The hardest part of how sound works for me was how multiple sound sources combine to a single data stream, a single wave form. Everything an ear hears is the input of a single wave traveling through the liquid of your cochlea, and your brain does extremely complicated processing on it to separate those elements, identify them, and locate them in 3d space. This is why your headphones don't need separate audio outputs for every instrument in the song you're listening to.
Yes that's right. There are 3 ways the brain separates the position of sounds with the help of our 2 ears. 1. Difference in volume 2. Difference in time 3. Difference in timbre The first point is pretty self explanatory. The second point relies on the distance between our ears and the fact that there will be a time difference left to right (or vice versa) between any sounds that are to the left/right of you. If two similar sounds arrive at your ears within 50ms of each other, then your brain uses this difference and interprets it as a position, favouring the side that received the sound first. Any longer and you will hear two separate sounds. The third relies on the fact that if a sound directly hits one ear, then your head will "shield" the other ear from the higher frequencies in the sound. This is because higher frequencies are more directional than low frequencies and are less likely to "bend" around your head. The side with more high frequency content is interpreted by your brain as being more likely to have heard the sound first.
C. H. The biology and high level concepts are fascinating and I can comprehend them pretty well. The physics, though, that's another story. The way multiple sound waves combine into a single two dimensional signal that still works for us as they're still distinct is the hard part. Harmonics, different sounds interacting by being amplified or cancelled out, etc. All that physical stuff that happens in between the 100 piece orchestra and the microphone turning their combined work into single series of numbers (or two for stereo :p)
I believe it's as simple as summing them. In the digital recording domain you've got a hard top limit to go by as well, so if you're using a basic DAW you're averaging the values and then amplifying them (or not) depending on how mush headroom you have. Newer DAWs with 64-bit internal precision mean that the summing can just happen without the master fader ever clipping.
I was a young lad when CD's became big but I can still remember the first time I heard a CD back in the late 80's... sounded like the musicians were in the room with me. To my ears it was superior to any cassette tape or vinyl record because there was no background noise... just a clarity of sound I had not experienced until then.
This is how I like to think of low pass filters "de-jaggying" (antialiasing). A low pass filter, at it's absolute simplest, is a capacitor (with a current limiting resistor to keep the smoke in) Capacitors resist change in voltage. Like a weight on a spring resists change in length of a vertical spring. So that infinite rate change stair step is slowed down by the capacitor. That's it. The digital signal tells the voltage to "CHANGE RIGHT NOW NOW NOW GO GO GO" Then the capacitor replies, "OK, will do, gimme a second, I'm getting there, plod plod plod" Simples.
assuming that voltage is torque and current is rotation speed, I like to think to the capacitor as the spring and the inductor as the flywheel. In fact, the equations governing them are pretty much the same
Gianluca Ghettini Ok, I get a flywheel resisting change in RPM. I get torque being Voltage. What is this spring? And how is it resisting change in torque? Is it between the torque source and the drive shaft? Is it line with the drive shaft and stores torque as potential? Also, is this instead of my analogy of a weight on a spring? It probably would have better maths because I guess it's polar maths? Amd when you watch the voltage try to track the digital input you're watching the flywheel edge on, rotated 90 through the vertical?
You can't worry about it. You don't have a choice between some oscillations and none unless you're going to invent a new technology. He pointed out how both analog and digital are exactly equally faulty in this sense.
@@littlegandhi1199 It's not faulty. That's just how analog sounds happen in the real world. It's that if you could project a perfect square wave, your ears will still have those ocilations. Because your eardrum can not physically teleport from the top to the bottom of the canal.
Yes, but the sufficient condition given isn't quite right. A sample rate exactly twice the highest frequency suppresses that frequency whole or in part, depending on the phase, and unless the samples fall right on peaks.
A series of samples going high-mid-low-mid-high describes a frequency of a quarter of the sampling rate. A series going high-high-low-low-high-high also describes the same number of samples per cycle but at a different phase. If the sampling rate is an integer multiple of the frequency described, the exact pattern of samples depends on relative phase.
Dalton what’s funny is that it’s possible that what the ‘audiophools’ are referring to a ‘more perfect’ of vinyl sounds is actually the imperfections that limits the analog signal: physical defects.
@@pilotavery Just going up to 48khz helps a lot, CDs 44khz make everything over 15khz sould more and more like noise where 20khz sound 100% like noise if it is more complicated then a pure sine wave...
@@a64738 Oversampling does in fact change the signal to noise ratio, I like a crisp high end but I question the "musical" application of frequencies over 20KHz...
That's pretty much this video. If your DAC is poor then reproduction won't be in such a nice waves as were shown here and there will be more artifacts (inaccuracies).
