fas42 Posted February 20, 2020 Share Posted February 20, 2020 There wouldn't be a problem with "intersample overs" if the people mastering the track did their job properly - trivially easy to test whether it could occur, and then just attenuate the level enough so that at the time of the reconstruction of the analogue, it's guaranteed that the maximum level is never exceeded. A 'smarter' DAC could use a sledgehammer approach, and just digitally attenuate the signal by say 3dB before converting, to ensure there is never a problem ... it's a silly issue, which can be undone - but someone has to do it. pkane2001 1 Link to comment
fas42 Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 The theory says worrying about this ultrasonic stuff is irrelevant. And everything that I've experimented with in the real world, to get best SQ, has confirmed this ... this is fidgeting about what colour the wheel nuts should be on the Lamborghini, when aiming for best acceleration figures, 😜. sandyk and PeterSt 1 1 Link to comment
fas42 Posted October 3, 2020 Share Posted October 3, 2020 Quote Tell me what the theory is exactly if you have any idea? The reason we have 18-22 kHz upper limit is based on the anatomy of the cochlea and hair cell response to single tones. This does not extrapolate to an arbitrary pattern of frequencies at arbitrary volumes and phases (nonlinear response) nor does that extrapolate directly two two cochlea with differential signaling. All the things that Paul is pointing to ... while the ear "in perfect shape" may be capable of registering those very top frequencies, in the sense that one is conscious of a difference when those frequencies are present, as against not being present - in the real world of live music, and how sensitive the older person, the one who is usually most interested in the subtleties of the texture of the sound, is to those aspects, it is such low importance that it doesn't bear worrying about ... PeterSt, jabbr and sandyk 2 1 Link to comment
Popular Post fas42 Posted October 3, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted October 3, 2020 Interesting how people react to the concept that capturing higher than 20kHz stuff doesn't matter - I have seen absolutely nothing over the years that has made me edge even slightly in the direction of believing this to be wrong; IOW, I have zero interest in wanting >20kHz stuff to be in the signal. Yes, it will always be easy to have a track with, and without, content at ultrasonic frequencies sound different. But this almost certainly will always be down to the behaviour of the playback hardware reacting to the presence, or absence of these frequencies - that is, artifacts from misbehaviour of some part of the chain is actually what is being sensed. sandyk and pkane2001 1 1 Link to comment
fas42 Posted October 3, 2020 Share Posted October 3, 2020 What people are really worrying about, is whether some 'magic' can be generated in the replay, if frequencies above 20kHz are 100% accurately reproduced ... well, the answer is, No!!! ... and, yes, this is very much so a subjective position, in an 'objective' thread, 😜. The listening brain adjusts for bits "that are missing" - automatically ... I just saw yesterday, in one of the papers, that the experimental results were thrown, when people listened to replay with ultrasonics missing, directly after hearing the same track, with. The listeners had 'learnt' what the ultrasonic content was doing, and unconsciously added it back in, when it was no longer there - and couldn't distinguish the two versions any more ... unfortunately, the ear/brain is too clever for us poor inquiring sods - it will always outsmart us ... 😁 Link to comment
fas42 Posted October 4, 2020 Share Posted October 4, 2020 1 hour ago, Jud said: My own interest lies more in the area of what sort of sampling rate is appropriate to capture audible inharmonic attack transients present in music. (As I think @PeterSt said, pretty much everything in music has an (inharmonic) attack phase.) "Inharmonic" doesn't mean non-periodic, it just means one needs higher harmonics to reconstruct them. And that's the reason for my interest in whether very brief sounds are audible. Just to note that attack and inharmonic are very different things - the piano has as high an attack as any instrument out there, but its inharmonicity is relatively low. Cymbals are an example at the other end, where attack is basically noise from the metal being struck, which then becomes inharmonics of the metal ringing in a complex fashion. Link to comment
fas42 Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 1 hour ago, Don Hills said: Personally, I don't spend much time worrying about them. By definition, an intersample over occurs between 2 samples. Therefore, its frequency content is above 22 KHz. Provided that the DAC clips cleanly and the ultrasonic content doesn't upset the following equipment, it should be inaudible. (Of course, in real life things are rarely that ideal.) But I'd still rather see them avoided at source than having to allow for them in playback. What??!! An intersample over is above 22kHz? ... A trivial, manufactured example of what can happen, at say 11kHz, Link to comment
fas42 Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 The first example I posted above I just grabbed from a quick search of images ... but note that a comprehensive overview was done by @Archimago , http://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/09/musings-measurements-look-at-dacs.html. And specifically he notes what can occur with, as examples, fs/4 and fs/6. Here the simple, potential HD is well and truly in the audio range - and a real world DAC does make a mess of it. Also note that he points to a discussion of worst case scenarios ... https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,98753.0.html. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now