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 12th September 2011
  #121
IM_
Gear Head
 
IM_'s Avatar
Higher sample rates react differently to all sorts of imperfections.

AC, grounding, clock jitter, poor cabling, all sorts of vibrations on equipment.

If your monitoring path is distorted you will get better results at 192 than at 48 simply because you hear better.
Old 12th September 2011
  #122
Lives for gear
 
Red Black's Avatar
Jeebus, how do I unsubscribe from this awful time-wasting thread . . . . aaaarrgghh!!!???

Good luck to those that choose to stay!!
Old 12th September 2011
  #123
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by u b k View Post
I don't agree with this. The d/a creates the voltage, yes, but it does so by decoding the digital information in accordance with a very clear set of established standards.

The voltage level is encoded within the binary word, just as the waveshape is. If this weren't true, we'd never be able to reconstruct the original waveform with any degree of fidelity; but we can, both shape and voltage come out as they went in (unless something is flawed in the design or calibration of the a/d or d/a).
It's common to calibrate A/Ds and determine the voltage versus result (binary word) relationship. In scientific instrumentation, it is the designer's choice to either apply the same functionality on the D/A end, or not. So the voltage is not necessarily encoded in the binary word. The choice of making the original analog voltage be mirrored by the output of a combined A/D and D/A process is somewhat arbitrary. I haven't worked actively in the area for a few years, but it is interesting to look at the actual performance of similarly spec'ed A/Ds and D/As when pushed to their limits. It's not always a pretty sight.
Old 12th September 2011
  #124
Gear Guru
 
u b k's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Syncamorea View Post
The choice of making the original analog voltage be mirrored by the output of a combined A/D and D/A process is somewhat arbitrary.

Well, I confess I don't know what "somewhat arbitrary" means, it sounds like "somewhat pregnant".

But aside from whether it's arbitrary (and I don't believe it is), it is most definitely standard and expected practice, and if you design an a/d/a that deviates from this in any significant way you should expect to hear from a large number of confused and/or frustrated customers, and rightfully so.

In the days of tape, alignment and ref levels were also established and universally adopted, and the expectation was that the deck would be aligned for 0dBV IN = 0dBV OUT. If this wasn't the case it was because the end user, not the designer, chose a different alignment.

Nowadays, the vast majority of a/d/a owners are only marginally aware of proper gainstaging and alignment, so calibrating gear from the factory that works as expected is even more crucial unless you want to expand your customer service department and suffer the online wrath of your unhappy end users.


Gregory Scott - ubk
Old 12th September 2011
  #125
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by timlloyd View Post
Yes, but when I manage to get the details of the martin series worked out, I'll give it to all the digi-meter-makers for free, cz then all our metering will sound better. I'm just that nice.
yes yes.

It's only fair to betterise such a thing with advanced fluton barrier methods. Nice
Old 12th September 2011
  #126
Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
yes yes.

It's only fair to betterise such a thing with advanced fluton barrier methods. Nice
For us statesiders, I think you're going to have to respell that for the stars-and-stripes crowd: betterize.
Old 12th September 2011
  #127
Lives for gear
 
Arksun's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post

stop confusing teh digital and analog domains
I'm really starting to think he's just trolling now. We've all made the clear distinctions, Dave has kindly illustrated the point with graphs, we all get it, yet oldanalogueguy keeps accusing us of confusing the two different domains
Old 12th September 2011
  #128
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
For us statesiders, I think you're going to have to respell that for the stars-and-stripes crowd: betterize.
i'm very sorry for my unbrambulent spelling. I'll try to be less hernate in future so as not to relparb the general calficant public.
Old 12th September 2011
  #129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arksun View Post
I'm really starting to think he's just trolling now. We've all made the clear distinctions, Dave has kindly illustrated the point with graphs, we all get it, yet oldanalogueguy keeps accusing us of confusing the two different domains
Either that or just doesn't have a clue....
Old 12th September 2011
  #130
Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
i'm very sorry for my unbrambulent spelling. I'll try to be less hernate in future so as not to relparb the general calficant public.
I believe my line at this juncture is:

That's easy for you to say...



EDIT: Oh, geez, now I'm going to walk around all day with unbrambulent stuck in my head....
Old 12th September 2011
  #131
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
advanced fluton barrier methods
Isn't this related to the new contraceptive technique that's rumoured to save the audio industry? *sigh* AES haven't notified me via Facebook yet ... slackers ... tbh, it sounds kind of scary.
Old 12th September 2011
  #132
Quote:
Originally Posted by timlloyd View Post
Isn't this related to the new contraceptive technique that's rumoured to save the audio industry? *sigh* AES haven't notified me via Facebook yet ... slackers ... tbh, it sounds kind of scary.
They're still forming the study group. After that, the committee...
Old 12th September 2011
  #133
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

it's just problems upon unbrambulant problems....
Old 12th September 2011
  #134
Lives for gear
 
DaveUK's Avatar
I gotta get me a better fluton barrier
Or flautist fence!

Sent from my X10i using Gearslutz.com App
Old 12th September 2011
  #135
A futon barrier is one of those plastic coverings right? To keep you from getting any sort of untoward fluids on your futon?
Old 12th September 2011
  #136
Lives for gear
 
DaveUK's Avatar
INTER FLUID PEAKS DO NOT EXIST
TAHT SI TEH FACT!

Sent from my X10i using Gearslutz.com App
Old 12th September 2011
  #137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
A futon barrier is one of those plastic coverings right? To keep you from getting any sort of untoward fluids on your futon?
As in -- Yuck, don't put your fluton my futon! -- ?
Old 12th September 2011
  #138
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

we have a winner!!!
Old 13th September 2011
  #139
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by u b k View Post
Well, I confess I don't know what "somewhat arbitrary" means, it sounds like "somewhat pregnant".
It means that it's dependent on choices made when designing and calibrating the A/D.
Old 13th September 2011
  #140
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post
[dump]You don't MAKE samples - you TAKE samples. And any sampler that records audio is obviously taking samples - aka "sampling".

Gigasampler and EMU Emulator X2 are two soft samplers that actually record audio and therefore are correctly named as samplers. Most other samplers are officially considered to be sample players, but I see no problem calling them samplers for short.

What the hell do you mean by "what sequencer sequences?" They all sequence, Jedi Dumb Arse. If you are recording midi notes, one after another, and playing them back, one after another, that is - by defination - a sequence of notes. You are sequencing with your sequencer ... get over it. Whether recording, or playing back, it's all a sequential stream of notes and data.

And controllers don't control?? Then WTF are you doing when you move the Mod Wheel and the pitch goes down, or you move you Expression pedal and the volume goes up, or press a pedal and a Leslie emulator changes from fast to slow speed ...

In my book, you are most certainly "controlling" stuff using MIDI control data initiated by control devices ...

Feel free to invent your own definition of the English language - it's a living language after all. But don't expect everyone to understand what the hell you are talking about if you don't join in with the common useage of words ...
[/dump]
nutz
i want to MAKE samples
you can call it take if you want

*I* did teh sequencing
my keyboard sequenced
finale sequenced
the sequencer just played what was already sequenced

dont have a mod wheel
my "controller" merely enters data into a notation program

i prefer to use english to mean what the words mean
not tack on new defintions to words when the new usage counters the traditional one
Old 13th September 2011
  #141
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Goat View Post
Isn't that what a sequencer does? Play samples that you have, that you put in sequence?

Ah, ****, there's five minutes I can't get back.
sounds like a player if they are already sequenced

as i said a sequencer does not sequence anything
Old 13th September 2011
  #142
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
No one is saying it's a problem. They are not represented by value as samples themselves (how could they be?).

Peak meters in the digital domain measure the sinc function reconstruction so do, in fact, measure the peak of the reconstructed wave - in other words they measure the peaks between the samples. It's not a problem but it is a facet. As long as you have a calibrated system the peak meter in the digital domain will give you an exact match for the voltage reading in the analogue domain. They give a warning in reconstruction and may have a problem in the analogue domain as the peaks can be up to 6dB over peak sample value. If you're running into headroom on an analogue system it is possible to run into distortion and further clipping with such an issue. In fact this was a real problem with older CD players built with little headroom.

