How low latency, can you go? Eleven Mk2

[JuanPC]

Distortion is the difference between what goes in, and goes out...

Yellow is Input
Blue is Output. LOL. Jajajajajaja

[Darryl Ramm]

And all you are seeing here is square wave with the high order harmonics filtered off. No surprise at all, high-school Fourier series math. The AD/DA chain even on the analog side has to have steep low-pass anti-aliasing filters to allow the convertors to work. 7 KHz *square wave* input, only odd harmonics matter, so that is 7 kHz, 21kHz, 35kHz, 49kHz, 63kHz.... So what is the point? Few people can hear the 21kHz tone let alone others. Higher sample rates you see more harmonics on an osciloscope, so what. That does not prove or show anything audible, or relates to distortion anybody can actually hear.

There are much more convincing arguments about high sample rates being useful that this video that shows nothing except what a Fourier series is, including some digital domain/plugin processing being better with the extra headroom that high sample rates provide, and being able to have less negative effects of steep anti-aliasing filters.

[JuanPC]

Yes, analog audio signals traveling through air or analog/proportional electrical signals, need harmonics.

But... Sampling is the reduction of a continuous signal into a discrete signal...

If the sampling does not have enough speed & accuracy, distortion will happen...


Yes, The ear has a low pass filter over 20KHz, and the Da converter also has a low pass filter...
Adding a low pass filter to another low pass filter increase the slope.
6dB filter + 6dB filter gives, 12dB. "2-slope filter."

The problem is not the lack of ultra sonics, is the lack of sampling speed/resolution at lower frequencies like 7.36KHz.

The problem with Digital Audio vs. Digital Video, is that video goes at 24fps or 30fps, 60fps or 120fps Max,
Digital Audio goes at 44100 frames per second,
Video has a lot more information but is buffered, only displayed at 24 times per second.
But audio, cannot be frame buffered.

Trick the eyes it's "easy" than trick the ear.

[WernerF]

Ultimately, what do your ears tell you? Isn't what sounds the best the thing that matters the most in audio? Is it not our job to make those determinations based on our artistic needs wants and preference's?

[JuanPC]

Exactly, my ears were telling me something is wrong...
But Couldn't understand why what
Now I know...

One day compared A/B a real Analog Graphic Eq Urei 527 to a digital Eq,
The highs were totally different... Curves matched with pink noise.

Other day, compared a real Tb-303 vs. rebirth 338, "samples."
At low tuning, the square wave sound was exactly the same, but at hi-pitch/tuning,
were totally different... Distorted,

Other day, compared another digital Eq vs. Urei Eq.
Digital Eq With & without 18/20-bit dither noise...
And I missed the noise!

Other day, compared different clocks, and cables, incredible how jitter can affect the phase of the harmonics.

All I do is minimize the differences.

[JuanPC]

bump on the i7-4790k with Lynx or RME pcie/pcie.

[ex-user]

http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

http://xiph.org/video/vid1.shtml

[JuanPC]

Originally Posted by ex-user

http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

http://xiph.org/video/vid1.shtml

A single Sine-wave is the easiest waveform in the universe to reproduce.
Sound is made of millions of sine waves, not just 1,
Summing sine waves in other frequencies.. Create timing problems, intermodulation distortion, etc...

A single Sine-wave is cheat.
Square wave is truer/similar/closer to complex waveforms as most waveforms in Music.

Vid2 @ 17:45
Square waveform at 1KHz Only is cheating, "exactly what it should?" it should be exactly as Analog, FAIL.!
¿Do you hear only 1KHz? Double FAIL.! & Triple Facepalm. LOL, Jajajajajaja

A single sine-wave vs. a complex waveform... Is like... Making $100usd. vs. making a million $100usd.

Having a 2 channel scope and not comparing the input vs. the output in the same scope is cheating.
Not Using the original signal as the Trigger, is cheating.

