IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

What is "time resolution"?
Axon
post Oct 5 2006, 21:50
Post #1





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1984
Joined: 4-January 04
From: Austin, TX
Member No.: 10933



So I've become involved in a rather colorful argument (I'm Publius in the thread) with somebody on stevehoffman.tv. The original thread revolved around shooting down an old audiophile canard, about how subsample delays cannot be represented in PCM. In the course of that debate, I've begun to question a couple things.
  • Is it ever accurate to use the term "time resolution" in any sort of technical context? To the best of my knowledge, it has no universally agreed upon technical definition. Most of the times I've seen it used are either for SACD/DVD-A marketing fluff, or to describe FFT window lengths. I'm tempted to just go quasi-logical-positivist on everybody and say that it is a completely meaningless phrase.
  • Is there any meaningful time-domain constraint on audio quality that is directly related to the sampling period? Subsample delays (as I've shown above) are not meaningfully related. Bandwidth is a frequency-domain attribute. Pre-echo potentially gets more audible at lower sampling rates, but this is not a concern with sigma-delta ADCs, and it is of debatable audibility at 44.1 to begin with. Some DSP operations may be harder to implement at lower sample rates, but most of the issues involve seem implementation-related. I'm suspecting that there are no clear general limits as to what can and cannot be accomplished in PCM, except with respect to very domain-specific or system-specific situations; and so any claims of 44khz always being limited in ways different from bandwidth may be regarded with skepticism.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
2Bdecided
post Nov 15 2006, 16:18
Post #2


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5108
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



I wish you understood the theory CG, because without it, I can't begin to explain the complete and utter pointlessness of what you're suggesting.

It's a fair enough experiment to ask an undergrad to do in order to practice computer programming and audio processing, but in terms of what it actually tells you about anything, all I can do is just sit here slowly shaking my head!


FWIW, given a random selection of audio signals (real or synthetic) the lower the low pass filter, the further the peaks will move (and, to say the almost same thing differently, the more peaks will completely disappear). The major stumbling block to doing the experiment exactly as you propose will be in determining when a peak has moved vs when a peak has vanished - or, to put it another way, tracking the "same" peak between different versions. Various possible attempts to do this "correctly" (and it will be near-impossible) will mean your results might be unexpected!


The major problem is that every reasonable definition of time-resolution leads to a proof that PCM audio has no issues with time resolution - so now you've invented a new definition in order to prove the opposite. Your success here will not be down to your experiment (which will certainly show some change), but down to your strange definition of time resolution.

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ChiGung
post Nov 15 2006, 17:01
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 439
Joined: 9-February 05
From: county down
Member No.: 19713



QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Nov 15 2006, 15:18) *
It's a fair enough experiment to ask an undergrad to do in order to practice computer programming and audio processing, but in terms of what it actually tells you about anything, all I can do is just sit here slowly shaking my head!

Yet you cant explain what is pointless about generating the data described, without indestinct reference to some 'theory' which you believe I dont understand.

Or is there an attempt here...
QUOTE
FWIW, given a random selection of audio signals (real or synthetic) the lower the low pass filter, the further the peaks will move (and, to say the almost same thing differently, the more peaks will completely disappear). The major stumbling block to doing the experiment exactly as you propose will be in determining when a peak has moved vs when a peak has vanished - or, to put it another way, tracking the "same" peak between different versions. Various possible attempts to do this "correctly" (and it will be near-impossible) will mean your results might be unexpected!

I dont need to be informed of possible surprises. I understand very well what you have written there, it is the very situation that I have described repeatedly in this thread re: the 'time resolution' of PCM. I understand what your prefered theoretical statements about 'time resolution' are, and because I have understood what they are not, I have brought the practical situation to your attentions - that the 'spike', the 'radar blip', the 'cymbal peak' etc. cannot be confidently estimated much beyond the sampling interval - [u]precisely because[/i] of the unknown butchery of higher frequency information in the normaly utilised source - the true situation is as you, and as I have described.

