So, real question about digitizing 15 kHz [Archive]

Arny Krueger

November 23rd 03, 01:53 AM

"Erik Squires" > wrote in message
ervers.com

> So, here's my question. If I digitize a 15 kHz signal, using a 44.1
> kHz sampling rate, I'm going to get about 3 samples / cycle.

OK

> Are the normal digital filters good enough to reproduce a 15 kHz
> signal with varying amplitude?

Yes.

> How accurate is that signal

Incredibly accurate, by analog standards.

>is there no lag in the reconstructed signal?

Compared to a concurrent signal at 1 KHz, the lag can be less than there is
in a good analog power amplifier or preamp.

> I mean, if the amplitude of the
> original changes, is the reconstructed signal as true at 15 kHz as at
> 4 kHz?

Yes. 4 KHz and 15 KHz sine waves can be reconstructed with equal accuracy.

> This to me is a far more important concern than whether I can hear
> 20+kHz signals.

Worry not.

Arny Krueger

November 23rd 03, 02:07 AM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:AmUvb.4608$ML6.2599@fed1read01
> "Erik Squires" > wrote in message
> ervers.com...

>> So, here's my question. If I digitize a 15 kHz signal, using a 44.1
>> kHz sampling rate, I'm going to get about 3 samples / cycle.

>> Are the normal digital filters good enough to reproduce a 15 kHz
>> singal with varying amplitude?

> Deconstruct this signal to frequency domain and it won't be a pure
> 15 kHz.

Wrong.

>There has to be another component imposed on the 15 kHz that "varies the
amplitude".

Wrong.

Three samples is sufficient to define a sine wave that has unique frequency,
phase and amplitude. In fact, just slightly more than two samples is
sufficient.

ScottW

November 23rd 03, 03:28 AM

Robert Morein

November 23rd 03, 03:29 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:AmUvb.4608$ML6.2599@fed1read01
> > "Erik Squires" > wrote in message
> > ervers.com...
>
> >> So, here's my question. If I digitize a 15 kHz signal, using a 44.1
> >> kHz sampling rate, I'm going to get about 3 samples / cycle.
>
> >> Are the normal digital filters good enough to reproduce a 15 kHz
> >> singal with varying amplitude?
>
> > Deconstruct this signal to frequency domain and it won't be a pure
> > 15 kHz.
>
> Wrong.
>
> >There has to be another component imposed on the 15 kHz that "varies the
> amplitude".
>
> Wrong.
>
> Three samples is sufficient to define a sine wave that has unique
frequency,
> phase and amplitude. In fact, just slightly more than two samples is
> sufficient.
>
Wrong.
Arny is simplistically parroting the Nyquist Theorem, which states that any
signal can be reconstructed with a sampling rate twice the maximum frequency
present in the signal.
This, however, is a theoretical result. It is impossible to implement in
practice, because the analog reconstruction filter required would have to
cut off instantaneously at 15kHz. Since it can't, the result would be a 15
kHz signal with higher harmonics
To understand what happens if the reconstruction filter is not present, 2X
sampling would provide a simple 15 khz square wave. To the extent that the
square wave is not brick wall, some of the harmonic structure of the
corresponding square wave will be present.

In theory, using noncausal filtering, it's possible to make the brick wall
filter. In practice, it can't be done.
One of the original innovations in CD DACs was the oversampling DAC. In this
approach, the signal is interpolated using a digital filter chip. It is a
form of upsampling. The upsampled signal is easier to filter.
Unfortunately, the implementation of digital interpolation algorithms
remains to this day an incompletely solved problem.

Recently, Arny brought forth a recent AES paper that purported to show that
signals above 20 kHz make no difference in the perceived quality of the
reproduction. There is a considerable body of evidence that the ear can't
hear above 20 kHz, yet many listeners report improved fidelity with higher
sampling rates and greater bit depth. The most probable explanation of this
lies with the reduced phase of enhanced/upsampled/high bit rate systems
shift at frequencies approaching 20 kHz.

Scott Gardner

November 23rd 03, 04:11 AM

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 21:07:24 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"ScottW" > wrote in message
>news:AmUvb.4608$ML6.2599@fed1read01
>> "Erik Squires" > wrote in message
>> ervers.com...
>
>>> So, here's my question. If I digitize a 15 kHz signal, using a 44.1
>>> kHz sampling rate, I'm going to get about 3 samples / cycle.
>
>>> Are the normal digital filters good enough to reproduce a 15 kHz
>>> singal with varying amplitude?
>
>> Deconstruct this signal to frequency domain and it won't be a pure
>> 15 kHz.
>
>Wrong.
>
>>There has to be another component imposed on the 15 kHz that "varies the
>amplitude".
>
>Wrong.
>
>Three samples is sufficient to define a sine wave that has unique frequency,
>phase and amplitude. In fact, just slightly more than two samples is
>sufficient.

Arny,
I am probably looking at this the wrong way, using an
oversimplified model, but I can't see how a sine wave can be
completely defined by three points.
I'm picturing a sine wave plotted with time along the x-axis,
and amplitude along the y-axis. If I tell you that the amplitudes at
zero seconds, 1 second, and 2 seconds are all zero, I've given you
three different points along the wave. From this, the period can be
measured and the frequency derived from that, but I don't see how I've
given you enough information to calculate the amplitude.
Let me know what I'm missing. Do the three points have to
have non-zero amplitude for them to be used to define the waveform?

Thanks,
Scott Gardner

Arny Krueger

November 23rd 03, 08:50 AM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:VPVvb.4621$ML6.516@fed1read01
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> news:AmUvb.4608$ML6.2599@fed1read01
>>> "Erik Squires" > wrote in
>>> message
>>> ervers.com...
>>
>>>> So, here's my question. If I digitize a 15 kHz signal, using a
>>>> 44.1 kHz sampling rate, I'm going to get about 3 samples / cycle.
>>
>>>> Are the normal digital filters good enough to reproduce a 15 kHz
>>>> singal with varying amplitude?
>>
>>> Deconstruct this signal to frequency domain and it won't be a pure
>>> 15 kHz.
>>
>> Wrong.
>
> What is the frequency of the amplitude "variation"?

Obviously, 15 KHz.

> Arny is an again proving he knows very little about
> everything. In fact he has a degree in it.

You're either incredibly stupid Scott, or you're lying.

Arny Krueger

November 23rd 03, 08:57 AM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> news:AmUvb.4608$ML6.2599@fed1read01
>>> "Erik Squires" > wrote in
>>> message
>>> ervers.com...
>>
>>>> So, here's my question. If I digitize a 15 kHz signal, using a
>>>> 44.1 kHz sampling rate, I'm going to get about 3 samples / cycle.

>>>> Are the normal digital filters good enough to reproduce a 15 kHz
>>>> signal with varying amplitude?

>>> Deconstruct this signal to frequency domain and it won't be a pure
>>> 15 kHz.

>> Wrong.

>>> There has to be another component imposed on the 15 kHz that
>>> "varies the amplitude".

>> Wrong.

>> Three samples is sufficient to define a sine wave that has unique
>> frequency, phase and amplitude. In fact, just slightly more than two
>> samples is sufficient.

> Wrong.

Right.

> Arny is simplistically parroting the Nyquist Theorem, which states
> that any signal can be reconstructed with a sampling rate twice the
> maximum frequency present in the signal.

Wrong. The sampling rate has to be slightly higher than twice.

> This, however, is a theoretical result. It is impossible to implement
> in practice, because the analog reconstruction filter required would
> have to cut off instantaneously at 15kHz.

Since the sample rate has been stated to be 44.1 KHz, the reconstruction
filter needs to cut off slightly below 22.05 KHz, not 15 KHz. In the case of
a 15 KHz signal, this gives a 7.05 KHz range in which the filter needs to
cut off.

> Since it can't, the result
> would be a 15 kHz signal with higher harmonics

Wrong.

> To understand what happens if the reconstruction filter is not
> present, 2X sampling would provide a simple 15 kHz square wave. To
> the extent that the square wave is not brick wall, some of the
> harmonic structure of the corresponding square wave will be present.

Wrong, the sample rate was stated to be 44.1 KHz.

> In theory, using noncausal filtering, it's possible to make the brick
> wall filter. In practice, it can't be done.

As I've shown, there is a 7.05 KHz range in which the reconstruction filter
must cut off, in order to reproduce a 15 KHz signal with 44.1 KHz sampling.

> One of the original innovations in CD DACs was the oversampling DAC.
> In this approach, the signal is interpolated using a digital filter
> chip. It is a form of upsampling. The upsampled signal is easier to
> filter. Unfortunately, the implementation of digital interpolation
> algorithms remains to this day an incompletely solved problem.

Wrong. The problem has been solved quite nicely thank you, and for at least
a decade.

> Recently, Arny brought forth a recent AES paper that purported to
> show that signals above 20 kHz make no difference in the perceived
> quality of the reproduction. There is a considerable body of evidence
> that the ear can't hear above 20 kHz, yet many listeners report
> improved fidelity with higher sampling rates and greater bit depth.

That's because these listeners don't use appropriate experimental controls
when they do their listening tests.

> The most probable explanation of this lies with the reduced phase of
> enhanced/upsampled/high bit rate systems shift at frequencies
> approaching 20 kHz.

The most probably explanation is that these listeners don't use appropriate
experimental controls when they do their listening tests, and therefore they
produce bogus results.

Arny Krueger

November 23rd 03, 09:04 AM

"Scott Gardner" > wrote in message

> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 21:07:24 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> news:AmUvb.4608$ML6.2599@fed1read01
>>> "Erik Squires" > wrote in
>>> message
>>> ervers.com...
>>
>>>> So, here's my question. If I digitize a 15 kHz signal, using a
>>>> 44.1 kHz sampling rate, I'm going to get about 3 samples / cycle.
>>
>>>> Are the normal digital filters good enough to reproduce a 15 kHz
>>>> singal with varying amplitude?
>>
>>> Deconstruct this signal to frequency domain and it won't be a pure
>>> 15 kHz.
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>>> There has to be another component imposed on the 15 kHz that
>>> "varies the amplitude".
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>> Three samples is sufficient to define a sine wave that has unique
>> frequency, phase and amplitude. In fact, just slightly more than two
>> samples is sufficient.
>
>
> Arny,
> I am probably looking at this the wrong way, using an
> oversimplified model, but I can't see how a sine wave can be
> completely defined by three points.

It's a theorem that has never been disproved that says that it takes
slightly more than 2 points to adequately define a unique sine wave.

> I'm picturing a sine wave plotted with time along the x-axis,
> and amplitude along the y-axis. If I tell you that the amplitudes at
> zero seconds, 1 second, and 2 seconds are all zero, I've given you
> three different points along the wave.

Right, but the frequency of that wave has to be outside the range for which
the theorem applies.

> From this, the period can be
> measured and the frequency derived from that, but I don't see how I've
> given you enough information to calculate the amplitude.
> Let me know what I'm missing.

You are missing the fact that the frequency of a signal with three points
that are zero is too high for the Nyquist theorem to apply. In fact, the
frequency of the signal has to be exactly half the sample rate.

> Do the three points have to
> have non-zero amplitude for them to be used to define the waveform?