You cannot cheat the ears, as easy as the "brain". Survival instincts. Millions of years in evolution.

44.1khz has too much distortion at >7KHz.
http://youtu.be/Ys7lABBrpYw
¿Can you hear 7KHz?

"The sampling theorem introduces the concept of a sample rate that is sufficient for perfect fidelity for the class of functions that are bandlimited to a given bandwidth, such that No information is lost in the sampling process. It expresses the sufficient sample rate in terms of the bandwidth for the class of functions. The theorem also leads to a formula for perfectly reconstructing the original continuous-time function from the samples.

Perfect reconstruction may still be possible when the sample-rate criterion is not satisfied, provided other constraints on the signal are known. In some cases (when the sample-rate criterion is not satisfied), utilizing additional constraints allows for approximate reconstructions. The fidelity of these reconstructions can be verified and quantified utilizing Bochner's theorem."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquis...mpling_theorem



Just do the test your self... A/B A complex Analog signal like a voice with Eq + a condenser Microphone, with a transparent mic-pre.
Vs. AD/DA. Same signal.
Even with a low end analog mixer like Mackie Cr1604, the difference can be heard.

Condenser Mic-->Decent mic-pre-->Mackie/Yamaha mixer-->send aux--->AD/DA-->Other Mackie or Yamaha Mixer input channels.

Match levels and Solo Ch1&2 vs. 3&4.

Of course you need a decent 1" tweeter, Or less to hear that.
A good croossover.
A good amplifier, room, cables, etc... And remove the ear wax out of your ears. House hold Hydrogen Peroxide at <4% or less.

[darbyclash34]

That's......a lot of words put together. I'm not entirely sure any of them mean anything, but there are numbers.

No, samplerates are not like frame rates. 44.1 does just a good of a job reproducing 7khz as 192 does. That is what the passage you just quoted says. The difference is that 192 could also get the 12th order harmonic at 84khz (I think, doesn't really matter for the example). Now whether or not that ultrasonic information matters in terms of what humans can hear is a totally different argument. But if you think 96 or 192 is doing a better job of capturing 3kz cause of these "sample points" or whatever it is you called them, you're misunderstanding the Nyquist theorem. As mentioned, there are a ton of arguments for higher sample rates, but you've gotten some bad info. The video you posted doesn't show anything other than how digital sampling works (I should certainly hope my 44.1 doesn't contain any 35khz singal), and also does not in any way show "distortion" unless you are using the most literal meaning possible in that ANY change to anything is distorting it. Unless you and this guy on YouTube have discovered something profoundly wrong in the fundamentals of digital audio, you really need to read up on this and then if need be just listen to the guys on here who know what they're talking about, cause that post above contains so much wrong information it quite literally disagrees with itself.

[guitardom]

Originally Posted by darbyclash34

That's......a lot of words put together. I'm not entirely sure any of them mean anything, but there are numbers.

No, samplerates are not like frame rates. 44.1 does just a good of a job reproducing 7khz as 192 does. That is what the passage you just quoted says. The difference is that 192 could also get the 12th order harmonic at 84khz (I think, doesn't really matter for the example). Now whether or not that ultrasonic information matters in terms of what humans can hear is a totally different argument. But if you think 96 or 192 is doing a better job of capturing 3kz cause of these "sample points" or whatever it is you called them, you're misunderstanding the Nyquist theorem. As mentioned, there are a ton of arguments for higher sample rates, but you've gotten some bad info. The video you posted doesn't show anything other than how digital sampling works (I should certainly hope my 44.1 doesn't contain any 35khz singal), and also does not in any way show "distortion" unless you are using the most literal meaning possible in that ANY change to anything is distorting it. Unless you and this guy on YouTube have discovered something profoundly wrong in the fundamentals of digital audio, you really need to read up on this and then if need be just listen to the guys on here who know what they're talking about, cause that post above contains so much wrong information it quite literally disagrees with itself.

I recommend not feeding the trolls....