 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
laurent.artaud[AT]free.fr" <"laurent.artaud[AT]free.fr wrote:
> > Wouldn't that involve being able to hear sounds at a frequency
> > higher than 22 kHz or with a higher dynamic range than 100 dB?
>
> Not really.
> For example, there are some amplifiers that can work from 0 Hz to 200
> KHz (hi ends ones... and far more than a month salary worth...). Some
> can say that it is stupid, because it is far beyond the ears range.
> But there are some signal modulations that are generated at aprox. (I
> don't really remember) half the max frequency of the amplifier. By
> setting that max frequency that far higher, you can be sure that it
> does not affect the frequency range you can hear.
>
> For hearing the difference between 16/44 and 24/96, on some signals, a
> lot of people can! Even those that are not professional.
> I explain:
> The ear is more sensitive that most think.
> If you connect a fonction generator to your amplifier, you can hear
> the difference between a sin waveform and a triangular waveform at 20
> KHz. Record it on a CD, and you can no more! There is not enough
> precision at high frequencies. On a 24/69 signal, you can.
I will have to try that one out when I get some sound editing software
installed (just reinstalled Windows). What CD player did you use to play
back the audio CD?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I will have to try that one out when I get some sound editing software
> installed (just reinstalled Windows). What CD player did you use to play
> back the audio CD?
>
I did not test it myself, sorry if I may have implied it unknowingly.
Anyway, my explanation of the process was simplified for a text demo.
Note that (if I wasn't clear) a function generator is an electronic
device (I don't have any, it's quite expensive) used in laboratories to
test other electronic devices. It have nothing to do with any software
in the sense that the signal stays analogous all the way and is in no
way digitalized.
On the other end, using a software to generate the waveforms to create
the CD is a far better way than trying to sample the function
generator's output.
Testing the 24/96 signal would be harder:
1) you have to find a software who can generate it ;
2) you have to play it.
I don't know if any authoring software allows to make DVD-audio, but it
would be a solution to test it (note that a DVD-audio player is not
cheap -- I know for sure: I have one... -- and the amplifier must be
good enough behind...).
Anyway, if you can test it, let me know.
Regards,
--
Laurent ARTAUD (lau### [at] free fr)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ive wrote:
...
> The Gimp (and the complete linux world) seems to be completely
unaware of
> color management issues. :(
...
IIRC a linux magazine recently mentioned that Gimp in the not so
distant future will support color profiles (v2 ?).
And some quick googling for "Gimp ICC" shows that there already
seems to exist plug ins / extra modules for Gimp that deals with
color management.
http://www.google.com/search?q=GIMP+ICC
Tor Olav
--
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com
http://subcube.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
...
> What CD player did you use to play back the audio CD?
...
Maybe he used a Super Audio CD (SACD) or a DVD-Audio player ?
--
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com
http://subcube.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9 Mar 2004 10:38:53 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>Ive <ive### [at] lilysoftcom> wrote:
>> Imagine a picture with a smooth sky gradient and some small wires in the
>> foreground. JPG will introduce some artefacts (and color banding) in the sky but
>> J2K will tend to blur out the wires and make them vanish - so anyway, a loss of
>> information is a loss of information.
>
> Can't you use different compression levels on different parts of the image
>in JPEG2000?
I think you can do with with JPEG too.
>
>> The JPEG2000 file header is just XML
>
> And I thought they wanted the file to be as small as possible...
>
>> And about the 16bit/8bit per channel color banding controversy. Somehow this
>> reminds me on people who seem to think a 64bit CPU is twice as fast as a
>> 32bit one.
>
> I wouldn't compare it to that.
> I would compare it to 16-bit vs. 24-bit sound sampling. A layman does
>not hear any difference at all between 16-bit (eg. CD) and 24-bit sound,
>but professionals would not work with anything less than 24. The same
>goes for 44kHz vs. 96kHz sample rate...
It certainly is a tricky area this. I know I have seen banding in
images, and I know the solution is greater colour depth - but boy is
it ever hard to come up with an example. Believe me I've tried.
Now even though I've failed to come up with an image example does not
mean it does not exist. A quick Googling will show that plenty of
other people think they way I do. Mind a lot think otherwise too.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
laurent.artaud[AT]free.fr wrote:
...
> Note that (if I wasn't clear) a function generator is an electronic
> device (I don't have any, it's quite expensive) used in laboratories to
> test other electronic devices. It have nothing to do with any software
> in the sense that the signal stays analogous all the way and is in no
> way digitalized.
...
Please note that many modern function generators are indeed
software "driven". I.e. a uP or a DSP generates the waveform
which is then DA-converted and filtered.
--
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com
http://subcube.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It certainly is a tricky area this. I know I have seen banding in
> images, and I know the solution is greater colour depth - but boy is
> it ever hard to come up with an example. Believe me I've tried.
>
> Now even though I've failed to come up with an image example does not
> mean it does not exist. A quick Googling will show that plenty of
> other people think they way I do. Mind a lot think otherwise too.
Yes, there are a lot of (24bit) images that show banding. Especially
gray scale images are problematic: 256 shades of gray are simply not
enough in many cases. This is a case when traditional B&W print still
excels - especially when using medium or large format cameras. Color
gradations simply look better. I don't think there are many printers (or
video cards) that accept 48bit data - does anyone know?
Severi S
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
laurent.artaud[AT]free.fr" <"laurent.artaud[AT]free.fr wrote:
> > I will have to try that one out when I get some sound editing
> > software installed (just reinstalled Windows). What CD player did
> > you use to play back the audio CD?
> >
>
> I did not test it myself, sorry if I may have implied it unknowingly.
> Anyway, my explanation of the process was simplified for a text demo.
>
> Note that (if I wasn't clear) a function generator is an electronic
> device (I don't have any, it's quite expensive) used in laboratories
> to test other electronic devices. It have nothing to do with any
> software in the sense that the signal stays analogous all the way and
> is in no way digitalized.
>
> On the other end, using a software to generate the waveforms to create
> the CD is a far better way than trying to sample the function
> generator's output.
Indeed, I was thinking about digital generation of signals, sonic Ray
Tracing :-)
> Testing the 24/96 signal would be harder:
> 1) you have to find a software who can generate it ;
> 2) you have to play it.
Yeah, I have software and hardware to play 24/96 from my PC, it's just I
doubt my speakers could keep up [just looking], apparently they are
down -3dB at 22kHz, so who knows what they'll be down to at 48kHz.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 22:37:18 +0000, scott wrote:
> laurent.artaud[AT]free.fr" <"laurent.artaud[AT]free.fr wrote:
>> > I will have to try that one out when I get some sound editing
>> > software installed (just reinstalled Windows). What CD player did
>> > you use to play back the audio CD?
>> >
>>
>> I did not test it myself, sorry if I may have implied it unknowingly.
>> Anyway, my explanation of the process was simplified for a text demo.
>>
>> Note that (if I wasn't clear) a function generator is an electronic
>> device (I don't have any, it's quite expensive) used in laboratories
>> to test other electronic devices. It have nothing to do with any
>> software in the sense that the signal stays analogous all the way and
>> is in no way digitalized.
>>
>> On the other end, using a software to generate the waveforms to create
>> the CD is a far better way than trying to sample the function
>> generator's output.
>
> Indeed, I was thinking about digital generation of signals, sonic Ray
> Tracing :-)
>
>> Testing the 24/96 signal would be harder:
>> 1) you have to find a software who can generate it ;
>> 2) you have to play it.
>
> Yeah, I have software and hardware to play 24/96 from my PC, it's just I
> doubt my speakers could keep up [just looking], apparently they are
> down -3dB at 22kHz, so who knows what they'll be down to at 48kHz.
That's not the point. It's not like 44khz gives perfect signal at anything
below 22khz, and nothing above it.
A 22khz wave form at 44khz looks like this:
* * * * * * * * * * *
------------------------------
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Regardless of the actual shape of the wave.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tyler Eaves wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 22:37:18 +0000, scott wrote:
>
> > laurent.artaud[AT]free.fr" <"laurent.artaud[AT]free.fr wrote:
> > > > I will have to try that one out when I get some sound editing
> > > > software installed (just reinstalled Windows). What CD player
> > > > did you use to play back the audio CD?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I did not test it myself, sorry if I may have implied it
> > > unknowingly. Anyway, my explanation of the process was simplified
> > > for a text demo.
> > >
> > > Note that (if I wasn't clear) a function generator is an
> > > electronic device (I don't have any, it's quite expensive) used
> > > in laboratories to test other electronic devices. It have nothing
> > > to do with any software in the sense that the signal stays
> > > analogous all the way and is in no way digitalized.
> > >
> > > On the other end, using a software to generate the waveforms to
> > > create the CD is a far better way than trying to sample the
> > > function generator's output.
> >
> > Indeed, I was thinking about digital generation of signals, sonic
> > Ray Tracing :-)
> >
> > > Testing the 24/96 signal would be harder:
> > > 1) you have to find a software who can generate it ;
> > > 2) you have to play it.
> >
> > Yeah, I have software and hardware to play 24/96 from my PC, it's
> > just I doubt my speakers could keep up [just looking], apparently
> > they are down -3dB at 22kHz, so who knows what they'll be down to
> > at 48kHz.
>
> That's not the point.
It is the point, I was saying that my speakers couldn't reproduce
frequencies higher than 22kHz accurately.
> It's not like 44khz gives perfect signal at
> anything below 22khz, and nothing above it.
Not perfect, but perfect in terms of most peoples' ears. You *cannot*
sample a frequency higher than 22kHz at a 44kHz sampling rate - any analogue
to digital converter will filter higher frequencies out before it samples.
> A 22khz wave form at 44khz looks like this:
> * * * * * * * * * * *
> ------------------------------
> * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> Regardless of the actual shape of the wave.
That's not entirely true, the 22kHz must be put through an anti-alias filter
first before it is sampled. And guess what? That cuts off anything above
22kHz. Hence, the actual analogue wave you are sampling will be exactly the
same whether it was a square wave, triangle wave, sine wave or whatever to
start with.
When you convert it back to analogue, it will come out as a 22kHz sine wave,
which is identical to what was _actually_ sampled.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
