Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
New_idea New_idea is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Class D power amplifier---what about class-D CD?

Just wondering...
If the music producer can record music as PWM (pulse width modulation)
signal direct
onto CD.
Than a "class-D" CD player doesn't need a Digital-Analog converter.
The PWM signal can be feed direct to a class D power amplifier.
This can save a lot of "signal conversion'"



  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default Class D power amplifier---what about class-D CD?

On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 17:40:55 +0800, "New_idea"
wrote:

Just wondering...
If the music producer can record music as PWM (pulse width modulation)
signal direct
onto CD.
Than a "class-D" CD player doesn't need a Digital-Analog converter.
The PWM signal can be feed direct to a class D power amplifier.
This can save a lot of "signal conversion'"



One word. Jitter.

d
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Class D power amplifier---what about class-D CD?

There are practical issues involved. One is sampling rate. Another is the
way "Class D" is implemented in a given amplifier.

There's also the issue of whether (here we go!) the PWM should be analog or
digital. As another poster pointed out, jitter would be a problem, much more
for analog than digital -- not to mention the difficulty of exactly
controlling the pulse width in a polycarbonate pit.

It isn't an inherently bad idea. It's technically feasible, just not
commercially practical at this time.


  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default Class D power amplifier---what about class-D CD?

On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 04:38:40 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

There are practical issues involved. One is sampling rate. Another is the
way "Class D" is implemented in a given amplifier.

There's also the issue of whether (here we go!) the PWM should be analog or
digital. As another poster pointed out, jitter would be a problem, much more
for analog than digital -- not to mention the difficulty of exactly
controlling the pulse width in a polycarbonate pit.

It isn't an inherently bad idea. It's technically feasible, just not
commercially practical at this time.


When you say digital, do you mean store the data as a number, as is
done now, and feed it to a DAC, the output of which is a pulse width
rather than a voltage? If so, that could be done with the CDs we have
right now.

d


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Class D power amplifier---what about class-D CD?

When you say digital, do you mean store the data as a number,
as is done now, and feed it to a DAC, the output of which is a
pulse width rather than a voltage? If so, that could be done with
the CDs we have right now.


Here we go...

When I say "digital", I mean "quantized" -- there is only a finite number of
possible pulse widths.

This is doable right now, and in fact was done 30 years ago, with the
original LaserDisks, which used a form of analog pulse-width modulation.


  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default Class D power amplifier---what about class-D CD?

On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 05:11:34 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

When you say digital, do you mean store the data as a number,
as is done now, and feed it to a DAC, the output of which is a
pulse width rather than a voltage? If so, that could be done with
the CDs we have right now.


Here we go...

When I say "digital", I mean "quantized" -- there is only a finite number of
possible pulse widths.

This is doable right now, and in fact was done 30 years ago, with the
original LaserDisks, which used a form of analog pulse-width modulation.


OK, I get it. But why would the possible number of pulse widths be
finite (apart from quantum effects of course)? You can theoretically
make a pit any arbitrary length. Of course you would instantly be at
the mercy of scratches and dirt. Error correction would be a thing of
the past.

d
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Class D power amplifier---what about class-D CD?

When you say digital, do you mean store the data as a number,
as is done now, and feed it to a DAC, the output of which is a
pulse width rather than a voltage? If so, that could be done with
the CDs we have right now.


When I say "digital", I mean "quantized" -- there is only a finite
number of possible pulse widths.


This is doable right now, and in fact was done 30 years ago, with the
original LaserDisks, which used a form of analog pulse-width modulation.



OK, I get it. But why would the possible number of pulse widths be
finite (apart from quantum effects of course)? You can theoretically
make a pit any arbitrary length. Of course you would instantly be at
the mercy of scratches and dirt. Error correction would be a thing of
the past.


I feel like Peewee Herman going "Aaaaaahhh!"

Yes, the pit _can_ be of any arbitrary length. But if we quantize the
length, then we have a digital system. If the width falls within a
particular range, then we know -- with almost perfect certainty -- what
_number_ it represents.

As you point out, this is not possible in an analog system.



  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default Class D power amplifier---what about class-D CD?

On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 05:29:55 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

When you say digital, do you mean store the data as a number,
as is done now, and feed it to a DAC, the output of which is a
pulse width rather than a voltage? If so, that could be done with
the CDs we have right now.


When I say "digital", I mean "quantized" -- there is only a finite
number of possible pulse widths.


This is doable right now, and in fact was done 30 years ago, with the
original LaserDisks, which used a form of analog pulse-width modulation.



OK, I get it. But why would the possible number of pulse widths be
finite (apart from quantum effects of course)? You can theoretically
make a pit any arbitrary length. Of course you would instantly be at
the mercy of scratches and dirt. Error correction would be a thing of
the past.


I feel like Peewee Herman going "Aaaaaahhh!"

Yes, the pit _can_ be of any arbitrary length. But if we quantize the
length, then we have a digital system. If the width falls within a
particular range, then we know -- with almost perfect certainty -- what
_number_ it represents.

As you point out, this is not possible in an analog system.



Why would you want it to represent a number? This is a bit like
reading a voltage with an A/D, then instantly converting it back to a
voltage (with steps) to record it onto e.g. vinyl. The intervening
digital stage has been pointless.

d
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Class D power amplifier---what about class-D CD?

"New_idea" wrote in message

Just wondering...


If the music producer can record music as PWM (pulse
width modulation) signal direct onto CD.


What's wrong with PCM?

Than a "class-D" CD player doesn't need a Digital-Analog
converter.


Why worry about solved problems?

DACs are now cheap and good.

The PWM signal can be feed direct to a class D
power amplifier.


Providing it used pure PWM, which is not a given.

This can save a lot of "signal conversion'"


Not a serious problem right now.

Here's a question - how will you implement tone and volume controls?





  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Anahata Anahata is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 378
Default Class D power amplifier---what about class-D CD?

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 08:43:18 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:

Here's a question - how will you implement tone and volume controls?


That's easy - just change the supply voltage to the power output stage.
(how to do that efficiently is left as an exercise for the reader....)

--
Anahata
==//== 01638 720444
http://www.treewind.co.uk ==//== http://www.myspace.com/maryanahata

  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Anahata Anahata is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 378
Default Class D power amplifier---what about class-D CD?

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 08:44:42 -0500, anahata wrote:


That's easy - just change the supply voltage to the power output stage.
(how to do that efficiently is left as an exercise for the reader....)


I meant to say "volume's easy...." of course.

--
Anahata

  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Class D power amplifier---what about class-D CD?

"anahata" wrote in message
o.uk

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 08:43:18 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:


Here's a question - how will you implement tone and
volume controls?


That's easy - just change the supply voltage to the power
output stage. (how to do that efficiently is left as an
exercise for the reader....)


Even for just volume controls, that methodology gets dicy for high levels of
attenuation.


  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Richard Crowley Richard Crowley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,172
Default Class D power amplifier---what about class-D CD?

William Sommerwerck wrote:
There are practical issues involved. One is sampling rate. Another is
the way "Class D" is implemented in a given amplifier.

There's also the issue of whether (here we go!) the PWM should be
analog or digital. As another poster pointed out, jitter would be a
problem, much more for analog than digital -- not to mention the
difficulty of exactly controlling the pulse width in a polycarbonate
pit.

It isn't an inherently bad idea. It's technically feasible, just not
commercially practical at this time.


Not clear that it is inherently a good idea, either. One reason it isn't
commercially practical is that it gives up all the benefits of digital
encoding and transmission (like error detection and correction,
etc.). You end up with a much LESS robust system that doesn't
have any upside potential. An amusing thought problem, but no
apparent practial benefits.

As Mr. Dorsey has observed here before, there isn't really any
true analog recording. Mechanical recording is quantized by the
wax or vinyl molecules, etc. and magnetic recording is quantized
by the size of the magnetic monopoles, head gap, tape speed, etc.


  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Class D power amplifier---what about class-D CD?

Why would you want it to represent a number? This is a bit like
reading a voltage with an A/D, then instantly converting it back
to a voltage (with steps) to record it onto e.g. vinyl. The intervening
digital stage has been pointless.


Because if it represents a specific number, then it's much easier to read
its intended value -- because you have a priori information about the nature
of the signal. This is one of the ways digital transmission reduces the
effects of noise (both amplitude and phase).




  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default Class D power amplifier---what about class-D CD?

On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 07:15:47 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

Why would you want it to represent a number? This is a bit like
reading a voltage with an A/D, then instantly converting it back
to a voltage (with steps) to record it onto e.g. vinyl. The intervening
digital stage has been pointless.