Only you consider the true situation completely and utterly pointless to investigate.
And it seems many have felt patronised by my attempts to explain, that it is not utterly pointless to try to correlate actual conditions within record types - that it is in fact how you securely measure such accuracy of correlation. Measuring what is practicaly achieveable in real, normal (not extraneously bandpassed) records.

QUOTE
so now you've invented a new definition in order to prove the opposite. Your success here will not be down to your experiment (which will certainly show some change), but down to your strange definition of time resolution.

My invented definition of time resolution in pcm? - the ability to discern the times of conditions in a pcm record in contrast to the original (natural resolution) material which the pcm is merely a record of.

I think you guys have been mostly presenting the potential 'time resolution' of related partly analogous algebraic systems.


--------------------
no conscience > no custom
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Nov 15 2006, 18:06
Post #4


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5108
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 15 2006, 17:01) *
QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Nov 15 2006, 15:18) *

It's a fair enough experiment to ask an undergrad to do in order to practice computer programming and audio processing, but in terms of what it actually tells you about anything, all I can do is just sit here slowly shaking my head!

Yet you cant explain what is pointless about generating the data described, without indestinct reference to some 'theory' which you believe I dont understand.


OK, you're starting with any audio, aren't you? A signal picked up by a microphone, synthetic pink or white noise, etc - correct?

You won't accept pre-filtering of the signal, correct?

And you will low pass filter the signal at varying frequencies, and see how the peaks in the "original" change, correct?

Well think about this: You can start with a 10MHz sampled signal. Given the lack of a filter, there will be something (mainly noise) up to 5MHz. If you filter the signal at 1MHz, some peaks will move a little.

Thus you have proven that a 1MHz low pass filter does something.

So what?!?!?!?!

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- Axon   What is "time resolution"?   Oct 5 2006, 21:50
- - benski   Subsample delays are relatively easy to implement ...   Oct 5 2006, 22:04
- - Axon   Well, duh. I showed in that thread that 1/20,000 ...   Oct 5 2006, 22:19
- - krabapple   QUOTE (Axon @ Oct 5 2006, 16:50) So I...   Oct 5 2006, 22:28
- - Mike Giacomelli   QUOTE (Axon @ Oct 5 2006, 13:50) Is it ev...   Oct 5 2006, 22:57
- - ChiGung   Yo, that was me (felimid) QUOTE Is there any meani...   Oct 5 2006, 23:07
|- - Axon   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 5 2006, 17:07) Yo, t...   Oct 6 2006, 00:11
|- - legg   AFAIK, time resolution is most commonly used to re...   Oct 6 2006, 00:28
- - Woodinville   QUOTE (Axon @ Oct 5 2006, 13:50) So I...   Oct 5 2006, 23:20
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE ("woodinville")The first issue is ...   Oct 6 2006, 00:46
|- - Mike Giacomelli   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 5 2006, 16:46) QUOTE...   Oct 6 2006, 02:10
||- - ChiGung   QUOTE (Mike Giacomelli @ Oct 6 2006, 02:1...   Oct 6 2006, 04:30
||- - Mike Giacomelli   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 5 2006, 20:30) QUOTE...   Oct 6 2006, 06:27
|- - krabapple   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 5 2006, 19:46) QUOTE...   Oct 6 2006, 06:21
|- - Woodinville   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 5 2006, 16:46) Howev...   Oct 6 2006, 08:26
- - Woodinville   Well, considered for Guassian vs. Gaussian, dt * ...   Oct 6 2006, 00:35
- - kjoonlee   Does "higher sampling rates mean higher tempo...   Oct 6 2006, 00:47
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (kjoonlee @ Oct 6 2006, 00:47) Does...   Oct 6 2006, 00:57
|- - kwwong   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 5 2006, 18:57) QUOTE...   Oct 7 2006, 05:12
- - 2Bdecided   ChiGung, You can prove sub-sample time domain acc...   Oct 6 2006, 10:30
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE We're assuming the signal is band limite...   Oct 6 2006, 16:32
|- - krabapple   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 6 2006, 11:32) I can...   Oct 6 2006, 16:54
||- - ChiGung   QUOTE But perhaps for starters, you can describe i...   Oct 6 2006, 17:08
||- - krabapple   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 6 2006, 12:08) QUOTE...   Oct 6 2006, 21:11
||- - MedO   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 6 2006, 18:08) Look....   Oct 7 2006, 10:43
|- - Mike Giacomelli   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 6 2006, 08:32) QUOTE...   Oct 6 2006, 20:54
- - Axon   Okay, so this has gone completely f*cking off topi...   Oct 6 2006, 17:49
|- - krabapple   QUOTE (Axon @ Oct 6 2006, 12:49) Okay, so...   Oct 6 2006, 20:51
- - Canar   QUOTE Ask yourself: "is there any meaningful ...   Oct 6 2006, 21:20
- - Canar   Exactly, kwwong. ChiGung, consider this: In the co...   Oct 7 2006, 08:04
- - cabbagerat   QUOTE (MedO @ Oct 7 2006, 01:43) No, ther...   Oct 7 2006, 18:00
|- - MedO   QUOTE That assumption is a bit of a problem, in my...   Oct 7 2006, 18:42
- - cabbagerat   QUOTE (MedO @ Oct 7 2006, 09:42) Of cours...   Oct 7 2006, 20:57
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (MedO @ Oct 7 2006, 09:42) Of cours...   Oct 7 2006, 23:18
|- - MedO   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 8 2006, 00:18) the p...   Oct 8 2006, 00:13
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (MedO @ Oct 8 2006, 00:13) QUOTE (C...   Oct 8 2006, 00:28
- - Canar   ChiGung, it is increasingly apparent you are not i...   Oct 8 2006, 00:26
- - Canar   I've provided a mathematical example of why yo...   Oct 8 2006, 01:05
- - cabbagerat   For your viewing pleasure, here's a quick demo...   Oct 8 2006, 08:07
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (cabbagerat @ Oct 8 2006, 08:07) Fo...   Oct 8 2006, 15:02
- - Canar   So because sinc() interpolation is weird, PCM fail...   Oct 8 2006, 15:28
- - cabbagerat   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 8 2006, 06:02) This ...   Oct 8 2006, 15:51
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (cabbagerat @ Oct 8 2006, 15:51) I ...   Oct 8 2006, 16:10
- - KikeG   As others have said, time resolution of PCM is the...   Oct 8 2006, 17:59
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (KikeG @ Oct 8 2006, 17:59) As othe...   Oct 8 2006, 18:14
|- - KikeG   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 8 2006, 18:14) So yo...   Oct 8 2006, 18:24
||- - ChiGung   QUOTE (KikeG @ Oct 8 2006, 18:24) Resolut...   Oct 8 2006, 18:55
|- - Woodinville   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 8 2006, 10:14) So yo...   Oct 8 2006, 19:37
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (Woodinville @ Oct 8 2006, 19:37) Y...   Oct 8 2006, 19:57
|- - Woodinville   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 8 2006, 11:57) Yeah ...   Oct 9 2006, 18:00
- - Canar   ChiGung, despite your frequent reassertions to the...   Oct 8 2006, 20:08