At least one of the points has to be non-zero, and this will be true if the
frequency of the signal is even just slightly below half the sample rate. At
exactly half the sample rate, the signal can have any amplitude and have
three zero samples. It's a well-known boundary condition.

Scott Gardner

November 23rd 03, 09:26 AM

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 04:04:38 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Scott Gardner" > wrote in message

>> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 21:07:24 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>> news:AmUvb.4608$ML6.2599@fed1read01
>>>> "Erik Squires" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>> ervers.com...
>>>
>>>>> So, here's my question. If I digitize a 15 kHz signal, using a
>>>>> 44.1 kHz sampling rate, I'm going to get about 3 samples / cycle.
>>>
>>>>> Are the normal digital filters good enough to reproduce a 15 kHz
>>>>> singal with varying amplitude?
>>>
>>>> Deconstruct this signal to frequency domain and it won't be a pure
>>>> 15 kHz.
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>>> There has to be another component imposed on the 15 kHz that
>>>> "varies the amplitude".
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>> Three samples is sufficient to define a sine wave that has unique
>>> frequency, phase and amplitude. In fact, just slightly more than two
>>> samples is sufficient.
>>
>>
>> Arny,
>> I am probably looking at this the wrong way, using an
>> oversimplified model, but I can't see how a sine wave can be
>> completely defined by three points.
>
>It's a theorem that has never been disproved that says that it takes
>slightly more than 2 points to adequately define a unique sine wave.
>
>> I'm picturing a sine wave plotted with time along the x-axis,
>> and amplitude along the y-axis. If I tell you that the amplitudes at
>> zero seconds, 1 second, and 2 seconds are all zero, I've given you
>> three different points along the wave.
>
>Right, but the frequency of that wave has to be outside the range for which
>the theorem applies.
>
>> From this, the period can be
>> measured and the frequency derived from that, but I don't see how I've
>> given you enough information to calculate the amplitude.
>> Let me know what I'm missing.
>
>You are missing the fact that the frequency of a signal with three points
>that are zero is too high for the Nyquist theorem to apply. In fact, the
>frequency of the signal has to be exactly half the sample rate.
>
>> Do the three points have to
>> have non-zero amplitude for them to be used to define the waveform?
>
>At least one of the points has to be non-zero, and this will be true if the
>frequency of the signal is even just slightly below half the sample rate. At
>exactly half the sample rate, the signal can have any amplitude and have
>three zero samples. It's a well-known boundary condition.

Okay, that makes sense to me now. Since the three points I
chose were at zero, one and two seconds, my sampling rate was
therefore 1 Hz. Since the amplitudes at all three points were zero,
they therefore represented the start, crossover, and end of a waveform
with a period of two seconds, or a frequency of 1/2 Hz. Since the
frequency of my waveform (1/2 Hz) was greater than or equal to half of
my sampling rate (1 Hz), there wasn't enough information there to
determine the waveform characteristics.

Thanks for the clarification. I still remembered how to do
polynomial curve fitting, based on the number of local minima and
maxima in the plot of the polynomial, but if I ever learned
trigonometric curve fitting, I had obviously forgotten it.

Scott Gardner

Arny Krueger

November 23rd 03, 09:45 AM

"Scott Gardner" > wrote in message

> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 04:04:38 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Scott Gardner" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 21:07:24 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>> news:AmUvb.4608$ML6.2599@fed1read01
>>>>> "Erik Squires" > wrote in
>>>>> message
>>>>> ervers.com...
>>>>
>>>>>> So, here's my question. If I digitize a 15 kHz signal, using a
>>>>>> 44.1 kHz sampling rate, I'm going to get about 3 samples / cycle.
>>>>
>>>>>> Are the normal digital filters good enough to reproduce a 15 kHz
>>>>>> singal with varying amplitude?
>>>>
>>>>> Deconstruct this signal to frequency domain and it won't be a
>>>>> pure 15 kHz.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong.
>>>>
>>>>> There has to be another component imposed on the 15 kHz that
>>>>> "varies the amplitude".
>>>>
>>>> Wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Three samples is sufficient to define a sine wave that has unique
>>>> frequency, phase and amplitude. In fact, just slightly more than
>>>> two samples is sufficient.
>>>
>>>
>>> Arny,
>>> I am probably looking at this the wrong way, using an
>>> oversimplified model, but I can't see how a sine wave can be
>>> completely defined by three points.

>> It's a theorem that has never been disproved that says that it takes
>> slightly more than 2 points to adequately define a unique sine wave.

>>> I'm picturing a sine wave plotted with time along the x-axis,
>>> and amplitude along the y-axis. If I tell you that the amplitudes
>>> at zero seconds, 1 second, and 2 seconds are all zero, I've given
>>> you three different points along the wave.

>> Right, but the frequency of that wave has to be outside the range
>> for which the theorem applies.

>>> From this, the period can be
>>> measured and the frequency derived from that, but I don't see how
>>> I've given you enough information to calculate the amplitude.
>>> Let me know what I'm missing.

>> You are missing the fact that the frequency of a signal with three
>> points that are zero is too high for the Nyquist theorem to apply.
>> In fact, the frequency of the signal has to be exactly half the
>> sample rate.

>>> Do the three points have to
>>> have non-zero amplitude for them to be used to define the waveform?

>> At least one of the points has to be non-zero, and this will be true
>> if the frequency of the signal is even just slightly below half the
>> sample rate. At exactly half the sample rate, the signal can have
>> any amplitude and have three zero samples. It's a well-known
>> boundary condition.

> Okay, that makes sense to me now. Since the three points I
> chose were at zero, one and two seconds, my sampling rate was
> therefore 1 Hz. Since the amplitudes at all three points were zero,
> they therefore represented the start, crossover, and end of a waveform
> with a period of two seconds, or a frequency of 1/2 Hz. Since the
> frequency of my waveform (1/2 Hz) was greater than or equal to half of
> my sampling rate (1 Hz), there wasn't enough information there to
> determine the waveform characteristics.

Bingo!

> Thanks for the clarification. I still remembered how to do
> polynomial curve fitting, based on the number of local minima and
> maxima in the plot of the polynomial, but if I ever learned
> trigonometric curve fitting, I had obviously forgotten it.

Thanks for correctly perceiving my explanation.

There are at least three forms of curve-fitting that I've seen used pretty
frequently:

(1) Polynomial
(2) Exponential
(3) Trigonometric

I seem to recall that all that is required is that the curve-fitting
methodology be based on orthogonal functions, and that's only a requirement
if you want a general, unique solution.

Goofball_star_dot_etal

November 23rd 03, 10:03 AM

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 04:11:24 GMT, (Scott Gardner)
wrote:

>On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 21:07:24 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>wrote:
>
>>"ScottW" > wrote in message
>>news:AmUvb.4608$ML6.2599@fed1read01
>>> "Erik Squires" > wrote in message
>>> ervers.com...
>>
>>>> So, here's my question. If I digitize a 15 kHz signal, using a 44.1
>>>> kHz sampling rate, I'm going to get about 3 samples / cycle.
>>
>>>> Are the normal digital filters good enough to reproduce a 15 kHz
>>>> singal with varying amplitude?
>>
>>> Deconstruct this signal to frequency domain and it won't be a pure
>>> 15 kHz.
>>
>>Wrong.
>>
>>>There has to be another component imposed on the 15 kHz that "varies the
>>amplitude".
>>
>>Wrong.
>>
>>Three samples is sufficient to define a sine wave that has unique frequency,
>>phase and amplitude. In fact, just slightly more than two samples is
>>sufficient.
>
>
>Arny,
> I am probably looking at this the wrong way, using an
>oversimplified model, but I can't see how a sine wave can be
>completely defined by three points.

A pure sine wave has infinite length which is more than three points
in total. This makes a difference.

> I'm picturing a sine wave plotted with time along the x-axis,
>and amplitude along the y-axis. If I tell you that the amplitudes at
>zero seconds, 1 second, and 2 seconds are all zero, I've given you
>three different points along the wave. From this, the period can be
>measured and the frequency derived from that, but I don't see how I've
>given you enough information to calculate the amplitude.
> Let me know what I'm missing. Do the three points have to
>have non-zero amplitude for them to be used to define the waveform?
>
>Thanks,
>Scott Gardner
>

Robert Morein

November 23rd 03, 03:26 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> >> news:AmUvb.4608$ML6.2599@fed1read01
> >>> "Erik Squires" > wrote in
> >>> message
> >>> ervers.com...
> >>

>
> Since the sample rate has been stated to be 44.1 KHz, the reconstruction
> filter needs to cut off slightly below 22.05 KHz, not 15 KHz. In the case
of
> a 15 KHz signal, this gives a 7.05 KHz range in which the filter needs to
> cut off.
>
Unfortunately, I misread the question.
Your mathematical analysis is basically correct.
However, your statement that the reconstruction filter problem has been
solved is not correct, and probably accounts for the small variations in
perceived quality among DACs.

A digital reconstruction filter cannot be perfect unless it has infinite run
length and is noncausal. While digital filters are typically noncausal, they
have limited run length.

Likewise for the analog filter. However, the run length of an analog filter
is even more severly restricted.

The reconstruction filter remains the weak link in DAC design.

Erik Squires

November 23rd 03, 03:49 PM

Robert:

Right, I think the debate over 40 kHz signals and whether or not they have
any effect on us at all is cool, but not what I wanted to ask.

I'm more concerned with how good 3 samples is at 15 kHz, which I can hear,
albeit weaker every year. :)

So, 3 points in time, separated by 1/44,100 of a second, with 15 bits of
resolution (plus the polarity bit). Can this really define any sine wave
accurately? What about a decaying sine wave, one who's amplitude is
decreasing linearly or logarithmically with time? Can a mere 3 points
really stay true to this, even without getting into discusisons of linearity
of a DAC at -90 db.

This is my real interest in high frequency recordings. I don't intend to go
out and buy a super tweeter.

Thanks!