Because if it represents a specific number, then it's much easier to read
its intended value -- because you have a priori information about the nature
of the signal. This is one of the ways digital transmission reduces the
effects of noise (both amplitude and phase).


You need to go and have a bit of a think about this. The number is
directly proportional to the pit length. So whether the pit length
represents a number, which in turn represents a voltage, or represents
the voltage directly, the same length errors have the same final
voltage effect.

d
  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Class D power amplifier---what about class-D CD?

You need to go and have a bit of a think about this. The number
is directly proportional to the pit length. So whether the pit length
represents a number, which in turn represents a voltage, or
represents the voltage directly, the same length errors have the
same final voltage effect.


Not if the length is quantized. It can vary (within limits) and still be
correctly read. This is not true of analog.


  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Class D power amplifier---what about class-D CD?

As Mr. Dorsey has observed here before, there isn't really any
true analog recording. Mechanical recording is quantized by the
wax or vinyl molecules, etc. and magnetic recording is quantized
by the size of the magnetic monopoles, head gap, tape speed, etc.


Yes, but... That's really stretching it.


  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default Class D power amplifier---what about class-D CD?

On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 08:04:57 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

You need to go and have a bit of a think about this. The number
is directly proportional to the pit length. So whether the pit length
represents a number, which in turn represents a voltage, or
represents the voltage directly, the same length errors have the
same final voltage effect.


Not if the length is quantized. It can vary (within limits) and still be
correctly read. This is not true of analog.


For goodness sake - how are you not getting this? If the error in
length is less than your quantization step, then it simply isn't an
error. If it is a much larger error (which is far more likely) then it
doesn't matter whether there is quantization or not - the result is
the same.

The reason digital works is because you store the numbers, not some
variable quantity that represents their magnitude.

d
  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Class D power amplifier---what about class-D CD?

For goodness sake - how are you not getting this? If the error in
length is less than your quantization step, then it simply isn't an
error.


Correct.

If it is a much larger error (which is far more likely) then it
doesn't matter whether there is quantization or not - the result is
the same.


If that occurs, it's because the system is poorly designed. A "good" digital
system does not have large numbers of errors that exceed the bounds that
would prevent correct reading.


The reason digital works is because you store the numbers, not some
variable quantity that represents their magnitude.


You need to think this through. Most people -- including those with college
degrees -- just don't understand that any quantization of sample amplitude
is digitization of the signal.




  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default Class D power amplifier---what about class-D CD?

On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 08:38:57 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

For goodness sake - how are you not getting this? If the error in
length is less than your quantization step, then it simply isn't an
error.


Correct.

If it is a much larger error (which is far more likely) then it
doesn't matter whether there is quantization or not - the result is
the same.


If that occurs, it's because the system is poorly designed. A "good" digital
system does not have large numbers of errors that exceed the bounds that
would prevent correct reading.


No, it is because there is dust, or the disc has got scratched, or it
has been left out in the sun.


The reason digital works is because you store the numbers, not some
variable quantity that represents their magnitude.


You need to think this through. Most people -- including those with college
degrees -- just don't understand that any quantization of sample amplitude
is digitization of the signal.


No, digitization is representing those quantized levels by numbers
(these are the digits). Quantization is just quantization, nothing
more. It is a jaggy waveform. I have an old fuzz box for a guitar.
What comes out of it is a square wave - very coarse quantization in
fact. But it isn't digital.

d
  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Richard Crowley Richard Crowley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,172
Default Class D power amplifier---what about class-D CD?

"William Sommerwerck" wrote...
As Mr. Dorsey has observed here before, there isn't really any
true analog recording. Mechanical recording is quantized by the
wax or vinyl molecules, etc. and magnetic recording is quantized
by the size of the magnetic monopoles, head gap, tape speed, etc.


Yes, but... That's really stretching it.


I can hear the effect in both mechanical and magnetic recording.


  #23   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Class D power amplifier---what about class-D CD?

No, digitization is representing those quantized levels by numbers
(these are the digits). Quantization is just quantization, nothing
more. It is a jaggy waveform.


Not so. Think about the _meaning_ of digital.


  #24   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Class D power amplifier---what about class-D CD?

As Mr. Dorsey has observed here before, there isn't really any
true analog recording. Mechanical recording is quantized by the
wax or vinyl molecules, etc. and magnetic recording is quantized
by the size of the magnetic monopoles, head gap, tape speed, etc.


Yes, but... That's really stretching it.


I can hear the effect in both mechanical and magnetic recording.


What, to your ears, is the subjective effect?


  #25   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default Class D power amplifier---what about class-D CD?

On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 11:17:31 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

No, digitization is representing those quantized levels by numbers
(these are the digits). Quantization is just quantization, nothing
more. It is a jaggy waveform.


Not so. Think about the _meaning_ of digital.


Absolutely so. Think about what sort of signal you would feed into a
digital to analogue converter. It would not be a quantized waveform
now, would it? It would be a string of ones and zeroes - that is a
digital signal.

d


  #26   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Class D power amplifier---what about class-D CD?

No, digitization is representing those quantized levels by numbers
(these are the digits). Quantization is just quantization, nothing
more. It is a jaggy waveform.


Not so. Think about the _meaning_ of digital.


Absolutely so. Think about what sort of signal you would feed into
a digital to analogue converter. It would not be a quantized waveform
now, would it? It would be a string of ones and zeroes -- that is a
digital signal.


I got into a long argument about this a year ago, and I'm not going to
repeat it. I know it's insufferably rude to say so, but I am absolutely
right about this, and anyone who disagrees with the basic principle being
stated, is wrong.

Mr. Pearce, sit down for a while and think about how one distinguishes
information from noise. When you have a better understanding (you might want
to browse a book on information theory), you'll go "Aha! That's right! I
don't know why I didn't see it before."


  #27   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default Class D power amplifier---what about class-D CD?

On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 12:08:21 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

No, digitization is representing those quantized levels by numbers
(these are the digits). Quantization is just quantization, nothing
more. It is a jaggy waveform.


Not so. Think about the _meaning_ of digital.


Absolutely so. Think about what sort of signal you would feed into
a digital to analogue converter. It would not be a quantized waveform
now, would it? It would be a string of ones and zeroes -- that is a
digital signal.


I got into a long argument about this a year ago, and I'm not going to
repeat it. I know it's insufferably rude to say so, but I am absolutely
right about this, and anyone who disagrees with the basic principle being
stated, is wrong.

Mr. Pearce, sit down for a while and think about how one distinguishes
information from noise. When you have a better understanding (you might want
to browse a book on information theory), you'll go "Aha! That's right! I
don't know why I didn't see it before."


We aren't going to have an argument because I remember the last one
well. You were wrong then as you are wrong now. We can leave it at
that.

The fact that you thought your second paragraph might shed some light
is all we need to see the nature of your misunderstanding of the
terms.

d
  #28   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Class D power amplifier---what about class-D CD?

No, digitization is representing those quantized levels by numbers
(these are the digits). Quantization is just quantization, nothing
more. It is a jaggy waveform.


Not so. Think about the _meaning_ of digital.


Absolutely so. Think about what sort of signal you would feed into
a digital to analogue converter. It would not be a quantized waveform
now, would it? It would be a string of ones and zeroes -- that is a
digital signal.


I got into a long argument about this a year ago, and I'm not going to
repeat it. I know it's insufferably rude to say so, but I am absolutely
right about this, and anyone who disagrees with the basic principle being
stated, is wrong.

Mr. Pearce, sit down for a while and think about how one distinguishes
information from noise. When you have a better understanding (you might

want
to browse a book on information theory), you'll go "Aha! That's right! I
don't know why I didn't see it before."


We aren't going to have an argument because I remember the last one
well. You were wrong then as you are wrong now. We can leave it at
that.

The fact that you thought your second paragraph might shed some light
is all we need to see the nature of your misunderstanding of the
terms.


Indeed, what I said is the essence of the issue. I would suggest that you
speak with someone genuinely knowledgeable about information theory.

We will leave it at that.


  #29   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default Class D power amplifier---what about class-D CD?

On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 12:38:29 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

No, digitization is representing those quantized levels by numbers
(these are the digits). Quantization is just quantization, nothing
more. It is a jaggy waveform.

Not so. Think about the _meaning_ of digital.

Absolutely so. Think about what sort of signal you would feed into
a digital to analogue converter. It would not be a quantized waveform
now, would it? It would be a string of ones and zeroes -- that is a
digital signal.

I got into a long argument about this a year ago, and I'm not going to
repeat it. I know it's insufferably rude to say so, but I am absolutely
right about this, and anyone who disagrees with the basic principle being
stated, is wrong.

Mr. Pearce, sit down for a while and think about how one distinguishes
information from noise. When you have a better understanding (you might

want
to browse a book on information theory), you'll go "Aha! That's right! I
don't know why I didn't see it before."


We aren't going to have an argument because I remember the last one
well. You were wrong then as you are wrong now. We can leave it at
that.

The fact that you thought your second paragraph might shed some light
is all we need to see the nature of your misunderstanding of the
terms.


Indeed, what I said is the essence of the issue. I would suggest that you
speak with someone genuinely knowledgeable about information theory.

We will leave it at that.


I am knowledgable on information theory, thank you. I am the author of
several ETSI standards for digital transmission, and have designed
digital + analogue signal generators for Marconi Instruments.

By your definition the audio signal that comes OUT of my CD player is
digital. It simply isn't.

d
  #30   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Class D power amplifier---what about class-D CD?

I am knowledgeable on information theory, thank you.
I am the author of several ETSI standards for digital
transmission, and have designed digital + analogue
signal generators for Marconi Instruments.


If you actually did understand information theory, you would have understood
what I was saying "at once" -- or you would have figured it out long ago.

Hell, I buy photo magazines with article written by people who know almost
nothing about what they're writing about.


By your definition the audio signal that comes
OUT of my CD player is digital. It simply isn't.


I never said that -- at least in this discussion.

Give me a call over the weekend. Perhaps a verbal explanation will clear
things up. 425-235-9579




  #32   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Richard Crowley Richard Crowley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,172
Default Class D power amplifier---what about class-D CD?

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in ...
As Mr. Dorsey has observed here before, there isn't really any
true analog recording. Mechanical recording is quantized by the
wax or vinyl molecules, etc. and magnetic recording is quantized
by the size of the magnetic monopoles, head gap, tape speed, etc.


Yes, but... That's really stretching it.


I can hear the effect in both mechanical and magnetic recording.


What, to your ears, is the subjective effect?


The noise/distortion floor increases. You can do an experiment
where you can take a 16-bit recording and resample to 12-bit,
and 10-bit and 8-bit and hear the "hash" floor rising under the
signal.

Much like driving over a freshly paved macadam (blacktop,
tarmac) road vs. a gravel road. They will both get you there,
but one of them much more quitetly than the other.


  #33   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Richard Crowley Richard Crowley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,172
Default Class D power amplifier---what about class-D CD?

"William Sommerwerck" wrote ...
No, digitization is representing those quantized levels by numbers
(these are the digits). Quantization is just quantization, nothing
more. It is a jaggy waveform.


Not so. Think about the _meaning_ of digital.


Sampling and digitization are separate and independent
phenomenon. Perhaps you are unaware of CCD aka.
"bucket-brigade" which is most certainly *sampling*
but also most certainly ANALOG and NOT digital.

In fact the higher-capacity flash memory (EEPROM)
is now making use of the technique of storing two or
even four different charge quanta in a single cell in order
to store more than one digital bit per memory cell.


  #34   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Class D power amplifier---what about class-D CD?

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in ...


As Mr. Dorsey has observed here before, there isn't really any
true analog recording. Mechanical recording is quantized by the
wax or vinyl molecules, etc. and magnetic recording is quantized
by the size of the magnetic monopoles, head gap, tape speed, etc.


Yes, but... That's really stretching it.


I can hear the effect in both mechanical and magnetic recording.


What, to your ears, is the subjective effect?


The noise/distortion floor increases. You can do an experiment
where you can take a 16-bit recording and resample to 12-bit,
and 10-bit and 8-bit and hear the "hash" floor rising under the
signal.


Much like driving over a freshly paved macadam (blacktop,
tarmac) road vs. a gravel road. They will both get you there,
but one of them much more quitetly than the other.


How do you know that these audible effects are due to quantization, and not
something else?


  #35   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Class D power amplifier---what about class-D CD?

No, digitization is representing those quantized levels
by numbers (these are the digits). Quantization is just
quantization, nothing more. It is a jaggy waveform.


Not so. Think about the _meaning_ of digital.


Sampling and digitization are separate and independent
phenomena. Perhaps you are unaware of CCD aka.
"bucket-brigade" which is most certainly *sampling*
but also most certainly ANALOG and NOT digital.


Of course. That wasn't what I was talking about. I was talking about
amplitude quantization -- not temporal quantization.




  #36   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Richard Crowley Richard Crowley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,172
Default Class D power amplifier---what about class-D CD?