When you do a "peak" search in PT on a waveform it does NOT go through the file and look for the largest sample value. It looks for the highest "virtual amplitude" which includes "between the samples".
lots of people have claimed intersample peaks are a problem
i suspect many if not most are broadcast media types trying to guess the analog characteristics in real time while still in the digital domain ..


rotflamo
there are NO sinc functions except in a math textbook
you can do other techniques
maybe you could approximate them
but none of them will be accurate - just guesses of various quality depending on how they were done .
Old 13th September 2011
  #143
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by child of Gaia View Post
They carry the information of the voltage relative to the D/A converter playing them back and that's all that matters.

nonsense
the digital only has the waveform shape
the d/a can make teh voltage as large or small as the designer wants

No you couldn't. Well, maybe you could but your S/N ratio would be terrible and no one would use your converters. Even the best analogue consoles in the world cannot achieve that kind of dynamic range, even the highest end gear tops out at about 124db, or 100db + 24db headroom.

????

Intersample peaks are normal. However, it seems that you are referring to intersample "clipping" or "overs" as "intersample peaks", and then claim that such clipping does not happen. Well it does. And it has nothing to do with not being "nyquist compliant", whatever that means.

no. i am using the term as the people who mistakenly claim that intersample peaks exist use it.

there are no samples in the analog domain hence no intersamples to have peaks
there is nothing between the samples in the digital domain


Of course samples dont exist in the analogue world, everyone knows that. The reason "intersample peaks" or "intersample overs" are used to describe the phenomenon is because they describe what will or what has happened to the audio when it is converted from digital numbers to analogue voltage.

only by people who confuse digital domain and analog domain and try to draw digital things on an analog picture

True, 0dbfs is a digital measurement and is not necessarily explanatory of the corresponding voltage level in analogue, but to get the best dynamic range out of the converters, 0dbfs has to be pretty darn close to the close to clipping in analogue. [Not to mention gain staging with other equipment]. In the best converters, you are turning 24bit digital streams (144db) over to a 124db analogue circuit. There's not much room to mess around there. If a converter manufacturer leaves 1bit extra for headroom, that still gives you +6db for any overs, which should be plenty in most cases.

rotflamo
way too much DR
most folks are squashign the crap out of the signal to make it louder. CDs cant use it. People cant hear it.
If you really wanted more DR I could design the d/a to give you *MORE* than the digital DR.

If you brickwall limit or clip "in the box" with processing that does not compensate for intersample clipping (which many do) and peak at 0dbfs, there is a good chance - depending on the program material - you will be creating consecutive samples at 0dfs which will correspond to "overs" in the D/A. This is not a problem, as it can be manually compensated for. It is also not a manufacturing fault, since those peaks can theoretically be huge enough to overcome the internal headroom in most converters - again depending on the program material. If you don't understand this by now, I don't think anyone can help you.
if you limit in the box you will be creating peaks.
sure you can manually adjust things. but why not just avoid the problem in the first place.


Old 13th September 2011
  #144
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
As in -- Yuck, don't put your fluton my futon! -- ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
we have a winner!!!
Maybe you dropped an e and picked up an extra n there?





Sorry. Uh, this is one of those times that I hope we are all dudes here.


heh
Old 13th September 2011
  #145
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by u b k View Post
I don't agree with this. The d/a creates the voltage, yes, but it does so by decoding the digital information in accordance with a very clear set of established standards.

what standard says how many bits have to match some given voltage level? not everybody follows standards.
the d/a design sets the level and dont pay no never mind to any alleged standards.

The voltage level is encoded within the binary word, just as the waveshape is. If this weren't true, we'd never be able to reconstruct the original waveform with any degree of fidelity; but we can, both shape and voltage come out as they went in (unless something is flawed in the design or calibration of the a/d or d/a).

rotflmao
there is no voltage level encoded in the digital samples


you get the exact signal recreated because the shape is encoded in the digital. the d/a sets the analog voltage levels . you can twist the knob to the right/left to make it as loud/soft as you want. that is a perfect recreation.