Erik

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > news:AmUvb.4608$ML6.2599@fed1read01
> > > "Erik Squires" > wrote in message
> > > ervers.com...
> >
> > >> So, here's my question. If I digitize a 15 kHz signal, using a 44.1
> > >> kHz sampling rate, I'm going to get about 3 samples / cycle.
> >
> > >> Are the normal digital filters good enough to reproduce a 15 kHz
> > >> singal with varying amplitude?
> >
> > > Deconstruct this signal to frequency domain and it won't be a pure
> > > 15 kHz.
> >
> > Wrong.
> >
> > >There has to be another component imposed on the 15 kHz that "varies
the
> > amplitude".
> >
> > Wrong.
> >
> > Three samples is sufficient to define a sine wave that has unique
> frequency,
> > phase and amplitude. In fact, just slightly more than two samples is
> > sufficient.
> >
> Wrong.
> Arny is simplistically parroting the Nyquist Theorem, which states that
any
> signal can be reconstructed with a sampling rate twice the maximum
frequency
> present in the signal.
> This, however, is a theoretical result. It is impossible to implement in
> practice, because the analog reconstruction filter required would have to
> cut off instantaneously at 15kHz. Since it can't, the result would be a 15
> kHz signal with higher harmonics
> To understand what happens if the reconstruction filter is not present, 2X
> sampling would provide a simple 15 khz square wave. To the extent that the
> square wave is not brick wall, some of the harmonic structure of the
> corresponding square wave will be present.
>
> In theory, using noncausal filtering, it's possible to make the brick wall
> filter. In practice, it can't be done.
> One of the original innovations in CD DACs was the oversampling DAC. In
this
> approach, the signal is interpolated using a digital filter chip. It is a
> form of upsampling. The upsampled signal is easier to filter.
> Unfortunately, the implementation of digital interpolation algorithms
> remains to this day an incompletely solved problem.
>
> Recently, Arny brought forth a recent AES paper that purported to show
that
> signals above 20 kHz make no difference in the perceived quality of the
> reproduction. There is a considerable body of evidence that the ear can't
> hear above 20 kHz, yet many listeners report improved fidelity with higher
> sampling rates and greater bit depth. The most probable explanation of
this
> lies with the reduced phase of enhanced/upsampled/high bit rate systems
> shift at frequencies approaching 20 kHz.
>
>
>

Arny Krueger

November 23rd 03, 05:52 PM

"Erik Squires" > wrote in message
rvers.com
> Robert:
>
> Right, I think the debate over 40 kHz signals and whether or not they
> have any effect on us at all is cool, but not what I wanted to ask.
>
> I'm more concerned with how good 3 samples is at 15 kHz, which I can
> hear, albeit weaker every year. :)
>
> So, 3 points in time, separated by 1/44,100 of a second, with 15 bits
> of resolution (plus the polarity bit). Can this really define any
> sine wave accurately?

It only takes slightly more than two points to define a steady sine wave.

> What about a decaying sine wave, one who's
> amplitude is decreasing linearly or logarithmically with time?

That takes a set of points that defines a slightly decaying wave. They would
extend over the duration of the decaying wave. If the wave is decaying
slowly, that would be lots of points.

> Can a mere 3 points really stay true to this, even without getting into
> discussions of linearity of a DAC at -90 db.

Most DACs are actually quite linear at -90 dB, given a properly-dithered
signal.

> This is my real interest in high frequency recordings. I don't
> intend to go out and buy a super tweeter.

Been there, done that.

Arny Krueger

November 23rd 03, 05:57 PM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>> news:AmUvb.4608$ML6.2599@fed1read01
>>>>> "Erik Squires" > wrote in
>>>>> message
>>>>> ervers.com...
>>>>
>
>>
>> Since the sample rate has been stated to be 44.1 KHz, the
>> reconstruction filter needs to cut off slightly below 22.05 KHz, not
>> 15 KHz. In the case of a 15 KHz signal, this gives a 7.05 KHz range
>> in which the filter needs to cut off.
>>
> Unfortunately, I misread the question.
> Your mathematical analysis is basically correct.

> However, your statement that the reconstruction filter problem has
> been solved is not correct, and probably accounts for the small
> variations in perceived quality among DACs.

Of course there are DACs that do sound different in time-synched,
level-matched, bias-controlled listening tests. And, there are DACs that
don't sound different in time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled
listening tests.

> A digital reconstruction filter cannot be perfect unless it has
> infinite run length and is noncausal. While digital filters are
> typically noncausal, they have limited run length.

Given that the ear is not absolutely perfect, there is no need for absolute
perfection in DACs.

> Likewise for the analog filter. However, the run length of an analog
> filter is even more severely restricted.

Usually the run length of a digital filter is related to its latency, and
latency is generally considered to be either bad or moot. Depends on the
application.

> The reconstruction filter remains the weak link in DAC design.

Given that there are DACs that have zero reliable detectable effects on the
music they reproduce, even when the music is reproduced through them 5 or
more times, it is arguable that for the purpose of music listening, there
are no unsolved weak links in DAC design. AFAIK you have such a DAC in your
possession, and of course I think you should enjoy its excellent performance
by listening to as much music through it as possible.

ScottW

November 23rd 03, 06:41 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:VPVvb.4621$ML6.516@fed1read01
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> >> news:AmUvb.4608$ML6.2599@fed1read01
> >>> "Erik Squires" > wrote in
> >>> message
> >>> ervers.com...
> >>
> >>>> So, here's my question. If I digitize a 15 kHz signal, using a
> >>>> 44.1 kHz sampling rate, I'm going to get about 3 samples / cycle.
> >>
> >>>> Are the normal digital filters good enough to reproduce a 15 kHz
> >>>> singal with varying amplitude?
> >>
> >>> Deconstruct this signal to frequency domain and it won't be a pure
> >>> 15 kHz.
> >>
> >> Wrong.
> >
> > What is the frequency of the amplitude "variation"?
>
> Obviously, 15 KHz.

Show me the fourier series which contains only 15 kHz components
which results in a 15Khz waveform with "varying amplitude".

ScottW

The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra

November 23rd 03, 06:58 PM

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 12:52:50 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Been there, done that.

Christ, you're putrid.

--
td

ScottW

November 23rd 03, 07:06 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:VPVvb.4621$ML6.516@fed1read01
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> >> news:AmUvb.4608$ML6.2599@fed1read01
> >>> "Erik Squires" > wrote in
> >>> message
> >>> ervers.com...
> >>
> >>>> So, here's my question. If I digitize a 15 kHz signal, using a
> >>>> 44.1 kHz sampling rate, I'm going to get about 3 samples / cycle.
> >>
> >>>> Are the normal digital filters good enough to reproduce a 15 kHz
> >>>> singal with varying amplitude?
> >>
> >>> Deconstruct this signal to frequency domain and it won't be a pure
> >>> 15 kHz.
> >>
> >> Wrong.
> >
> > What is the frequency of the amplitude "variation"?
>
> Obviously, 15 KHz.
>
Show a Fourier series with 15 Khz components that
results in an 15 kHz waveform of "varying amplitude"

ScottW

Arny Krueger

November 23rd 03, 08:30 PM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:Wb7wb.4949$ML6.3520@fed1read01
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> news:VPVvb.4621$ML6.516@fed1read01
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>> news:AmUvb.4608$ML6.2599@fed1read01
>>>>> "Erik Squires" > wrote in
>>>>> message
>>>>> ervers.com...
>>>>
>>>>>> So, here's my question. If I digitize a 15 kHz signal, using a
>>>>>> 44.1 kHz sampling rate, I'm going to get about 3 samples / cycle.
>>>>
>>>>>> Are the normal digital filters good enough to reproduce a 15 kHz
>>>>>> singal with varying amplitude?
>>>>
>>>>> Deconstruct this signal to frequency domain and it won't be a
>>>>> pure 15 kHz.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>> What is the frequency of the amplitude "variation"?
>>
>> Obviously, 15 KHz.
>
> Show me the fourier series which contains only 15 kHz components
> which results in a 15Khz waveform with "varying amplitude".
>

A 15 KHz wave itself has varying amplitude. The amplitude varies at a rate
of 15 KHz.

Arny Krueger

November 23rd 03, 08:30 PM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:Xy7wb.5019$ML6.4461@fed1read01
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> news:VPVvb.4621$ML6.516@fed1read01
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>> news:AmUvb.4608$ML6.2599@fed1read01
>>>>> "Erik Squires" > wrote in
>>>>> message
>>>>> ervers.com...
>>>>
>>>>>> So, here's my question. If I digitize a 15 kHz signal, using a
>>>>>> 44.1 kHz sampling rate, I'm going to get about 3 samples / cycle.
>>>>
>>>>>> Are the normal digital filters good enough to reproduce a 15 kHz
>>>>>> singal with varying amplitude?
>>>>
>>>>> Deconstruct this signal to frequency domain and it won't be a
>>>>> pure 15 kHz.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>> What is the frequency of the amplitude "variation"?
>>
>> Obviously, 15 KHz.
>>
> Show a Fourier series with 15 Khz components that
> results in an 15 kHz waveform of "varying amplitude"

Scotty, you must think this is one genius question, given that you asked it
twice. You're only getting one answer. Live with it!

Goofball_star_dot_etal

November 23rd 03, 08:37 PM

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 15:30:04 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"ScottW" > wrote in message
>news:Wb7wb.4949$ML6.3520@fed1read01
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>> news:VPVvb.4621$ML6.516@fed1read01
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>>> news:AmUvb.4608$ML6.2599@fed1read01
>>>>>> "Erik Squires" > wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>>>>> ervers.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, here's my question. If I digitize a 15 kHz signal, using a
>>>>>>> 44.1 kHz sampling rate, I'm going to get about 3 samples / cycle.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are the normal digital filters good enough to reproduce a 15 kHz
>>>>>>> singal with varying amplitude?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Deconstruct this signal to frequency domain and it won't be a
>>>>>> pure 15 kHz.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>
>>>> What is the frequency of the amplitude "variation"?
>>>
>>> Obviously, 15 KHz.
>>
>> Show me the fourier series which contains only 15 kHz components
>> which results in a 15Khz waveform with "varying amplitude".
>>
>
>A 15 KHz wave itself has varying amplitude. The amplitude varies at a rate
>of 15 KHz.
>
You talk instantaneous values, him talk envelope. Waste time.

S888Wheel

November 23rd 03, 08:37 PM

<<
A 15 KHz wave itself has varying amplitude. The amplitude varies at a rate
of 15 KHz.

It seems pretty obvious to me he means varying peak amplitude with each cycle.

Arny Krueger

November 23rd 03, 09:51 PM

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message

> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 15:30:04 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> news:Wb7wb.4949$ML6.3520@fed1read01
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>> news:VPVvb.4621$ML6.516@fed1read01
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>>>> news:AmUvb.4608$ML6.2599@fed1read01
>>>>>>> "Erik Squires" > wrote in
>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>> ervers.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, here's my question. If I digitize a 15 kHz signal, using a
>>>>>>>> 44.1 kHz sampling rate, I'm going to get about 3 samples /
>>>>>>>> cycle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are the normal digital filters good enough to reproduce a 15
>>>>>>>> kHz signal with varying amplitude?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Deconstruct this signal to frequency domain and it won't be a
>>>>>>> pure 15 kHz.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the frequency of the amplitude "variation"?
>>>>
>>>> Obviously, 15 KHz.
>>>
>>> Show me the Fourier series which contains only 15 kHz components
>>> which results in a 15Khz waveform with "varying amplitude".
>>>
>>
>> A 15 KHz wave itself has varying amplitude. The amplitude varies at
>> a rate of 15 KHz.

> You talk instantaneous values, him talk envelope. Waste time.

That's his choice. If he wants a specific answer he should ask a specific
question.

Arny Krueger

November 23rd 03, 11:00 PM

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

> <<
> A 15 KHz wave itself has varying amplitude. The amplitude varies at a
> rate of 15 KHz.
>
>
> It seems pretty obvious to me he means varying peak amplitude with
> each cycle.

That's completely contrary to the context of the thread, which relates to
sample-by-sample amplitude.

S888Wheel

November 24th 03, 02:19 AM

I said

<<
> It seems pretty obvious to me he means varying peak amplitude with
> each cycle.

Arny said

<<
That's completely contrary to the context of the thread, which relates to
sample-by-sample amplitude.

It seems to me to be what Scott W. meant by varying amplitude. If that is what
he means, and I am confident it is what he means then it seems to me that it
will make a difference in how accurately one can plot a wave form using so few
samples per cycle. It also is the reality of music. Not a lot of sin waves with
no variation in peak amplitude in music. No doubt though, if one wants to
listen to sin waves with steady state peak amplitudes, digital should do a much
better job than analog.

Arny Krueger

November 24th 03, 06:07 AM

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

> I said
>
> <<
>> It seems pretty obvious to me he means varying peak amplitude with
>> each cycle.

> Arny said
<
> That's completely contrary to the context of the thread, which
> relates to sample-by-sample amplitude.

> It seems to me to be what Scott W. meant by varying amplitude.

Well, after he explained what he meant a second time, that is now pretty
clear.

Too bad he couldn't get it right the first time.

However, knowing what kind of buttholes you, Scottw and the rest of your
clique is sockpuppet Wheel, you're probably giving each other high fives
because you think he confounded me with his technical brilliance. The fact
of the matter is that he made a vague statement in a different context, and
I interpreted it in that context.

S888Wheel

November 24th 03, 06:54 AM

<< > I said
>
> <<
>> It seems pretty obvious to me he means varying peak amplitude with
>> each cycle.

<<
> Arny said
<
> That's completely contrary to the context of the thread, which
> relates to sample-by-sample amplitude.

I said

<<
> It seems to me to be what Scott W. meant by varying amplitude.

Arny said

<<
Well, after he explained what he meant a second time, that is now pretty
clear.

Too bad he couldn't get it right the first time.

I understood him the first time. Too bad you didn't.

<<
However, knowing what kind of buttholes you, Scottw and the rest of your
clique is sockpuppet Wheel, you're probably giving each other high fives
because you think he confounded me with his technical brilliance.

Arny, didn't you get the message. Your sociopathic fantasies are boring. I have
never met Scott W. How the hell would I be giving him high-fives?

Arny said

<< The fact
of the matter is that he made a vague statement in a different context, and
I interpreted it in that context.

The fact of the matter is you didn't get what he was saying. When this happens
with normal people it is usually resolved with an explanation and no fecal
flinging. The fact that others including myself did get what he was saying
shows that part of the problem was your inability to figure out what was meant.

Arny Krueger

November 24th 03, 07:31 AM

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

<snip sockpuppet wheel's ranting about me being a sociopath>

> << The fact
> of the matter is that he made a vague statement in a different
> context, and I interpreted it in that context.

> The fact of the matter is you didn't get what he was saying.

It's not my fault he said it so badly. Scotty's inability to write coherent
English is like yours, well known.

> When this happens with normal people it is usually resolved with an
> explanation and no fecal flinging.

More examples of how you are crapping on this thread, sockpuppet Wheel. Just
for grins I held off on making any personal attacks so you could show how
low you can go.

> The fact that others including
> myself did get what he was saying shows that part of the problem was
> your inability to figure out what was meant.

Thanks for showing once again sockpuppet wheel that you can't keep a civil
mouth in a technical thread.

S888Wheel

November 24th 03, 08:02 AM

Arny said

<<
> << The fact
> of the matter is that he made a vague statement in a different
> context, and I interpreted it in that context.

I said

<<
> The fact of the matter is you didn't get what he was saying.

Arny said

<<
It's not my fault he said it so badly.

If he said it so badly no one else would have understood his intent. Given the
fact that you were the only one who has claimed not to understand his intent
the logical conclusion is that your comprehension skills are sub par for RAO.

I said

<<
> When this happens with normal people it is usually resolved with an
> explanation and no fecal flinging.

Arny said

<<
More examples of how you are crapping on this thread,

Arny, I realize you have a limited imagination and, as you say yourself, you
are not the sharpest knife in the drawer but please at least try to come up
with an original idea. Stop plagiarizing me. Remember the shame it brought
Howard.

Arny said

<< Just
for grins I held off on making any personal attacks so you could show how
low you can go.

What a load of crap! Your posts are filled with personal attacks against Scott
W. over a ****ing misunderstanding between the two of you. Are you saying I
sank so low as to point out your malicious attacks against Scott W.? Wow!
That's pretty awful of me to call you on your personal attacks.

I said

<<
> The fact that others including
> myself did get what he was saying shows that part of the problem was
> your inability to figure out what was meant.

Arny said

<<
Thanks for showing once again sockpuppet wheel that you can't keep a civil
mouth in a technical thread

Thanks for showing once again you have no clue when the issue is civility.

Arny Krueger

November 24th 03, 08:05 AM

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

> Thanks for showing once again you have no clue when the issue is
> civility.

Yes, the issue is whose ox is being gored. In the end, your ox got gored
twice and now you're crying for momma again, sockpuppet wheel.

S888Wheel

November 24th 03, 08:27 AM

I said

<<
> Thanks for showing once again you have no clue when the issue is
> civility.

Arny said

<<
Yes, the issue is whose ox is being gored. In the end, your ox got gored
twice and now you're crying for momma again, sockpuppet wheel.

Stuck in another sociopathic fantasy again I see. Obviously your ability to
track the issues of a thread are in line with your self described intellect.
Should we call you butter-knife brain?

Browntimdc

November 24th 03, 03:10 PM

"Erik Squires" > wrote in
ervers.com:

> So, here's my question. If I digitize a 15 kHz signal, using a 44.1
> kHz sampling rate, I'm going to get about 3 samples / cycle.
>
> Are the normal digital filters good enough to reproduce a 15 kHz
> singal with varying amplitude? How accurate is that signal, is there
> no lag in the reconstructed signal? I mean, if the amplitude of the
> original changes, is the reconstructed signal as true at 15 kHz as at
> 4 kHz?
>
> This to me is a far more important concern than whether I can hear
> 20+kHz signals.
>
> Thanks for your intelligent and well thought out replies. The rest of
> you can suck my electric outlet.
>
> Erik
>
>

First, with 44.1kHz sampling & 20-22kHz bandwidth a 15kHz signal can only
be a sine wave. Second, the 15kHz signal cannot be one isolated sine
wave, that would require more bandwidth. It will be a burst of waves with
a minimum buildup and decay. So it will be more than 3 samples of one
cycle. The closer the sine wave is to 22.05kHz the longer this build up
and decay must be to meet the bandwidth constraint.

Tim

--

"The strongest human instinct is to impart information,
and the second strongest is to resist it."

Kenneth Graham

Arny Krueger

November 24th 03, 04:25 PM

"Browntimdc" > wrote in message

> "Erik Squires" > wrote in
> ervers.com:
>
>> So, here's my question. If I digitize a 15 kHz signal, using a 44.1
>> kHz sampling rate, I'm going to get about 3 samples / cycle.
>>
>> Are the normal digital filters good enough to reproduce a 15 kHz
>> signal with varying amplitude? How accurate is that signal, is there
>> no lag in the reconstructed signal? I mean, if the amplitude of the
>> original changes, is the reconstructed signal as true at 15 kHz as at
>> 4 kHz?
>>
>> This to me is a far more important concern than whether I can hear
>> 20+kHz signals.
>>
>> Thanks for your intelligent and well thought out replies. The rest
>> of you can suck my electric outlet.
>>
>> Erik
>>
>>
>
> First, with 44.1kHz sampling & 20-22kHz bandwidth a 15kHz signal can
> only be a sine wave.

Good point #1

> Second, the 15kHz signal cannot be one isolated
> sine wave, that would require more bandwidth. It will be a burst of
> waves with a minimum buildup and decay. So it will be more than 3
> samples of one cycle.

However, there need not ever be more than two samples per cycle, over
whatever period the sine wave actually extends.

>The closer the sine wave is to 22.05kHz the
> longer this build up and decay must be to meet the bandwidth
> constraint.

A very observable effect. By the time one gets to 22.000 KHz, tone bursts
get pretty distorted. However, this is not a situation that is unique to the
digital domain. Same thing happens in the analog domain when the test
frequency is close to a sharp cut-off.

ScottW

November 25th 03, 12:46 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
>
> > On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 15:30:04 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> >> news:Wb7wb.4949$ML6.3520@fed1read01
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> >>>> news:VPVvb.4621$ML6.516@fed1read01
> >>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:AmUvb.4608$ML6.2599@fed1read01
> >>>>>>> "Erik Squires" > wrote in
> >>>>>>> message
> >>>>>>> ervers.com...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So, here's my question. If I digitize a 15 kHz signal, using a
> >>>>>>>> 44.1 kHz sampling rate, I'm going to get about 3 samples /
> >>>>>>>> cycle.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Are the normal digital filters good enough to reproduce a 15
> >>>>>>>> kHz signal with varying amplitude?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Deconstruct this signal to frequency domain and it won't be a
> >>>>>>> pure 15 kHz.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Wrong.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What is the frequency of the amplitude "variation"?
> >>>>
> >>>> Obviously, 15 KHz.
> >>>
> >>> Show me the Fourier series which contains only 15 kHz components
> >>> which results in a 15Khz waveform with "varying amplitude".
> >>>
> >>
> >> A 15 KHz wave itself has varying amplitude. The amplitude varies at
> >> a rate of 15 KHz.
>
> > You talk instantaneous values, him talk envelope. Waste time.
>
> That's his choice. If he wants a specific answer he should ask a specific
> question.

Look at the original post.
Your context is wrong.
Too bad you gave the original poster such erroneous input.

ScottW

Arny Krueger

November 25th 03, 02:19 AM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:lDxwb.6312$ML6.5204@fed1read01
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 15:30:04 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>> news:Wb7wb.4949$ML6.3520@fed1read01
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>>>> news:VPVvb.4621$ML6.516@fed1read01
>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:AmUvb.4608$ML6.2599@fed1read01
>>>>>>>>> "Erik Squires" > wrote in
>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>> ervers.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, here's my question. If I digitize a 15 kHz signal,
>>>>>>>>>> using a
>>>>>>>>>> 44.1 kHz sampling rate, I'm going to get about 3 samples /
>>>>>>>>>> cycle.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are the normal digital filters good enough to reproduce a 15
>>>>>>>>>> kHz signal with varying amplitude?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Deconstruct this signal to frequency domain and it won't be a
>>>>>>>>> pure 15 kHz.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is the frequency of the amplitude "variation"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously, 15 KHz.
>>>>>
>>>>> Show me the Fourier series which contains only 15 kHz components
>>>>> which results in a 15Khz waveform with "varying amplitude".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A 15 KHz wave itself has varying amplitude. The amplitude varies at
>>>> a rate of 15 KHz.
>>
>>> You talk instantaneous values, him talk envelope. Waste time.
>>
>> That's his choice. If he wants a specific answer he should ask a
>> specific question.
>
> Look at the original post.

I did.

> Your context is wrong.

Wrong, the context wasn't set by me/ The problemis your comment is vague.

> Too bad you gave the original poster such erroneous input.

Too bad you can't take responsibility for your own actions.

ScottW

November 25th 03, 08:23 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:lDxwb.6312$ML6.5204@fed1read01
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 15:30:04 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> >>>> news:Wb7wb.4949$ML6.3520@fed1read01
> >>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:VPVvb.4621$ML6.516@fed1read01
> >>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>> news:AmUvb.4608$ML6.2599@fed1read01
> >>>>>>>>> "Erik Squires" > wrote in
> >>>>>>>>> message
> >>>>>>>>> ervers.com...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> So, here's my question. If I digitize a 15 kHz signal,
> >>>>>>>>>> using a
> >>>>>>>>>> 44.1 kHz sampling rate, I'm going to get about 3 samples /
> >>>>>>>>>> cycle.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Are the normal digital filters good enough to reproduce a 15
> >>>>>>>>>> kHz signal with varying amplitude?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Deconstruct this signal to frequency domain and it won't be a
> >>>>>>>>> pure 15 kHz.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Wrong.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What is the frequency of the amplitude "variation"?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Obviously, 15 KHz.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Show me the Fourier series which contains only 15 kHz components
> >>>>> which results in a 15Khz waveform with "varying amplitude".
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> A 15 KHz wave itself has varying amplitude. The amplitude varies at
> >>>> a rate of 15 KHz.
> >>
> >>> You talk instantaneous values, him talk envelope. Waste time.
> >>
> >> That's his choice. If he wants a specific answer he should ask a
> >> specific question.
> >
> > Look at the original post.
>
> I did.
>
> > Your context is wrong.
>
> Wrong, the context wasn't set by me/ The problemis your comment is vague.

BS, the context was set by the original poster when he specified a
signal with varying amplitude which has obvious implications.
>
> > Too bad you gave the original poster such erroneous input.
>
> Too bad you can't take responsibility for your own actions.
>
>
Look at this paragraph dimwit and explain how your bs response
about instantaneous signal levels deals with "varying amplitude".

"Are the normal digital filters good enough to reproduce a 15 kHz singal
with
varying amplitude? "

You are wrong, again.

ScottW

Arny Krueger

November 25th 03, 11:42 AM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:ekEwb.6396$ML6.3958@fed1read01
>>
> Look at this paragraph dimwit and explain how your bs response
> about instantaneous signal levels deals with "varying amplitude".

> "Are the normal digital filters good enough to reproduce a 15 kHz
> signal with varying amplitude? "

Since I now know Scotty that in your limited, fumbling way, you were trying
to describe a 15 KHz tone that is modulated, I can say quite clearly:

The answer is: Normal digital filters are plenty good enough to reproduce a
15 kHz signal with a varying amplitude of the kind actually seen with
music. For example if that 15 KHz signal is amplitude modulated with say 1
KHz, then there are sidebands at 14 KHz and 16 KHz. There's no problem
passing both the carrier at 15 KHz and the sidebands through a normal 44.1
KHz reconstruction filter which has a brick wall characteristic at 22.05 KHz

Notice that the proper way to ask the question involves the word
"modulated", or something like it.

If you wanted to make up a situation where normal 44.1 KHz reconstruction
filters significantly inhibit reproduction of a modulated tone, you'd pick a
much higher carrier frequency, such as 21.50 KHz, not 15 KHz.

My earlier answer:

"Three samples is sufficient to define a sine wave that has unique
frequency,
phase and amplitude. In fact, just slightly more than two samples is
sufficient." still applies.

In the case of the 15 KHz sine wave modulated with 1 KHz, 44.1 KHz sampling
is adequate to handle the highest frequency that one finds in the Fourier
analysis of the signal, which is 16 KHz.

ScottW

November 25th 03, 05:28 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:ekEwb.6396$ML6.3958@fed1read01
> >>
> > Look at this paragraph dimwit and explain how your bs response
> > about instantaneous signal levels deals with "varying amplitude".
>
> > "Are the normal digital filters good enough to reproduce a 15 kHz
> > signal with varying amplitude? "
>
> Since I now know Scotty that in your limited, fumbling way, you were
trying
> to describe a 15 KHz tone that is modulated, I can say quite clearly:
>
> The answer is: Normal digital filters are plenty good enough to reproduce
a
> 15 kHz signal with a varying amplitude of the kind actually seen with
> music. For example if that 15 KHz signal is amplitude modulated with say
1
> KHz, then there are sidebands at 14 KHz and 16 KHz. There's no problem
> passing both the carrier at 15 KHz and the sidebands through a normal
44.1
> KHz reconstruction filter which has a brick wall characteristic at 22.05
KHz

Thanks for admitting I was correct in my original post where I said:
"Deconstruct this signal to frequency domain and it won't be a pure
15 kHz."

To which you replied in error:
"Wrong."

>
> Notice that the proper way to ask the question involves the word
> "modulated", or something like it.

Then go bitch at the original poster. I don't know what you find so
complicated and incomprehensible about "varying amplitude"
but it really isn't. Maybe your general engineering cirriculum
wasn't all that comprehensive.
>
> If you wanted to make up a situation where normal 44.1 KHz reconstruction
> filters significantly inhibit reproduction of a modulated tone, you'd
pick a
> much higher carrier frequency, such as 21.50 KHz, not 15 KHz.
>
> My earlier answer:
>
> "Three samples is sufficient to define a sine wave that has unique
> frequency,
> phase and amplitude. In fact, just slightly more than two samples is
> sufficient." still applies.
>
> In the case of the 15 KHz sine wave modulated with 1 KHz, 44.1 KHz
sampling
> is adequate to handle the highest frequency that one finds in the Fourier
> analysis of the signal, which is 16 KHz.

None of which changes the relevance of my original response to which you
replied in
error. Thank you for finally admitting the truth.

ScottW

Arny Krueger

November 25th 03, 05:45 PM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:qjMwb.6452$ML6.120@fed1read01...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > news:ekEwb.6396$ML6.3958@fed1read01
> > >>
> > > Look at this paragraph dimwit and explain how your bs response
> > > about instantaneous signal levels deals with "varying amplitude".

> > > "Are the normal digital filters good enough to reproduce a 15 kHz
> > > signal with varying amplitude? "

> > Since I now know Scotty that in your limited, fumbling way, you were
trying
> > to describe a 15 KHz tone that is modulated, I can say quite clearly:

> > The answer is: Normal digital filters are plenty good enough to
reproduce a
> > 15 kHz signal with a varying amplitude of the kind actually seen with
> > music. For example if that 15 KHz signal is amplitude modulated with say
1
> > KHz, then there are sidebands at 14 KHz and 16 KHz. There's no problem
> > passing both the carrier at 15 KHz and the sidebands through a normal
44.1
> > KHz reconstruction filter which has a brick wall characteristic at 22.05
KHz

> Thanks for admitting I was correct in my original post where I said:
> "Deconstruct this signal to frequency domain and it won't be a pure
> 15 kHz."

Unfortunately, you didn't say that at the time.

> To which you replied in error:
> "Wrong."

Regrettably, we were talking about pure tones at the time.
>
> > Notice that the proper way to ask the question involves the word
> > "modulated", or something like it.

> Then go bitch at the original poster.

He was clearly talking about a pure tone.

> I don't know what you find so
> complicated and incomprehensible about "varying amplitude"
> but it really isn't.

Varying amplitude can clearly mean a number of things, and in the context of
digitizing it meant the fact that the values of the samples vary.

> Maybe your general engineering curriculum wasn't all that comprehensive.

Obviously Scotty, whatever engineering education you have, you weren't
prepared to discuss your thoughts with any useful degree of clarity.

> > If you wanted to make up a situation where normal 44.1 KHz
reconstruction
> > filters significantly inhibit reproduction of a modulated tone, you'd
pick a
> > much higher carrier frequency, such as 21.50 KHz, not 15 KHz.

> > My earlier answer:

> > "Three samples is sufficient to define a sine wave that has unique
frequency,
> > phase and amplitude. In fact, just slightly more than two samples is
> > sufficient." still applies.

> > In the case of the 15 KHz sine wave modulated with 1 KHz, 44.1 KHz
sampling
> > is adequate to handle the highest frequency that one finds in the
Fourier
> analysis of the signal, which is 16 KHz.

> None of which changes the relevance of my original response to which you
> replied in error.

There was no error on my part Scotty. You made a vague comment and then
redefined it after the fact in a lame attempt to make what you said seem
sensible.

>Thank you for finally admitting the truth.

The truth is Scotty that I made no errors, told no lies. I notice that you
have zero appreciation for the fact that I worked extra hard to show where
you went wrong.

Glenn Zelniker

November 25th 03, 06:33 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> The truth is Scotty that I made no errors, told no lies. I notice that you
> have zero appreciation for the fact that I worked extra hard to show where
> you went wrong.

Hi, Arny and Scott! It's been a while...

I took the time to follow this thread back to the beginning, and
it's pretty clear that you've gone from arguing about the
question originally posed to arguing about who misinterpreted
what and whose fault it is that things have gotten so murky and
convoluted.

In some of my (admittedly few) RAO debates, I've wished for
somebody to jump into the fray, declare a winner, and put the
discussion out of its misery. I suppose you've got to give before
you get, so in the giving spirit I offer the following:

Here is the salient part of the original query. And please -- no
accusations of selective editing. It really *is* the salient part
of the question.

--------------------

Are the normal digital filters good enough to reproduce a 15 kHz
singal with
varying amplitude? How accurate is that signal, is there no lag
in the
reconstructed signal? I mean, if the amplitude of the original
changes, is
the reconstructed signal as true at 15 kHz as at 4 kHz?

--------------------

It seems pretty clear to me that the poster was talking about a
time-varying envelope, even though the word "envelope" never
appears. Granted, it could have been worded better. But I think
that's how anybody who works with this stuff would interpret the
query.

I declare Scott the winner.

Glenn Z

Arny Krueger

November 25th 03, 07:18 PM

"Glenn Zelniker" > wrote in message
...

> It seems pretty clear to me that the poster was talking about a
> time-varying envelope, even though the word "envelope" never
> appears.

It seems pretty clear to me that your ability to carry a ferocious grudge is
now a matter of record.

>Granted, it could have been worded better. But I think
> that's how anybody who works with this stuff would interpret the
> query.
>
> I declare Scott the winner.

Thanks Glenn for dispelling any hopes I had that you might have developed a
personality since the last time we spoke.

Glenn Zelniker

November 25th 03, 08:14 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> "Glenn Zelniker" > wrote in message
> ...

> > I declare Scott the winner.
>
> Thanks Glenn for dispelling any hopes I had that you might have developed a
> personality since the last time we spoke.

Damn! OK, how's this? I declare Arny the winner.

*Now* do I have a personality?

GZ

Arny Krueger

November 25th 03, 08:29 PM

"Glenn Zelniker" > wrote in message
...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> > "Glenn Zelniker" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > > I declare Scott the winner.
> >
> > Thanks Glenn for dispelling any hopes I had that you might have
developed a
> > personality since the last time we spoke.
>
> Damn! OK, how's this? I declare Arny the winner.
>
> *Now* do I have a personality?

You blew it when you walked in the door, and walking out won't help.

MINe 109

November 25th 03, 08:39 PM

In article >,
Glenn Zelniker > wrote:

> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> > "Glenn Zelniker" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > > I declare Scott the winner.
> >
> > Thanks Glenn for dispelling any hopes I had that you might have developed a
> > personality since the last time we spoke.
>
> Damn! OK, how's this? I declare Arny the winner.
>
> *Now* do I have a personality?

A malleable one, perhaps. :-)

Stephen

ScottW

November 25th 03, 09:13 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Glenn Zelniker" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > It seems pretty clear to me that the poster was talking about a
> > time-varying envelope, even though the word "envelope" never
> > appears.
>
> It seems pretty clear to me that your ability to carry a ferocious grudge
is
> now a matter of record.
>
> >Granted, it could have been worded better. But I think
> > that's how anybody who works with this stuff would interpret the
> > query.
> >
> > I declare Scott the winner.
>
> Thanks Glenn for dispelling any hopes I had that you might have developed
a
> personality since the last time we spoke.
>
>
Overrated. George has a personality. Look what it got him.

Give it a rest Arny. You lost with the stupidest argument ever attempted.

I said:
> Thanks for admitting I was correct in my original post where I said:
> "Deconstruct this signal to frequency domain and it won't be a pure
> 15 kHz."

Arny replies: "Unfortunately, you didn't say that at the time."

Arny, the above statement was cut and pasted from my original
post in this thread. Yet you declare I
"didn't say that at the time".

Arny, seek help. Alzheimers is a terrible disease.
You have my sympathy if you can provide a doctors
note, otherwise all I can muster is disdain.

ScottW

ScottW

November 25th 03, 09:24 PM

"Glenn Zelniker" > wrote in message
...
>
> I declare Scott the winner.

BOOOYah! I am the champion, no time
for losers.........

Hey Glenn,
That Krell is now effortlessly driving
a pair of Quad 63's. Sweet sounds :).

ScottW

Marc Phillips

November 25th 03, 09:35 PM

ScottW said:

> That Krell is now effortlessly driving
> a pair of Quad 63's. Sweet sounds :).

Now I'm going to tease you, Scott, by telling you that Quads really love tube
amplification!

Boon

Arny Krueger

November 25th 03, 09:38 PM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:sCPwb.6498$ML6.4831@fed1read01...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> >

> Overrated. George has a personality. Look what it got him.

> Give it a rest Arny. You lost with the stupidest argument ever
attempted.
>
> I said:

> > Thanks for admitting I was correct in my original post where I said:
> > "Deconstruct this signal to frequency domain and it won't be a pure
> > 15 kHz."

> Arny replies: "Unfortunately, you didn't say that at the time."

> Arny, the above statement was cut and pasted from my original
> post in this thread. Yet you declare I "didn't say that at the time".

Poor attempt at trying to string a bunch of disconnected statements into an
argument.

> Arny, seek help. Alzheimers is a terrible disease.
> You have my sympathy if you can provide a doctors
> note, otherwise all I can muster is disdain.

Disdain is all you've ever had, Scotty.

Your comments have been irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which related
to sampling of pure sine waves, not Fourier analysis of modulated tones.
You're just trying to turn your inability to relate to the discussion into
some kind of an advantage.

If all else fails Scotty, try reading the title of the thread. If you don't
know what it means, ask some respectful questions and maybe someone will try
to help you out.

Arny Krueger

November 25th 03, 09:40 PM

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...
> ScottW said:
>
> > That Krell is now effortlessly driving
> > a pair of Quad 63's. Sweet sounds :).
>
> Now I'm going to tease you, Scott, by telling you that Quads really love
tube
> amplification!

Interesting fantasy, given that they were overtly designed to work well with
SS amplifiers.

MINe 109

November 25th 03, 10:17 PM

In article >,
(Marc Phillips) wrote:

> ScottW said:
>
> > That Krell is now effortlessly driving
> > a pair of Quad 63's. Sweet sounds :).
>
> Now I'm going to tease you, Scott, by telling you that Quads really love tube
> amplification!

Nah, a cheap transistor integrated that can survive a short circuit will
do great!

Stephen

ScottW

November 25th 03, 11:02 PM

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...
> ScottW said:
>
> > That Krell is now effortlessly driving
> > a pair of Quad 63's. Sweet sounds :).
>
> Now I'm going to tease you, Scott, by telling you that Quads really love
tube
> amplification!

They can be a difficult load and aren't efficient so
I suspect they would be a difficult match for some
tube equipment. Results could vary dramatically.

Ooops, I said that word...vary.
Arny is gonna be so confused.

ScottW

Glenn Zelniker

November 25th 03, 11:22 PM

ScottW wrote:
> "Glenn Zelniker" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I declare Scott the winner.
>
>
> BOOOYah! I am the champion, no time
> for losers.........
>
> Hey Glenn,
> That Krell is now effortlessly driving
> a pair of Quad 63's. Sweet sounds :).
>
> ScottW
>
>
Proove it!

GZ

Marc Phillips

November 26th 03, 12:25 AM

Arny said:

>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...
>> ScottW said:
>>
>> > That Krell is now effortlessly driving
>> > a pair of Quad 63's. Sweet sounds :).
>>
>> Now I'm going to tease you, Scott, by telling you that Quads really love
>tube
>> amplification!
>
>Interesting fantasy, given that they were overtly designed to work well with
>SS amplifiers.

Actually, I've heard both ESL-63s and 988s with both tube and SS amps lately,
and came to my own conclusions, using my own ears. You, on the other hand,
looked it up on the Internet and came to your own conclusions without hearing
the combination at all.

Stay out of my threads, idiot.

Boon

Marc Phillips

November 26th 03, 12:31 AM

ScottW said:

>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...
>> ScottW said:
>>
>> > That Krell is now effortlessly driving
>> > a pair of Quad 63's. Sweet sounds :).
>>
>> Now I'm going to tease you, Scott, by telling you that Quads really love
>tube
>> amplification!
>
> They can be a difficult load and aren't efficient so
>I suspect they would be a difficult match for some
>tube equipment. Results could vary dramatically.
>
>Ooops, I said that word...vary.
>Arny is gonna be so confused.

Actually, they do okay with around 30wpc. I've heard them with an Audiomat
Arpege Reference, and there were no real limitations. Remember when we heard
them sound so spectacular at Jeff's Sound Values? Those were tube amps rated
at only about 60wpc. Quads won't necessarily work well with a 300B SET amp,
but they sound excellent with most 845-driven amps. The Devil, who owns a
****load of Quads, recommends OTL amps.

BTW, Arny said something stupid about the Quads being designed to work well
with SS amps. That must be why Quad designed a modestly-powered tube amp to go
with them.

Boon

MINe 109

November 26th 03, 12:47 AM

In article >,
(Marc Phillips) wrote:

<to Arny>

> Actually, I've heard both ESL-63s and 988s with both tube and SS amps lately,
> and came to my own conclusions, using my own ears. You, on the other hand,
> looked it up on the Internet and came to your own conclusions without hearing
> the combination at all.

Maybe he should Google "Quad" and "OTL"...

Or "Quad" "OTL" "-Harvard"

Stephen

Erik Squires

November 26th 03, 01:40 AM

Scott:

To clarify, when I said 15 kHz wave of varying amplitude, I did not mean a
signal who's instantaneous amplitude was varying between fixed maximum and
minimum at 15kHz.

I meant, a 15 kHz signal who's peak to peak amplitude is decaying. Say, if
I had a 15 kHz signal from a generator, and I was slowly turning the gain up
or down.

This is the same, I would imagine, as a string or bell after it's been
struck (plucked). Can 3 points on this sine wave really accurately convey
this natural decay?

Thanks!

Erik

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:ekEwb.6396$ML6.3958@fed1read01...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > news:lDxwb.6312$ML6.5204@fed1read01
> > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >> "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
> > >>
> > >>> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 15:30:04 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> > >>> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > >>>> news:Wb7wb.4949$ML6.3520@fed1read01
> > >>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > >>>>> ...
> > >>>>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > >>>>>> news:VPVvb.4621$ML6.516@fed1read01
> > >>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > >>>>>>> ...
> > >>>>>>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > >>>>>>>> news:AmUvb.4608$ML6.2599@fed1read01
> > >>>>>>>>> "Erik Squires" > wrote in
> > >>>>>>>>> message
> > >>>>>>>>>
ervers.com...
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> So, here's my question. If I digitize a 15 kHz signal,
> > >>>>>>>>>> using a
> > >>>>>>>>>> 44.1 kHz sampling rate, I'm going to get about 3 samples /
> > >>>>>>>>>> cycle.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Are the normal digital filters good enough to reproduce a 15
> > >>>>>>>>>> kHz signal with varying amplitude?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Deconstruct this signal to frequency domain and it won't be a
> > >>>>>>>>> pure 15 kHz.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Wrong.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> What is the frequency of the amplitude "variation"?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Obviously, 15 KHz.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Show me the Fourier series which contains only 15 kHz components
> > >>>>> which results in a 15Khz waveform with "varying amplitude".
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> A 15 KHz wave itself has varying amplitude. The amplitude varies at
> > >>>> a rate of 15 KHz.
> > >>
> > >>> You talk instantaneous values, him talk envelope. Waste time.
> > >>
> > >> That's his choice. If he wants a specific answer he should ask a
> > >> specific question.
> > >
> > > Look at the original post.
> >
> > I did.
> >
> > > Your context is wrong.
> >
> > Wrong, the context wasn't set by me/ The problemis your comment is
vague.
>
> BS, the context was set by the original poster when he specified a
> signal with varying amplitude which has obvious implications.
> >
> > > Too bad you gave the original poster such erroneous input.
> >
> > Too bad you can't take responsibility for your own actions.
> >
> >
> Look at this paragraph dimwit and explain how your bs response
> about instantaneous signal levels deals with "varying amplitude".
>
> "Are the normal digital filters good enough to reproduce a 15 kHz singal
> with
> varying amplitude? "
>
> You are wrong, again.
>
> ScottW
>
>

Glenn Zelniker

November 26th 03, 03:04 AM

Erik Squires wrote:
> Scott:
>
> To clarify, when I said 15 kHz wave of varying amplitude, I did not mean a
> signal who's instantaneous amplitude was varying between fixed maximum and
> minimum at 15kHz.
>
> I meant, a 15 kHz signal who's peak to peak amplitude is decaying. Say, if
> I had a 15 kHz signal from a generator, and I was slowly turning the gain up
> or down.

This is how Scott interpreted your question and it's also how most
intelligent people would interpret your question.

> This is the same, I would imagine, as a string or bell after it's been
> struck (plucked). Can 3 points on this sine wave really accurately convey
> this natural decay?

Audibly? Yes. The modulation will create frequency content beyond the
original 15 kHz -- how far beyond is a function of the modulation. But
as long as you're sampling at a rate greater than twice the modulated
waveform's highest frequency (and using an antialiasing filter pre-A/D),
it'll work.

Remember, it's not just "three points on a sine wave." You're sampling
throughout the duration of the waveform, tracking the envelope as it
evolves.

Glenn Z

ScottW

November 26th 03, 03:38 AM

"Erik Squires" > wrote in message
ervers.com...
> Scott:
>
> To clarify, when I said 15 kHz wave of varying amplitude, I did not mean
a
> signal who's instantaneous amplitude was varying between fixed maximum
and
> minimum at 15kHz.
>
> I meant, a 15 kHz signal who's peak to peak amplitude is decaying. Say,
if
> I had a 15 kHz signal from a generator, and I was slowly turning the gain
up
> or down.

