Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Rudi Gerberich Rudi Gerberich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default SAE fun

http://www.saecollege.de/reference_m.../Recorders.htm

read "Sampling Rate" - enjoy;-)


  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce Don Pearce is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,726
Default SAE fun

On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 23:24:18 +0100, "Rudi Gerberich"
wrote:

http://www.saecollege.de/reference_m.../Recorders.htm

read "Sampling Rate" - enjoy;-)


I understood sampling theory ten minutes ago. I don't any more.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Carey Carlan Carey Carlan is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 850
Default SAE fun

(Don Pearce) wrote in news:45ba81c4.304743125
@free.teranews.com:

On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 23:24:18 +0100, "Rudi Gerberich"
wrote:

http://www.saecollege.de/reference_m.../Recorders.htm
read "Sampling Rate" - enjoy;-)


I understood sampling theory ten minutes ago. I don't any more.


I understand it just fine. These couple of paragraphs are nonsense.
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce Don Pearce is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,726
Default SAE fun

On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 22:41:54 GMT, Carey Carlan
wrote:

(Don Pearce) wrote in news:45ba81c4.304743125
:

On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 23:24:18 +0100, "Rudi Gerberich"
wrote:

http://www.saecollege.de/reference_m.../Recorders.htm
read "Sampling Rate" - enjoy;-)


I understood sampling theory ten minutes ago. I don't any more.


I understand it just fine. These couple of paragraphs are nonsense.


That was indeed the essence of my joke.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Daniel Fuchs Daniel Fuchs is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 104
Default SAE fun



Rudi Gerberich wrote:

http://www.saecollege.de/reference_m.../Recorders.htm

read "Sampling Rate" - enjoy;-)


"Did you know that when an ADat or D88 records on a new track
it plays the bit stream off the tape , mixes in the new track, and
records
it again. Now that's worth thinking about"

Really... Now I've really got somethink to think about...


Daniel


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers Mike Rivers is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,744
Default SAE fun


Daniel Fuchs wrote:

"Did you know that when an ADat or D88 records on a new track
it plays the bit stream off the tape , mixes in the new track, and
records
it again. Now that's worth thinking about"


I don't think that's true with the ADAT, but since the DA88 treats
tracks as pairs (or a stereo track, if you prefer), if you have Track 3
recorded and then record Track 4, when you recorded Track 3, you
actually recorded Tracks 3 and 4 - whatever audio you sent to Track 3
and silence on Track 4. Then when you recorded Track 4, Track 3's audio
was re-recorded together with the new audio for Track 4.

Alesis boosters used this as a bit of mud slinging (remember, the ADAT
came out first but most thought the DA-88 sounded better and had some
other advantages) saying that every time you recorded a new track you
risked losing a previously recorded track if something failed. In
reality, it never happened. You could pull the power plug when
recording a new track and all the previous tracks were intact. Very
clever, those Japanese.

What this has to do with sample rate, I dunno. I didn't read the SAE
reference.

  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Roy W. Rising Roy W. Rising is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 385
Default SAE fun

"Rudi Gerberich" wrote:
http://www.saecollege.de/reference_m.../Recorders.htm

read "Sampling Rate" - enjoy;-)


Intellectually, I know that using a 44.1 KHz sampling rate there should be
some kind of anomally when a sine wave of 11.025 KHz (44.1 / 4) is
recorded. After all, there are so few samples per cycle from which to
reconstruct the waveform! But ... I've done the test ... A/D~D/A @ 44.1
KHz. As my sine wave generator sweeps upward from 10 KHz, the
ocilloscope's waveform display stays smoothly sinusoidal. At 11.025 KHz,
nothing changes! As Carson would say "How dey do dat?" Somewhere in the
darkness Ron Extes whispers "algorithms!"

--
~ Roy
"It's NOT the mic, it's NOT the preamp!"
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default SAE fun

Roy W. Rising wrote:

Intellectually, I know that using a 44.1 KHz sampling rate there should be
some kind of anomally when a sine wave of 11.025 KHz (44.1 / 4) is
recorded. After all, there are so few samples per cycle from which to
reconstruct the waveform!


There are PLENTY. It takes two samples to reconstruct a sine wave, and of
course everything is really the sum of sines. Those two statements are
the base on which the Sampling Theorem is based.

There is a good intuitive discussion of this in the FAQ.

But ... I've done the test ... A/D~D/A @ 44.1
KHz. As my sine wave generator sweeps upward from 10 KHz, the
ocilloscope's waveform display stays smoothly sinusoidal. At 11.025 KHz,
nothing changes! As Carson would say "How dey do dat?" Somewhere in the
darkness Ron Extes whispers "algorithms!"


No, not at all. It takes two samples, and you know everything about a sine
wave. It takes two samples per cycle of the highest frequency in a bandlimited
waveform, and you know everything about it.

