ATTENTION: ARNIE KREUGER-explain why digital audio requires "DITHER"

[duty-honor-country]

this is something Arnie conveniently leaves out of his posts

DITHER

http://i11.tinypic.com/2s7x9o8.jpg


click on link- put cursor on page- when box at lower right appears-
click on it- expand/magnify page to read it

from "MODERN RECORDING TECHNIQUES" by David Miles Huber/Robert E.
Runstein- 6th Edition

[duty-honor-country]

On Apr 1, 8:30 pm, "duty-honor-country"
> wrote:
> this is something Arnie conveniently leaves out of his posts
>
> DITHER
>
> http://i11.tinypic.com/2s7x9o8.jpg
>
> click on link- put cursor on page- when box at lower right appears-
> click on it- expand/magnify page to read it
>
> from "MODERN RECORDING TECHNIQUES" by David Miles Huber/Robert E.
> Runstein- 6th Edition


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dither

digital audio disks actually have noise added to them, in an attempt
to "fill in" the resolution errors due to the squared off musical
signals digital audio has

[Scott Dorsey]

duty-honor-country > wrote:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dither
>
>digital audio disks actually have noise added to them, in an attempt
>to "fill in" the resolution errors due to the squared off musical
>signals digital audio has

No, that is NOT what dither does. There is a good description in the FAQ
for this group, or in the Moulton book that you cite.

Note that if you had an analogue system with a dead band, dither would be
useful on it as well.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Carey Carlan]

"duty-honor-country" > wrote in
oups.com:

> this is something Arnie conveniently leaves out of his posts
>
> DITHER

Here's a repost of me discovering what dither means:

Say I have a signal containing the following integer values:

4 5 6 5 4 5 6 5 4 5 6 5

And I want to decrease the levels by one third. The computed values are

2.66 3.33 4 3.33 2.66 3.33 4 3.33 2.66 3.33 4 3.33

Which, when rounded (without dither) yield

3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3

Which has a nasty flat spot between the 3's, and a "4" spike every 4th
sample. Unpleasant, and the problem stems from the very mathematically
predictable error caused when we multiply or divide. The rounding
algorithm produces the same error in the same spot in the same wave
every time, and its very regularity makes it audible.

It's not a flaw in the calculation. There is no way to make a perfect
wave form of integer values given the starting values (4, 5, 6) and the
transformation (reduce by 1/3) that I proposed. You just can't get
there from here.

Since we can't make a perfect wave with just 3's and 4's, and we don't
want the regularly occuring errors that will inevitably result, we add
new "error" in the form of dithering.

The trick is to add a psuedo-random value to the computed values before
rounding such that the strict 4 3 3 3 4 pattern is disrupted. I'll let
my computer create 12 random numbers between -0.50 and +0.49 and let's
see what happens:

2.66 3.33 4.00 3.33 2.66 3.33 4.00 3.33 2.66 3.33 4.00 3.33
0.21 0.03 0.08 -.21 -.20 0.27 -.47 0.26 0.31 0.21 -.46 0.09 random
values (dither)

2.87 3.36 4.08 3.12 2.46 3.60 3.53 3.59 2.97 3.54 3.54 3.42 sum signal +
dither

If we round that we get

3 3 4 3 2 4 4 4 3 4 4 3

It's still mostly 3's and 4's (like before) but the pattern is
disrupted, killing the repetitive error. Another round of dither values
would increase the variance, but would increase the noise at the same
time.

The "magic" in dithering has to be in selecting the psuedo-random values
to be added to the signal. That's where I return control to the math
junkies.

[Mark]

On Apr 1, 7:33 pm, "duty-honor-country"
> wrote:
> On Apr 1, 8:30 pm, "duty-honor-country"
>
> > wrote:
> > this is something Arnie conveniently leaves out of his posts
>
> > DITHER
>
> > http://i11.tinypic.com/2s7x9o8.jpg
>
> > click on link- put cursor on page- when box at lower right appears-
> > click on it- expand/magnify page to read it
>
> > from "MODERN RECORDING TECHNIQUES" by David Miles Huber/Robert E.
> > Runstein- 6th Edition
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dither
>
> digital audio disks actually have noise added to them, in an attempt
> to "fill in" the resolution errors due to the squared off musical
> signals digital audio has

dither actualy REMOVEs the non-linearity caused by quantization, it
doesn't just cover it up with noise... The ugly quatization
distortion is REPLACED (not just covered up) with random noise.

And the dither in a 16 bit system is about -96dBFS. So a 16 bit
digital system with correct dither can work EXACTLY the same as an
analog system with a noise floor of about -96 dB. Thats pretty good
for hardware that you can buy for a few bucks and run off a AA
battery.
....
Mark

[Chris Hornbeck]

On 1 Apr 2007 17:33:30 -0700, "duty-honor-country"
> wrote:

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dither
>
>digital audio disks actually have noise added to them, in an attempt
>to "fill in" the resolution errors due to the squared off musical
>signals digital audio has

This is actually a pretty common misconception, and easy
to acquire. (Been there!).

Dither randomizes errors over time in perzactly the same
way that our hearing averages "loudness" over time. We can
hear information well below an "averaged" noise level
because we can hear in individual pitch bands separately,
to some extent.

Sampling errors can also be averaged, or to put it another
way, randomized, out. The single coolest thing I've read in
recent years, not counting rereading Richard Dawkins' _The
Selfish Gene_, was, paraphrasing Bob Cain's original post
to this very newsgroup:

Paraphrased!: "A perfect A/D plus D/A back-to-back conversion,
properly dithered, is exactly equivalent to a straight wire
with a little noise added" The dither is the noise part.


Lots of misconceptions about digital conversion come from
misunderstandings about sampling rate limitations and band-
pass limitations, but the deeper issues of quantization
are tougher, but, maybe because of that, more beautiful
once one drinks the Koolaid.

Like elementary game theory, this level of information theory
is understandable even by Bozos like me, so I tend to
preach the Faith. It's great ****; you'll love it if you
just sip the Koolaid. Arf!


All good fortune, (and, FWIW, misquoting Wiki is even worse
than quoting Wiki, but only by a little, so don't compulse),

Chris Hornbeck

[hank alrich]

duty-honor-country > wrote:

> this is something Arnie conveniently leaves out of his posts
>
> DITHER
>
> http://i11.tinypic.com/2s7x9o8.jpg
>
>
> click on link- put cursor on page- when box at lower right appears-
> click on it- expand/magnify page to read it
>
> from "MODERN RECORDING TECHNIQUES" by David Miles Huber/Robert E.
> Runstein- 6th Edition

If you got an airpump and jammed the hose down your throat, glued your
lips shut with some version of cynoacrylate, and hit <Pump!> you could
be a bigger piece of **** than you are right now. Think about it.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[hank alrich]

duty-honor-country > wrote:

> On Apr 1, 8:30 pm, "duty-honor-country"
> > wrote:
> > this is something Arnie conveniently leaves out of his posts
> >
> > DITHER
> >
> > http://i11.tinypic.com/2s7x9o8.jpg
> >
> > click on link- put cursor on page- when box at lower right appears-
> > click on it- expand/magnify page to read it
> >
> > from "MODERN RECORDING TECHNIQUES" by David Miles Huber/Robert E.
> > Runstein- 6th Edition
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dither
>
> digital audio disks actually have noise added to them, in an attempt
> to "fill in" the resolution errors due to the squared off musical
> signals digital audio has

But even if you pumped-up to be the biggest piece of **** on the planet,
you could not be any stupider.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> duty-honor-country > wrote:
> >
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dither
> >
> >digital audio disks actually have noise added to them, in an attempt
> >to "fill in" the resolution errors due to the squared off musical
> >signals digital audio has
>
> No, that is NOT what dither does. There is a good description in the FAQ
> for this group, or in the Moulton book that you cite.
>
> Note that if you had an analogue system with a dead band, dither would be
> useful on it as well.
> --scott

This guy does have an anal log system with a dead band, and that band is
between his ears.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[hank alrich]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

