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 13th September 2011
  #151
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Syncamorea View Post
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.
the problem is not them per se but futzing up the signal in the digital domain with non linear processing and too much compression clipping and other nonlinear processing.

no d/a can take an invalid nyquist signal that has distortion
and give a clean analog w/o peaks/clipping and the same distortion.
Old 13th September 2011
  #152
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by IM_ View Post
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.
true
we are limited by many physical factors
but within those limits
higher sample rates give better fi to the results
Old 13th September 2011
  #153
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1
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.
For the record -- I did not write any of the nonsense in red, above.

Please do NOT use this BB system to quote me and then insert a lot of nonsense I did not write into the quote box.

Maybe you think that people will get it that the bolded bits (which I made red above) are your response to me but that is most surely NOT what most people expect or how such quote boxes are supposed to work.


I'm struggling to find a reasoned response to your apparent insistence that you are the sole arbiter of correctness in audio terminology, but, frankly, watching you lecture a respected design engineer with your idiosyncratic insistence that he is wrong and you are right or flatly suggesting that SSL, who are responsible for some of the most respected digital and analog gear designs of the last 30 years, don't know what they're talking about when they write about intersample peaks, I'm all but beside myself.
Old 13th September 2011
  #154
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
For the record -- I did not write any of the nonsense in red, above.

Please do NOT use this BB system to quote me and then insert a lot of nonsense I did not write into the quote box.

Maybe you think that people will get it that the bolded bits (which I made red above) are your response to me but that is most surely NOT what most people expect or how such quote boxes are supposed to work.

I guess you feel that your sense of your own inerrant rectitude is such that you can do anything you want and it will be all right. More proof, I guess -- were any needed -- that you are so full of yourself that there's no room for any common sense.


I'm struggling to find a reasoned response to your nonsensical insistence that you are the sole arbiter of correctness in audio terminology, but, frankly, watching you lecture a respected design engineer with your idiosyncratic and arbitrary insistence that he is wrong and you are right or flatly suggesting that SSL, who are responsible for some of the most respected digital and analog gear designs of the last 30 years, don't know what they're talking about when they write about intersample peaks, I'm all but beside myself.

NUTZ!!!!!!!!

you spouted off so much that I inserted my answers after your comments. nobody would confuse my replies with your origianl.

so chill dude and stop being a bleeping bleepbleep

if multiquote worked i would use that

dont care what people expect
they would not be confused

i normally state see my answers inserted above
if i forget on yoru reply well tough **** that is not worth your getting all hot and bothered about.
Old 13th September 2011
  #155
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
For the record -- I did not write any of the nonsense in red, above.


what red ?

Please do NOT use this BB system to quote me and then insert a lot of nonsense I did not write into the quote box.

didnt do that
i insert my answers taht are clearly delineated
after your comments

Maybe you think that people will get it that the bolded bits (which I made red above) are your response to me but that is most surely NOT what most people expect or how such quote boxes are supposed to work.

you gotta be pretty stupid not to get it
if multiquote worked i would use it


I'm struggling to find a reasoned response to your apparent insistence that you are the sole arbiter of correctness in audio terminology, but, frankly, watching you lecture a respected design engineer with your idiosyncratic insistence that he is wrong and you are right or flatly suggesting that SSL, who are responsible for some of the most respected digital and analog gear designs of the last 30 years, don't know what they're talking about when they write about intersample peaks, I'm all but beside myself.

i speak english. words have meanings. i do not accept made up counterintuive, erroneous, or other such blather by others. there is no way to communciate if you do that.

dont care who has a name. only the facts.
the facts are, and i have clearly proven them, that there are no intersample peaks.

there are NO samples in the analog domain.
hence no intersamples.
and since you get the exact signal you have no peaks over that baseline.

in the digital domain there is nothing between samples hence no intersamples there either.

if you and your so called expert said what you meant there would be less confusion. but you all keep mixing up the analog and digital domains so clearly using words would be harder for you all.
see my comments inserted above
Old 13th September 2011
  #156
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
or I understand and they are still confusing digital and analog
mmmfmfmfmfmf!!!!

Old 13th September 2011
  #157
Lives for gear
 
DaveUK's Avatar
I think i've gone senile reading this
Old 13th September 2011
  #158
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
Some have derided my observation that higher sample rates do improve quality.

So if higher sample rates do not matter then why would a vendor produce this new DAC?

Phasure NOS1 24/768 async USB :

Asynchronous USB with maximum input of 32 bit 768KHz.
Output : 24/768 max. All further sample rates supported.

So feel free to tell me why they andor I are idiots for believing that higher sample rates are better.




should this be in the new gear listing too ?
more info at
Phasure NOS1 24/768 async USB DAC
Quote from their specs sheet:

Quote:
Frequency response 1 Hz to 384000 KHz (768KHz sample rate).
384000 KHz of bandwidth from 768KHz Fs?! Have they overcome the Nyquist law or something?

How are they reproducing or even picking up an audiofrequency of 384 Mhz?! That would be 100 times more bandwith than the sample-frequency of DSD?!

Sounds like complete bull$hit to me.

Since it´s only a DAC how the flip did they record Audio with a frequency of 384 MHz?!

