Re: 24-bit on tap at Apple?

On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 08:55:23 +0100, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

--- No, he's right:

formatting link

and, the pudding:

Version 4 SHEET 1 1380 680 WIRE -496 -48 -544 -48 WIRE -384 -48 -416 -48 WIRE 432 -48 272 -48 WIRE 752 -48 624 -48 WIRE -464 0 -896 0 WIRE -464 16 -464 0 WIRE 656 16 624 16 WIRE 752 16 752 -48 WIRE -624 32 -752 32 WIRE -544 32 -544 -48 WIRE -544 32 -624 32 WIRE -496 32 -544 32 WIRE 272 32 272 -48 WIRE -384 48 -384 -48 WIRE -384 48 -432 48 WIRE 432 48 400 48 WIRE -752 64 -752 32 WIRE -624 64 -624 32 WIRE -496 64 -544 64 WIRE -80 64 -320 64 WIRE 128 96 64 96 WIRE -80 128 -208 128 WIRE 128 144 128 96 WIRE -896 160 -896 0 WIRE -752 160 -752 144 WIRE -624 160 -624 144 WIRE -464 160 -464 80 WIRE -320 160 -320 64 WIRE -208 160 -208 128 WIRE 272 160 272 112 WIRE 400 160 400 48 WIRE 752 160 752 96 WIRE -896 288 -896 240 WIRE -752 288 -752 240 WIRE -752 288 -896 288 WIRE -624 288 -624 240 WIRE -624 288 -752 288 WIRE -544 288 -544 64 WIRE -544 288 -624 288 WIRE -464 288 -464 240 WIRE -464 288 -544 288 WIRE -320 288 -320 240 WIRE -320 288 -464 288 WIRE -208 288 -208 240 WIRE -208 288 -320 288 WIRE 128 288 128 224 WIRE 128 288 -208 288 WIRE 272 288 272 240 WIRE 272 288 128 288 WIRE 400 288 400 240 WIRE 400 288 272 288 WIRE 656 288 656 16 WIRE 656 288 400 288 WIRE 752 288 752 240 WIRE 752 288 656 288 WIRE -896 352 -896 288 FLAG -896 352 0 SYMBOL Opamps\\LT1007 -464 -16 R0 SYMATTR InstName U1 SYMBOL voltage -464 256 R180 WINDOW 0 24 104 Left 0 WINDOW 3 24 16 Left 0 WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0 WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0 SYMATTR InstName V4 SYMATTR Value 15 SYMBOL voltage -896 144 R0 WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0 WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0 SYMATTR InstName V5 SYMATTR Value 15 SYMBOL voltage -752 144 R0 WINDOW 3 24 104 Invisible 0 WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0 WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0 SYMATTR Value SINE(0 1 100) SYMATTR InstName V2 SYMBOL voltage -624 144 R0 WINDOW 3 24 104 Invisible 0 WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0 WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0 SYMATTR Value SINE(0 1 10k) SYMATTR InstName V3 SYMBOL res -400 -64 R90 WINDOW 0 -34 57 VBottom 0 WINDOW 3 -31 57 VTop 0 SYMATTR InstName R4 SYMATTR Value 1000 SYMBOL res -736 160 R180 WINDOW 0 36 76 Left 0 WINDOW 3 36 40 Left 0 SYMATTR InstName R2 SYMATTR Value 1000 SYMBOL res -608 160 R180 WINDOW 0 36 76 Left 0 WINDOW 3 36 40 Left 0 SYMATTR InstName R3 SYMATTR Value 1000 SYMBOL SPECIALFUNCTIONS\\MODULATE -80 64 R0 WINDOW 0 37 -55 Left 0 WINDOW 3 55 119 Center 0 SYMATTR InstName A2 SYMATTR Value mark=10k space=0 SYMBOL voltage -208 144 R0 WINDOW 3 24 104 Invisible 0 WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0 WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0 SYMATTR Value SINE(0 1 100) SYMATTR InstName V6 SYMBOL voltage -320 144 R0 WINDOW 3 24 104 Invisible 0 WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0 WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0 SYMATTR Value 1 SYMATTR InstName V7 SYMBOL res 112 128 R0 SYMATTR InstName R5 SYMATTR Value 10k SYMBOL Optos\\4N25 528 16 R0 WINDOW 0 1 68 Center 0 WINDOW 3 1 98 Center 0 SYMATTR InstName U2 SYMBOL voltage 400 144 R0 WINDOW 3 24 104 Invisible 0 WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0 WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0 SYMATTR Value SINE(12 2 100) SYMATTR InstName V1 SYMBOL voltage 272 144 R0 WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0 WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0 SYMATTR InstName V8 SYMATTR Value 15 SYMBOL res 288 128 R180 WINDOW 0 36 76 Left 0 WINDOW 3 36 40 Left 0 SYMATTR InstName R1 SYMATTR Value 1000 SYMBOL voltage 752 144 R0 WINDOW 3 24 104 Invisible 0 WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0 WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0 SYMATTR Value SINE(1 1 10k) SYMATTR InstName V9 SYMBOL res 736 0 R0 SYMATTR InstName R6 SYMATTR Value 10k TEXT -880 312 Left 0 !.tran .1 TEXT -744 -120 Left 0 ;LINEAR SUMMATION TEXT -176 -120 Left 0 ;AMPLITUDE MODULATION TEXT 368 -128 Left 0 ;AMPLITUDE MODULATION

--- JF

Reply to
John Fields
Loading thread data ...

I tell you, he's wrong. What you did is not what the above formula said.

Substitute V2 = SINE(0 .5 10100 0 0 90) and V3 = SINE(0 .5 9900 0 0 -90)

and you'll see that the waveform from the adder matches that of the modulator exactly. The spiel with the phase of the sources is because LTspice generates sines rather than cosines, which is of no importance to the argument.

I rest my case.

Jeroen Belleman

Reply to
Jeroen Belleman

Yes, multiplication. And the product can be exactly represented by the *sum* of some number of other sine wave signals. This is basic signal processing mathematics. Usenet isn't really the ideal medium to teach this stuff. To much pollution. Try Wikipedia, or perhaps a book.

Jeroen Belleman

Reply to
Jeroen Belleman

Yup. The complex Fourier transform of the AM signal is exactly that: carrier plus two sidebands. So three summed sines of appropriate amplitude and phase are exactly the same as the AM signal. Couldn't be otherwise.

John

Reply to
John Larkin

The lowest harmonic of a 10 KHz square wave is 30 KHz!

John

Reply to
John Larkin

Another similarity with LP's is that both they and charred barbeque steak are both black because of carbon.

It all makes perfect sense now.

--
+--------------------------------+
+         Dick Pierce            |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+
Reply to
Dick Pierce

That's becasue there is no 10 kHz square wave AT ALL from vinyl. Even the grossest approximation thereof requires a minimum of a 30 kHz bandwidth.

You disagree? Then show us a reproducible example of an LP that can produce a 10 kHz square wave that's distinguishable from a 10 kHz sine wave.

How is cutting off below 20 kHz better than cutting off at 22 kHz?

--
+--------------------------------+
+         Dick Pierce            |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+
Reply to
Dick Pierce

--
You're right, thanks. :-)
Reply to
John Fields

Wrong. Simply wrong.

geoff

Reply to
geoff

No. There are NO square waves at all on vinyl.

The slew rate of the leading edge of the pulse is zero. The stylus, much less the vinyl itself cannot handle, much less accurately reproduce it. Then, there is that instantaneous track wear issue that worsens with each play.

The medium is NOT made for the source signal described. In fact, neither are sonic transducers (speakers).

Cannot be done. It is idiocy to claim it can, and idiocy to entertain it at all, in fact.

Pretty funny, some of the things folks say.

Reply to
SoothSayer

Right, and it doesn't preclude the fact that digital is "better" in almost every way.

--
Randy Yates                             Digital Signal Labs
919-577-9882                            http://www.digitalsignallabs.comyates@digitalsignallabs.com
Reply to
Randy Yates

Been there, done that...

--
Randy Yates                             Digital Signal Labs
919-577-9882                            http://www.digitalsignallabs.comyates@digitalsignallabs.com
Reply to
Randy Yates

Ah, nostalgia! It's not what it used to be.

d
Reply to
Don Pearce

Who said anything about the FFT? The Fourier Transform (which was what Dick stated) is NOT equivalent to the FFT.

By the way, the "inherent periodicity" claim of the FFT is/was being hotly debated over on comp.dsp. However, I agree with your viewpoint, Don.

--
Randy Yates                             Digital Signal Labs
919-577-9882                            http://www.digitalsignallabs.comyates@digitalsignallabs.com
Reply to
Randy Yates

Mr Upside Down mentioned the FFT in the post I was responding to.

Ta.

d
Reply to
Don Pearce

Doh! I'll blame it on Thunderbird's thread graphics!

--
Randy Yates                             Digital Signal Labs
919-577-9882                            http://www.digitalsignallabs.comyates@digitalsignallabs.com
Reply to
Randy Yates

You're right. DTV is so much better than analog. In fact it's so good that I no longer get any OTA TV.

--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid? on it, because it's
Teflon coated.
Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

Right, and as you have been repeatedly told, well above the range of the human auditory system, and beyond the range of 99.9999% of vinyl records ever made. Those few that do have some actual signal at 30+kHz are still down in the noise, with distortion levels likely exceeding any actual signal. Since nobody can hear it anyway, that last condition is fairly irrelevant fortunately.

Trevor.

Reply to
Trevor

I think the relevant comparison would be digital over cable versus analog over cable.

No surprise, digital still wins hands down. In retrospect, its surprising that analog was as good as it was.

Reply to
Arny Krueger

When you cherry pick the comparison conditions. Mike's point was that he received OTA prior to "digital TV" and does not now.

Another comparison: in one month of cable digital TV, you get more problems (frozen frames, dropouts (video and/or audio), outages, incorrect menus, etc.) than in ten years of analog ota tv, or in ten years of analog cable tv.

Another comparison: in 1 minute of watching HDTV, analog TV becomes obsolete in the viewer's opinion.

So you can cherry pick either way. My vote goes to digital, of course, but I still appreciate Mike's humor.

Ed

Reply to
ehsjr

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.