If you're turning the gain up and down at some rate (frequency), that will
be part of the signal and will give it a frequency content other than
the 15 kHz you stated. That is the extent
of my comment.

>
> This is the same, I would imagine, as a string or bell after it's been
> struck (plucked). Can 3 points on this sine wave really accurately
convey
> this natural decay?

Within audible limits. I suspect there is more error in the initial attack
(pluck) then in the decay.

ScottW

Bruce J. Richman

November 26th 03, 05:01 PM

Mr. Phillips wrote:

>Arny said:
>
>>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...
>>> ScottW said:
>>>
>>> > That Krell is now effortlessly driving
>>> > a pair of Quad 63's. Sweet sounds :).
>>>
>>> Now I'm going to tease you, Scott, by telling you that Quads really love
>>tube
>>> amplification!
>>
>>Interesting fantasy, given that they were overtly designed to work well with
>>SS amplifiers.
>
>Actually, I've heard both ESL-63s and 988s with both tube and SS amps lately,
>and came to my own conclusions, using my own ears. You, on the other hand,
>looked it up on the Internet and came to your own conclusions without hearing
>the combination at all.
>
>Stay out of my threads, idiot.
>
>Boon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Why would Krueger condescend to engage in such mundane, subjective, and
individualized experience as a personal listening audition when he can simply
cut-and-paste some of his readily available bigotry into any post mentioning
certain keywords? (tube, vinyl, analog, person not named McKelvy, tim brown
etc.).

Bruce J. Richman

Marc Phillips

November 26th 03, 05:06 PM

Dr. Richman said:

>Mr. Phillips wrote:
>
>
>>Arny said:
>>
>>>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...
>>>> ScottW said:
>>>>
>>>> > That Krell is now effortlessly driving
>>>> > a pair of Quad 63's. Sweet sounds :).
>>>>
>>>> Now I'm going to tease you, Scott, by telling you that Quads really love
>>>tube
>>>> amplification!
>>>
>>>Interesting fantasy, given that they were overtly designed to work well
>with
>>>SS amplifiers.
>>
>>Actually, I've heard both ESL-63s and 988s with both tube and SS amps
>lately,
>>and came to my own conclusions, using my own ears. You, on the other hand,
>>looked it up on the Internet and came to your own conclusions without
>hearing
>>the combination at all.
>>
>>Stay out of my threads, idiot.
>>
>>Boon
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>Why would Krueger condescend to engage in such mundane, subjective, and
>individualized experience as a personal listening audition when he can simply
>cut-and-paste some of his readily available bigotry into any post
>mentioning
>certain keywords? (tube, vinyl, analog, person not named McKelvy, tim brown
>etc.).

Funny thing is, Arny still hasn't answered my question...if Quad designed the
ESL to be used primarily with SS amps, then why did they introduce a tube amp
and preamp to match it?

I think Arny's hiding under his dining room table right now.

Boon

Marc Phillips

November 27th 03, 01:31 AM

G.S. Nail said:

(Marc Phillips) wrote:
>
>>Funny thing is, Arny still hasn't answered my question...if Quad designed
>the
>>ESL to be used primarily with SS amps, then why did they introduce a tube
>amp
>>and preamp to match it?
>>
>>I think Arny's hiding under his dining room table right now.
>
>Or he could be stoving up one of those 'special' hotdogs... if you
>know what I mean :-(

Ughity ****ing ugh.

BTW, I've been listening to some great new music lately, and since we have
almost identical tastes, I was wondering if you've heard any of these:

The Wrens "Meadowlands"
Broken Social Scene "You Forgot It In People"
The Shins "Chutes Too Narrow" (their first album, "Oh, Inverted World," has
become one of my all-time faves!)
Beulah "Yoko"

Boon

Marc Phillips

November 27th 03, 03:29 AM

G.S. Nail said:

(Marc Phillips) wrote:
>
>>BTW, I've been listening to some great new music lately, and since we have
>>almost identical tastes, I was wondering if you've heard any of these:
>>
>>The Wrens "Meadowlands"
>>Broken Social Scene "You Forgot It In People"
>>The Shins "Chutes Too Narrow" (their first album, "Oh, Inverted World," has
>>become one of my all-time faves!)
>>Beulah "Yoko"
>
>No, but it gives me something to check out. I've been hankering after
>some new tunes.
>
>What I've been listening to lately..
>Millennium ReMasters http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/everylittlething.html
>..mixed feelings about these.
>"...Naked" - OK but pretty much heard it all before.
>Nelly Furtado - couple of nice tracks. Try before you buy.
>Older stuff dug out of storage - Smiths, Roses, Buzzcocks.. kinda
>hooked on Echobelly right now.
>Hope to pick up the new Fall album tomorrow, I heard a track on the
>radio.. good stuff!

I feel the same way about "Naked." It sounded like such a great idea, but I
was underwhelmed while listening to it. Echobelly is very cool, but I haven't
listened to any in such a long time. I remember the girl singer had a really
nice voice (and she was really cute, too, I think).

My favorite album of the year was The Notwist's "Neon Golden." It sounds
almost like New Order if they had kept on a creative arc through 2003, instead
of just popping up every few years and offering the same old stuff. I also
really liked "Hail To The Thief"...the song "Where You End & I Begin" is
really, really fascinating to me.

Boon

Marc Phillips

November 27th 03, 03:36 AM

I said:

> I also
>really liked "Hail To The Thief"...the song "Where You End & I Begin" is
>really, really fascinating to me.

It's "Where I End & You Begin." Oops.

Boon

The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra

November 27th 03, 03:38 AM

On 27 Nov 2003 03:29:49 GMT, (Marc Phillips)
wrote:

>I feel the same way about "Naked." It sounded like such a great idea, but I
>was underwhelmed while listening to it. Echobelly is very cool, but I haven't
>listened to any in such a long time. I remember the girl singer had a really
>nice voice (and she was really cute, too, I think).
>
>My favorite album of the year was The Notwist's "Neon Golden." It sounds
>almost like New Order if they had kept on a creative arc through 2003, instead
>of just popping up every few years and offering the same old stuff. I also
>really liked "Hail To The Thief"...the song "Where You End & I Begin" is
>really, really fascinating to me.

There should never have been a New Order, IMO.

--
td

Marc Phillips

November 27th 03, 05:07 AM

The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra said:

>On 27 Nov 2003 03:29:49 GMT, (Marc Phillips)
>wrote:
>
>>I feel the same way about "Naked." It sounded like such a great idea, but I
>>was underwhelmed while listening to it. Echobelly is very cool, but I
>haven't
>>listened to any in such a long time. I remember the girl singer had a
>really
>>nice voice (and she was really cute, too, I think).
>>
>>My favorite album of the year was The Notwist's "Neon Golden." It sounds
>>almost like New Order if they had kept on a creative arc through 2003,
>instead
>>of just popping up every few years and offering the same old stuff. I also
>>really liked "Hail To The Thief"...the song "Where You End & I Begin" is
>>really, really fascinating to me.
>
>There should never have been a New Order, IMO.

Big Ian Curtis fan, are we?

Boon

Marc Phillips

November 27th 03, 05:10 AM

G.S. Nail said:

>The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra > wrote:
>
>>There should never have been a New Order, IMO.
>
>Have to agree - they kicked out a few tracks early on which were "OK"
>- nothing I can be bothered owning or playing.

I really like the entire "Lowlife" album a lot, and bits of "Brotherhood." The
rest of it tends to be the kind of stuff you hear in gay dance clubs.

>Joy Division on the other hand..

Have you seen the film "24 Hour Party People" yet? I thought it was a great,
original film.

Boon

Marc Phillips

November 27th 03, 05:15 AM

G.S. Nail said:

(Marc Phillips) wrote:
>
>Beulah.. familiar sounding, but interesting..
>Broken social scene.. curious. a grower perhaps?
>The Shins... very melodic. could be addictive. more of this... : )

I'm still letting the new Shins' album kinda wash over me. Their first album,
"Oh, Inverted World," like I said, is really something special. Sometimes they
sound like the Smiths, sometimes they sound like the Kinks (1966 or so), and
sometimes they sound like folkies. They're extraordinary.

The Broken Social Scene album was kinda noisy and annoying at first listen, but
after the first three or four songs they settle in and play some really nice
music. Beulah is new to me, too. I just bought the album yesterday and
immediately liked it.

Boon

The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra

November 30th 03, 03:52 PM

On 27 Nov 2003 05:07:58 GMT, (Marc Phillips)
wrote:

>>There should never have been a New Order, IMO.
>
>Big Ian Curtis fan, are we?

Absolute ****eningly!

--
td

Marc Phillips

November 30th 03, 06:47 PM

TD said:

>On 27 Nov 2003 05:07:58 GMT, (Marc Phillips)
>wrote:
>
>>>There should never have been a New Order, IMO.
>>
>>Big Ian Curtis fan, are we?
>
>Absolute ****eningly!
>

Have you seen "24 Hour Party People" yet?

Boon

Svante

November 30th 03, 08:23 PM

"Erik Squires" > wrote in message s.com>...
> So, here's my question. If I digitize a 15 kHz signal, using a 44.1 kHz
> sampling rate, I'm going to get about 3 samples / cycle.
>
> Are the normal digital filters good enough to reproduce a 15 kHz singal with
> varying amplitude? How accurate is that signal, is there no lag in the
> reconstructed signal? I mean, if the amplitude of the original changes, is
> the reconstructed signal as true at 15 kHz as at 4 kHz?
>
> This to me is a far more important concern than whether I can hear 20+kHz
> signals.
>
> Thanks for your intelligent and well thought out replies. The rest of you
> can suck my electric outlet.
>
> Erik

A single 15kHz tone can be perfectly reconstructed if sampled at
44.1kHz. Todays oversampling D/As do this well, without phase shifts.

If you impose an amplitude modulation on the 15kHz wave, it may no
longer be strictly bandwidth limited to 22050Hz. If the modulation is
applied in the digital domain, there will be aliasing. If the
modulation was there before a presumed AD conversion, the frequencies
above fs/2 would have been removed prior to sampling and no aliasing
would occur.

The only inaccuracy that is introduced in this case is the removal of
frequencies above fs/2 (which are part of the amplitude modulated
15kHz signal)

Would that qualify for your outlet? :-)

Marc Phillips

December 1st 03, 01:40 AM

G.S. Nail said:

(Marc Phillips) wrote:
>
>>>>There should never have been a New Order, IMO.
>>>
>>>Have to agree - they kicked out a few tracks early on which were "OK"
>>>- nothing I can be bothered owning or playing.
>>
>>I really like the entire "Lowlife" album a lot, and bits of "Brotherhood."
>The
>>rest of it tends to be the kind of stuff you hear in gay dance clubs.
>
>I was quite into Brotherhood, Power Corruption and Lies, Blue Monday,
>Confusion (etc) - but for me they always walked in the shadow of their
>previous incarnation. I can't think of any New Order track that has
>1/10th the sheer power of Ice Age, and I with I could recall more than
>superficial lyrical content : Sumner is far from the tortured soul
>Curtis was, and TBH I don't find him a very expressive vocalist.
>
>>>Joy Division on the other hand..
>>
>>Have you seen the film "24 Hour Party People" yet? I thought it was a
>great,
>>original film.
>
>Yeah, I found it entertaining enough, but possibly due to proximity of
>the subject (in both senses) it didn't quite ring true for me.