"William Sommerwerck"wrote ...
How do you know that these audible effects are due to quantization, and
not
something else?


Because only quantization is changed.
One equation, one unknown.


  #37   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default Class D power amplifier---what about class-D CD?

On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 12:50:41 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

I am knowledgeable on information theory, thank you.
I am the author of several ETSI standards for digital
transmission, and have designed digital + analogue
signal generators for Marconi Instruments.


If you actually did understand information theory, you would have understood
what I was saying "at once" -- or you would have figured it out long ago.

Hell, I buy photo magazines with article written by people who know almost
nothing about what they're writing about.


By your definition the audio signal that comes
OUT of my CD player is digital. It simply isn't.


I never said that -- at least in this discussion.


You didn't have to say it, it was implicit. The signal that comes out
of a CD player is quantized, therefore by your definition it is
digital.

d
  #38   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Class D power amplifier---what about class-D CD?

New_idea wrote:
Just wondering...
If the music producer can record music as PWM (pulse width modulation)
signal direct
onto CD.
Than a "class-D" CD player doesn't need a Digital-Analog converter.
The PWM signal can be feed direct to a class D power amplifier.
This can save a lot of "signal conversion'"


This is how SACD works. Sony marketed it aggressively for a while, but
seems to have given up on it. It has good points and bad ones, and
was extensively discussed here five or six years ago when it was a hot
topic.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #39   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Class D power amplifier---what about class-D CD?

As Mr. Dorsey has observed here before, there isn't really any
true analog recording. Mechanical recording is quantized by the
wax or vinyl molecules, etc. and magnetic recording is quantized
by the size of the magnetic monopoles, head gap, tape speed, etc.


Yes, but... That's really stretching it.


I can hear the effect in both mechanical and magnetic recording.


What, to your ears, is the subjective effect?


The noise/distortion floor increases. You can do an experiment
where you can take a 16-bit recording and resample to 12-bit,
and 10-bit and 8-bit and hear the "hash" floor rising under the
signal.


Much like driving over a freshly paved macadam (blacktop,
tarmac) road vs. a gravel road. They will both get you there,
but one of them much more quietly than the other.


How do you know that these audible effects are due to quantization, and not
something else?


I thought I misread you, so I asked "how do you know?". Then you replied...

Because only quantization is changed.
One equation, one unknown.


That was not the issue! See above. You said you could hear the effect of
quantization in (presumably) analog media -- "mechanical and magnetic
recording". Then you start talking about the audibility of quantization
effects in digital recording.

Non sequitur.


  #40   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Richard Crowley Richard Crowley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,172
Default Class D power amplifier---what about class-D CD?

"William Sommerwerck" wrote...
As Mr. Dorsey has observed here before, there isn't really any
true analog recording. Mechanical recording is quantized by the
wax or vinyl molecules, etc. and magnetic recording is quantized
by the size of the magnetic monopoles, head gap, tape speed, etc.


Yes, but... That's really stretching it.


I can hear the effect in both mechanical and magnetic recording.


What, to your ears, is the subjective effect?


The noise/distortion floor increases. You can do an experiment
where you can take a 16-bit recording and resample to 12-bit,
and 10-bit and 8-bit and hear the "hash" floor rising under the
signal.


Much like driving over a freshly paved macadam (blacktop,
tarmac) road vs. a gravel road. They will both get you there,
but one of them much more quietly than the other.


How do you know that these audible effects are due to quantization, and
not
something else?


I thought I misread you, so I asked "how do you know?". Then you
replied...

Because only quantization is changed.
One equation, one unknown.


That was not the issue! See above. You said you could hear the effect of
quantization in (presumably) analog media -- "mechanical and magnetic
recording". Then you start talking about the audibility of quantization
effects in digital recording.

Non sequitur.


Sequitur.
I was attempting to describe an experiement you could
conduct which would illustrate what quantization noise
sounds like since you don't seem to be familiar with it.


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FA: Yamaha M-80 Stereo amplifier 250wpc Class A power amp [email protected] Marketplace 0 May 3rd 06 03:10 AM
class H amplifier gunnet Tech 1 February 5th 06 03:03 PM
Any blind listening tests on Class A vs Class B amps? Don Pearce Tech 18 October 28th 05 05:44 PM
Class D full range/Class T w/Tripath Ivan Lopez Car Audio 11 August 16th 04 02:28 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:04 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"