<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body>
<div>First, I am having difficulties typing on my phone, will try to do better. My name is still Lavry, not Lary...</div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div>It is easy to understand that music production requires good gear and good ears. But the goal is to please the end user.</div><div>One can not assume that the end users have good gear. </div><div>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..).</div><div>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 </div><div>27 - 2 × 10 = 7Khz, or 3 × 10 - 27 =3khz or other combinations. The amplitude is dependent on the specific non linearity shape. </div><div>She'll we ignore it? I think it should be a part of the converstion about hi res...</div><div><br></div><div>Regards</div><div>Dan Lavry</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div id="composer_signature"><div style="font-size:88%;color:#364f67" dir="auto">Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone</div></div><br><br>-------- Original message --------<br>From: Dan via ProAudio <proaudio@bach.pgm.com> <br>Date: 2/13/20 11:36 PM (GMT-08:00) <br>To: proaudio@bach.pgm.com <br>Subject: Re: [ProAudio] The High-Resolution Challenge <br><br>
<p>Sorry, in the last paragraph I ment to say "But the end user with
lesser quality and much <b>less</b><b> linearity"</b></p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/13/2020 9:07 PM, Dan Lavry via
ProAudio wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:kgomfp72h3r0rvehiaaddi71.1581656859127@email.android.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div>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. </div>
<div>And the real question is the pluses and minuses of including
high frequency energy that is above audibility.</div>
<div>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?</div>
<div>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 <b>more</b><b> linearity</b> will have a
bigger issue.</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regards</div>
<div>Dan Lary</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div id="composer_signature">
<div style="font-size:88%;color:#364f67" dir="auto">Sent from my
Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
-------- Original message --------<br>
From: Jim Brown via ProAudio <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:proaudio@bach.pgm.com"><proaudio@bach.pgm.com></a> <br>
Date: 2/13/20 6:18 PM (GMT-08:00) <br>
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:proaudio@bach.pgm.com">proaudio@bach.pgm.com</a> <br>
Subject: Re: [ProAudio] The High-Resolution Challenge <br>
<br>
On 2/13/2020 6:09 PM, Bill Whitlock via ProAudio wrote:<br>
> I strongly agree that ultra-sonic spectral artifacts, even if
low level, <br>
> can have clearly audible effects. The late Deane Jensen wrote
a paper <br>
> called "Spectral Contamination" that explains the mechanism
and <br>
> describes a test. As was mentioned earlier in this thread,
complex <br>
> inter-modulation occurs in virtually every active stage
downstream of <br>
> the DAC.<br>
<br>
Perhaps 20 years ago, Ray Rayburn told me about hearing a
demonstration <br>
by Rupert Neve that he said clearly demonstrated the audibility of
<br>
ultrasonic components.<br>
<br>
Jim Brown<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
ProAudio mailing list<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ProAudio@bach.pgm.com">ProAudio@bach.pgm.com</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://bach.pgm.com/mailman/listinfo/proaudio">http://bach.pgm.com/mailman/listinfo/proaudio</a><br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
ProAudio mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ProAudio@bach.pgm.com">ProAudio@bach.pgm.com</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://bach.pgm.com/mailman/listinfo/proaudio">http://bach.pgm.com/mailman/listinfo/proaudio</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body></html>