Time resolution of digital sampling

[sandyk]

21 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Frank and Alex, a small reminder that this board is for objective stuff.

I am well aware of this, but you also often reply to stuff aimed at you that is not necessarily fully on topic as  the dig at me by Paul obviously was.

 Where else in this thread have I posted anything that was not appropriate?

 I am also quite entitled to employ the Disagree or Like buttons as I have been doing..

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

18 hours ago, manueljenkin said:

The worst part is you don't even defend it in a legitimate way, show conclusive evidence/numbers to your system behavior claims.

 

Exactly so... Déjà vu

 

14 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

Your assumption is that humans cannot respond to frequencies beyond what sine waves humans can perceive. Stated another way: you are assuming the human auditory system is linear.

 

Yep

 

14 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

Not much about the human brain nor its sensory organs is linear.

Kunchur  eg http://boson.physics.sc.edu/~kunchur//papers/Temporal-resolution-by-bandwidth-restriction--Kunchur.pdf does not make that assumption.

 

1+

 

13 hours ago, jabbr said:

If we are going to be objective, let's do it correctly.

 

A plea falling on deaf ears

 

10 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

Tell me what the theory is exactly if you have any idea?

 

He does not

 

10 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

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.

 

 

Yep

 

10 hours ago, manueljenkin said:

I'd recommend you to publish this as a paper/journal. As of now this is just your speculation.

 

Yes but he has a "self- validating" App.....the kind they like at ASR ! 🤣🙄

 

 

[pkane2001]

8 hours ago, manueljenkin said:

Let them run with this thread with their "opinions". Skepticism is still an opinion, only when you truly analyse verify and set bounds, it becomes something worthy of consideration. Not worth looking into unless they provide it as a verified paper. As of now, there is no official verified publication that these guys have provided to refute kunchur's study.

 

Look, Kunchur himself said he knows his JND value was incorrect, four times larger than the level detected in newer experiments. This is one thing I picked up on first reading of his study. That's all I stated. It's not just my opinion, it's the author's (emphasis is mine):

 

Quote

It was found that the level changes in the experiments (~0.2 dB) were subliminal (four times smaller than the published level JND) making it likely that the discrimination depended on more than just level changes.

 

My papers also propose quantitative neurophysiological models to explain what might be happening in the timing/phase domain. One forum poster asked why I did not re-measure the level JNDs. In scientific research we have to start with what has already been published and cannot go back to the beginning of time and re-measure and reprove everything ever published (unless there is a special reason to doubt the previous results) otherwise it will be impossible to move forward. The present work took about five years. To redo the level JND thresholds properly will take at least two years.

 

Remember, in the paper he had assumed that anything below of JND of 0.7dB was not detectable.

[pkane2001]

3 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Exactly so... Déjà vu

 

 

Yep

 

 

1+

 

 

A plea falling on deaf ears

 

 

He does not

 

 

Yep

 

 

Yes but he has a "self- validating" App.....the kind they like at ASR ! 🤣🙄

 

 

 

You are always a breath of fresh air, David, with your sarcasm and personal attacks you add value to every conversation.

 

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Look, Kunchur himself said he knows his JND value was incorrect, four times larger than the level detected in newer experiments. This is one thing I picked up on first reading of his study. That's all I stated. It's not just my opinion, it's the author's (emphasis is mine):

 

 

Remember, in the paper he had assumed that anything below of JND of 0.7dB was not detectable.

 

Right, this is how real science works. Experiments are imperfect. 

 

My highlight of this paper is precisely because it focuses on the relationship between timing and frequency bandwidth -- as a model. This is in striking difference to the ad nauseum papers which focus on the frequency response of the cochlear hair cells. The point is that these observations are difficult to make, and no one ought be too tied to their hard held assumptions about frequency response that they learned in 3rd grade.

 

That said, I am personally willing to look at all avenues of improved signal reconstruction and recovery including improved upsampling/filters, feralA decoding as well has high res recordings.  Until these issues are settled, and they aren't in my mind, I prefer to acquire music in as close to the original recording/mixing format as possible.

[manueljenkin]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

You are always a breath of fresh air, David, with your sarcasm and personal attacks you add value to every conversation.

 

Whoa!! Finally!!

 

 

I finally witnessed it.

 

 

You have replied straight to what was being asked, without modulating the question/post to your own imaginations. First time, I've seen a situation where I didn't have to ask you to actually read the post fully.

