teros;380875 Wrote: > Oh, I think that I grasp sampling theory pretty well. > > Did you read the cited article? > The link doesn't work ... is it this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
If so - yes I have read it. teros;380875 Wrote: > > Do you believe that a signal that is time-limited (like a piece of > music) can be band-limited in the mathematical sense? > > If you mean does it have a defined start and end point in time and thus a finite length/duration - yes. teros;380875 Wrote: > > Do you believe that a signal must be band-limited for Shannon, et al, > to apply? > > if you mean that out-of-band signals must be removed (in this case by filtering out everything over 22.5kHz) - yes teros;380875 Wrote: > > > But the other sources of sampling-related distortion do not disappear > even when we allow that the digital data stream accurately captures the > sampled data. Further, some of these deviations are positively > correlated with sample interval, like sample-and-hold staircasing and > slew rate effects. IOW, they get worse as sampling rate decreases. > > Finally, here's another way to think about it. Merely being able to > recover the sampled points is insufficient to maximizing SQ. Radical. > Why? INTERSAMPLE effects matter too. And more samples on a given signal > minimize adverse effects in the intersample interval. We're trying to > approximate the initial continuous event as precisely as the listener > can resolve it, not merely recover the samples. > > > what "intersample effects"? Do you think there is information (different sample values) missing. There isn't. If there were, the Shannon et al are completely wrong. This is easily proven. Record something with no or very little energy above 20kHz at 96/24 and downsample it properly in software to 48/24. Compare the two versions in a blind test on good equipment. They sound the same. Even better, record an analogue replay of the two versions using a 96/24 ADC and compare the captured files...hmm - identical. Why? - because there is no extra information captured at the higher sampling rate. teros;380875 Wrote: > > So ultimately I am concerned more about what I hear than what I think. > I have described what I hear as objectively as I can. If you think that > I don't hear what I say I do, I have no response for that. > > Shall I quote Reyleigh next? "The ear is the final arbiter...." <g> I wouldn't dream of telling you or anyone what you are and aren't hearing! Only your brain can do that. I would however urge you to try the tests with an open mind. I have several friends who confidently told me that they could detect a difference between some 96/24 Linn Masters and the same downsampled to 48/24... until we did the blind test and they failed miserably :o). I failed too... -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal...SB3+Stontronics PSU - Altmann JISCO/UPCI - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods)- Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Kimber & Chord cables Outdoors: Boombox+Creative Sub (If I remember to turn it on...) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57631 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
