So what about we avoid the resampling step to 44/16 and just start
shipping the digital masters in 96/24 or whatever they are? Why would
anyone object?
drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=594
Surely 640KB is enough for anyone? ;)
drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593
__
philippe_44 wrote:
> Your hearing has a lowpass filter <20KHz.
Ah, but how about my pet bat Eric? :)
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch,
pablolie wrote:
> Nyquist in theory requires you to get a *perfect* sample of a signal.
> The quantification error is the issue with implementing the Nyquist
> theorem in digital audio - not the kHz.
Right. Nyquist works just fine even with finite resolution, but the
finite resolution produces a
Jeff07971 wrote:
> After an "interesting" :) discussion here regarding bandwidth and sample
> depth/rates in digital audio I found this interesting :-
>
> http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm
I'm not sure anybody claims that such instruments do not produce >20KHz
sound, like som
Julf wrote:
> Have you seen actual scientific research showing we need more than 16
> bits for *storing* the music? We do need more than 16 for *recording* to
> ensure sufficient headroom, but once the recording has been normalized,
> that is not an issue.
>
> I would also love to see pointers t
pablolie wrote:
> I don't think there is anything problematic about 16/44.1, personally.
> But the major objection with more scientific backing is that is should
> be 20 rather than 16. DR stuff with far more valid arguments behind it.
> I have read far more tests claiming we need 20 bits than we
Jeff07971 wrote:
> Isn't this the ultimate DBT ? Even the subject didn't know they were
> reacting ! :)
Yes - and if other researchers can reproduce and verify the results, it
would definitely be interesting, but until that happens, I am afraid it
has to be filed away in the "cold fusion" catego
Julf wrote:
> And what do you feel is problematic about it?
I don't think there is anything problematic about 16/44.1, personally.
But the major objection with more scientific backing is that is should
be 20 rather than 16. DR stuff with far more valid arguments behind it.
I have read far more t
Some may argue it's not "music", but I have a large collection of Aphex
Twin with a good complement of near- square waves in it (heavily clipped
sub bass tones in some cases). Of course, since no-one knows what those
synth notes are attempting to sound like, no-one can intuitively say
that what a
Julf wrote:
> The Oohashi research has pretty much been discredited, mainly because it
> "originates with a single research group whose results contain some
> contradictions and whose results have apparently never been
> independently reproduced". On the other hand, there is ample
> reproducible
Jeff07971 wrote:
> However there is reference http://jn.physiology.org/content/83/6/3548
> which seems to suggest that our brains are affected by signals outside
> the 20Khz window even if we can't "hear" them
The Oohashi research has pretty much been discredited, mainly because it
"originates w
arnyk wrote:
> I had this article in mind when I mentioned the Harman Mute Trumpet in a
> previous post. The thing to remember that the world is full of all sorts
> of noises that our ears and brains are blissfully unaware of, and that
> keeps our minds focused on the important things.
I thought
Wombat wrote:
> I have an old thread with people argue about several aspects of what
> golden ears believe to be important. Please take some time to follow the
> man posting as jj.
> http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=65&t=85&sid=ebf649f5fd9a63defdacc7c60d6acb1c
That articleis based on
pablolie wrote:
> But... how are "squarewaves of any frequency" relevant to music
> reproduction?
The aren't. There's an old saying among people who analyze dynamic
systems which I learned from a grizzed old pH D back when I was a buck
engineer. He said "The universe is well analyzed as if it w
arnyk wrote:
> The thing to remember that the world is full of all sorts of noises that
> our ears and brains are blissfully unaware of, and that keeps our minds
> focused on the important things.
We have a fair number of bats living in the neighbourhood, and while
their chatter might be interes
pablolie wrote:
> BTW I find it interesting that so much discussion has focused on the
> bandwidth needs of music. Arguably the more problematic aspect is the
> digitization/quantizing of the sample itself. :-)
And what do you feel is problematic about it?
"To try to judge the real from the f
I have an old thread with people argue about several aspects of what
golden ears believe to be important. Please take some time to follow the
man posting as jj.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=65&t=85&sid=ebf649f5fd9a63defdacc7c60d6acb1c
Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde A
Jeff07971 wrote:
> After an "interesting" :) discussion here regarding bandwidth and sample
> depth/rates in digital audio I found this interesting :-
>
> http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm
I had this article in mind when I mentioned the Harman Mute Trumpet in a
previous post.
After an "interesting" :) discussion here regarding bandwidth and sample
depth/rates in digital audio I found this interesting :-
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm
*Players:* SliMP3,Squeezebox3 x3,Receiver,SqueezePlayer,PiCorePlayer
x3,Wandboard
*Server:* LMS Version: 7.9.0
Julf wrote:
> I am happy with that, thanks! :)
But... how are "squarewaves of any frequency" relevant to music
reproduction? And if you like square waves, why bother transform them to
the analog domain? Digital is pretty good at square waves. :-)
BTW I find it interesting that so much discussi
Jeff07971 wrote:
> Arnyk, Julf, Slarti
>
> OK I apologise, my reference to FFT was not very well though out.
>
> I should have said something like "To correctly pass a squarewave of any
> frequency an infinite bandwidth is required" can we agree to that ?
>
> and Arnyk I apologise specifically
Jeff07971 wrote:
> I should have said something like "To correctly pass a squarewave of any
> frequency an infinite bandwidth is required" can we agree to that ?
I am happy with that, thanks! :)
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fi
arnyk wrote:
> Many different music instruments create acoustical signals > 20 KHz.
> Cymbals are actually not the best sources of ultrasonic sound, their
> energy is typically concentrated in the 6=16 KHz range. Many tambourines
> will vastly outproduce cymbals when it comes to ultrasonic sound
Arnyk, Julf, Slarti
OK I apologise, my reference to FFT was not very well though out.
I should have said something like "To correctly pass a squarewave of any
frequency an infinite bandwidth is required" can we agree to that ?
and Arnyk I apologise specifically to you for "Maybe you should lear
Jeff07971 wrote:
> DC is in inverted commas for a reason, means 0 frequecy
>
> Edit: I see where the confusion arises, FFT is frequency domain not time
> domain
> to simplify to pass a true squarewave an infinite bandwidth is required.
Yet another error. FFT is a well known mathematical transfo
Jeff07971 wrote:
> Maybe you should learn to read !
>
> From the link
Yet another error - The quoted text is completely irrelevant to the
comment of mine that it purports to correct.
You should really stop with this nonsense while you are only a little
bit behind!
---
Jeff07971 wrote:
> DC is in inverted commas for a reason, means 0 frequecy
DC soes not need to be in inverted commas to mean zero frequency. The
flat top is produced by adding the odd harmonics up to infinity.
Infinite bandwidth does not have to start from zero. In this case it
starts from the f
Jeff07971 wrote:
> however the Nyquist limit is only true when the signal is purely
> sinusoidal
This has already been addressed by others, but just wanted to make very
clear that this statement is somewhat misleading in being kind of the
wrong way around.
What Nyquist-Shannon states is that yo
Julf wrote:
> Wrong on both counts.
DC is in inverted commas for a reason, means 0 frequecy
*Players:* SliMP3,Squeezebox3 x3,Receiver,SqueezePlayer,PiCorePlayer
x3,Wandboard
*Server:* LMS Version: 7.9.0 - 1475786002 on Centos 7 VM on ESXi 6 on
Dell T320
*Plugins:* AutoRescan/BBCiPlayer/Power
Jeff07971 wrote:
> The flat top of a square wave is in effect a "DC" it cannot be flat if
> you cannot pass "DC"
Wrong on both counts.
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will f
arnyk wrote:
> False claim. The commonly-seen tilt of a square wave's top is due to
> phase shift. When you avoid having significant amounts of that phase
> shift, perhaps by using a relatively high fundamental frequency, the
> wave top is flat.
>
> BTW, I can also confirm the post that says
Jeff07971 wrote:
> The flat top of a square wave is in effect a "DC" it cannot be flat if
> you cannot pass "DC"
>
> The rising edge is effectively a very high freq nearly ∞ in
> contrast to the fundemental
>
> 2169721698
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_wave
I'm not sure what you a
Jeff07971 wrote:
> The flat top of a square wave is in effect a "DC" it cannot be flat if
> you cannot pass "DC"
>
False claim. The commonly-seen tilt of a square wave's top is due to
phase shift. When you avoid having significant amounts of that phase
shift, perhaps by using a relatively hi
slartibartfast wrote:
> I do not understand why an FFT of a square wave would require sines of
> 1/∞ -∞ Hz. The lowest frequency present in a square wave is
> the fundamental. Square waves with a frequency of 1/∞ Hz are
> definitely rare in music.
>
> Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
The fl
Jeff07971 wrote:
> Getting really off topic now !
Yes , I drop out now , unless someone says something weird about cat5-8
cables regarding better separation between instruments :P or some other
analog attribution ( fundamental miss understanding of how digital works
).
---
Getting really off topic now !
*Players:* SliMP3,Squeezebox3 x3,Receiver,SqueezePlayer,PiCorePlayer
x3,Wandboard
*Server:* LMS Version: 7.9.0 - 1475786002 on Centos 7 VM on ESXi 6 on
Dell T320
*Plugins:* AutoRescan/BBCiPlayer/PowerSave/PowerSwitchIII/Squeezecloud
*Remotes:* iPeng8/Orangesqueez
> Um been there done that, last time I used a $19.95 ultrasonic cleaner.
> However, that OT in this discussion.
Not sure how piezo actuators are relevant to Microphones and sensors ?
I used these microphones to record sounds at 96Khz bandwidth. We
captured 5 seconds per shot at 256Ksps 16 Bit.
Jeff07971 wrote:
> I was trying to keep it simple so I'll rephrase
>
> "And mr fourier was also rigth any other wave form is made by sums of
> sinus waves." Yes but an FFT of a square wave would require sines of
> 1/∞ -∞ Hz to properly represent. Thankfully squarewaves are
> rare in music.
I do
Jeff07971 wrote:
> Mnyb we agree entirely
>
> Arnyk you miss my point.
>
>
I didn't miss it, I corrected it. You seem to have a lot of incorrect
perhaps fanciful ideas about digital and audio. I also sense that you
never "lose any arguments".
>
> If you limit the bandwidth to what you kno
Well I think we can let this drop now, I just think that the technical
standard should not be so close to the average human limits.
Any way if we did up the sample rates and bit depth we'd need CAT9
cables :)
*Players:* SliMP3,Squeezebox3 x3,Receiver,SqueezePlayer,PiCorePlayer
x3,Wandboard
*Se
For us old dudes 20kHz bandwidth is more than enough:) 16k for n most
cases .
Last time i checked an audiophiles whas not a teenage girl musical
prodigy :) they may actually hear 20k.
I think the 20-20kHz bw includes most humans it would be truly
exceptional very rare . And only applicable to te
> hence 24/96 is the highest semi sensible rate to sell must at imo.
Mnyb we agree entirely
> (1) make a recording with say twice the bandpass of a regular CD - iOW
> the 24/96 that you are trying to ram down my throat. The equipment to do
> this is off the shelf and the techniques are simple en
Sorry i meant 20bit >50k sampling if inwas unclear .
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3
sub.
Bedroom/Office: Boom
Kitchen
Jeff07971 wrote:
> I was trying to keep it simple so I'll rephrase
>
>
> So you agree that 20Khz is not enough to accurately REPRODUCE any of the
> examples you make ! I.e. You cant REPRODUCE the 100Khz signal from a
> trumpet (wether we can "Hear" it or not) with a 20Khz limited system.
>
Wh
"Yes" recordings can be done at 96kHz for producing purposes .
We are limited by our hearing usually below 20kHz so we reproduce what
we can hear .
Some argue that 44.1 kHz is a close shave hence 48kHz is/was used in
recording studios the last decades .
Thats a bit off the history i don't know w
> DC is a property of asymmetric waves, and by definition a square wave is
> symmetrical around the zero line.
I was trying to keep it simple so I'll rephrase
"And mr fourier was also rigth any other wave form is made by sums of
sinus waves." Yes but an FFT of a square wave would require sines o
Jeff07971 wrote:
> Yes you are correct, however "Nyqist is true for a properly bandwidth
> limited signal . No signal above 1/2 fs" means the filtering makes the
> signal sinusoidal when in music they are not.
>
Note that the filtering needs to be part of or prior to the ADC. A
digital system
Mnyb wrote:
> Nyqist is true for a properly bandwidth limited signal . No signal above
> 1/2 fs .
> It does not have to be sinus , you can argue that the 20kHz content
> actualy is sinusoidal .
>
> And mr fourier was also rigth any other wave form is made by sums of
> sinus waves.
>
> The nitpi
Nyqist is true for a properly bandwidth limited signal . No signal above
1/2 fs .
It does not have to be sinus , you can argue that the 20kHz content
actualy is sinusoidal .
And mr fourier was also rigth any other wave form is made by sums of
sinus waves.
The nitpicking begins with how to bandwi
pablolie wrote:
> Indeed. The DAC is about the D in the first iteration... and any signal
> is the same in D, and the initial conversion to A follows the
> universally accepted Nyquist rule... so we have a perfect reproduction
> of the original signal thanks to Nyquist. Q1: Does anyone dispute th
51 matches
Mail list logo