> On 1 Apr 2007 17:33:30 -0700, "duty-honor-country"
> > wrote:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dither
> >
> >digital audio disks actually have noise added to them, in an attempt
> >to "fill in" the resolution errors due to the squared off musical
> >signals digital audio has
>
> This is actually a pretty common misconception, and easy
> to acquire. (Been there!).
>
> Dither randomizes errors over time in perzactly the same
> way that our hearing averages "loudness" over time. We can
> hear information well below an "averaged" noise level
> because we can hear in individual pitch bands separately,
> to some extent.
>
> Sampling errors can also be averaged, or to put it another
> way, randomized, out. The single coolest thing I've read in
> recent years, not counting rereading Richard Dawkins' _The
> Selfish Gene_, was, paraphrasing Bob Cain's original post
> to this very newsgroup:
>
> Paraphrased!: "A perfect A/D plus D/A back-to-back conversion,
> properly dithered, is exactly equivalent to a straight wire
> with a little noise added" The dither is the noise part.
>
>
> Lots of misconceptions about digital conversion come from
> misunderstandings about sampling rate limitations and band-
> pass limitations, but the deeper issues of quantization
> are tougher, but, maybe because of that, more beautiful
> once one drinks the Koolaid.
>
> Like elementary game theory, this level of information theory
> is understandable even by Bozos like me, so I tend to
> preach the Faith. It's great ****; you'll love it if you
> just sip the Koolaid. Arf!
>
>
> All good fortune, (and, FWIW, misquoting Wiki is even worse
> than quoting Wiki, but only by a little, so don't compulse),
>
> Chris Hornbeck

You, sir, are obviously a saint.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 19:35:24 -0700, (hank alrich)
wrote:

>You, sir, are obviously a saint.

Nah, I'm better than that. I'm a Sinner. Them Saint's
ain't Shinola. Been there; been saved; didn't take; still
kickin'.

OTOH, I've heard some good music lately, so I've got
something that I *can* take with me. Loved the Crescent
Hotel gig CD.

Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck

[Ian Bell]

duty-honor-country wrote:

> this is something Arnie conveniently leaves out of his posts
>
> DITHER
>
> http://i11.tinypic.com/2s7x9o8.jpg
>
>
> click on link- put cursor on page- when box at lower right appears-
> click on it- expand/magnify page to read it
>
> from "MODERN RECORDING TECHNIQUES" by David Miles Huber/Robert E.
> Runstein- 6th Edition

Unfortunately, they ignore that fact that the resolution improvement
provided by dither is inversely proportional to the signal frequency. There
is thereore no usefull 'improvement' in digital resolution at high
frequencies and this is simply made worse by noise shaping.

Ian

[duty-honor-country]

On Apr 1, 8:44 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> duty-honor-country > wrote:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dither
>
> >digital audio disks actually have noise added to them, in an attempt
> >to "fill in" the resolution errors due to the squared off musical
> >signals digital audio has
>
> No, that is NOT what dither does. There is a good description in the FAQ
> for this group, or in the Moulton book that you cite.
>
> Note that if you had an analogue system with a dead band, dither would be
> useful on it as well.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."


the text plainly states, analog has superior resolution

case closed

now go add white noise to your home made CD-R's, so you can bear
listening to them...

[duty-honor-country]

On Apr 1, 9:13 pm, Chris Hornbeck >
wrote:
> On 1 Apr 2007 17:33:30 -0700, "duty-honor-country"
>
> > wrote:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dither
>
> >digital audio disks actually have noise added to them, in an attempt
> >to "fill in" the resolution errors due to the squared off musical
> >signals digital audio has
>
> This is actually a pretty common misconception, and easy
> to acquire. (Been there!).
>
> Dither randomizes errors over time in perzactly the same
> way that our hearing averages "loudness" over time. We can
> hear information well below an "averaged" noise level
> because we can hear in individual pitch bands separately,
> to some extent.
>
> Sampling errors can also be averaged, or to put it another
> way, randomized, out. The single coolest thing I've read in
> recent years, not counting rereading Richard Dawkins' _The
> Selfish Gene_, was, paraphrasing Bob Cain's original post
> to this very newsgroup:
>
> Paraphrased!: "A perfect A/D plus D/A back-to-back conversion,
> properly dithered, is exactly equivalent to a straight wire
> with a little noise added" The dither is the noise part.
>
> Lots of misconceptions about digital conversion come from
> misunderstandings about sampling rate limitations and band-
> pass limitations, but the deeper issues of quantization
> are tougher, but, maybe because of that, more beautiful
> once one drinks the Koolaid.
>
> Like elementary game theory, this level of information theory
> is understandable even by Bozos like me, so I tend to
> preach the Faith. It's great ****; you'll love it if you
> just sip the Koolaid. Arf!
>
> All good fortune, (and, FWIW, misquoting Wiki is even worse
> than quoting Wiki, but only by a little, so don't compulse),
>
> Chris Hornbeck



why bother using a format, that requires white noise to fill in the
edgy sound ?

someday you fellas will realize, stop converting analogous sound waves
to digital bits, then back to sound waves again- just use the sound
wave you started out with already

[duty-honor-country]

On Apr 1, 9:20 pm, DeserTBoB > wrote:
> On 1 Apr 2007 20:44:20 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> >No, that is NOT what dither does. There is a good description in the FAQ
> >for this group, or in the Moulton book that you cite. <snip>
>
> Quit responding to Charlie Nudo. The troll feeds upon legitimate
> responses to his outlandishly idiotic posts, as if furthers his false
> sense of intelligence.
>
> >Note that if you had an analogue system with a dead band, dither would be
> >useful on it as well. <snip>
>
> Charlie's entire brain is a "dead band" and all that comes out is
> "dither." In fact, he's always in a "dither" just trying to figure
> out when his computer crashes.



this from the guy who drives a 1978 Honda, and is married to a dog-
literally

[duty-honor-country]

On Apr 2, 2:19 am, Ian Bell > wrote:
> duty-honor-country wrote:
> > this is something Arnie conveniently leaves out of his posts
>
> > DITHER
>
> > http://i11.tinypic.com/2s7x9o8.jpg
>
> > click on link- put cursor on page- when box at lower right appears-
> > click on it- expand/magnify page to read it
>
> > from "MODERN RECORDING TECHNIQUES" by David Miles Huber/Robert E.
> > Runstein- 6th Edition
>
> Unfortunately, they ignore that fact that the resolution improvement
> provided by dither is inversely proportional to the signal frequency. There
> is thereore no usefull 'improvement' in digital resolution at high
> frequencies and this is simply made worse by noise shaping.
>
> Ian



good point- and there's no useful improvement in digital audio in any
shape or form, over analog, for that matter. Digital is a lemon that
was sold to the public and forced down the throats of recording
artists, to make more money for the record companies and electronics
firms.

[duty-honor-country]

On Apr 1, 9:13 pm, Chris Hornbeck >
wrote:
> On 1 Apr 2007 17:33:30 -0700, "duty-honor-country"
>
> > wrote:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dither
>
> >digital audio disks actually have noise added to them, in an attempt
> >to "fill in" the resolution errors due to the squared off musical
> >signals digital audio has
>
> This is actually a pretty common misconception, and easy
> to acquire. (Been there!).
>
> Dither randomizes errors over time in perzactly the same
> way that our hearing averages "loudness" over time. We can
> hear information well below an "averaged" noise level
> because we can hear in individual pitch bands separately,
> to some extent.
>
> Sampling errors can also be averaged, or to put it another
> way, randomized, out. The single coolest thing I've read in
> recent years, not counting rereading Richard Dawkins' _The
> Selfish Gene_, was, paraphrasing Bob Cain's original post
> to this very newsgroup:
>
> Paraphrased!: "A perfect A/D plus D/A back-to-back conversion,
> properly dithered, is exactly equivalent to a straight wire
> with a little noise added" The dither is the noise part.
>
> Lots of misconceptions about digital conversion come from
> misunderstandings about sampling rate limitations and band-
> pass limitations, but the deeper issues of quantization
> are tougher, but, maybe because of that, more beautiful
> once one drinks the Koolaid.
>
> Like elementary game theory, this level of information theory
> is understandable even by Bozos like me, so I tend to
> preach the Faith. It's great ****; you'll love it if you
> just sip the Koolaid. Arf!
>
> All good fortune, (and, FWIW, misquoting Wiki is even worse
> than quoting Wiki, but only by a little, so don't compulse),
>
> Chris Hornbeck

why go "A" to "D" and back to "A" in the first place...

that's like growing corn, to make alcohol, to eventually put fuel in
your car- instead of just pouring in a gallon of gas today, and
driving already

[duty-honor-country]

On Apr 1, 10:35 pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
> duty-honor-country > wrote:
> > On Apr 1, 8:30 pm, "duty-honor-country"
> > > wrote:
> > > this is something Arnie conveniently leaves out of his posts
>
> > > DITHER
>
> > > http://i11.tinypic.com/2s7x9o8.jpg
>
> > > click on link- put cursor on page- when box at lower right appears-
> > > click on it- expand/magnify page to read it
>
> > > from "MODERN RECORDING TECHNIQUES" by David Miles Huber/Robert E.
> > > Runstein- 6th Edition
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dither
>
> > digital audio disks actually have noise added to them, in an attempt
> > to "fill in" the resolution errors due to the squared off musical
> > signals digital audio has
>
> But even if you pumped-up to be the biggest piece of **** on the planet,
> you could not be any stupider.
>
> --
> ha
> Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



"stupider" isn't even a word

I've got 2 shingles hanging here on the wall

you've got...none

[Laurence Payne]

On 2 Apr 2007 04:11:39 -0700, "duty-honor-country"
> wrote:

>why go "A" to "D" and back to "A" in the first place...
>
>that's like growing corn, to make alcohol, to eventually put fuel in
>your car- instead of just pouring in a gallon of gas today, and
>driving already

You don't want to know :-) But it's because we don't have an
accurate analogue storage medium.

[Arny Krueger]

"Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in
message
> On 2 Apr 2007 04:11:39 -0700, "duty-honor-country"
> > wrote:
>
>> why go "A" to "D" and back to "A" in the first place...
>>
>> that's like growing corn, to make alcohol, to eventually
>> put fuel in your car- instead of just pouring in a
>> gallon of gas today, and driving already
>
> You don't want to know :-) But it's because we don't
> have an accurate analogue storage medium.

After a mere 100 years or so years of trying, we found that analog just
isn't a practical medium for high quality signal storage.

[Arny Krueger]

"Ian Bell" > wrote in message
news:46109fb5.0@entanet
> duty-honor-country wrote:
>
>> this is something Arnie conveniently leaves out of his
>> posts
>>
>> DITHER
>>
>> http://i11.tinypic.com/2s7x9o8.jpg
>>
>>
>> click on link- put cursor on page- when box at lower
>> right appears- click on it- expand/magnify page to read
>> it
>>
>> from "MODERN RECORDING TECHNIQUES" by David Miles
>> Huber/Robert E. Runstein- 6th Edition

> Unfortunately, they ignore that fact that the resolution
> improvement provided by dither is inversely proportional
> to the signal frequency.

That's not true.

> There is thereore no usefull
> 'improvement' in digital resolution at high frequencies

That's not true.

> and this is simply made worse by noise shaping.

That's not true.

> Ian

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <46109fb5.0@entanet>, Ian Bell > wrote:
>
>Unfortunately, they ignore that fact that the resolution improvement
>provided by dither is inversely proportional to the signal frequency. There
>is thereore no usefull 'improvement' in digital resolution at high
>frequencies and this is simply made worse by noise shaping.

Right, but for the most part there isn't as much need for more range in
the top corner either. Noise-shaped dither allows you to move the noise
floor around to suit the material you're working with, so the _perceived_
range is improved.

That said, I mostly do orchestral and fairly sparse folk work, and I find
Gaussian dither sounds best to me in those cases. But that is because I
spent some time pressing all the buttons and listening to each one.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

duty-honor-country > wrote:
>
>the text plainly states, analog has superior resolution

You don't even know what resolution is. You keep making all of these
meaningless comments without even a basic understanding of what is behind
the words you are using. You really, really need to go back and read a
basic introduction to the theory.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message

> duty-honor-country > wrote:
>>
>> the text plainly states, analog has superior resolution
>
> You don't even know what resolution is.

He blithely ignores directions to study Shannon.

> You keep making
> all of these meaningless comments without even a basic
> understanding of what is behind the words you are using.

Agreed. Resolution is defined by Shannon in a way that allows us to compare
analog and digital systems. When you do that, the possible practical analog
recording technology always comes out behind the best possible practical
digital recording technology.

> You really, really need to go back and read a basic
> introduction to the theory.

That would spoil his *fun*.

Duty-honor-country is so widely known as a habitual destructive troll that
he's even got a web page devoted to him.

[Scott Dorsey]

duty-honor-country > wrote:
>
>why go "A" to "D" and back to "A" in the first place...