I'm really getting into the whole digital video thing, and this was one case
where I felt that imagination and skill completely obliterated the fact that
this film was probably made for next to nothing. (Of course, this is what
makes the whole Dogma 95 movement so exciting.) I also loved the way they took
you out of the movie all the time, as when they take time out of the story to
show all of real people who are in the movie playing other characters
(including the one whose scene didn't make it to the final cut, but, "Don't
worry, it'll probably be on the DVD!")

One thing I wondered about...were the Happy Mondays really that big of a deal
over there? Here in the US, it seemed that they were just one of many
Manchester bands hitting here at the same time (EMF, Jesus Jones, etc.).

Boon

Marc Phillips

December 1st 03, 01:46 AM

G.S. Nail said:

(Marc Phillips) wrote:
>
>>>Beulah.. familiar sounding, but interesting..
>>>Broken social scene.. curious. a grower perhaps?
>>>The Shins... very melodic. could be addictive. more of this... : )
>>
>>I'm still letting the new Shins' album kinda wash over me. Their first
>album,
>>"Oh, Inverted World," like I said, is really something special. Sometimes
>they
>>sound like the Smiths, sometimes they sound like the Kinks (1966 or so), and
>>sometimes they sound like folkies. They're extraordinary.
>
>I have "Inverted World" on order, sounds good to me! Listening to the
>Wrens album right now :-)

I've listened to the new Shins' a few times now, and it is really good, but
"Oh, Inverted World" is still better. It was recommended by a friend of mine
who said he's been playing it steadily for the last two years, ever since it
came out. I bought it about six months ago, and I feel the same...I have to
listen to it at least once a week. In fact, I listened to it in my car just
about an hour ago! The Notwist CD I told you about is almost the same way.
>
>>The Broken Social Scene album was kinda noisy and annoying at first listen,
>but
>>after the first three or four songs they settle in and play some really nice
>>music. Beulah is new to me, too. I just bought the album yesterday and
>>immediately liked it.
>
>Are you into hypnotic electronica at all? Can't stop playing this one!
>
>http://www.forcedexposure.com/artists/porter.ricks.techno.animal.html

I have phases where I really get into electronica for a while, then I stop for
a while. I like the usual stuff, Juno Reactor, Orbital, Orb, Future Sound of
London, Aphex Twin. I also love the really old stuff like Klaus Schulze.

I'll check this one out!

Boon

George M. Middius

December 1st 03, 02:22 AM

PD said:

> Dogma 95?? I'll have to look that up.

It's a "movement" for naturalism in films. The dogma calls for
eschewing everything except a script, actors, lighting, and sound.
No sets, no FX, no prosthetic makeup, etc.

Has a real chance of exploding in popularity any time now.

Marc Phillips

December 1st 03, 02:36 AM

Mr. Middius said:

>PD said:
>
>> Dogma 95?? I'll have to look that up.
>
>It's a "movement" for naturalism in films. The dogma calls for
>eschewing everything except a script, actors, lighting, and sound.
>No sets, no FX, no prosthetic makeup, etc.
>
>Has a real chance of exploding in popularity any time now.

I just watched "28 Days Later" and was similarly impressed. It's not Dogma (or
Dogme) 95 in the purest sense, because it does have effects and such, but it's
shot on digital video, and it uses the medium to great advantage, especially in
the building of suspense.

The exciting thing about digital video is that for just a few thousand dollars,
a handful of people can go out and make a pretty decent film. You can
effectively bypass all of the studio BS while you make your film, too. You
just have to worry about distribution.

Boon

Boon

George M. Middius

December 1st 03, 02:53 AM

PD said:

> >> Dogma 95?? I'll have to look that up.
> >
> >It's a "movement" for naturalism in films. The dogma calls for
> >eschewing everything except a script, actors, lighting, and sound.
> >No sets, no FX, no prosthetic makeup, etc.
> >
> >Has a real chance of exploding in popularity any time now.
>
> I just read the rules under "Vow of Chastity", and it sounds pretty
> good - but this seems a bit restrictive :
>
> # The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice
> versa. (Music must not be used unless it occurs where the scene is
> being shot.)

It's a lot like requiring all beer to be sold without the curse of
pasteurization.

George M. Middius

December 1st 03, 03:21 AM

PD said:

> >> # The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice
> >> versa. (Music must not be used unless it occurs where the scene is
> >> being shot.)
> >
> >It's a lot like requiring all beer to be sold without the curse of
> >pasteurization.
>
> I don't see the resemblance.

There isn't any. It's an analogy, not an image.

George M. Middius

December 1st 03, 03:34 AM

PD said:

> >> >> # The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice
> >> >> versa. (Music must not be used unless it occurs where the scene is
> >> >> being shot.)
> >> >
> >> >It's a lot like requiring all beer to be sold without the curse of
> >> >pasteurization.
> >>
> >> I don't see the resemblance.
> >
> >There isn't any. It's an analogy, not an image.
>
> How drunk are you?

Ooh, touchy.

> You got that back to front. Analogies inherently
> resemble each other.

No, they correspond to one another. You don't know what's front and
what's back anymore.

Sockpuppet Yustabe

December 1st 03, 03:40 AM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> PD said:
>
> > >> Dogma 95?? I'll have to look that up.
> > >
> > >It's a "movement" for naturalism in films. The dogma calls for
> > >eschewing everything except a script, actors, lighting, and sound.
> > >No sets, no FX, no prosthetic makeup, etc.
> > >
> > >Has a real chance of exploding in popularity any time now.
> >
> > I just read the rules under "Vow of Chastity", and it sounds pretty
> > good - but this seems a bit restrictive :
> >
> > # The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice
> > versa. (Music must not be used unless it occurs where the scene is
> > being shot.)
>
>
> It's a lot like requiring all beer to be sold without the curse of
> pasteurization.
>

I just saw an interesting sotry. There are people hankering to drink
unpasteurized milk. They go to their local farmers, who will sell it to them
direct by the gallon. The report said that there are some prosecutorial
investigations in the works.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

George M. Middius

December 1st 03, 04:31 AM

PD said:

> I credit you with the intelligence to know what I meant, if it's a
> pedantic argument you want...
>
> ....doof!

<shriek!>

Please don't say that word. The Doof is on a very short leash as
it is.

Sockpuppet Yustabe

December 1st 03, 05:19 AM

"G.S. Nail" > wrote in message
...
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote:
>
> >I just saw an interesting sotry. There are people hankering to drink
> >unpasteurized milk. They go to their local farmers, who will sell it to
them
> >direct by the gallon. The report said that there are some prosecutorial
> >investigations in the works.
>
> Don't you think drinking milk is a bit weird? I mean.. we're not
> calves are we.
>

I don't partake myself. I limit my dairy input to various cheeses (none of
them French).

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

George M. Middius

December 1st 03, 05:29 AM

SockY said:

> I limit my dairy input to various cheeses (none of them French).

Even though it turns out France was right and Shrub was wrong?

Lionel

December 1st 03, 08:10 AM

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> SockY said:
>
>
>>I limit my dairy input to various cheeses (none of them French).
>
>
> Even though it turns out France was right and Shrub was wrong?
>

"If France was right ? LOL !
Absolutely it will be an additional good reason, 'cause I'll remain a
stupid-patriotic-middle-class American and an
vexed-stupid-patriotic-middle-class American is always far more stupid."

The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra

December 3rd 03, 02:41 AM

On 30 Nov 2003 18:47:16 GMT, (Marc Phillips)
wrote:

>Have you seen "24 Hour Party People" yet?

No. But I liked *28 Days Later*. Well, I liked most of it.

I didn't like it as much as I like the bra and panties I'm wearing
right now, however, you will note.

--
td

Marc Phillips

December 3rd 03, 05:54 AM

The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra SAID:

>On 30 Nov 2003 18:47:16 GMT, (Marc Phillips)
>wrote:
>
>>Have you seen "24 Hour Party People" yet?
>
>No. But I liked *28 Days Later*. Well, I liked most of it.
>
>I didn't like it as much as I like the bra and panties I'm wearing
>right now, however, you will note.

Then you saw what Jim did to that soldier with his thumbs. If Jim had done it
wearing nothing but a bra and panties, would that have made the movie better?
I thought so.

Boon

The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra

December 3rd 03, 02:50 PM

On 03 Dec 2003 05:54:16 GMT, (Marc Phillips)
wrote:

>>>Have you seen "24 Hour Party People" yet?
>>
>>No. But I liked *28 Days Later*. Well, I liked most of it.
>>
>>I didn't like it as much as I like the bra and panties I'm wearing
>>right now, however, you will note.
>
>Then you saw what Jim did to that soldier with his thumbs. If Jim had done it
>wearing nothing but a bra and panties, would that have made the movie better?
>I thought so.

I think we need to make a movie together.

INT. CAR. OVERCAST DAY.

A cute boy with bright blue eyes looks sadly at his MOTHER. She is sat
behind the wheel. The car is motionless in traffic.

BOY

I see combine harvesters.

MOTHER looks at him and opens her face happily, with teeth, like a
triffid in song on a Sunday morning church visit.

MOTHER
And I see you burning on my lawn with all the other
****ing garbage. With my panties on. Growl.

BOY
You're terrifying. Please don't kill me.

MOTHER
You're in no position to ask favours of me,
slugger. I will soon become horrifyingly terrible in
both appearance and behaviour. You've been warned.
--
td

Marc Phillips

December 6th 03, 05:20 AM

Stainless Steel Boobies said:

>On 03 Dec 2003 05:54:16 GMT, (Marc Phillips)
>wrote:
>
>>>>Have you seen "24 Hour Party People" yet?
>>>
>>>No. But I liked *28 Days Later*. Well, I liked most of it.
>>>
>>>I didn't like it as much as I like the bra and panties I'm wearing
>>>right now, however, you will note.
>>
>>Then you saw what Jim did to that soldier with his thumbs. If Jim had done
>it
>>wearing nothing but a bra and panties, would that have made the movie
>better?
>>I thought so.
>
>I think we need to make a movie together.
>
>INT. CAR. OVERCAST DAY.
>
>A cute boy with bright blue eyes looks sadly at his MOTHER. She is sat
>behind the wheel. The car is motionless in traffic.
>
> BOY
>
> I see combine harvesters.
>
>MOTHER looks at him and opens her face happily, with teeth, like a
>triffid in song on a Sunday morning church visit.
>
> MOTHER
> And I see you burning on my lawn with all the other
> ****ing garbage. With my panties on. Growl.
>
> BOY
> You're terrifying. Please don't kill me.
>
> MOTHER
> You're in no position to ask favours of me,
> slugger. I will soon become horrifyingly terrible in
> both appearance and behaviour. You've been warned.

You know, I've been marking this as unread for quite a few days now, hoping to
give you the next scene, but I can't. I'm out of drugs and I can't compete.
I'm going to Vegas next week, though!

Marc