 

That comment could get a direct, to the point response from you. In that context, it sure is a contribution to this thread, compared to what has been happening in the last 2 pages.

[pkane2001]

10 minutes ago, manueljenkin said:

Whoa!! Finally!!

 

 

I finally witnessed it.

 

 

You have replied straight to what was being asked, without modulating the question/post to your own imaginations. First time, I've seen a situation where I didn't have to ask you to actually read the post fully.

 

That comment could get a direct, to the point response from you. In that context, it sure is a contribution to this thread, compared to what has been happening in the last 2 pages.

Last two pages were about the limits of human hearing. I’ve no interest in arguing about this limit being 20kHz or 200kHz. I know the answer for myself, and that’s all that I’m interested in. 
 

If you have any real, objective input on this other than attacking everything I post, then share it.

 

Until then, maybe take a hearing test using the software I created and tell me what frequencies you can reliably detect. 

[manueljenkin]

4 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Last two pages were about the limits of human hearing. I’ve no interest in arguing about this limit being 20kHz or 200kHz. I know the answer for myself, and that’s all that I’m interested in. 
 

If you have any real, objective input on this other than attacking everything I post, then share it.

 

Until then, maybe take a hearing test using the software I created and tell me what frequencies you can reliably detect. 

If that's all the information you've retained (out of all the mathematical derivations I've posted, steady state vs transients, so forth) I guess your sampling rate of viewing these posts is not enough.

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, manueljenkin said:

If that's all the information you've retained (out of all the mathematical derivations I've posted, steady state vs transients, so forth) I guess your sampling rate of viewing these posts is not enough.

I’ve already responded to everything you posted that I had a comment on. Anything   I didn’t respond to you can safely assume I ignored, had no interest in responding to, or had no comment.

[manueljenkin]

4 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

I’ve already responded to everything you posted that I had a comment on. Anything   I didn’t respond to you can safely assume I ignored, had no interest in responding to, or had no comment.

Or was a valid scenario/argument that you had no counter for. 😀. So you try your best to forcibly ignore divert attention from it. You're still open to show any scenario real transients, that can be perfectly bandlimited using a sinc low pass. Scenario 6 is one example, scenario 5 is one, you're free to choose another. You're yet to prove bounds of real world signal behavior too!! Even if the signal by itself is not audible it can modulate the audible band if it aliases and this alias will now be in audible band.

[PeterSt]

Useless quest(ion).

[PeterSt]

Why has this turned into a childish non-discussion ? you look like a bunch of old farts.

[pkane2001]

2 minutes ago, manueljenkin said:

Or was a valid scenario/argument that you had no counter for. 😀. So you try your best to forcibly ignore divert attention from it. You're still open to show any real transients, that can be perfectly bandlimited using a sinc low pass. Scenario 6 is one example, scenario 5 is one, you're free to choose another.

Im guessing you haven’t understood a thing that I posted if you think that I ever said a perfect transient can be reproduced by a band limited signal. 

[manueljenkin]

6 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Why has this turned into a childish non-discussion ? you look like a bunch of old farts.

I've mathematically shown why any transients (need not be infinite slew, as scenario 6 shows) cannot be sampled properly by sinc low pass followed by nyquist Shannon sampling/reconstruction. It's the opposite side turn to show a valid counter. They should either show math where they can bandlimit a transient signal, or "prove" real world exhibits only steady state infinite time periodic characters in the signals.

[manueljenkin]

1 minute ago, pkane2001 said:

Im guessing you haven’t understood a thing that I posted if you think that I ever said a perfect transient can be reproduced by a band limited signal. 

Done. I'm right. Transients exist in real world. Need not be infinite slew. And I've shown the math. End of story. The starting premise post of this thread that 44/48khz can reliably sample and reproduce a real world 10us delay reliably without modulation is false.

[PeterSt]

Maybe we should account this all under "our" English not being decent enough to bring something across.

It's sad, because "your" English isn't utilized at all.

 

3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Im guessing you haven’t understood a thing that I posted

 

So what was that then* ?!?

 

*): in response to something at least I could understand for merit, from either Manuel (or myself - haha).

 

Maybe we* should try a bit harder.

 

*): We ?

OK, We.

[jabbr]

1 minute ago, manueljenkin said:

I've mathematically shown why any transients (need not be infinite slew, as scenario 6 shows) cannot be sampled properly by sinc low pass followed by nyquist Shannon sampling/reconstruction. It's the opposite side turn to show a valid counter. They should either show math, or "prove" real world exhibits only steady state performance.

 

Get off this horse. 

 

Given sufficient sampling, any transient can be sampled sufficiently. 

Simply: raise the corner frequency of the filter such that it preserves any characteristic of the transient you are interested in. Second, set the sampling rate appropriately.

[manueljenkin]

3 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Get off this horse. 

 

Given sufficient sampling, any transient can be sampled sufficiently. 

Simply: raise the corner frequency of the filter such that it preserves any characteristic of the transient you are interested in. Second, set the sampling rate appropriately.

I've shown the scenario. Go back a few pages and look at scenario 6. Now show me how you band limit it completely. It doesn't have infinite slew. Please look at it carefully and read the post carefully.

[pkane2001]

 

4 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Maybe we should account this all under "our" English not being decent enough to bring something across.

It's sad, because "your" English isn't utilized at all.

 

 

So what was that then* ?!?

 

*): in response to something at least I could understand for merit, from either Manuel (or myself - haha).

 

Maybe we* should try a bit harder.

 

*): We ?

OK, We.

Maybe. More than that, I think that terminology is extremely important. When one uses terms such as “delay” it is important to understand what the term really means, and how it’s different from the term “transient”, for example.

[jabbr]

16 minutes ago, manueljenkin said:

I've shown the scenario. Go back a few pages and look at scenario 6. Now show me how you band limit it completely. It doesn't have infinite slew. Please look at it carefully and read the post carefully.

Sorry but your proofs aren’t something I’m groking.

 

Ok, take a corner frequency of 3ghz and sample at 6ghz ... do you reproduce your transient?

 

Give me a rise time or skew rate. If you can describe this, you can sample it. 
 

and @PeterSt no this isn’t an audio example but “SDR” which is used in phased array radar does these rates in the “real world” 😉

[manueljenkin]

9 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Ok, take a corner frequency of 3ghz and sample at 6ghz ... do you reproduce your transient?

No. It will still have aliasing components. Please read scenario 6 and derive for yourself.

 

Let me show you what scenario 6 is.

 

Input Signal

Piecewise multiplication of "x" units time delayed heaviside function, with "x" units time delayed sine function.. basically it's a sine that begins at time x, and before time x the signal is a dc 0. There is no jump discontinuities, it is continuous and defined with a specific amplitude at all times, and the slew rate also doesn't blow up to infinity.

 

Take Fourier transform of this and Fourier transform of a perfect sinc at whatever frequency you want, and show me how you'll end up with a truly band limited spectrum at the output.

[PeterSt]

15 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Give me a rise time or skew rate.

 

That's a bit what Paul meant. Hahaha.

As we know, it exists. It even exists in similar realm. But it undoubtedly is not what you intended ...

😊

[pkane2001]

10 minutes ago, manueljenkin said:

No. It will still have aliasing components. Please read scenario 6 and derive for yourself.

 

Let me show you what scenario 6 is.

 

Input Signal

Piecewise multiplication of "x" units time delayed heaviside function, with "x" units time delayed sine function.. basically it's a sine that begins at time x, and before time x the signal is a dc 0. There is no jump discontinuities, it is continuous and defined with a specific amplitude at all times, and the slew rate also doesn't blow up to infinity.

 

Take Fourier transform of this and Fourier transform of a perfect sinc at whatever frequency you want, and show me how you'll end up with a truly band limited spectrum at the output.

 

Let me ask you: what's the slope of the signal (first derivative) at the exact point where it transitions from DC to sine wave?

[jabbr]

6 minutes ago, manueljenkin said:

No. It will still have aliasing components. Please read scenario 6 and derive for yourself.

 

Let me show you what scenario 6 is.

 

Input Signal

Piecewise multiplication of "x" units time delayed heaviside function, with "x" units time delayed sine function.. basically it's a sine that begins at time x, and before time x the signal is a dc 0.

 

Take Fourier transform of this and Fourier transform of a perfect sinc at whatever frequency you want and show me how you'll end up with a truly band limited spectrum at the output.

 

 

Give me a real transient. What is the rise time? What is the width?

[PeterSt]

14 minutes ago, manueljenkin said:

No. It will still have aliasing components.

 

Maybe the honored opponents should respond to this. I mean, I notice that they never do.

I too said it several times.