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (Canar @ Oct 8 2006, 20:08) I would...   Oct 8 2006, 20:28
|- - ChiGung   I think that it is being claimed, almost unanimous...   Oct 8 2006, 21:44
|- - legg   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 8 2006, 15:44) I hav...   Oct 9 2006, 01:32
||- - ChiGung   QUOTE (legg @ Oct 9 2006, 01:32) QUOTE (C...   Oct 9 2006, 02:16
|- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 8 2006, 21:44) The e...   Oct 9 2006, 15:08
- - legg   Fine forget about the code and do try to provide m...   Oct 9 2006, 03:27
|- - MedO   If I understand you right, you are saying that the...   Oct 9 2006, 09:35
|- - ChiGung   Hello all, I left this discussion in a tizz and ha...   Nov 15 2006, 01:16
|- - kwwong   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 14 2006, 19:16) 44kH...   Nov 15 2006, 09:50
|- - kwwong   QUOTE (kwwong @ Nov 15 2006, 03:50) QUOTE...   Nov 16 2006, 10:24
- - 2Bdecided   Here are some nice pictures... I worked at 16-b...   Oct 9 2006, 15:24
- - cabbagerat   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Oct 9 2006, 06:08) It...   Oct 9 2006, 16:54
- - Axon   So I was mainly pissed off in my earlier post beca...   Oct 9 2006, 17:30
|- - Woodinville   QUOTE (Axon @ Oct 9 2006, 09:30) The form...   Oct 9 2006, 18:41
- - 2Bdecided   ChiGung, Your experiment wouldn't work. By kn...   Nov 15 2006, 13:00
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Nov 15 2006, 12:00) .....   Nov 15 2006, 13:45
- - 2Bdecided   So, in short, you want to run an experiment to see...   Nov 15 2006, 14:29
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Nov 15 2006, 13:29) So...   Nov 15 2006, 14:45
|- - Woodinville   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 15 2006, 05:45) QUOT...   Nov 15 2006, 19:42
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (Woodinville @ Nov 15 2006, 18:39) ...   Nov 15 2006, 19:56
||- - Woodinville   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 15 2006, 10:56) Nice...   Nov 15 2006, 20:01
||- - ChiGung   QUOTE (Woodinville @ Nov 15 2006, 19:01) ...   Nov 15 2006, 20:30
||- - AstralStorm   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 15 2006, 20:30) It i...   Nov 15 2006, 22:43
||- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 15 2006, 20:30) Im f...   Nov 16 2006, 14:22
||- - ChiGung   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Nov 16 2006, 13:22) My...   Nov 16 2006, 17:10
||- - SebastianG   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 16 2006, 17:10) The ...   Nov 16 2006, 18:22
||- - ChiGung   QUOTE (SebastianG @ Nov 16 2006, 17:22) Q...   Nov 16 2006, 18:51
||- - Woodinville   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 16 2006, 09:51) I be...   Nov 16 2006, 22:48
||- - ChiGung   QUOTE (Woodinville @ Nov 16 2006, 21:48) ...   Nov 16 2006, 23:32
||- - Woodinville   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 16 2006, 14:32) ...   Nov 16 2006, 23:44
||- - ChiGung   QUOTE (Woodinville @ Nov 16 2006, 22:44) ...   Nov 17 2006, 00:15
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (Woodinville @ Nov 15 2006, 18:42) ...   Nov 15 2006, 20:14
|- - Garf   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 15 2006, 20:14) The ...   Nov 15 2006, 20:18
|- - Woodinville   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 15 2006, 11:14) Im n...   Nov 15 2006, 23:35
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (Woodinville @ Nov 15 2006, 22:35) ...   Nov 16 2006, 01:20
- - cabbagerat   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 15 2006, 05:45) It i...   Nov 15 2006, 15:22
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (cabbagerat @ Nov 15 2006, 14:22) T...   Nov 15 2006, 15:51
- - 2Bdecided   I wish you understood the theory CG, because witho...   Nov 15 2006, 16:18
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Nov 15 2006, 15:18) It...   Nov 15 2006, 17:01
|- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 15 2006, 17:01) QUOT...   Nov 15 2006, 18:06
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Nov 15 2006, 17:06) Yo...   Nov 15 2006, 18:31
- - SebastianG   I also don't see the point in checking the pos...   Nov 15 2006, 16:48
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (SebastianG @ Nov 15 2006, 15:48) I...   Nov 15 2006, 17:16
- - SebastianG   I happened to code a subpixel detector for "x...   Nov 15 2006, 17:30
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (SebastianG @ Nov 15 2006, 16:30) I...   Nov 15 2006, 17:53
|- - SebastianG   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 15 2006, 17:53) It w...   Nov 15 2006, 17:59
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (SebastianG @ Nov 15 2006, 16:59) Q...   Nov 15 2006, 18:21
- - MoSPDude   I've been trying to follow this as well, and e...   Nov 17 2006, 00:21
- - Woodinville   QUOTE (MoSPDude @ Nov 16 2006, 15:21) If ...   Nov 17 2006, 00:40
2 Pages V   1 2 >


Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 30th August 2014 - 18:05