hi,
Am Donnerstag, 27. April 2006 05:39 schrieb Chris McCormick:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 11:30:34PM -0400, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
but then there are many audiophiles that say things like "double-blind tests hide the differences in equipment".
So, basically, they are acknowledging that the differences in equipment are due to prejudice, branding, advertisements, colour of the case, gadgetism, and corporate/academic equipment procuration policies ;-)
Heheh. One thing I've always wondered about (and I could be about to highlight my total lack of signal progressing understanding) is the representation of two waveforms at Nyquist; if you have a squarewave and a sawtooth wave, both sampled at 44100 and playing at a frequency of 22050, these waves will both be represented by two samples each, correct? So when they are sent back into the analogue domain, won't these
yes. but in analog audio adc's, you usually have an digital and/or an analogue antialiasing filter. also, frequencies close to nyquist are always problematic to reconstruct, due to the nature of the sampling.
often, the output is modulated when you have frequencies very close to sr/2.
two waveforms look identical? Wouldn't they look like exactly the same sound? On analogue gear, wouldn't it be the case that the exact shape of the waveforms would be more accurately represented (e.g. a sawtooth and a squarewave at 22050 would look like such)?
on analogue gear you have no samplerate at all. its continous.
when played as digital source, a waveform at sr/2 will always look sine-like, regardles of the osc source beeing a sine or rectangle osc. (at least on my scope ....)
depending on the used dac (=quality, circuitry), even a 10 khz wave looks more sine like, even if the source is meant to be a rectangle....
Best,
Chris.
greets,
chris
chris@mccormick.cx http://mccormick.cx
PD-ot mailing list PD-ot@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-ot