Dr ZEE
Anti-Pro Circles Insider
acorec said:
digital reproduction? What's that?
so what are the the fundamentals? of ...hmmmmm , what ever
Just do it, damn it. Type a few lines. Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees! Open my eyes.
digital reproduction? What's that?
so what are the the fundamentals? of ...hmmmmm , what ever
Just do it, damn it. Type a few lines. Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees! Open my eyes.
regebro
Insane Genious!
*Sigh*.Dr ZEE said:
What you claimed was that digital sounds bad becauase it only records one parameter of the sound. Well, so does analog: It only records one parameter of the sound. (The same parameter, even). Trying to avoid this by word games is not gonna get you anywhere.
So?
Well, obviously it can.Dr ZEE said:
So why are you pushing your ignorance as if it was the Truth?
Yes, you are ignorant (in this area, that is. I'm sure you are not in many other areas, of course). And it just so happens, that I'm not (while I'm sure to be fantastically ignorant in many areas where you are not).
And that leaves us exactly where we were two days ago: You don't know, and you are unwilling to learn.
So, grasshopper: Learn you can, if willing you are. Your mind open you must, and then grow you can.
Are you sure you are ready for that? No more of these nonsense theories of yours?Dr ZEE said:
A
acorec
Banned
Dr ZEE said:
Why? You seem to know everything and have made up your mind. Go record.
Your wise-ass comments should be left to people who really know their stuff (Like Fletcher). You don't deserve to use them.
Dr ZEE
Anti-Pro Circles Insider
okey, acorec and regebro. I guess, there'll be no bones throwing from you to us to us, streed dogs of the dark city. 
All you can offer is a statement: "We are Knowledgeable Intellects, and you are an ignorant dumb ass
Okey, I've got it.
/later
All you can offer is a statement: "We are Knowledgeable Intellects, and you are an ignorant dumb ass
Okey, I've got it.
/later
regebro
Insane Genious!
There will be no bones. But there can be explanations. But at 12:17 GMT today, you were clearly not interested in those. Half an hour later you said you were. I just want confirmation that you really are interested, or it would be a waste of time.
So, to start with your last question: "digital reproduction? What's that?"
That's when you use digital technology to record and reproduce something. In this case, sound. A reasonably question is then "what is digital technology"? Well, digital technology is when you treat something, in this case a signal, numerically. This is in difference to analog technology, when you treat the same something as continuous.
Note the word "treat as".
I'll repeat that again: "Treat as". The signal does not have to be continous, in fact, and almost all cases the "analog" signal is not continous. It is just treated as if it is.
With us so far?
So, to start with your last question: "digital reproduction? What's that?"
That's when you use digital technology to record and reproduce something. In this case, sound. A reasonably question is then "what is digital technology"? Well, digital technology is when you treat something, in this case a signal, numerically. This is in difference to analog technology, when you treat the same something as continuous.
Note the word "treat as".
I'll repeat that again: "Treat as". The signal does not have to be continous, in fact, and almost all cases the "analog" signal is not continous. It is just treated as if it is.
With us so far?
monty
Banned
Is this still a thread? if it still is, it must be a very important thread. It's hard to tell without reading it.
Dr ZEE
Anti-Pro Circles Insider
regebro said:
wow! enlightning!
alright, man, really I'm so sorry. I mean it. In a friendly way. Please do not continue. My fault. Again, sorry for taking time from what ever you do....
I gotta go ... Now, I feel like I really need to treat something... blisters on my a*s that is from seating here.
/respects
regebro
Insane Genious!
Ah. You still don't want to learn. That's what I thought.Dr ZEE said:wow! enlightning!
alright, man, really I'm so sorry. I mean it. In a friendly way. Please do not continue. My fault. Again, sorry for taking time from what ever you do....
Well, welcome back when you do.
Dr ZEE
Anti-Pro Circles Insider
acorec said:
Heh heh. That's cool, dude. Your act can compassionately explained by the state of your mind, where you temporary or maybe permanently stacked, my guess, somewhere between 'high-school clic' and 'Mom!, I've made the college ball-team!'.
ProSoundWeb? Ahhhhhhhh. I know, that's the place!. I also know what brings you together over there. That is not the interest in Sound, but rather your pathological obsession with the prefix 'Pro'. What ProSoundWeb is can be visually described as: Perpetual Group sex-party with fat and ugly Miss Pro in the middle and bunch of masturbating narcissists around under influence of cheap beer overdose.