Well, the problem would be that you arbitrarily inserted a -40dB amplifier stage in your d/a, thus completely breaking with standards and ruining any hope I have of good gain staging.

what standards? if a standard causes problems with peaking then why follow a flawed standard?

To the matter at hand, maybe I'm missing the point of the discussion, but from my perspective it is both fallacious and counterproductive to blame either analog or digital for intersample peaks and the clipping that results. There is no clipped waveform in the digital word, in fact there is no waveform whatsoever, only binary data stored accurately, so how can this be a digital issue? Likewise, the analog circuit could easily recreate the original waveform if only the word were trimmed back before conversion.

the point is that many people erroneously allege that intersample peaks are a problem. i have shown that they do not exist unless the d/a is badly instantiated or you did non linear processing in the digital domain.

So as I see it, intersample peaks and clipping are a problem that only exists when the worlds of analog and digital meet under real world conditions. They do have to meet somewhere, and without industry standard ref levels we'd all be screwed and cd players would've never been viable, let alone daws and interfaces... wait, maybe that'd be a good thing.

the problem is only for broadcast media that expect a real time hands off fully automated signal flow that meets very extreme specifications wrt peaks and rms values.

they have a bigger problem because of the design and mistaken usage of the gear

Regardless, no matter where you set the ref level there will still be a ceiling, so this problem is unavoidable, and the blame lies squarely at the border of the two worlds.

nonsense
i can set the ceiling so high that you would need a nuclear rocket to reach that high


Gregory Scott - ubk

see bold inserted
Old 13th September 2011
  #146
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
You've had the benefit of digital design engineers trying to explain it to you. You were pointed to a very cogent, straightforward explanation from the makers of SSL consoles and software -- who sort of have a rep for having more than half a clue what's going on. Intersample peaks are a real phenomenon of the DAC process, whatever your feelings about the logic or lack thereof behind their nomenclature.

and i irritated the heck out of my students when i said the textbook was wrong and then proved it.

logical fallacy to appeal to authority to prove something

i have shown that there is no intersample peak problem because there are no intersample peaks. and that if you do have problmes it is due to the bad d/a design or violating nyquist in the digital domain.

Somehow I don't think this is a matter of the experts all being wrong and you being right.
of course not
it is a matter of what *IS* right
and what is just internet whizdumb , urban myth, or what high school seniors know.
Old 13th September 2011
  #147
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Either that or just doesn't have a clue....
or I understand and they are still confusing digital and analog

most of them violate nyquist in the digital domain
and still expect things to work right after the d/a
Old 13th September 2011
  #148
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveUK View Post
INTER FLUID PEAKS DO NOT EXIST
TAHT SI TEH FACT!

Sent from my X10i using Gearslutz.com App
unless the condom breaks
Old 13th September 2011
  #149
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arksun View Post
I'm really starting to think he's just trolling now. We've all made the clear distinctions, Dave has kindly illustrated the point with graphs, we all get it, yet oldanalogueguy keeps accusing us of confusing the two different domains
you have made erroneous distinctions

if you were not confusing the domains you would see things very clearly
Old 13th September 2011
  #150
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by u b k View Post
Well, I confess I don't know what "somewhat arbitrary" means, it sounds like "somewhat pregnant".

But aside from whether it's arbitrary (and I don't believe it is), it is most definitely standard and expected practice, and if you design an a/d/a that deviates from this in any significant way you should expect to hear from a large number of confused and/or frustrated customers, and rightfully so.

In the days of tape, alignment and ref levels were also established and universally adopted, and the expectation was that the deck would be aligned for 0dBV IN = 0dBV OUT. If this wasn't the case it was because the end user, not the designer, chose a different alignment.

Nowadays, the vast majority of a/d/a owners are only marginally aware of proper gainstaging and alignment, so calibrating gear from the factory that works as expected is even more crucial unless you want to expand your customer service department and suffer the online wrath of your unhappy end users.


Gregory Scott - ubk
but if 0 in = 0 out plus peaks and distortion
maybe you should use 0 in
= -40 out clean + +40 gain to bring it up to 0 w/o peaks and no new distortion (except the distortion deliberately added in the digital domain)
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