For storage. The thing about putting stuff in the digital domain is that
once you're in the digital domain, it's very easy to make tradeoffs of
dynamic range vs. frequency response, which are very difficult to do when
designing analogue encoding systems. In the digital world is is very easy
to sit down, describe the channel characteristics you want, and then design
a recording system to match them. In the analogue world you don't get
anywhere near that degree of control.

I suggest you go and read an elementary textbook on signal processing.
"Signals and Systems" is good, but even the rather cursory introduction
in Horowitz and Hill might help you. This will prevent you from looking
so foolish here.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>
>> After a mere 100 years or so years of trying, we found
>> that analog just isn't a practical medium for high
>> quality signal storage.
>
> Analogue isn't a medium, Arny.

Of course.

> Although there are media that are analogue.

That's the point.

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>
>After a mere 100 years or so years of trying, we found that analog just
>isn't a practical medium for high quality signal storage.

Analogue isn't a medium, Arny.
Although there are media that are analogue.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Don Pearce]

On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 09:17:08 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message

>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>>
>>> After a mere 100 years or so years of trying, we found
>>> that analog just isn't a practical medium for high
>>> quality signal storage.
>>
>> Analogue isn't a medium, Arny.
>
>Of course.
>
>> Although there are media that are analogue.
>
>That's the point.
>

There are also digital media I wouldn't trust for long term storage.
The big thing with digital, though, is that if you organize yourself
properly, your files just propagate themselves down the years onto
whatever the newest medium is, without loss. You don't rely on a
vulnerable single point of storage.

d

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

[Arny Krueger]

"DeserTBoB" > wrote in message

> On 2 Apr 2007 09:13:40 -0400, (Scott
> Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> duty-honor-country > wrote:
>>>
>>> the text plainly states, analog has superior resolution
>>
>> You don't even know what resolution is. You keep making
>> all of these meaningless comments without even a basic
>> understanding of what is behind the words you are using.
>> You really, really need to go back and read a basic
>> introduction to the theory. --scott <snip>
>
> No, he needs to be checked into a mental institution.
> Perhaps Charlie Nudo is Robert Morein's lost twin?

IMO, there's a big difference between the two.

[Scott Dorsey]

DeserTBoB > wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 07:19:33 +0100, Ian Bell >
>wrote:
>
>>Unfortunately, they ignore that fact that the resolution improvement
>>provided by dither is inversely proportional to the signal frequency. There
>>is thereore no usefull 'improvement' in digital resolution at high
>>frequencies and this is simply made worse by noise shaping. <snip>
>
>"Made worse" down in the area of around -90 dBFS?

Yes. And the wierd thing is that as I change the noise shape parameters,
I hear tonal changes in the high level signals. I don't have any explanation
for why this should be the case, since the noise floor of the recording
system is below the noise floor of the playback room at most frequencies, so
even effects caused by changes in the noise floor changing perception of higher
level signals would seem unlikely.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

duty-honor-country > wrote:

> why bother using a format, that requires white noise to fill in the
> edgy sound ?

Smae reason there are styrofoam peanuts wall-to-wall in your cranial
cavity.

> someday you fellas will realize, stop converting analogous sound waves
> to digital bits, then back to sound waves again- just use the sound
> wave you started out with already

Impossible. Tape doesn't store air.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[hank alrich]

duty-honor-country > wrote:

> the text plainly states, analog has superior resolution
>
> case closed

You always wanted to be an idiot but the test was too difficult.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> duty-honor-country > wrote:
> >
> >why go "A" to "D" and back to "A" in the first place...
>
> For storage. The thing about putting stuff in the digital domain is that
> once you're in the digital domain, it's very easy to make tradeoffs of
> dynamic range vs. frequency response, which are very difficult to do when
> designing analogue encoding systems. In the digital world is is very easy
> to sit down, describe the channel characteristics you want, and then design
> a recording system to match them. In the analogue world you don't get
> anywhere near that degree of control.
>
> I suggest you go and read an elementary textbook on signal processing.
> "Signals and Systems" is good, but even the rather cursory introduction
> in Horowitz and Hill might help you. This will prevent you from looking
> so foolish here.
> --scott

But before that, the Boy Scout handbook. because he obviously is not
prepared, at all.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[hank alrich]

duty-honor-country > wrote:

> (hank alrich) wrote:
> > duty-honor-country > wrote:
> > > On Apr 1, 8:30 pm, "duty-honor-country"
> > > > wrote:
> > > > this is something Arnie conveniently leaves out of his posts
> >
> > > > DITHER
> >
> > > > http://i11.tinypic.com/2s7x9o8.jpg
> >
> > > > click on link- put cursor on page- when box at lower right appears-
> > > > click on it- expand/magnify page to read it
> >
> > > > from "MODERN RECORDING TECHNIQUES" by David Miles Huber/Robert E.
> > > > Runstein- 6th Edition
> >
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dither
> >
> > > digital audio disks actually have noise added to them, in an attempt
> > > to "fill in" the resolution errors due to the squared off musical
> > > signals digital audio has
> >
> > But even if you pumped-up to be the biggest piece of **** on the planet,
> > you could not be any stupider.
> >
> > --
> > ha
> > Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
>
> "stupider" isn't even a word

It is now, and it's all about you.

> I've got 2 shingles hanging here on the wall
>
> you've got...none

I have hundreds, on the roof, where they belong.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Mark]

>
> >>Unfortunately, they ignore that fact that the resolution improvement
> >>provided by dither is inversely proportional to the signal frequency. There
> >>is thereore no usefull 'improvement' in digital resolution at high
> >>frequencies .......


I don't think that is correct. Dither removes quantizing non-
linearities at 20kHz as well as at 20 Hz. (I'm not addressing noise
shaping, just ordinary dithering with white noise.)


A 16 bit digital system with the correct 1 LSB dither theoretically
works exactly the same as an analog system with a -93 dB noise floor.
You would be able to detect (and hear) a 20 kHz signal below the noise
floor with either the anlog or the dithered digital system. Proper
dither totally REMOVEs all the artifacts of quantization. There is no
signal (within the design passband) or test that you could use to
differentiate these two systems.

If you think this is not correct, please show me a link or something
to indicate it is wrong.

Mark

[hank alrich]

news.buzzardnews.com forgery snipped


--
ha

[Richard Crowley]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
> duty-honor-country wrote:
>>the text plainly states, analog has superior resolution
>
> You don't even know what resolution is. You keep making all of these
> meaningless comments without even a basic understanding of what is behind
> the words you are using. You really, really need to go back and read a
> basic introduction to the theory.

I think we have abundant evidence that this guy is nothing
but a troll and unworthy of further discussion. We are getting
reports that he has done the same thing in other newsgroups.

[hank alrich]

Mark wrote:

> > >>Unfortunately, they ignore that fact that the resolution improvement
> > >>provided by dither is inversely proportional to the signal frequency.
> > >>There is thereore no usefull 'improvement' in digital resolution at
> > >>high frequencies .......

> I don't think that is correct. Dither removes quantizing non-
> linearities at 20kHz as well as at 20 Hz. (I'm not addressing noise
> shaping, just ordinary dithering with white noise.)

> A 16 bit digital system with the correct 1 LSB dither theoretically
> works exactly the same as an analog system with a -93 dB noise floor.
> You would be able to detect (and hear) a 20 kHz signal below the noise
> floor with either the anlog or the dithered digital system. Proper
> dither totally REMOVEs all the artifacts of quantization. There is no
> signal (within the design passband) or test that you could use to
> differentiate these two systems.

> If you think this is not correct, please show me a link or something
> to indicate it is wrong.

<j>

You left out the wow and flutter...

</j>

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[jailhouserock]

On Apr 1, 8:56 pm, Carey Carlan > wrote:
> "duty-honor-country" > wrote groups.com:
>
> > this is something Arnie conveniently leaves out of his posts
>
> >DITHER
>
> Here's a repost of me discovering whatdithermeans:
>
> Say I have a signal containing the following integer values:
>
> 4 5 6 5 4 5 6 5 4 5 6 5
>
> And I want to decrease the levels by one third. The computed values are
>
> 2.66 3.33 4 3.33 2.66 3.33 4 3.33 2.66 3.33 4 3.33
>
> Which, when rounded (withoutdither) yield
>
> 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3
>
> Which has a nasty flat spot between the 3's, and a "4" spike every 4th
> sample. Unpleasant, and the problem stems from the very mathematically
> predictable error caused when we multiply or divide. The rounding
> algorithm produces the same error in the same spot in the same wave
> every time, and its very regularity makes it audible.
>
> It's not a flaw in the calculation. There is no way to make a perfect
> wave form of integer values given the starting values (4, 5, 6) and the
> transformation (reduce by 1/3) that I proposed. You just can't get
> there from here.
>
> Since we can't make a perfect wave with just 3's and 4's, and we don't
> want the regularly occuring errors that will inevitably result, we add
> new "error" in the form of dithering.
>
> The trick is to add a psuedo-random value to the computed values before
> rounding such that the strict 4 3 3 3 4 pattern is disrupted. I'll let
> my computer create 12 random numbers between -0.50 and +0.49 and let's
> see what happens:
>
> 2.66 3.33 4.00 3.33 2.66 3.33 4.00 3.33 2.66 3.33 4.00 3.33
> 0.21 0.03 0.08 -.21 -.20 0.27 -.47 0.26 0.31 0.21 -.46 0.09 random
> values (dither)
>
> 2.87 3.36 4.08 3.12 2.46 3.60 3.53 3.59 2.97 3.54 3.54 3.42 sum signal +dither
>
> If we round that we get
>
> 3 3 4 3 2 4 4 4 3 4 4 3
>
> It's still mostly 3's and 4's (like before) but the pattern is
> disrupted, killing the repetitive error. Another round ofdithervalues
> would increase the variance, but would increase the noise at the same
> time.
>
> The "magic" in dithering has to be in selecting the psuedo-random values
> to be added to the signal. That's where I return control to the math
> junkies.


music is about strumming strings, tapping drums and cymbals, singing,
humming, blowing horns, and bowing violins, etc.

it's not about doing math calculations

that's why digital is really a dumb way to express music

tape is better- what you hear, is what goes on the tape

no dithering

[jailhouserock]

On Apr 2, 2:19 am, Ian Bell > wrote:
> duty-honor-country wrote:
> > this is something Arnie conveniently leaves out of his posts
>
> >DITHER
>
> > http://i11.tinypic.com/2s7x9o8.jpg
>
> > click on link- put cursor on page- when box at lower right appears-
> > click on it- expand/magnify page to read it
>
> > from "MODERN RECORDING TECHNIQUES" by David Miles Huber/Robert E.
> > Runstein- 6th Edition
>
> Unfortunately, they ignore that fact that the resolution improvement
> provided byditheris inversely proportional to the signal frequency. There
> is thereore no usefull 'improvement' in digital resolution at high
> frequencies and this is simply made worse by noise shaping.
>
> Ian


true- you can only shine **** so much

[jailhouserock]

On Apr 2, 8:29 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Ian Bell" > wrote in message
>
> news:46109fb5.0@entanet
>
>
>
>
>
> > duty-honor-country wrote:
>
> >> this is something Arnie conveniently leaves out of his
> >> posts
>
> >>DITHER
>
> >> http://i11.tinypic.com/2s7x9o8.jpg
>
> >> click on link- put cursor on page- when box at lower
> >> right appears- click on it- expand/magnify page to read
> >> it
>
> >> from "MODERN RECORDING TECHNIQUES" by David Miles
> >> Huber/Robert E. Runstein- 6th Edition
> > Unfortunately, they ignore that fact that the resolution
> > improvement provided byditheris inversely proportional
> > to the signal frequency.
>
> That's not true.
>
> > There is thereore no usefull
> > 'improvement' in digital resolution at high frequencies
>
> That's not true.
>
> > and this is simply made worse by noise shaping.
>
> That's not true.
>
>
>
> > Ian- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


how's it feel to be disproved so badly ?

[[email protected]]

On Apr 15, 8:54 am, "jailhouserock" >
wrote:

> it's not about doing math calculations
>
> that's why digital is really a dumb way to express music
>
> tape is better- what you hear, is what goes on the tape
>
> no dithering

it is about math, ever hear of bias voltage... wonder why yout tape
deck has it??
maybe it has to do with the non linearity of the magnetic hysterisis
loop.
(make that the record head for site specific)

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com
> On Apr 15, 8:54 am, "jailhouserock"
> > wrote:
>
>> it's not about doing math calculations
>>
>> that's why digital is really a dumb way to express music
>>
>> tape is better- what you hear, is what goes on the tape
>>
>> no dithering
>
> it is about math, ever hear of bias voltage

Ahem, that's bias current.