LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  October 2004

ARSCLIST October 2004

Subject:

Re: Is recording to Reel-to-reel still the preferred preservation ...

From:

Goran Finnberg <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 1 Apr 1999 13:38:18 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (158 lines)

Mike Csontos:

> The comments I've seen regarding the advantages of DSD
> for remastering multitrack analog have to do with the
> spatial coherence of the acoustical image.

This is wrong.

In fact DSD has much lower resolution than linear PCM.

> Human hearing is capable of locating sound sources within
>  a few degrees, requiring a time resolution on the order
> of tens of microseconds.

Right.

The most often qouted figure is 5 microseconds or 1 degree resolution at
low frequencies.

>  This can be preserved only by
> sampling at hundreds of kilohertz.

This is wrong.

This is one of the urban myths often qouted to try to bolster the
nonexistent argument for DSD.

Even 44.1 kHz sampling is not limited to 22.6 microsecond interchannel
resolution as set by the sampling period if it were it wouldnīt be
usable at all........:-)

This is set by the noise in the channel and has nothing to do with the
sampling frequency or the actual frequency response of the channel.

BTW as usual itīs the use of dither that transforms a broken distorting
digital channel into a perfect distortionless digital channel.......

Here is the ad from Cedar describing their Azimuth or interchannel
timing corrector which can correct interchannel timing errors to within
a 10th of a sampling period with an accuracy of 1/100th of an
sample.....

www.cedar-audio.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Cedar AZX+ azimuth corrector


Corrects azimuth errors and other channel synchronisation problems with
an accuracy of 0.01 sample

Phase problems and time delays between the left and right channels of a
stereo signal account for many of the problems suffered by the audio and
video industries. Typical consequences of these errors include poor mono
compatibility, poor stereo imaging, loss of high frequencies, and muddy
bass response.

The AZX+ azimuth corrector offers timing correction accurate to 1/100th
of a sample, enabling you to recover high frequencies and restore
imaging that you cannot correct by other methods. There is also a unique
Autotrack facility that enables the module to detect and measure the
delay between channels and then use this value to compensate
automatically for the difference it detects. The AZX+ calculates the
timing difference with an accuracy of 1/10th of a sample, and will
compensate for slowly varying errors as well as constant differences.

-----------------------------------------

Here is the mathematical proof:


..........................................


Subject:Re: [Sursound] dithering and phase resolution
     Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 21:59:17 +0200 (EET)
    From: Sampo Syreeni <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
       To: <[log in to unmask]>


On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Bob Cain wrote:

>I can't see how the use of dither can provide finer resolution.

Suppose you're sampling a low level sine wave, say 2 bits peak-to-peak,
and that the period of the wave is, say, 10 sampling times. Assume ideal
sampling and quantization, and that 0 phase aligns perfectly with a
sampling instant. You will get repeating sequence of the same 10
samples,
starting with a perfectly represented 0 sample.

Now, presume you shift the phase a single degree forwards. The
quantization is extremely coarse compared to the amplitude of the
signal,
so you will get the precise same sampled sequence. Consequently, a 1
degree phase shift was not representable.

Add a triangular dither, one quantization step peak-to-peak, zero mean.
For the most part, the two sequences will be highly similar. But you'll
notice that, taking the first sample from, say, 10000 consequtive 10
sample periods, in the first one they will all be zero, whereas in the
shifted one, a small but constant proportion will give you the first
negative value available. The average will settle neatly on the correct,
*unquantized* value. So will every other of the ten samples, over the
course of multiple cycles. The law of large numbers causes the average
error to go to zero, when accumulated over multiple cycles, so in the
average, the representation will be *perfect*. The original wave is
distinctly separate from the 1 degree shifted one, if you just look long
enough.

The effect shows up quite pointedly if you use a high-Q tunable filter
to
pick up the signal. Such a filter will filter out the off-band
quantization noise, and shift the sine a constant number of degrees.
Comparing the original and shifted outputs, you will see the 1 degree
phase shift quite clearly.  If you don't dither, this of course isn't
possible. Also, any slight phase difference can only be detected by
integrating over quite a long time. But this is precisely what we'd
expect
of a noisy channel on information theoretical grounds -- telling two
signals with different phases apart is a binary decision problem, and
Shannon's theory applies directly. Basically dither has transformed a
nonlinear digital channel into a perfectly linear one, with a constant
noise floor independent of the signal. The smaller the difference and
the
S/N ratio, the longer you'll need to accumulate information in order to
make a decision at a given dependency level.

Of course, this particular example is a somewhat rigged one. If the
signal
is more complex, has a higher level or, especially, has a period not
divisible by the sampling period, dithering may not make such a big
difference in phase resolution. Sometimes it can even be useless in this
regard. But since we have to use dither anyway, to avoid nonlinear
distortion, it's nice to know it guarantees perfect phase
representation,
too.

Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - mailto:[log in to unmask], tel:+358-50-5756111
student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front
openpgp: 050985C2/025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2


--
Best,

Goran Finnberg
The Mastering Room AB
Goteborg
Sweden

E-mail: [log in to unmask]

Learn from the mistakes of others, you can never live long enough to
make them all yourself.    -   John Luther

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager