I took Theo's statement to mean that the processing was done at 192/24, and
only playback was switched…but perhaps he did indeed mean processing at 44.1
kHz, as you indicate, as well.
On Feb 17, 2014, at 6:50 PM, robert bristow-johnson
wrote:
> On 2/17/14 12:39 PM, Nigel Redmon wrote:
>> On
On 2/17/14 12:39 PM, Nigel Redmon wrote:
On Feb 17, 2014, at 9:36 AM, Nigel Redmon wrote:
On Feb 17, 2014, at 6:36 AM, Theo Verelst wrote:
In short, I can play/enhance in thhe 192/24 domain,, and then switch over to
44.1/16, and hear the difference easily, any day of the week. End of analysi
On 2014-02-17, Ethan Duni wrote:
The specs for the particular analog function generator in question (HP
3325A) state that the harmonics should be no higher than -65dB below
the fundamental:
http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/03325-90002.pdf
Right you are and I stand corrected.
Lik
On 18/02/2014, Theo Verelst wrote:
> i hope
> so, because I'm quitting this discussion, I want to progress, not teach
> half the world of so-so signal processors the foundations of EE,
> university level.
I'm sure the world would be happy if you did a better introductory DAC
video, university le
I'm not sure why FFT spectrum analyzers are being brought up? The analyzers
in question were analog - no FFT involved. These are heterodyne analyzers
(possibly the same thing you are referring to as "Hilbert transform"?) that
boast dynamic range of around 140dB (although the spurious signal respons
On 18/02/2014, Charles Z Henry wrote:
> Basically, we know that magnetic patterns on tape do not work exactly like
> bits. They also do not resemble exactly the analog signal they were
> recorded with. The playback signal is the result of lots of small magnetic
> bumps of varying sizes.
Intere
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Peter S wrote:
> Okay, let's leave out quantum mechanics. It's mostly totally
> irrelevant for this discussion anyways, and it cannot be measured in
> practical ways.
>
> (For example, how do you know *for sure* that the magnetization
> patterns on a tape are not '
Ethan Duni wrote:
"
I recall from the first measurement shown on the analog spectrum analyzer
the source sine wave had 2d or 3d harmonic distortion component of -70 dB.
My power amps are noticeably better than that.
But then they don't have the heterodyne circuits you need for an analogue
fr
"
> I recall from the first measurement shown on the analog spectrum analyzer
> the source sine wave had 2d or 3d harmonic distortion component of -70 dB.
> My power amps are noticeably better than that.
>
But then they don't have the heterodyne circuits you need for an analogue
frequency analyse
On 17/02/2014, Theo Verelst wrote:
> and I am sure CD and High
> Definition tracks can be AD-converted at high quality from master tapes,
> no reason to presume some ridiculous "13 bits max" in general, even if
> there's reason to explain certain limitations.
I assume his numbers come from conve
Okay, let's leave out quantum mechanics. It's mostly totally
irrelevant for this discussion anyways, and it cannot be measured in
practical ways.
(For example, how do you know *for sure* that the magnetization
patterns on a tape are not 'digital' with a quantization step of say,
10e-25, or ~83 bit
In short: analog noise is there, and can be measured in terms of
frequency behavior, (self-) correlation, graininess (when coming from
transistor shot noise) etc etc.
Complicated subject. Second thing: quantum properties? Hardly needed in
the explanation of electronic circuits, only in makin
On 2014-02-17, Theo Verelst wrote:
I recall from the first measurement shown on the analog spectrum
analyzer the source sine wave had 2d or 3d harmonic distortion
component of -70 dB. My power amps are noticeably better than that.
But then they don't have the heterodyne circuits you need for
On 17/02/2014, Richard Dobson wrote:
> At the atomic level, the best optical mirror in the
> world is not "perfectly" flat, because the atoms themselves aren't.
Unless one builds a mirror using nanotechnology, atom-by-atom, forming
a perfect molecular grid :)
(Which is not feasible today on lar
On 17/02/2014 17:08, Theo Verelst wrote:
..
Hes is deliberately, and IMO very clearly, presenting a simple
introduction.
You still presuming a long reconstruction filter (or say, an ancient CD
player "oversampling" resonant filter somewhat imitating a very short
sinc convolution) isn't nee
On Feb 17, 2014, at 6:36 AM, Theo Verelst wrote:
> The frequency measurement graph being used throughout the rest of the
> demonstration wasn't specified as being of a specific kind, I mean usually
> these programs use FFTs which is quite not the same in several cases,
> certainly when "pushing
On Feb 17, 2014, at 9:36 AM, Nigel Redmon wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2014, at 6:36 AM, Theo Verelst wrote:
>> In short, I can play/enhance in thhe 192/24 domain,, and then switch over to
>> 44.1/16, and hear the difference easily, any day of the week. End of
>> analysis.
>
> But which sounds better?
On 17/02/2014, Theo Verelst wrote:
> but none of the
> above changes that sampling creates major errors (even at 192 kHz
I wouldn't say sampling creates 'major errors', unless you call the
Gibbs effect and a noise floor due to quantization a 'major error'.
- Peter
--
dupswapdrop -- the music-ds
On 17/02/2014, Theo Verelst wrote:
>
> And that has been my exact point the whole time, it's deluding people
> into a perfection which isn't that, perfection.
I think the video doesn't suggest 'perfection'. It clearly states that
smaller bit depth means more noise. But since the human hearing's
d
Richard Dobson wrote:
On 17/02/2014 16:01, Peter S wrote:
..
Clearly, there are more forms of distortion to measure, like Transient
Intermodulation Distortion, very important in music (which requires mire
electronics skills than the presenter seems to have mastered).
Hes is deliberately, and
On 17/02/2014 16:01, Peter S wrote:
..
Clearly, there are more forms of distortion to measure, like Transient
Intermodulation Distortion, very important in music (which requires mire
electronics skills than the presenter seems to have mastered).
Hes is deliberately, and IMO very clearly, pres
On 17/02/2014, Theo Verelst wrote:
> In short, I can play/enhance in thhe 192/24 domain,, and then switch
> over to 44.1/16, and hear the difference easily, any day of the week.
> End of analyisis.
Isn't that difference caused by
1) 192->44.1 kHz resampling (which is not trivial, and therefore ma
Andrew Simper wrote:
Monty has made an excellent video and I agree with Dave that everyone
should watch it even if you know this stuff already. It gave me a
smile to see how well he debunked lots of stuff I have to deal with in
customer support so well. Here is that link again:
http://www.y
The analog bench gear in that video made me nostalgic... I can almost smell
the solder fumes :]
E
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Andrew Simper wrote:
> I was really enjoying the proportional Q thread, so in an attempt to
> keep in on topic here is a thread where people can discuss DACs / ADC
I was really enjoying the proportional Q thread, so in an attempt to
keep in on topic here is a thread where people can discuss DACs / ADCs
and all other sampling related things.
Monty has made an excellent video and I agree with Dave that everyone
should watch it even if you know this stuff alrea
25 matches
Mail list logo