First they should read up a little on the difference between the prefix "kilo" and "Mega"...
Old 13th September 2011
  #159
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
i prefer to use english to mean what the words mean
and yet amazingly your posts are still incomprehensible.
Old 13th September 2011
  #160
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
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
No, I'm pretty sure that it's you don't understand. Maybe just that you're horrifically bad at communicating what you mean. Please tell me you're not a teacher in "real life"?!
Old 13th September 2011
  #161
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
rotflamo
there are NO sinc functions except in a math textbook
you can do other techniques.
Okay - now I know you're just pissing about. Chaps - he's on a wind up. Time to drop it...... No sinc function my ass - I could ****ing build you one!!!
Old 13th September 2011
  #162
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
Time to drop it......
Old 13th September 2011
  #163
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
if
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
multiquote
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
worked
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
i
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
would
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
use
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
it
Another thing you know nothing about!
Old 13th September 2011
  #164
Lives for gear
 
Bristol_Jonesey's Avatar
LMAO!!!
Old 13th September 2011
  #165
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
no
i am saying they should use proper english
And proper capitilization. Kudo's for the N on Nyquist though....


Quote:
stop confusing teh digital and analog domains
Ya, it gives them headaches! Poor confused domains dunno WHAT to do...


Old 13th September 2011
  #166
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveDaveDave View Post
And proper capitilization. Kudo's for the N on Nyquist though....
How about you learning how to spell capitalization first before being a wisenheimer?
Old 13th September 2011
  #167
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple-q View Post
How about you learning how to spell capitalization first before being a wisenheimer?
*ding ding - incorrect participle alert*

Don't start on my post. I wasn't attempting to be grammatically correct

Old 13th September 2011
  #168
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple-q View Post
How about you learning how to spell capitalization first before being a wisenheimer?
Toushay Amigo!
Old 13th September 2011
  #169
Quote:
Originally Posted by apple-q View Post
How about you learning how to spell capitalization first before being a wisenheimer?
Actually, being as this board is hosted in the UK, it's "capitalisation"....capitalization gets flagged up as incorrect over here
Old 13th September 2011
  #170
somewhere there's a band waiting to record.........
Old 13th September 2011
  #171
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by timlloyd View Post
*ding ding - incorrect participle alert*

Don't start on my post. I wasn't attempting to be grammatically correct

I think for someone who´s native language isn´t english that should be OK.

Old 13th September 2011
  #172
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Actually, being as this board is hosted in the UK, it's "capitalisation"....capitalization gets flagged up as incorrect over here
Yep. It´s actually mentioned in the link I posted.
Old 13th September 2011
  #173
Lives for gear
 

Of course it's OK, I'm just finding this thread increasingly amusing and that's not a bad thing
Old 13th September 2011
  #174
Lives for gear
 

From grammar back to math since it´s more logical:

Can someone explain to me what a frequency bandwidth of 300 and more MHz (Million Hertz!!!!) means in terms of audio?
Is that converter an April fool´s hoax or something or are they serious?
Old 13th September 2011
  #175
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by timlloyd View Post
Of course it's OK, I'm just finding this thread increasingly amusing and that's not a bad thing
Definitely a candidate for the most insane GS thread award.

heh
Old 13th September 2011
  #176
Gear Nut
 

So, thread done right? Muahahahahaha - sigh. Whew... I wanted to post this a while ago but forgot - let's see what Bob Katz and Dan Lavry have to say...

PSW Recording Forums: Dan Lavry => intersample peaks

Whew, that was a breath of fresh air! The concision, the diction, the nomenclature - all covered in 10 posts.

Last edited by DaveDaveDave; 13th September 2011 at 03:41 PM.. Reason: added Muahahahaha for effect :)
Old 13th September 2011
  #177
Lives for gear
 
TurboJets's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveDaveDave View Post
So, thread done right? Muahahahahaha - sigh. Whew... I wanted to post this a while ago but forgot - let's see what Bob Katz and Dan Lavry have to say...

PSW Recording Forums: Dan Lavry => intersample peaks

Whew, that was a breath of fresh air! The concision, the diction, the nomenclature - all covered in 10 posts.
Covered in 10 posts to be sure, and I agree Dan Lavry is the guy to trust.

But to conclude the whole discussion in just 10 posts?..is not very good for the popcorn industry.
Old 13th September 2011
  #178
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboJets View Post
Covered in 10 posts to be sure, and I agree Dan Lavry is the guy to trust.

But to conclude the whole discussion in just 10 posts?..is not very good for the popcorn industry.
heh



That thread was actually my introduction to the subject. And I'll admit, my initial reaction to the idea was disbelief -- but by the end of the thread I got the picture.
Old 13th September 2011
  #179
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple-q View Post
From grammar back to math since it´s more logical:

Can someone explain to me what a frequency bandwidth of 300 and more MHz (Million Hertz!!!!) means in terms of audio?
Is that converter an April fool´s hoax or something or are they serious?
it has to do with more accurate a/d/a of the signal in the audio bandwidth.

surely some golden eared stereophile who didnt get enough improvment with his green magic markers on the cds will want that extra capability.
Old 13th September 2011
  #180
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Another thing you know nothing about!
at least i know what i dont know
which a lot of people here fail to do

if i say it is true you can take it to the bank
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