|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
|
|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
In Reply to: Re: oversampling posted by Werner on February 18, 2000 at 01:42:01:
I'll explain how I got lost so you know whence I come.This apparent misconception was triggered by both the expressed need to do this quickly & infinitely in the analog domain. Thus, since the reconstruction needs to separate the fs/2 + f frequencies from fs/2 - f. To me, this means XO. Since the analog (we are still working analogicly?) XO phases the attenuated octaves, & as you approach fs/2 the results should get more critical, I figured the outputs (that if it weren't for the aforementioned phase) would cancel cleanly. However, because of the phase, they'd combine to create a reduced amplitude discrepancy requiring another round of adjustment which'd serendipidously remove the phase problem simultaneously. It looked as if the successive graphs in jj's "Graph of Sum of Aliases" were an illustrated case of feedback as the differences were minimized & converged onto the answer in successive steps. Now, if it weren't for me being completely full of it, I thought I understood.
FWIW, I took a digital control systems class 2 decades ago which gave me a rudimentary familiarity with the Z-plane. I was quite taken with the "cheating" nature of aproblematic infinite-order bandpasses & I realise the accuracy attained by an active control when you know the future precisely because the digital delay distorted time & made the present's output the temporal equivalent to the past's input.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- I'm sorry I took too much for granted - Mart 04:58:04 02/18/00 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
