|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
73.225.74.165
In Reply to: RE: Audio transformers and hi-resoluition digital posted by FlyCast on October 19, 2015 at 13:11:07
The point of high resolution is not baseband frequency response.
Follow Ups:
Then please tell us what the point of it is if not the highest frequency sampled.
That is, what makes it high resolution?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
> > "Then please tell us what the point of it is if not the highest frequency sampled.
That is, what makes it high resolution?" < <
For clarity, sampling frequency is not the highest frequency sampled - there is usually a low-pass filter before the sampling begins. The Nyquist criteria specify a minimum sampling frequency based on assumptions about the signal's bandwidth. Using a higher sampling frequency allows more bandwidth between the highest audio frequency and the Nyquist frequency (half the sample rate). This broader bandwidth in turn allows more gentle anti-aliasing filter slopes. As far as I can tell there is no consensus between the subjective effects and the known science about how valuable that may be - but many including myself have heard improvements with higher sample rates and the associated better filters. I do not pretend to be an expert on digital audio.
The other aspect of the term "resolution" is the number of bits accuracy - typically 16 vs. 24 bits for audio. This is generally regarded as affecting the noise floor rather tan the frequency response. Again, the subjective and objective understandings are not yet in agreement, and again I do not pretend to be an expert.
I practically never go to the Digital forum but I'm sure there are more extensive discussions there, and probably many who do regard themselves as experts ... :^) We at Bottlehead have been working with John Swenson, and I have great respect for his expertise, for whatever that may be worth.
I attended digital audio training at Bang and Olufsen in the mid-'80s. Not that I remember all that much of it, but one thing I know: resolution isn't frequency response. Resolution is the value of the increments available to reproduce the signal, or in other words, bits per volt. Within this definition, analog processing provides near-infinite resolution. Digital audio doesn't even come close. Regrettably, my hearing no longer allows me to detect differences so easily. My daughter, on the other hand, can readily discern the higher fidelity of an LP vs standard CDs, even when reproduced by my lowly tube-type circuitry. :)
--------------------------
Buy Chinese. Bury freedom.
"analog processing provides near-infinite resolution"
Cassette tapes are also analog, no where near the resolution of CD.
.
Digital resolution is strictly limited by the step size, an inverse function of the number of bits. How many bits are there in a 1 volt sine wave from a cassette?EDIT: Just to be clear, there are zero bits creating the 1 volt analog sine wave. The reciprocal of that is infinity. Now, how many bits are there in a CD? Less than infinity? If so, the CD exhibits less resolution than an analog cassette.
--------------------------
Buy Chinese. Bury freedom.
Edits: 10/23/15
This doesn't make sense; a cassette copied 100 (or 1000) times) still has no bits. What will it sound like? Pure crap (my opinion of a "good" factory cassette as well)
Edits: 10/24/15
We weren't talking about sound quality, we were talking about resolution. Resolution is only one aspect of high fidelity reproduction.
--------------------------
Buy Chinese. Bury freedom.
Thanks Paul.
---------------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: