[ProAudio] The High-Resolution Challenge

[Dan Lavry]

First, I am having difficulties typing on my phone, will try to do better. My name is still Lavry, not Lary...Second, the issue of non linearity covers everything, from all analog system to digital audio. Clearly, converters are an issue for digital audio, but the other gear including analog gear are also involved. That is why we need to ask the general question: do we want to include energy above hearing if we can't hear it. It is easy to understand that music production requires good gear and good ears. But the goal is to please the end user.One can not assume that the end users have good gear. Gear with non linear transfer will produce unwanted energy in the audible range. That is bad enough. But adding high frequency above hearing will add to the problem. Again, fact of life about circuits, non linearity is higher at higher frequencies. One can eliminate the problem due to the higher non audible energy by making sure It is not there to start with (don't feed the beast, nothing to intermodulate with..).This is not about filtering and ailiasing. One can feed the best signals and a non linear device will manufacturer the problem. For example, a poor amp fed 10Khz and 27Khz may generate 27 - 2 × 10 = 7Khz, or 3 × 10 - 27 =3khz or other combinations. The amplitude is dependent on the specific non linearity shape. She'll we ignore it? I think it should be a part of the converstion about hi res...RegardsDan LavrySent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Dan via ProAudio <proaudio at bach.pgm.com> 
Date: 2/13/20  11:36 PM  (GMT-08:00) 
To: proaudio at bach.pgm.com 
Subject: Re: [ProAudio] The High-Resolution Challenge 


    Sorry, in the last paragraph I ment to say "But the end user with
      lesser quality and much less linearity"
    On 2/13/2020 9:07 PM, Dan Lavry via
      ProAudio wrote:
    
    
      
      The focus on sampling rate is somewhat backwards. The
        question is what is the needed bandwidth. In theory, and not too
        far from practice, all one needs is to sample at twice the
        bandwidth. 
      And the real question is the pluses and minuses of including
        high frequency energy that is above audibility.
      There are no positives, at best you will continue not to hear
        it. Do you want your email to be packed with stuff you will
        never see?
      However, such high frequency energy can contaminate what you
        hear. Probably not much will be noticed in a quality studio,
        where good gear is to be found. But the end user with lesser
        quality and much more linearity will have a
        bigger issue.
      It is more difficult to achieve linearity at higher
        frequencies. Such high energy with non linearity can cause a
        problem. It is easy to solve. Make sure that you include what
        you hear, and don't include anything at higher frequencies.
        Clearly one may wish for some margins but it should be within
        reason.
      
      
      Regards
      Dan Lary
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
        Sent from my
          Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
      
      
      
      -------- Original message --------
      From: Jim Brown via ProAudio <proaudio at bach.pgm.com> 
      Date: 2/13/20 6:18 PM (GMT-08:00) 
      To: proaudio at bach.pgm.com 
      Subject: Re: [ProAudio] The High-Resolution Challenge 
      
      On 2/13/2020 6:09 PM, Bill Whitlock via ProAudio wrote:
      > I strongly agree that ultra-sonic spectral artifacts, even if
      low level, 
      > can have clearly audible effects. The late Deane Jensen wrote
      a paper 
      > called "Spectral Contamination" that explains the mechanism
      and 
      > describes a test. As was mentioned earlier in this thread,
      complex 
      > inter-modulation occurs in virtually every active stage
      downstream of 
      > the DAC.
      
      Perhaps 20 years ago, Ray Rayburn told me about hearing a
      demonstration 
      by Rupert Neve that he said clearly demonstrated the audibility of
      
      ultrasonic components.
      
      Jim Brown
      _______________________________________________
      ProAudio mailing list
      ProAudio at bach.pgm.com
      http://bach.pgm.com/mailman/listinfo/proaudio
      
      
      _______________________________________________
ProAudio mailing list
ProAudio at bach.pgm.com
http://bach.pgm.com/mailman/listinfo/proaudio

    
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bach.pgm.com/pipermail/proaudio/attachments/20200214/9f6cddd5/attachment.html>