/no respects here what so ever
cjacek
Analogue Enthusiast
acorec said:
What's with you guys ? First, it's "threats", "copyright violations" then turning in someone to the "ASCAP, BMI and FBI" and now it's about cutting & pasting posts, for a "good laugh", to the Pro Sound Web forums! Perhaps the only fitting conclusion would be to turn Dr ZEE in to the BBB for "taking cash" while "ripping people off" ? Sheesh ..
~Daniel
B
Beck
Guest
monty said:
It's even harder to tell when reading it.
Dr ZEE
Anti-Pro Circles Insider
cjacek said:What's with you guys ? Sheesh ..
~Daniel
this is all based on thinking habit (mind-set): "I am so Great, but nobody cares". A person who suffers such habit gets very impulsive and from time to time even offensive. Try to Be compassionate with them
********
oh well,
I don't know, I kind of feel guilty for being part of the 'force' that was pushing the topic off the rails. But it was kinda' hard to just ignore. well - guilty guilty
Just in case, Just in Case! And since the Smart asses who knows would not share their "knowledge"... so, If somebody may have run into this topic and is kind of new to the whole deal, let me at least to offer a link here, if somebody got freaking confused and wish to get a bite of basics about what analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog converters are "made off" , here's a link: Digital Circuits , there click on ADC or DAC 'oval' ... there is a nice scoop of info there. Also you can find llots of othere basic tech info about all sorts of things, that's for curious minds
: Electronics /respects
regebro
Insane Genious!
Complete and utter bullshit, as usual.Dr ZEE said:
Now, I can take a lot, but now I can not take any more of your utter bullshit. This was the drop thade made it run over. If you wanted to know, and if you wanted to learn, all you had to do was ask. I have shared loads of knowledge in this thread, and lastly, you even told me to stop it. If you don't want to know, you don't have to, but don't go around lying about it!
You owe me an apology. Or rather, you owe me a whole bunch of apologies for your consistently inexusable behaviour in this thread.
evm1024
New member
We could (oh horrors) have an actual intellegent conversation
Gotta to hand it to you Dr Zee. You hit it right on the head. I came into this thread thinking that we might have a good conversation on the merits of Digital vs Analog and the limits of each rather than a pissing match. Plus the programmer does not know which languages he programs in and the Digital dudes can't tell the sampling rate from the bit depth and assumes that there is any information >>at all<< available between the sample and hold window. Clue to the astute if the value being measured changes during the conversion period the conversion is hosed. Thats why ADC use a sample and hold on their input.
I really liked the quotes a few pages back about the established scientific community. I am part of the scientific community and I can say that there are very few scientists looking at psyco-acoustics (the interaction between the brain and sound). For the most part they just measure things and seek research that will get grant money.
It would be really nice to have this thread move over to why digital and analog sound different. As a research engineer in my heart I know that if you sample fast enough and deep enough you will be able to reproduce in digital sound that sounds just like analog. All a matter of precision waveform capture and recovery.
regards
Gotta to hand it to you Dr Zee. You hit it right on the head. I came into this thread thinking that we might have a good conversation on the merits of Digital vs Analog and the limits of each rather than a pissing match. Plus the programmer does not know which languages he programs in and the Digital dudes can't tell the sampling rate from the bit depth and assumes that there is any information >>at all<< available between the sample and hold window. Clue to the astute if the value being measured changes during the conversion period the conversion is hosed. Thats why ADC use a sample and hold on their input.
I really liked the quotes a few pages back about the established scientific community. I am part of the scientific community and I can say that there are very few scientists looking at psyco-acoustics (the interaction between the brain and sound). For the most part they just measure things and seek research that will get grant money.
It would be really nice to have this thread move over to why digital and analog sound different. As a research engineer in my heart I know that if you sample fast enough and deep enough you will be able to reproduce in digital sound that sounds just like analog. All a matter of precision waveform capture and recovery.
regards
regebro
Insane Genious!
The only head he has been hitting is his own. Yes, I agree that it would be nice to have an intelligent conversation and not a pissing match, but then ZEE, who has been doing most of the pissing has to stop it.
