IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Representing frequency of n Hz needs sampling rate >2n Hz, not =2n, From: Badly drawn waveforms vs. the audio that’s actually output/93496
icstm
post Feb 16 2012, 11:56
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 121
Joined: 25-January 12
Member No.: 96698



QUOTE (Wombat @ Feb 14 2012, 16:47) *
Hehe, shortly after posting here there was a nice picture posted that tells the whole story smile.gif
where is the nice picture? That is really important to share!
The whole point of FFTs is that using if I am drawing what the FFT has stored in the time domain (ie if I am drawing sine waves) then I only need a couple of points to draw a PERFECT reproduction!
That is one of the biggest issues that people need to first get their head around when understanding digital audio.

when you see an irregular wave, what you need to ask your self is "what regular wave would I have to add together (ie what frequencies would have to be simultaneously present) to create the irregular wave I see”

so an irregular sine wave is in effect a regular one augmented with higher or lower frequency wave to varying amplitude.

Each of the additional waves only needs a couple of points to represent their frequency. As per usual it appears that CA article really doesn’t get what the Nyquist theorem is saying…

However it is right when it says that it is possible for a perfect 8kHz signal sampled at 96kHz to sound better than sampled at 192kHz if the DAC has trouble with 192kHz (ie is a cheaper DAC). The whole point is that a perfect DAC will produce a perfect 8kHz signal when sampled at 16kHz. But the quality of the output has little to do with the conversion and more to do with the analogue output. One of my earliest posts on HA was asking about DACs in AVRs as I am keen to understand the practicalities on consumer grade stuff.

QUOTE (my earlier post)
What determines a good DAC?
I assume the main issues are post the conversion to analogue and that these issues are the usual ones that impact an amp (pre or power), such as clean power supply, suitable analogue filters, etc.
However are there any differences in the digital part of the amp (such as up/over sampling circuits, or the conversion itself)?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
DonP
post Feb 16 2012, 17:13
Post #2





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1474
Joined: 11-February 03
From: Vermont
Member No.: 4955



QUOTE (icstm @ Feb 16 2012, 06:56) *
Each of the additional waves only needs a couple of points to represent their frequency. As per usual it appears that CA article really doesn’t get what the Nyquist theorem is saying…
....
The whole point is that a perfect DAC will produce a perfect 8kHz signal when sampled at 16kHz.


This key mistake in citing the Nyquist theorem leads to no end of potential trouble. The sampling frequency has to be greater than 2x the maximum signal frequency you want to reproduce.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Feb 19 2012, 05:16
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 3443
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



If you know that the waveform consists of a single unvarying sine wave whose frequency is less than half the sampling rate then a fairly small number of data points are required to determine the waveform's frequency and amplitude.

On the other hand, if there are multiple frequencies or the amplitude is not constant then you will need a longer observation period.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Feb 20 2012, 12:32
Post #4


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5281
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



QUOTE (pdq @ Feb 19 2012, 04:16) *
If you know that the waveform consists of a single unvarying sine wave whose frequency is less than half the sampling rate then a fairly small number of data points are required to determine the waveform's frequency and amplitude.

On the other hand, if there are multiple frequencies or the amplitude is not constant then you will need a longer observation period.
For any arbitrary waveform, correctly sampled, you can reconstruct all frequency components under fs/2 perfectly - but you need an infinite number of sample points.

If we consider quantisation it's far worse.

If however we consider that we don't care about anything beyond ~120dB down, it becomes easily realisable in 1990s-style DSP.

I know everyone here knows this. That computeraudiophile thread is just a parallel universe which I don't want to enter wink.gif

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Arnold B. Kruege...
post Feb 20 2012, 13:59
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 4310
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Feb 20 2012, 06:32) *
QUOTE (pdq @ Feb 19 2012, 04:16) *
If you know that the waveform consists of a single unvarying sine wave whose frequency is less than half the sampling rate then a fairly small number of data points are required to determine the waveform's frequency and amplitude.

On the other hand, if there are multiple frequencies or the amplitude is not constant then you will need a longer observation period.
For any arbitrary waveform, correctly sampled, you can reconstruct all frequency components under fs/2 perfectly - but you need an infinite number of sample points.

If we consider quantisation it's far worse.

If however we consider that we don't care about anything beyond ~120dB down, it becomes easily realisable in 1990s-style DSP.

I know everyone here knows this. That computeraudiophile thread is just a parallel universe which I don't want to enter wink.gif


Whenever infinity is mentioned, the temptation to become pedantic can be overpowering. Take this for exactly a pedantic question, because that is what it it is.

Isn't infinity an indefinite number? That's what I was taught in first semester calculus 48 years ago, if memory serves. I'm under the impression from my work in calculus through grad school that equations involving infinity only make sense if you talk about infinity as the limit. IOW, a sampled wave approaches perfection as the number of sampled points approaches infinity.

In the real world nothing is perfect, and significance and relevance should be our greatest interest. As I think about it, in audio the number of sample points and the numerical precision of those samples are not serious limiting issues in our best or even mediocre currently implemented systems.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Feb 22 2012, 19:41
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 1964
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Feb 20 2012, 13:59) *
Isn't infinity an indefinite number? That's what I was taught in first semester calculus 48 years ago, if memory serves. I'm under the impression from my work in calculus through grad school that equations involving infinity only make sense if you talk about infinity as the limit. IOW, a sampled wave approaches perfection as the number of sampled points approaches infinity.


Well, in first-semester calculus, infinity is not a number at all. In higher courses, it might even be treated just as a number. Now you are talking about 'the' limit, and that 'the' is not necessarily a unique concept (first-semester calculus may or may not involve the distinction between pointwise and uniform limits).

For each given frequency < half the sampling frequency, a sine wave on time interval [-T, T] will be sampled better as T grows, and -- in the appropriate sense -- tend to perfection.
But:
Fix the time interval [-T,T] and let the frequency increase to half the sampling frequency. Then the sample quality tends to pretty bad. (And no, you don't have do do a sweep.)

So transients near the Nyquist may be badly sampled, in principle. But even if you can hear 22.05, it does not mean that you will hear that this is bad -- this physiology issue beats me, but: do you really hear a tone before the hair cells in the inner ear have reached a steady resonance with the sound? That takes some oscillations, sampler takes some oscillations to pick up the frequency, wouldn't it?


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Feb 22 2012, 19:49
Post #7





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10257
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (Porcus @ Feb 22 2012, 10:41) *
That takes some oscillations, sampler takes some oscillations to pick up the frequency, wouldn't it?

No, it wouldn't. A simple impulse will set them in motion, just like any other mechanical device.


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th November 2014 - 04:02