hobbyist wrote:Theory says that the higher rates are better.
No, the theory doesn't. :-)
hobbyist wrote:Theory says that the higher rates are better.
CS70 wrote:hobbyist wrote:Theory says that the higher rates are better.
No, the theory doesn't. :-)
hobbyist wrote:...in real life higher sampling rates could benefit the accuracy of the result IF the A/D errors and clock jitter are small enough.
hobbyist wrote:But there are always errors in real life ; and in real life higher sampling rates could benefit the accuracy of the result IF the A/D errors and clock jitter are small enough.
James Perrett wrote:hobbyist wrote:But there are always errors in real life ; and in real life higher sampling rates could benefit the accuracy of the result IF the A/D errors and clock jitter are small enough.
As I asked before - can you explain this point a little more? While the need for sample rates slightly higher than 44.1 or 48kHz is well established, I don't quite understand why extremely high sample rates are required for a system where the highest frequency required to be sampled is of the order of 20kHz.
hobbyist wrote:Because the real physical reconstruction of the analogue signal is not perfect.
hobbyist wrote:Because the real physical reconstruction of the analogue signal is not perfect.
There are errors in the timing due to clock jitter, and errors in the amplitude due to A/D/A errors.
This changes what was a nice neat point to a smooshed blob so during the recreation that makes it harder to recreate perfectly.
hobbyist wrote:CS70 wrote:hobbyist wrote:Theory says that the higher rates are better.
No, the theory doesn't. :-)
Okay -- Theory , with a perfect recovery is perfect.
But there are always errors in real life ; and in real life higher sampling rates could benefit the accuracy of the result IF the A/D errors and clock jitter are small enough.
Ariosto wrote:So would the experts at SOS recommend 96KHz rather than 44.1KHz (or 48K)? At present I record at 44.1KHz and 24 bit.
I just want to record with the best possible quality and not worry too much about the technicalities, and leave that sort of thing to the really clever people who do such a great job with such brilliant engineering and the data it produces.
Ariosto wrote:So would the experts at SOS recommend 96KHz rather than 44.1KHz (or 48K)? At present I record at 44.1KHz and 24 bit.
CS70 wrote: Theory says that the higher rates are better.
No, the theory doesn't. :-)
Okay -- Theory , with a perfect recovery is perfect.
N i g e l wrote:An easy work around is to hold the sample value from one sample instant to the next – a “zero order hold”.
Better interpolations are available at the expense of more complex electronics
Ariosto wrote:So would the experts at SOS recommend 96KHz rather than 44.1KHz (or 48K)? At present I record at 44.1KHz and 24 bit.
ConcertinaChap wrote:It all ends up at 44.1KHz anyway or it does for me, CDs still being the largest part of what I produce. I don't pretend to have golden ears so since I can't hear any difference I take comfort in the Nyquist argument and carry on contentedly.
CC
I'm trying to find out, as my company (Arup) were the structural engineers and Arup Acoustics were also involved in some aspects of the design (not the concert hall design itself). I can remember reading a synopsis of the construction including the anti-vibration design at the time in an internal publication. But it was finished back in 1991, so almost certainly no viable digital copy will remain unless the hard copies have since been scanned.Hugh Robjohns wrote:MOF wrote:I’ve just re-read that article Hugh and wondered if the ‘50 feet’ was a typo
Not sure. I've checked my original copy text from 2004 and it says 50 feet in that, so if it was a typo it was mine originally... but I can't believe I would have included a fact like that without having a reliable reference for it because 50 feet is obviously a lot!
I've removed that number from the online article for now, and will try to get some confirmation as to how thick the isolating pads actually are. :-)
H
My understanding of this type of construction is heavy duty coiled springs with neoprene rubber on top (and bottom?) are used between the real floor and the floating floor. Maybe Hugh put a ‘ instead of a “ (plus springs) or maybe it was 50 cm or maybe it was just 5’.Hugh Robjohns wrote:
MOF wrote:
I’ve just re-read that article Hugh and wondered if the ‘50 feet’ was a typo
Not sure. I've checked my original copy text from 2004 and it says 50 feet in that, so if it was a typo it was mine originally... but I can't believe I would have included a fact like that without having a reliable reference for it because 50 feet is obviously a lot!......H
by Wonks » Fri Jul 12, 2019 12:24 pm
I'm trying to find out, as my company (Arup) were the structural engineers and Arup Acoustics were also involved in some aspects of the design (not the concert hall design itself). I can remember reading a synopsis of the construction including the anti-vibration design at the time in an internal publication. But it was finished back in 1991, so almost certainly no viable digital copy will remain unless the hard copies have since been scanned.
Top
Users browsing this forum: Humble Bee