Kade Hansson wrote:
> You are probably right. But I am a digital man, and a wave form is a series
> of flat steps lasting for 1/frequency. For me, if a signal is +32767 for
> 1/44.1 ms and then -32767 for 1/44.1 ms in the next sample, we have a
> square wave. I am glad CD players smooth this into a sine/sawtooth wave
> (assuming infinitesimal samples), but then we have the same problem for
> producing a true square wave as we might've for a true sine or sawtooth
> wave. The result is unchanged though- this is clearly the limit of the format.
No, its a limitation of filtering anything above 22kHz out - a 22kHz
squarewave consists of a 22kHz sinewave, a 66kHz one, a 110kHz one all
summed together in varying quantitys. Take out everything abouve 22kHz
and you are left with just the sine wave - none of the harmonics.
Not a limitation of digital, but a limitation of limited bandwidth.
An accurate DA converter will convert a 22kHz signal as a sine wave,
with no harmonics on it at all. Oversampling is one method to make the
construction of the filter in teh DA system easier.
> >> (which is hardly relevant to your average listener, who has more problems
> >> in their amp than from digital artifacts)
Unless the digital artifacts are a result of recording a clipped signal
digitally where they are horrible!
> > No question. I can't tell a 15 kHz sine wave from a 15 kHz square
> >wave.
Because in the audible range there is no differance. the only changes
are the addition of 45 kHz etc to it, which I would hope is beyond your
hearing. 1kHz will be a very diferent story.
> Neither can I. But they are different, which is what the number crunching
> audiophiles will throw at you.
If they complain about that then they really are grasping straws..
> >> A steep sine wave simply cannot be accurately represented at a 44.1kHz
> >> sample rate.
> >>
> > Not sure what this means.
>
> The point is that this is how the audiophiles justify a greater sample rate
> than 44.1kHz- "more points = smoother lines = nicer sound". I too think
> this is crap, but at "smoother lines = nicer sound", not "more points =
> smoother lines". I may be convinced otherwise given some science on human
> perception of ultrasonics and otherwise inaudible harmonics, but for now, I
> think it's crap. :-)
Glad you are siding on logic :)
> Anyway, I'm glad to have fostered such a discussion. It's interesting to
> hear what prosumer digital-heads think of this debate. I think I may have
> to agree that DVD-A is doomed if your collective views are as popular as I
> suspect.
CD audio is fine at moderate to loud levels. It has to be cranking for
the dynamic range to be even a remote concern, and I think the 80dB of
bass blasting away will mask the 1 or 2 dB error that only 16 bits may
create.. big deal.. If you are running it at a volume where the dynamic
range is an issue, you will have no hearing after a while.
CD is great.. $0.50 DA chips arenot. If people would get equipment that
woul dplay what they have better, there will be little demand for the
higher bit rate stuff..
--
Ricahrd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
