Understanding Sample Rate

[Spacehound]

15 minutes ago, MetalNuts said:

It is not what we say who infringed or who copy.  We have a judicial system in place and we have to trust and rely on it.  I am just a normal citizen in a civilized place so I have to abide by law and trust the law in deciding who is right and who is wrong.  The conclusion is Linn has the patent and it is the other who infringed.  You have tried to deceived others the other way round.

 

 

Linn Engineering was just one of hundreds of small  engineering  contractors, it did all sorts of 'small works' for other people.  The   'established' turntable manufacturer happened to be nearby so chose Linn Engineering.  Linn Audio didn't even exist until they copied the turntable. FACT

 

BTW: Their famous 'Isobarik' speaker was made from an 'off the shelf'  KEF drivers/crossover  kit you could buy retail in any decent electronic parts shop, though presumably Linn did not buy it 'retail'. They put one of the drivers on the top to use up a part of the kit  they would not have  otherwise used.

 

You are either arguing for the sake of it or you have another agenda. Goodbye on this.

[beerandmusic]

7 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

 Goodbye on this.

 

i wish you would take "your wisdom" and goodbye on everything....

 

[Spacehound]

10 hours ago, mansr said:

It's tiresome nonetheless.

Do  surgeons, the guy who's  driving  the airplane, etc. get all this 'noise' from amateurs who  incorrectly think they can do it better?

As it happens I'm a part-time flying  instructor based at Upham/CAA examiner (low pay but as an examiner the expenses are good and you get to see other places). Which is an almost  'casual' result of having flying as a hobby for many years and a  wish to 'further' my experience.

 

"Off you go then, I'm getting out"

 

[mansr]

4 hours ago, Fokus said:

A bit off topic, but while MC has a bit of an ego, the man also has some achievements. He co-founded Monitor Audio, later had Colloms Electroacoustics, a consultancy company active in design and forensics, IIRC. MC was responsible for a number of speaker and amp designs in the 80s and 90s, including Celestion and Aura. These are just the things I happen to know, as a relative outsider.

None of those things make him an authority on digital data storage and transmission.

[mansr]

1 hour ago, Spacehound said:

I don't think people other than criminals  'deceive' deliberately.

Politicians are a subclass of criminals, right?

[mansr]

1 hour ago, Spacehound said:

I see you hve moved the goalposts  from "Who copied who?" to law, patents, and other irrelevant stuff.

Copying is permissible unless prohibited by copyright, patent, or trademark. That makes those things relevant.

[Spacehound]

11 hours ago, sandyk said:

I am well aware of the Forum's requirements, however it appears to be quite O.K. to ridicule and insult both myself and M.C. at every opportunity.

Is it any wonder why we rarely see informative posts any more by leading industry figures ,?

 

Sandyk,

I just picked your above post at random so I could 'reply' to you. Don't read anything into it.

Thought you might find this of interest:

One of 'our' latest computers. It may look like something out of Babbage's workshop but it isn't.  It  has a very strong potential to render all other computers as obsolete as the slide rule.  And 'we'  have already increased its power tenfold since September 2017.

 

 

 

[mansr]

4 hours ago, Spacehound said:

What British hifi industry?  At a quick 'offhand' look there is   only Arcam (partly), Linn, and Sugden.

Bowers & Wilkins?

[Spacehound]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

Copying is permissible unless prohibited by copyright, patent, or trademark. That makes those things relevant.

Not to Linn Engineering (Linn Audio didn't exist)  copying  an earlier and still current  turntable they made some parts for under contract, which was the subject at the time. 

 

They  made a few, advertised them  in Hifi News and  Record Review, and maybe in other places, under their newly created 'subsidiary's name,  and called it the Linn Sondek (or LP12, I can't recall which)..

The two were identical in every resect except Linn machined some grooves in the wooden base.

[semente]

18 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

Sandyk,

I just picked your above post at random so I could 'reply' to you. Don't read anything into it.

Thought you might find this of interest:

One of 'our' latest computers. It may look like something out of Babbage's workshop but it isn't.  It  has a very strong potential to render all other computers as obsolete as the slide rule.  And 'we'  have already increased its power tenfold since September 2017.

 

 

 

 

Looks impressive. But what we really wanna know is "How does it sound?"

 

And how long it takes to burn-in...

[Spacehound]

15 minutes ago, mansr said:

Bowers & Wilkins?

Since 2016 they are  a subsidiary of EVA Automation of California. 

[mansr]

11 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

Not to Linn Engineering (Linn Audio didn't exist)  copying  an earlier and still current  turntable they made some parts for under contract, which was the subject at the time.

Unless those parts were covered by patent or copyright, they did nothing legally wrong.

[Spacehound]

30 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Looks impressive. But what we really wanna know is "How does it sound?"

 

And how long it takes to burn-in...

It makes a slight bubbling noise and gives off 'steam'. Takes a real long time to 'switch' on. The bits can be zero, one, or both.

 

It  does everything instantly,  as far as we can tell from our 'less then perfect' measurements. Burn in included 

[mansr]

7 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

Since 2016 they are  a subsidiary of EVA Automation of California. 

AFAIK the engineering is still done in Britain, as is the manufacturing of the 800 series.

[Spacehound]

Just now, mansr said:

Unless those parts were covered by patent or copyright, they did nothing legally wrong.

Maybe not, it was never decided. But I don't want a Scottish copy of a Rolls-Royce either, I would rather have the original  German one. made in a bunker at Goodwood. The Germans seem   notably fond of bunkers.

[Spacehound]

4 minutes ago, mansr said:

AFAIK the engineering is still done in Britain, as is the manufacturing of the 800 series.

Yes. We cost less than Americans and aren't shot so often. Unless we decide to have Attack Schoolteachers too.

[semente]

27 minutes ago, mansr said:

Unless those parts were covered by patent or copyright, they did nothing legally wrong.

 

Even if they did copy a non-patented design, I presume.

[firedog]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

Bowers & Wilkins?

Musical Fidelity? Still make some units in the UK, I think.

[Spacehound]

2 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Even if they did copy a non-patented design, I presume.

Linn  did patent the  bearing they copied. Which had been in use for a hundred years plus in good clocks.

Which shows how useless patent 'officers' are. as patents are supposed to be 'original'.

[Summit]

To understand the effect of different sample rates that @beerandmusic have been asking about, it’s not enough to quote Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem and think that as long as the samples are above that rate nothing else are of importance. Just try to play DSD at those sample rate and see. Its more, much more premises that comes in to play if we are looking to reproduce the sound as close as possible in SQ to the master tapes.

 

First of all, sampling is a process of converting a (analogue) continuous-time signal into a digital numeric sequence. The Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem defines the necessary conditions for a sample rate that allow a discrete sequence of samples to capture all the information from a continuous time signal of finite bandwidth. The Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem doesn’t really says that a signal can be reconstructed (when the sampling rate is more than twice the maximum frequency of the signal being sampled).

 

The interpolation theorem defines the “necessary conditions” in which the sampled signal can be reconstructed perfectly, in theory. But a perfect reconstruction can never happen, because bandlimited signals don’t really exist. The two main issues in the process of interpolation are interpolation error and aliasing.

 

First we have interpolation error which are problem generated in the sinc function. The sinc functions is maybe perfect on paper, but in reality sinc functions are never perfect. To deal with this imperfection we use filters. A filter is a device or process that removes unwanted artifacts from a signal. Great? Not really, no filters are perfect.

 

Second we have aliasing. One way to minimize aliasing is to sample at much higher than the Nyquist rate. Oversampling. The higher the sampling rate the better the chance of reproducing the original signal. The other way is to use a low-pass anti-aliasing filter. But, unless we knows very much about the original analogue signal, the interpolation and the aliasing characteristics, it’s very difficult to design a good anti-aliasing filter. All anti-aliasing filters also bring their own problems, because errors are always multiplied.

[MetalNuts]

2 hours ago, Spacehound said:

 

Linn Engineering was just one of hundreds of small  engineering  contractors, it did all sorts of 'small works' for other people.  The   'established' turntable manufacturer happened to be nearby so chose Linn Engineering.  Linn Audio didn't even exist until they copied the turntable. FACT

 

BTW: Their famous 'Isobarik' speaker was made from an 'off the shelf'  KEF drivers/crossover  kit you could buy retail in any decent electronic parts shop, though presumably Linn did not buy it 'retail'. They put one of the drivers on the top to use up a part of the kit  they would not have  otherwise used.

 

You are either arguing for the sake of it or you have another agenda. Goodbye on this.

What is the point of saying Linn was just one of hundreds of small engineering contractor?  Are you implying the law only protected those big enough company? 

 

A registered patent is a patent and the size of a company is not a factor.  Infringement is infringement! You wrongly presented that Linn copied others in the turntable and the fact shows to the contrary and you refused to accept that you were wrong.  I would take it for granted that you did not remember the facts well initially but the truth seems that no matter what fact is before you, you still maintain your view that Linn copied the other, that is malicious accusation.

 

Good bye to you and you are not a trustworth person to talk to at all, and you have no moral or ethics of whatever profession.  

 

 

[Spacehound]

30 minutes ago, MetalNuts said:

What is the point of saying Linn was just one of hundreds of small engineering contractor?  Are you implying the law only protected those big enough company? 

 

A registered patent is a patent and the size of a company is not a factor.  Infringement is infringement! You wrongly presented that Linn copied others in the turntable and the fact shows to the contrary and you refused to accept that you were wrong.  I would take it for granted that you did not remember the facts well initially but the truth seems that no matter what fact is before you, you still maintain your view that Linn copied the other, that is malicious accusation.

 

Good bye to you and you are not a trustworth person to talk to at all, and you have no moral or ethics of whatever profession.  

 

 

I don't imply stuff, I post it.  Seeing that part  I didn't read the rest.

[mansr]

19 minutes ago, Summit said:

To understand the effect of different sample rates that @beerandmusic have been asking about, it’s not enough to quote Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem and think that as long as the samples are above that rate nothing else are of importance. Just try to play DSD at those sample rate and see. Its more, much more premises that comes in to play if we are looking to reproduce the sound as close as possible in SQ to the master tapes.

The sampling theorem assumes infinite sample precision. With a limited number of bits, we get quantisation error which is a non-linear distortion. This happens at any sample rate and has nothing to do with aliasing. With TPDF dither, the quantisation error is (mostly) turned into white noise at a level determined by the bit depth. If the sample rate is increased, the quantisation energy is spread over a wider frequency range, thus reducing the level of dither noise at any specific frequency. Doubling the sample rate gives the same improvement as extending the sample precision by one bit. In other words, not very efficient. A high sample rate does, however, bring another benefit in that it enables the use of noise shaping. Instead of the quantisation noise being spread evenly over the full spectrum, it can be concentrated at high frequencies where there is no signal of interest. This is very useful since a high-rate flash ADC with a small number of bits, say 8 or less, is much easier to construct than a slower ADC with high precision. Low-resolution noise-shaped sampling at a high rate, 10 MHz or more, followed by a digital low-pass filter can thus be functionally equivalent to high-resolution sampling at a lower rate. In fact, it can be better since there is no need for an analogue anti-aliasing filter, and the digital filter can be designed with just about any characteristics we desire.

[Spacehound]

1 hour ago, MetalNuts said:

What is the point......etc

Try this.

My only error is that Ivor Tiefenbrun's father's company was called  "Castle Precision Engineering" not "Linn Engineering":

 

"what is undisputed is
that Hamish Robertson, the founder of Ariston, designed the Ariston
RD11 in 1971, and contracted Castle Precision Engineering to machine
the critical tight tolerance tapered shaft and bearing assembly that
is key to the superb results of both the Ariston and the Linn.  In
1973, just 2 years after it had begun, Hamish Robertson left the
company he founded after it was taken over by Dunlop. Within a year,
Ivor Tiefenbrun (the son of the owner of Castle Engineering) debuted a
new company and a new turntable design that looked – interior part for
part – like an exact replica of the Ariston RD-11 turntable with a few
cosmetic changes.

The February 1973 Hi-Fi News & Record Review, Linn announced

the release of their new LP12 turntable."

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, mansr said:

The sampling theorem assumes infinite sample precision. With a limited number of bits, we get quantisation error which is a non-linear distortion. This happens at any sample rate and has nothing to do with aliasing. With TPDF dither, the quantisation error is (mostly) turned into white noise at a level determined by the bit depth. If the sample rate is increased, the quantisation energy is spread over a wider frequency range, thus reducing the level of dither noise at any specific frequency. Doubling the sample rate gives the same improvement as extending the sample precision by one bit. In other words, not very efficient. A high sample rate does, however, bring another benefit in that it enables the use of noise shaping. Instead of the quantisation noise being spread evenly over the full spectrum, it can be concentrated at high frequencies where there is no signal of interest. This is very useful since a high-rate flash ADC with a small number of bits, say 8 or less, is much easier to construct than a slower ADC with high precision. Low-resolution noise-shaped sampling at a high rate, 10 MHz or more, followed by a digital low-pass filter can thus be functionally equivalent to high-resolution sampling at a lower rate. In fact, it can be better since there is no need for an analogue anti-aliasing filter, and the digital filter can be designed with just about any characteristics we desire.

Just like my wife and I were discussing over breakfast this morning :~)