It seems confusing at first, but JJ's explanation is good... and when you
get an intuitive idea of how it works, it's just plain neat.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Jay-atldigi Jay-atldigi is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 29
Default SAE fun

In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 23:24:18 +0100, "Rudi Gerberich"
wrote:

http://www.saecollege.de/reference_m.../Recorders.htm
read "Sampling Rate" - enjoy;-)


I understood sampling theory ten minutes ago. I don't any more.

d


That link contains what may be the worst bunch of crap I've ever seen.
Never mind the lack of clarity in the writing, but it's just not
accurate.

If this is what they're teaching their students, no wonder professional
audio is suffering. How do they let that stuff through? Isn't anybody
paying attention? If the author was actually correct about sampling, and
had managed to prove Nyquist and Shannon wrong, I imagine he would have
gotten an invitation to a dinner from those nice people at Nobel, and we
all would have heard about it. Sheesh. How depressing.

--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
www.promastering.com
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Les Cargill Les Cargill is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default SAE fun

Roy W. Rising wrote:

"Rudi Gerberich" wrote:

http://www.saecollege.de/reference_m.../Recorders.htm

read "Sampling Rate" - enjoy;-)



Intellectually, I know that using a 44.1 KHz sampling rate there should be
some kind of anomally when a sine wave of 11.025 KHz (44.1 / 4) is
recorded. After all, there are so few samples per cycle from which to
reconstruct the waveform! But ... I've done the test ... A/D~D/A @ 44.1
KHz. As my sine wave generator sweeps upward from 10 KHz, the
ocilloscope's waveform display stays smoothly sinusoidal. At 11.025 KHz,
nothing changes! As Carson would say "How dey do dat?" Somewhere in the
darkness Ron Extes whispers "algorithms!"


There is no pole, Neo.

May the spirit of Nyquist shine upon you.

--
Les Cargill


  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Bob Cain Bob Cain is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 229
Default SAE fun

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Roy W. Rising wrote:
Intellectually, I know that using a 44.1 KHz sampling rate there should be
some kind of anomally when a sine wave of 11.025 KHz (44.1 / 4) is
recorded. After all, there are so few samples per cycle from which to
reconstruct the waveform!


There are PLENTY. It takes two samples to reconstruct a sine wave, and of
course everything is really the sum of sines. Those two statements are
the base on which the Sampling Theorem is based.

There is a good intuitive discussion of this in the FAQ.

But ... I've done the test ... A/D~D/A @ 44.1
KHz. As my sine wave generator sweeps upward from 10 KHz, the
ocilloscope's waveform display stays smoothly sinusoidal. At 11.025 KHz,
nothing changes! As Carson would say "How dey do dat?" Somewhere in the
darkness Ron Extes whispers "algorithms!"


No, not at all. It takes two samples, and you know everything about a sine
wave.


Huh?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein
  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce Don Pearce is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,726
Default SAE fun

On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 20:14:03 -0800, Bob Cain
wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Roy W. Rising wrote:
Intellectually, I know that using a 44.1 KHz sampling rate there should be
some kind of anomally when a sine wave of 11.025 KHz (44.1 / 4) is
recorded. After all, there are so few samples per cycle from which to
reconstruct the waveform!


There are PLENTY. It takes two samples to reconstruct a sine wave, and of
course everything is really the sum of sines. Those two statements are
the base on which the Sampling Theorem is based.

There is a good intuitive discussion of this in the FAQ.

But ... I've done the test ... A/D~D/A @ 44.1
KHz. As my sine wave generator sweeps upward from 10 KHz, the
ocilloscope's waveform display stays smoothly sinusoidal. At 11.025 KHz,
nothing changes! As Carson would say "How dey do dat?" Somewhere in the
darkness Ron Extes whispers "algorithms!"


No, not at all. It takes two samples, and you know everything about a sine
wave.


Huh?


Quite. It takes MORE than two samples to know everything about at sine
wave. 2.00000001 will do, 2.0000000 will not.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Ben Bradley Ben Bradley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 142
Default SAE fun

4On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 23:58:28 +0100, Daniel Fuchs
wrote:



Rudi Gerberich wrote:

http://www.saecollege.de/reference_m.../Recorders.htm

read "Sampling Rate" - enjoy;-)


I've read this type of thing before from various posters here and
there, but please - I was enjoying a good dinner until I read through
it. I'm just glad he didn't quote me as part of that article, not that
I'm famous or quotable or anything...


"Did you know that when an ADat or D88 records on a new track
it plays the bit stream off the tape , mixes in the new track, and
records
it again. Now that's worth thinking about"

Really... Now I've really got somethink to think about...


Perhaps you should check this out:

http://raft.wash.org/thinkers.html

The author of that article may already be a long-term member. He
says something is "worth thinking about" but then he goes off into the
next section.



Daniel


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:32 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"