Maybe this ia true in your dreams, but in this thread it is not. Nobody has claimed there is information between the sample and hold window, nobody has confused bit depth and samplerate.
So, drop the peeing, and drop all the bullshit, and maybe we can have an intelligent conversation. It's up to you guys. I'm all for it.
evm1024
New member
regebro said:No, again that's based on misunderstandings. The minimum "delay" between two signals that digital can reproduce is not dependant on the samplerate. It is a function of the samplerate vs the number of levels there is in a sample. so 44*16 should be able to accurately represent a delay between two signals as short as 1/(44100*65536) second = 0.346 nanoseconds.
Please explain how the phase relationship is preserved between 2 signels seperated by 0.346 nS (note 0.346 nS represents a frequency of 2.98 GHz clearly about Audio range)
Please note that at a sample rate of 44.1 kHz each sample happens once every 22.68 uS. If you use 10 nS for the sample window then the value measured is integrated over that 10 nS and may or may not have settled. Once hold is triggered the signel can do anything it needs to do over the rest of the sample period, that data is lost. Let's see 22.67uS/10nS = 2267.576. So for a given signel we only look at 1/2267 part of it. It can get worse if we integrate over the entire period.
Think about having a signel that is a sub harmonic of the sample rate or near precise harmonic. (Hint, why do you think that tape bias frequency is 100 kHz or gteator?) Oh well let's save that for another time.
regards
SteveMac
New member
evm1024 said:
That is how I feel about it. Not technically but instinctively and thanks for your input on this evm.
There's really not a whole lot out there on the web about the digital vs analog issue. I searched for months while I was recording to disc to find why it wasn't working and the most reasonable page I found was the "digital sucks" page. I found loads of pages on what to buy to enhance your digital sound though!
I can't argue with anyone technically but I have heard sampled cymbals that do sound as was described on the digital sucks page so that was all the proof I needed. But now I am perfectly content & happy recording to tape. 
arjoll
New member
Agreed. I'm lost.Beck said:It's even harder to tell when reading it.
regebro
Insane Genious!
This calls for visual aides.evm1024 said:
Se attached file. The two waves, red and blue, has a phase relationship that is WELL below the sample-rate. But as you see, because of their difference in phase, they get sampled at slightly different points in the wave, and the samples values therefore are different. When recreated, therefore, the phase relationship will be preserved. So, yet again, how small phase differences that can be preserved is not a function of samplerate, but a function of samplerate and bitdepth. (and of course, of the A/D converter, but that's implementation dependant).
Attachments
Last edited:
cjacek
Analogue Enthusiast
No point being made here, just found this interesting:
Analogue Recording
The simplest type of sound recording, in which a physical likeness (i.e. an analogue) of the air pressure comprising an original sound is created by a transducer. This analogue can be visual (as with the phonautograph), mechanical (as the motion of a diaphragm), photic (as in photoengraving), or electromagnetic (as in electrical recording), for example. The sound played back is an acoustical analogue of the physical analogue(s) of the original sound. See also digital recording.
Digital Recording
A system of sound recording in which sound is represented as a series of discrete electrical measurements, expressed in binary numbers. The sound wave, converted into an electrical analogue by a microphone, is sampled and measured over time (for a musical CD, 44 100 samples per second). Each voltage measurement is then assigned a binary number. During playback, the binary data are converted to an electrical representation of the sound wave, which is converted in turn to acoustical energy by a speaker. See also analogue recording.
Analogue Recording
The simplest type of sound recording, in which a physical likeness (i.e. an analogue) of the air pressure comprising an original sound is created by a transducer. This analogue can be visual (as with the phonautograph), mechanical (as the motion of a diaphragm), photic (as in photoengraving), or electromagnetic (as in electrical recording), for example. The sound played back is an acoustical analogue of the physical analogue(s) of the original sound. See also digital recording.
Digital Recording
A system of sound recording in which sound is represented as a series of discrete electrical measurements, expressed in binary numbers. The sound wave, converted into an electrical analogue by a microphone, is sampled and measured over time (for a musical CD, 44 100 samples per second). Each voltage measurement is then assigned a binary number. During playback, the binary data are converted to an electrical representation of the sound wave, which is converted in turn to acoustical energy by a speaker. See also analogue recording.