Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country


About manueljenkin

  • Rank
    Sophomore Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Is this an attenuator (active resistor, JFET based) at the output stage of the amp? Or is it in the input stage of the amp? Or is this actually acting as a gain control directly on the amp? Also, am I looking at the correct references: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage-controlled_resistor
  2. Thank you for the suggestions. I'm gonna head out of this place, and do something nice, probably take some English classes. I doubt I'll ever get a direct reply from you though, that's a trick only @Audiophile Neuroscience seems to know.
  3. "Hearing down to -200db" is not the same as "you cannot hear better than that". Rob never said that. He just said that he can reliably demonstrate precision down to -200db.
  4. There is no infinite slope in this scenario.
  5. Ok so you've done this visualization after chopping and reconstruction, not before!! Do it prior to sampling, but after low passing (you can only do this mathematically, since computer would always operate it's algorithms on the data it gets after sampling) and show me how the frequency bins look like (till infinity would be great).
  6. What are these (image)? Why does your graph stop at 88khz. Also let me know the exact formula you have used to visualize this, if the tool stops it's decomposition at 88khz it won't show anything above it even if it were there. You've done a theoretical simulation, I'm expecting just one spike at 1khz and nothing else. Also what was the window you used for this visualization? Show me the fft plot, let's see how great it resolves it at 1 second. Or window it in periods of about 0.12 seconds and show me how the frequency looks from 0.96 second to 1.08 second.
  7. 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 perfe
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. Buddy. You and I know the truth, and can visualize it. Thank you very much for the interaction, I guess we exchanged a lot of information among ourself. I would be obliged if you can share me more references/articles/links on how to proceed with my reconstruction algorithm. 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
  • Create New...