|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
203.94.168.166
In Reply to: Pure and simple - it's trash "science" and doesn't prove squat! posted by Don T on September 14, 2006 at 17:16:56:
Certainly it's misleading. The reconstruction of the analogue signal in a good DAC is obviously vastly more accurate than it suggests. However I really don't understand how it comes to be as good as it is - at least at high frequencies. In the extreme case, at 20kHz (not that I've been able to hear that for a few years) we are looking at trying to reconstruct the waveform from just 2.2 samples per wave. That simply isn't enough information, surely?
Follow Ups:
http://www.lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.pdf
I played around with this stuff - all you need is greater than two samples at any frequency in order for it to work. There really isn't any difference between 20K or 20 Hz. All that's need is greater than 2 samples and in fact more samples than at that any frequency is just not needed. Nyquist works.I'm sure there are "issues" with the redbook format but that "how thing works" picture makes me laugh!
Seems to me that getting 20K onto and off a vinyl lp is a far more challanging task yet the vinylphiles seem quite willing to ignore that reality. Last I heard was that a vinyl record was considered to have a distinquished high frequency extension if it got out to 14 Khz.
nt
this is tiresome. teresa, your intolerance is obnoxious. i too have an excellent vinyl set but also have an excellent digital set up. if i could only have one, then it'd be vinyl. your overly simplistic and poorly educated shlock is embarassing to this forum. your website it self is embarassing, especially the quack who's article you cite. get over it and move on.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: