HiFi vs. Computer

DIYprojects.info
DIY Guides | DIY Projects | DIY forums, newsgroups

Profile

HiFi vs. Computer
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

Index -> Home Audio (rec.audio.tech)

Author

Message

Tim Martin
Guest

Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 11:02 pm Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rud6a15ll777b19bqufft1mpito560onm2@4ax.com...

Tim

Quote:

Is that the greatest error in the measurement?

Stewart
Yes, since everything else can be measured to very high precision.
--

Mmm. Suppose you have six measuring devices arranged in three pairs; the
devices in each pair are on opposite sides of the bird, and the three lines
joining the pairs are orthogonal. You calculate the times and average them.

What effect will that have on the distance measurement error?

Tim

Stewart Pinkerton
Guest

Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 5:36 am Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:37:25 GMT, "Tim Martin"
<tim2718281@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Quote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rud6a15ll777b19bqufft1mpito560onm2@4ax.com...

Tim
Is that the greatest error in the measurement?

Stewart
Yes, since everything else can be measured to very high precision.
--
Mmm. Suppose you have six measuring devices arranged in three pairs; the
devices in each pair are on opposite sides of the bird, and the three lines
joining the pairs are orthogonal. You calculate the times and average them.

What effect will that have on the distance measurement error?

Who cares? Despite all your sidestepping, you can't have infinite
resolution or infinite bandwidth for *any* natural sonic event. And
certainly not in an electrical signal which is an analogue of that
event.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Arny Krueger
Guest

Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 11:02 am Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer

Laurence Payne wrote:

Quote:

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 02:19:12 GMT, "Tim Martin"
tim2718281@ntlworld.com> wrote:

An analog signal, such as a bird singing in the woods,
has infinite
bandwidth.

No it isn't. It is constrained by all sorts of physical
limitations,
both in the bird and in the environment.

Agreed. The spectral content of most natural sounds will
reveal the inevitable high end roll-off if measurered with a
mic capable of going out to about 50 KHz. In a few cases one
must go out to a few 100 KHz.

Tim Martin
Guest

Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 1:05 pm Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:k2o7a19j58medqs2ifv208b2talep9uk2u@4ax.com...

Quote:

Who cares?

Well, you did, You said the distance measurement was the limiting factor;
and I've given a way to reduce the error in distance measurement. So
presumably you now accept that distant measurement errors would be lower
than the 50 microseconds or so resulting from a 0.5-inch error in distance
measurement.

Tim

Stewart Pinkerton
Guest

Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 3:51 pm Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 12:34:06 GMT, "Tim Martin"
<tim2718281@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Quote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:k2o7a19j58medqs2ifv208b2talep9uk2u@4ax.com...

Who cares?

Well, you did, You said the distance measurement was the limiting factor;

That doesn't mean I *cared* about it!

Quote:

and I've given a way to reduce the error in distance measurement. So
presumably you now accept that distant measurement errors would be lower
than the 50 microseconds or so resulting from a 0.5-inch error in distance
measurement.

So what? This is mere obfuscation. What matters is that your previous
pronouncements concerning dynamic range and bandwidth of natural
sounds, are utter rubbish.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Tim Martin
Guest

Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:03 pm Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:m5s8a15kac1dg66r1sjls8hlq2sppvssqp@4ax.com...

Quote:

So what? This is mere obfuscation. What matters is that your previous
pronouncements concerning dynamic range and bandwidth of natural
sounds, are utter rubbish.

I said nothing about dynamic range.

And I suspect it has at last dawned on you that the time resolution of an
analog signal is not limited in the same way as the time resolution of a
sampled representation of that analog signal. So for non-repeating signals,
the frequencies being represented are not the only factor in determining the
sampling rate required to represent them precisely.

Tim

Codifus
Guest

Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:03 pm Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer

Eiron wrote:

Quote:

Ben Bradley wrote:

From what I've seen on your posts, I think you need to forget about the
computer for a second. Start with getting an understanding of how a
square wave is a gazzilion sine waves, all slightly out of phase from
each other, summed together. Then you'll be off to a good start.

They're not out of phase with each other, they are in phase..

The phase doesn't even matter, except to that Gibbs guy...

And it's not a gazillion sine waves. You would be surprised at how few
harmonics are required to make it indistinguishable (to the ear) from a
real square wave.

My assumption was that the sine waves were all of one frequency, say

1000 Hz, hence the need for all of them to be out of phase, and that you
would see the resultant square wave in an oscilloscope, therefore the
need for a whole lot of them needed to make the final square wave that
is seen.

CD

Stewart Pinkerton
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 5:29 am Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:13:27 GMT, "Tim Martin"
<tim2718281@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Quote:

You don't even understand your own arguments, do you? You talked about
signal, and about noise. Dynamic range is the difference between peak
signal and noise floor.

Quote:

And I suspect it has at last dawned on you that the time resolution of an
analog signal is not limited in the same way as the time resolution of a
sampled representation of that analog signal.

How many times do you have to be told that the original sound is *not*
an analogue - it is an *event*? You also seem to be unable to
understand that the original event most definitely *is* limited in
bandwidth, hence in 'time resolution', and in *exactly* the same way
as any sampling system is limited - by physical reality.

Quote:

So for non-repeating signals,
the frequencies being represented are not the only factor in determining the
sampling rate required to represent them precisely.

Yes, they are. Go *learn* about the subject, and stop spouting this
schoolboy rubbish.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 6:16 am Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 15:26:58 -0400, Codifus <codifus@optonline.net>
wrote:

Quote:

Eiron wrote:

Ben Bradley wrote:

From what I've seen on your posts, I think you need to forget about the
computer for a second. Start with getting an understanding of how a
square wave is a gazzilion sine waves, all slightly out of phase from
each other, summed together. Then you'll be off to a good start.

They're not out of phase with each other, they are in phase..

The phase doesn't even matter, except to that Gibbs guy...

And it's not a gazillion sine waves. You would be surprised at how few
harmonics are required to make it indistinguishable (to the ear) from a
real square wave.

My assumption was that the sine waves were all of one frequency, say
1000 Hz, hence the need for all of them to be out of phase, and that you
would see the resultant square wave in an oscilloscope, therefore the
need for a whole lot of them needed to make the final square wave that
is seen.

That's not how it works. A square wave may be represented by a
fundamental sine wave at the prf of the square wave, plus a
theoretically infinite number of odd harmonics arranged in a
mathematically precise descending order of amplitude. All those sine
waves are in phase.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Tim Martin
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:12 am Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:itbaa1tt16evbb2mi5ue5so8pvnv9ubsbo@4ax.com...

Quote:

You don't even understand your own arguments, do you? You talked about
signal, and about noise.

I did say that what Arny referred to as the "background noise" of the woods
was part of the signal. And I did say that I avoided assuming the use of a
microphones as the measurement device, because microphones are connected to
electrical circuits and so introduce noise.

I don't see how either of those comments can be interpreted as a remark
about dynamic range.

Tim

Arny Krueger
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:13 am Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer

Tim Martin wrote:

Quote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in
message
news:m5s8a15kac1dg66r1sjls8hlq2sppvssqp@4ax.com...

So what? This is mere obfuscation. What matters is that
your previous
pronouncements concerning dynamic range and bandwidth of
natural
sounds, are utter rubbish.

I said nothing about dynamic range.

And I suspect it has at last dawned on you that the time
resolution
of an analog signal is not limited in the same way as the
time
resolution of a sampled representation of that analog
signal.

That's your big error Tim. The resolution of a sample is
limited by the size of the sample, whether analog or
digital.

Quote:

So for non-repeating signals, the frequencies being
represented are not the
only factor in determining the sampling rate required to
represent them precisely.

What you don't seem to realize Tim is the fact that all of
the limiations that you've been obsessing over relate to
both analog and digital signals.

Tim Martin
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:00 pm Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:B5-dnaJC2MZQ4jjfRVn-rg@comcast.com...

Quote:

What you don't seem to realize Tim is the fact that all of
the limiations that you've been obsessing over relate to
both analog and digital signals.

That's incorrect: analog signals are continuous. Between any two points in
time where the analog signal is changing, one can find another point in time
where the value of the analog signal differs from its values at either of
the first two points in time.

This is not true for digital representations of analog signals.

Of course, there are limits in how accurately one can represent analog
signals, whether the representation is digital or analog. But the limits
are in communication channels and storage schemes, not in the signals
themselves.

Tim

Stewart Pinkerton
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:25 pm Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 10:10:09 GMT, "Tim Martin"
<tim2718281@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Quote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:itbaa1tt16evbb2mi5ue5so8pvnv9ubsbo@4ax.com...

You don't even understand your own arguments, do you? You talked about
signal, and about noise.

I did say that what Arny referred to as the "background noise" of the woods
was part of the signal.

Except that, below a certain level, it just isn't. Shame that you
don't realise this.

Quote:

And I did say that I avoided assuming the use of a
microphones as the measurement device, because microphones are connected to
electrical circuits and so introduce noise.

That's because you are ignoring reality, as in most of your posts. How
else would you produce an analogue of the original sonic event? BTW,
the fact that microphones have self-noise has *nothing* to do with the
circuits to which they are connected. You need to learn some *very*
basic physics.

Quote:

I don't see how either of those comments can be interpreted as a remark
about dynamic range.

That simply spotlights your ignorance.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:25 pm Post subject: Re: HiFi vs. Computer

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 15:00:28 GMT, "Tim Martin"
<tim2718281@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Quote:

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:B5-dnaJC2MZQ4jjfRVn-rg@comcast.com...

What you don't seem to realize Tim is the fact that all of
the limiations that you've been obsessing over relate to
both analog and digital signals.

That's incorrect: analog signals are continuous. Between any two points in
time where the analog signal is changing, one can find another point in time
where the value of the analog signal differs from its values at either of
the first two points in time.

Clearly, you have absolutely *no* understanding of the real physical
world. Go learn about uncertainty, before you spout such nonsense
here.

Quote:

This is not true for digital representations of analog signals.

Bullshit. Clearly, you have absolutely *no* understanding of the real
physical world. Go learn about uncertainty, before you spout such
nonsense here.

Quote:

Of course, there are limits in how accurately one can represent analog
signals, whether the representation is digital or analog. But the limits
are in communication channels and storage schemes, not in the signals
themselves.

No, there are very well defined limits in the signals themselves.
Clearly, you have absolutely *no* understanding of the real physical
world. Go learn about uncertainty, before you spout such nonsense
here.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering