Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
SAE fun
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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 |