R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 39   Go Down

Author Topic: The sampling rate debate, from a different perspective....  (Read 93377 times)

zmix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2828
Re: The sampling rate debate, from a different perspective....
« Reply #30 on: September 16, 2005, 09:30:03 am »

J.J. Blair wrote on Fri, 16 September 2005 01:40

I know this guy who reads a bunch of shit on a particular topic, then tries to impress experts on the subject by butchering the nomenclature.  I remember a converstaion he had with a web designer at a party years ago: "I was thinking about trying to have an intranet network over ethernet ... blah, blah, blah..."  True story.  If I didn't already know his whole family, I would swear he and Andy are related.  


Really? You know George Bush?  Shit....

Oh, wait, you did say 'reads'...

My bad...my little goat.

-CZ

Andy Simpson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 714
Re: The sampling rate debate, from a different perspective....
« Reply #31 on: September 16, 2005, 10:14:19 am »

Ok, how about this....before we lock the thread....

If you take a 'really nice' 192 recording of, say, a drumkit.

Low-pass filter it at 20k or whatever.

Copy the file and downsample it to 44.1.

Now up-sample it back to 192.

Invert one of them and try to null them.

Can you get them to cancel?

My guess is that you end up with something left over....

Andy
Logged

maxdimario

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3811
Re: The sampling rate debate, from a different perspective....
« Reply #32 on: September 16, 2005, 11:03:34 am »




Quote:

That's two nanobrains. You can't forgive them when combined...

I was gonna write an entire physics essay about this to illustrate how wrong they are, but when you don't want to hear there's no point on screaming.

Please, lock this thread.




no use in getting upset kiddies..
keep your insults to yourself and your family please.

your reaction was inappropriate and shows that you have no valid SIMPLE argument to make.

It makes sense to me, because timing even in the range of a fraction of a millisecond influences the way we feel music and localize sound. you should study nature a little more.

digital is less involving than analog regardless of frequency bandwidth.
If I were to list all the people who have said the same, and the people who have denied it, you'd have a who's who of musicians and talented engineers for analog, and on the digital side a who's who of technicians who seemingly don't get it.

loco, you can list me all the physics theories you want (and probably have not studied in depth) but it don't change the fact that I hear the problem and so do many of the best musicians around.
of course we all know that digital is in, and analog is out...but some of us are actually interested in finding out why digital is more boring to listen to.

the fact is that many 'engineers' around are not really capable of listening, use crappy equipment that filters out the detail, and are mostly preoccupied with being right, based on some facts that they dont fully understand NOR DO THEY REALLY CARE TO because it is detrimental to their pocketbook and they are not so much interested in AUDIO REPRODUCTION as they are in mixing and mashing it all up with their lovely and cheap digital equipment.

if there was no digital, most modern production houses and pop records wouldn't exist, cause it would be impossible to polish a turd to the extent possible now for ...so cheap.


all these arguments only make sense if who is reading them recognizes the deficiency. To correct it, you have to come up with something that hasn't been said before.

All I see here is people reading out from textbooks.

How many of you have actually tried to say something new or bring the argument foreward?

doesn't sound very big minded to me.

actually sounds like a bunch of guys who really don't give a shit about music, but are in love with their gear.

Logged

jimmyjazz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1885
Re: The sampling rate debate, from a different perspective....
« Reply #33 on: September 16, 2005, 11:14:44 am »

Wow.  In one reply, you touched on virtually every single logical fallacy I learned about back as a college freshman taking Philosophy 101.  Good job.

You are exaggerating the demographics of the two camps.  I'm sure it helps you sleep at night to tell yourself you're in bed with the brilliant musos as opposed to the gear-happy technicians, but that doesn't mean you've correctly assessed the situation.  Not by a long shot.
Logged

maxdimario

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3811
Re: The sampling rate debate, from a different perspective....
« Reply #34 on: September 16, 2005, 11:20:46 am »

Sorry I am not exaggerating.

some people actually KNOW what they like, and it takes them minutes, or seconds to choose.

instead of being generic, next time actually see if you can explain what you are talking about, instead of giving me your academic history.
Logged

tom eaton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3640
Re: The sampling rate debate, from a different perspective....
« Reply #35 on: September 16, 2005, 11:37:44 am »

Please go back and read my last post.

And then go read a book on digital audio!

I might suggest Pohlman's Principles of Digital Audio, maybe starting with Chapter 2: Fundamentals of Digital Audio.

Geez...

-tom

Eric Bridenbaker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
Re: The sampling rate debate, from a different perspective....
« Reply #36 on: September 16, 2005, 11:38:17 am »

Personally, I don't believe in flaming and catfighting on forums, especially on one such as REP/GM, which IMHO deserves more respect than that.

On the upside, whenever a topic comes up, that seems to strike a nerve, get people thinking, and passionately asserting this or that, there is most likely something to it.

Nice work Andy!!

Best Regards,
Eric
Logged

maxdimario

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3811
Re: The sampling rate debate, from a different perspective....
« Reply #37 on: September 16, 2005, 11:54:55 am »

Quote:

Let's dig into your idea here a little. Let's "forget" about oversampling at the converter, as that would simply prove your argument void. Let's think about that 20K sine wave. One cycle of that sine wave is 1.7cm as a pressure wave, as you stated. At a sampling rate of 40kHz one cycle of that wave could be represented by two samples, in which case the zero crossings would be between the high and low points. But let's look at three or four consecutive samples as we see what happens if we shift that 20kHz wave LESS than one sample in time. Hey...it still recontructs fine!

Where the samples fall in time relative to the waveform has nothing to do with the system frequency response. The point in time where the samples are taken IS NOT the only place a wave (even at Nyquist) can crest!


what does that have to do with minute timing differences, please.

forget sine waves, I got that.

let's say a perfect pulse wave for theory's sake with an 'on' time of 10 ms or more
if the rise of the pulse wave does not corrispond exactly with the sample clock, will it not be shifted in time to the next sample clock division in some way, regardless how small.

wow and flutter are slow and predictable compared to jitter and this kind of distortion.

what do you think?
Logged

Eric Bridenbaker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 342
Re: The sampling rate debate, from a different perspective....
« Reply #38 on: September 16, 2005, 12:16:39 pm »

FWIW, Here's an excerpt from an interview with Tim de Paravicini (He designs the E. A. R. gear, very top end stuff, Tony Faulkner uses it for his classical recordings).

Q: "If analog tape sounds so much better than digital, what improvements should be made in A/D, D/A converters?"

A: "First of all, the frequency response should extend from 3 Hz to 50 kHz, because we experience those frequency limits. We are able to detect audio up to 50 kHz. We don't hear it, but we experience it in other ways. I can give you tinnitus very quickly if I run an ultrasonic cleaner at 45 kHz. You are aware that it's on, and your ears ring when it's shut off. On the low end, we detect mechanical vibrations down to 3 Hz. When a marching band walks past you, you feel the drums in your stomach and bones. And that's all part of the sound.

Ten years ago in Stereophile, I said that digital was never going to work well in the chosen format. Digital should use a 400 kHz sampling rate and 24-bit words. Then it will satisfy the hearing mechanism and won't have a digital sound. Digital has a "sound" purely because it is based on lousy mathematics. The manufacturers presuppose too simplistic a view of our hearing mechanism."

The full interview is on the EAR site here:

http://www.ear-usa.com/timdeparavicini.htm

Best Regards,
Eric
Logged

Jack Schitt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 648
Re: The sampling rate debate, from a different perspective....
« Reply #39 on: September 16, 2005, 12:22:03 pm »

I am not versed on the digital theories but assuming the assertions proposed here are all correct and digital is pure shit, the far more important question becomes why on earth is digital being used in the big rooms? Or any room that matter. Money is not an answer considering the outrageous sums of money dropped on gear and recording budgets. If analog tape  was the best option in their mind they would be using it would they not?

If all the big names hear such a fatal flaw in digital why are they still using it? It doesn't make any sense.
Logged

timrob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 131
Re: The sampling rate debate, from a different perspective....
« Reply #40 on: September 16, 2005, 02:13:33 pm »

Eric Bridenbaker wrote on Fri, 16 September 2005 11:16

FWIW, Here's an excerpt from an interview with Tim de Paravicini (He designs the E. A. R. gear, very top end stuff, Tony Faulkner uses it for his classical recordings).

Q: "If analog tape sounds so much better than digital, what improvements should be made in A/D, D/A converters?"

A: "First of all, the frequency response should extend from 3 Hz to 50 kHz, because we experience those frequency limits. We are able to detect audio up to 50 kHz. We don't hear it, but we experience it in other ways. I can give you tinnitus very quickly if I run an ultrasonic cleaner at 45 kHz. You are aware that it's on, and your ears ring when it's shut off. On the low end, we detect mechanical vibrations down to 3 Hz. When a marching band walks past you, you feel the drums in your stomach and bones. And that's all part of the sound.

Ten years ago in Stereophile, I said that digital was never going to work well in the chosen format. Digital should use a 400 kHz sampling rate and 24-bit words. Then it will satisfy the hearing mechanism and won't have a digital sound. Digital has a "sound" purely because it is based on lousy mathematics. The manufacturers presuppose too simplistic a view of our hearing mechanism."

The full interview is on the EAR site here:

http://www.ear-usa.com/timdeparavicini.htm

Best Regards,
Eric


Yes, I'm sure many have read Tim de Paravicini's views. The article you quote here is from 1995 when 24-bit was just starting to proliferate to studios. I have heard many of the recordings by Kavi Alexander and they all sound beautiful. They sound beautiful on Compact Disc. Do they sound better on analog? Probably.
Few can afford the luxury of recording with ultra custom Analog Decks and Rectangle capsule Microphones using mechanically isolated stands. The recordings on CD are as good as it gets, so Big deal. None of this supports the theories laid out here.
Actually, it shows that digital can sound very good IMO.
It appears that some feel that some sort of time shift takes place in digital. I tell you what. Take a sine wave of any frequency in the passband and record it at any normal sample rate and play back. Hell, look at it on an Oscilloscope. Compare the input to the output. You'll see that the sine wave will be perfectly reconstructed.
Look I love analog as much as the next guy. But, you guys are grabbing at straws and trying to keep an argument going that is going nowhere.

Tim Roberts
Waterknot Music
Nashville
Logged
Tim Roberts
Waterknot Music
Nashville


---------------------------
Ours is not to understand.
Ours is just to record the band.
-Unknown

bblackwood

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7036
Re: The sampling rate debate, from a different perspective....
« Reply #41 on: September 16, 2005, 02:15:32 pm »

If we are unable to discuss things, even things that seem rudimentary, without stooping to personal attacks, this thread will be locked.

But wait, there's more!

If people are going to resort to such attacks, they will removed from George's forum. Keep it on topic and off one another.
Logged
Brad Blackwood
euphonic masters

tom eaton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3640
Re: The sampling rate debate, from a different perspective....
« Reply #42 on: September 16, 2005, 02:51:27 pm »

Okay...50Hz square wave (10ms positive excursion, 10ms negative).  Do you want to compare transient response in a digital recorder to that of an analog recorder, or just knock digital?  Many people take issue with the sonic results of the fact that digital is FASTER than analog tape in terms of transient response.  No pleasant saturation or softening of the high frequencies in digital to make everything sound "warm."

There is a filter in front of any converter.  That filter removes out of band information that would be incorrectly processed by the converter.  So the highest frequency component of your square wave is limited by the sampling rate, which yes, to some extent does change the "timing" of the signal--the leading edge, if you will.  But what you all are arguing is that change in a digital recording is only represented by the next sample...that's just not so!  When a signal is reconstructed it can be CONSTANTLY changing. Two samples represent a continuum (not just instantaneous change), three samples, four samples represent a continuous motion.  Samples don't come one by one by one and get rebuilt step by step...the result of reconstruction is an analog signal.  And then... you have to listen to it somehow...which will likely cause more transient damage to the signal than the conversion process did. Unless your speakers are entirely phase accurate and flat from dc to 50k...

What are our options?  Analog tape?  No way.  Digital is FAR closer to an accurate representation of the source than analog.  Which sounds better to you or me is not (as far as I understand it) what we're talking about.

This really is covered in books...I was not being flip.  There are many, many brilliant people who have worried about all these things before us, and solved them to the best extent of available technology.  Nyquist knew more about this stuff years ago than most of us still know.  What gets some of us (or just me) wound up is the fact that people post to Massenburg's forum without a basic grounding in the basics.  The AES has papers available, there are great books out there, but you have to be willing to go do the homework.

-tom




bobkatz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2926
Re: The sampling rate debate, from a different perspective....
« Reply #43 on: September 16, 2005, 04:14:34 pm »

andy_simpson wrote on Thu, 15 September 2005 17:21

dcollins wrote on Thu, 15 September 2005 22:00

andy_simpson wrote on Thu, 15 September 2005 13:22

 
Or, specifically, a recording made at 44.1 will 'quantize' the spatial timing aspects of a recording into chunks of 1.7cm.



Not true.  The interchannel accuracy comes from the word-length, not the sample rate.  With dither, there is essentially no limit to the "spatial resoultion."

DC


I disagree.

In terms of the human auditory system, you appear to be talking about interaural _level_ differences.

I am talking about interaural _timing_ differences.

Andy




Andy, Dave Collins is right. You've been caught by an "urban myth". While it may seem counterintuitive to you, interaural timing issues are not affected by the sample rate, nor improved by a higher sample rate.

Mike Story has some issues regarding transient response and pre-echos with filters but this is peripheral to the issue of interaural timing. The two channels stay "in sync" with eachother down to pico seconds... in ANY current sample rate digital system.

BK
Logged
There are two kinds of fools,
One says-this is old and therefore good.
The other says-this is new and therefore better."

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However a large number of
electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

Andy Simpson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 714
Re: The sampling rate debate, from a different perspective....
« Reply #44 on: September 16, 2005, 05:41:28 pm »

bobkatz wrote on Fri, 16 September 2005 21:14

andy_simpson wrote on Thu, 15 September 2005 17:21

dcollins wrote on Thu, 15 September 2005 22:00

andy_simpson wrote on Thu, 15 September 2005 13:22

 
Or, specifically, a recording made at 44.1 will 'quantize' the spatial timing aspects of a recording into chunks of 1.7cm.



Not true.  The interchannel accuracy comes from the word-length, not the sample rate.  With dither, there is essentially no limit to the "spatial resoultion."

DC


I disagree.

In terms of the human auditory system, you appear to be talking about interaural _level_ differences.

I am talking about interaural _timing_ differences.

Andy




Andy, Dave Collins is right. You've been caught by an "urban myth". While it may seem counterintuitive to you, interaural timing issues are not affected by the sample rate, nor improved by a higher sample rate.

Mike Story has some issues regarding transient response and pre-echos with filters but this is peripheral to the issue of interaural timing. The two channels stay "in sync" with eachother down to pico seconds... in ANY current sample rate digital system.

BK


But I'm not talking about whether the channels are in sync with eachother.

I'm talking about when a sound is 10 metres from the Left mic and 10 metres and 0.6cm from the Right mic.

What happens here?

Does the sound arrive at the same time when converted to 44.1?

It certainly doesn't arrive at the same time at the mics.

That is what I mean by interaural.

If anyone would be so kind as to try my down-sample/low-pass null test, this can be laid to rest I think, either way.

Andy
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 39   Go Up