Well, it’s a DSP blog. The intended audience is whoever reads it, I’m not judgmental. So, the question is probably more like “who can benefit from it”. At the novice end, I’d say they can probably benefit at least from the revelation that it comes from solving issues in analog communication, and subsequently figuring out the math of it. And if they don’t yet grok digital, but have a background (modular synthesist, electrical engineer) that gives them an intuitive grasp of amplitude modulation, I think they will benefit big over the typical classroom approach.
At the other end, there are certainly DSP experts who do not understand that samples represent impulses and the ramifications to the spectrum. This is no knock on them, there are good circuit designers who don’t know how generators work, of capable mechanics that don’t know how and why carburetors work. You don’t have to simultaneously know everything to be successful. But I think this lesson is an important one and that’s why I put it out there. For instance, sample rate conversion is a black art for many—they do the steps, but in cases that are a little out of the ordinary, they need to ask what to do. I think if you understand the points I made, SRC becomes incredibly obvious (particularly at integer ratios). Just an example. I’m glad it was of some help to you, thanks for saying. > On Aug 26, 2017, at 9:07 PM, Bernie Maier <music-...@lists.blurk.net> wrote: > >> Please check out my new series on sampling theory, and feel free to comment >> here or there. The goal was to be brief, but thorough, and avoid abstract >> mathematical explanations. In other words, accurate enough that you can >> deduce correct calculations from it, but intuitive enough for the math-shy. >> >> http://www.earlevel.com/main/tag/sampling-theory-series/?order=asc >> <http://www.earlevel.com/main/tag/sampling-theory-series/?order=asc> > > Echoing the comments so far, thanks from me also for this and in particular > taking a new, or at least not commonly adopted, approach to explaining this. > > That said, I felt unclear about who your intended audience is. I'm on this > list not out of any real DSP expertise, but more out of an interest in music, > audio software and (a long time ago) some mathematical background. But your > very opening section in part one appears to me to require quite a bit of > assumed background knowledge. The reader is expected to already know what an > impulse is, then a bandlimited impulse and so on. > > Maybe your intended audience is DSP practitioners needing to solidify their > theoretical background. If so, perhaps you could be more clear about that in > the prologue. If your intention is, like I at first assumed, to make this a > thorough introduction to those with no DSP background then I suggest you may > need to spend some more time in the introduction defining terms at the very > least. > > But even with my limited background theory, I did appreciate this > perspective, and it does correct some mistaken perceptions I had about > sampling theory. _______________________________________________ > dupswapdrop: music-dsp mailing list > music-dsp@music.columbia.edu > https://lists.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp > _______________________________________________ dupswapdrop: music-dsp mailing list music-dsp@music.columbia.edu https://lists.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp
