that you guys can't explain something without being demeening.

The picture of four dots with a sinewave explains absolutely nothing regarding intersample peaks...and frankly as I stated before, if that is the best you've got in the form of proof, then the argument goes to OAG by a longshot.

Surely you must be able to understand that if you are going to create an argument, you have to be able to communicate why and not just agree with the most aggressive guy (s) in the room.
Old 26th September 2011
  #715
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
balh.....
But even after those claims were finally pinned down and found to be essentially a semantic pet peeve of OAG, it seemed clear that you were still 'supporting' him despite ....

You really just dont get that any debate is about defining the terms do you?

Narcs is the king of that, can you not see that answering specifics might help redefine the problem or lack of a problem.

It so much safer to point to Nyquist/Shannon and make sweeping generalizations like "I have a PhD, so just know that whatever I say about it is right"...because there is nothing specific to argue against...no accountability in that is there?
Old 26th September 2011
  #716
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC View Post
The picture of four dots with a sinewave explains absolutely nothing regarding intersample peaks...and frankly as I stated before, if that is the best you've got in the form of proof, then the argument goes to OAG by a longshot.
It showed you EXACTLY and simply how a sine wave, upon reconstruction, isn't "peak defined" by it's sample points. did you not notice that the peak of the sine wave was BETWEEN the reference locations of the samples? You're response was "you can draw anything" - the point is you CAN'T - it's a sine wave. Sound is represented in sine waves. If you're unwillingly to accept that as proof then I'm afraid that shows you don't understand the topic. Sorry old chap! Go read Shannon's paper, or even Dans interesting whiter paper, the diagram will be very clear to you then.

It's a similar diagram to the ones in Shannon's original paper. As for winning - Blue, Undertow, Swim and others and myself - cannot "win" as we didn't come up with this stuff. We're just trying to point you in the right direction.
Old 26th September 2011
  #717
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC View Post
I have read a lot of material on the subject actually and still really dont quite get it actually...and I'm not that interested in being right either. SOME seem very concerned with being wrong...and shouldnt be...the greatest engineers ever say things that are completely ridiculous all the time...you guys should remember that actually...which brings me to...
Should we interpret this to mean that (on some level at least) you're not that interested in understanding this stuff? That's how I read it, sorry if that's a misinterpretation ...

Can't think of an example right now, but I do not think it's "ok" for great engineers to say technically ridiculous and incorrect things and stay unchallenged. If people look up to a person and respect what they have to say (often unconditionally), I feel that person has a responsibility not to talk bull**** Personal attacks are never warranted, but correction of false information always is.

To interpret the underlined bit in a different way than I implied above - we should be thankful when someone else bothers to correct our misconceptions - I totally agree with that!

Being confused about some technical points does not inherently make a person "better" at the artistic aspects of this profession ... just to get that out of the way, as it seemed like you may have been hinting at that

///

What have you read on the subject so far? Knowing that might help in pointing you to some literature that's appropriate. What are your specific questions that haven't been answered?
Old 26th September 2011
  #718
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC View Post
You really just dont get that any debate is about defining the terms do you?

Narcs is the king of that, can you not see that answering specifics might help redefine the problem or lack of a problem.

It so much safer to point to Nyquist/Shannon and make sweeping generalizations like "I have a PhD, so just know that whatever I say about it is right"...because there is nothing specific to argue against...no accountability in that is there?
That's because Shannon IS right. You cannot argue with proof. It's not safer to quote these papers - it's what they are for. It is the only meaningful response; referencing the absolute and original proofs on the matter.

Terms have been defined in math and physics for quite a long time now - OAG is after re-defining the terms. Redefinitions are tricky as they break down communication. OAG doesn't like the use of one term to cover concepts in two domains, and I can understand (but not agree) with his point. But "inter sample peak" is a term used in many many papers (forget commercial crap) as well as Lunds paper pointed out by OAG. This isn't a science debate, this is OAG not liking a term. Well tough luck! It's the definition used the world over.

NOW - his ORIGINAL point in the very first posts may hold water. Moving filter bands - great, More accuracy? No.

Second - you have not asked me a single question and now you keep saying "Narco won't answer my question". I'll answer any question you like - but I'm waiting for one!!

So - MandyC - here it is my latest parable....

"Show me an apple"
"here you go" (produces apple)
"thats not an apple".

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
DISTORTION TO THE PEOPLE
Thomas Lund
you should get and read the whole paper

see the problems with being too hot anywhere
and
see the terminology NOT using intersample peaks that is correct and meaningful
I've read the whole paper. It talks about inter sample peaks. Page 4. Under the diagram.

I quote (as DaveDaveDave did earlier):

In Fig 5, level is judged to be lower than the reference tone by the VU, 9 dB higher than the tone by the PPMs, 12 dB higher when samples are read one by one (meter 6), and 15 dB higher if intersample peaks are also taken into account (meter 7). This meter therefore displays the intrinsic level of a digital signal.
Old 26th September 2011
  #719
Lives for gear
 
Bristol_Jonesey's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
nonsense
analog is totally accurate

what is NOT accurate
is bad a/d
schtupping the signal creating harmonics and peaks up the gazooly followed by
bad d/a
and expecting to get accuracy in the analog domain

What a load of bull.

Where do you think the word "analog" comes from?

It's from ANALOGY which means a representation, or approximation.
Old 26th September 2011
  #720
Gear Guru
 
u b k's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bristol_Jonesey View Post
Where do you think the word "analog" comes from?

It's from ANALOGY which means a representation, or approximation.

Analog does not derive from analogy; analog is straight from ancient greek, analogy's etymology is latin (which comes from the greek). Common roots, different sources.

Pickin' nits on a Monday morning! heh


Gregory Scott - ubk
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