You see one in action if you use the falstad circuit simulator, click on the "Circuit" menu -> "Analog/Digital" and load up a DAC like the R-2R Ladder DAC. www.falstad.com/circuit/circuitjs.html
I've been a fan of technology connections for the longest time and have been watching the channel for fun, but I never expected it to explain a topic in one of my classes better than my professor! What a pleasant suprise, thanks for the video :)
I have a 4 year physics degree and have worked as an electronic testing engineer for the avionics industry for 2 years.... this video finally helped me understand what the Fourier transform does. Sure, I used it all the time on my physics and math homework in college, but I could never wrap my head around what it actually does. After this video, it finally makes sense!
This is hard to believe. You worked them out by hand all the time without knowing the basic idea of what it is? In my physics bachelors, I didn't use them "all the time." I used Fourier series in probably one or two classes.
The Covox Speech Thing and Disney Sound Source are two practical examples of really simple ladder resistor DACs. They both plugged into the parallel port of an old PC and used its 8 data lines to drive 8 resistor networks tied into a mono analog audio out. This chumpy setup basically created an 8-bit DAC with a sample rate that was limited only by the speed of the parallel port. Unfortunately, as they were completely dumb hunks of passive electronics, they couldn't tell the difference between data meant to be converted into sound and data meant for the printer. If their output was left on when printing, they made a horrible squealing noise.
And yet another great video. I had read Monty's article eons ago, for a long time I had lost track of it. As an audiophile I used to share it with other audiophiles to help them understand how digital audio works and also help explain why buying audio downloads sampled at 192kHz is just a waste of money (maybe not for Batman). The reality is that almost no one understands the math and engineering underneath (including some engineers). The problem usually is a lousy ADC/DAC not the digital medium. Your lecture in this video is the closest I 've seen to make such complex issue understandable for those who lack the science background. Amazing work! Respect and Thanks!
His video clearly shows the issues is completely misunderstood. Now, beyond the arithmetics of audio, let's get.deeper into audio itself. I was educated in sample rate affects by THE Rupert Neve. If you don't know his name, you don't know audio. Look him up. Anyhow, he can show the affect of higher sample rates (frequency) based on overtones and how they can affect what we can hear directly through physics. I have heard EXACTLY what he is taking about through experience, and no, I don't claim to be a geeky audiophile. You just have to listen. Overtones above our hearing threshold affect frequencies within our hearing threshold. Those who smugly tell you "you can't possibly hear above 20 kHz" are only partly right, but significantly wrong when it comes to what those frequencies can do to other frequencies. Simpletons don't know this and say its "just audiophiles acting snobbish" when in reality they just don't have the wider experience and education on audio (analog) and physics. It's more complex than the Nyquist theory and the digital side of things. Sad that this is not more widely understood.
@@videodistro I've read things saying those are just unwanted harmonics within the amplifier or speaker, and when the file is accurately output, they are no longer present. What's your take on that?
"The key here is... don't worry about it." Had me literally laughing out loud. Thanks again for these awesome videos. You inspire me to work harder on my own channel's production and entertainment value. 😀
I've seen a DAC that plugged into the parallel port and simply had a bunch of identical resistors soldered to the output pins. Not the most professional solution, but this was the early 1990s, and people didn't have sound cards lying about.
Yup, the raspberry doesn't have an analogue out - it uses either PWM or Sigma-Delta. However, one-bit CD-players(MASH) are quite old, and SACD is 1 bit.
Thanks! Claude Shannon is absolutely an unsung hero. He should be as famous as Von Neumann (to me)! He was clearly a genius, and - more than any other person - is the father of information theory. He laid the groundwork for the digital age, and he did it back in the 1940s. tavi.
The low pass filter in my opinion was the one that I had the hardest time understanding, and probably, for many of my digital audio recorders, never bothered to used because I wanted to edit it myself and have it be recorded totally RAW and with no effects included in the audio and such, except the intensities of the audio and such (This is why when I go to concerts, I put it at the low volume so it doesn't end up distorting, compared to classroom sessions where I put it on medium, but it picks up a ton of fan noise in the background, which sucks but that's what it is sadly).
650Mb was a lot of data. When I bought my first CDR writer in 1997, my entire hard drive was only 2Gb in size. CDs represented an absurdly cheap way to store data. Fast forward to today... and that's no longer the case even for dual layer blu-rays, which are far more expensive per gigabyte than hard drives.
Particularly since PC hard drives of the period were only on the order of tens of megabytes. This was a particular issue to those trying to create CD-ROMs. Even when DVDs first came out, they held more than the common hard drive capacity, though the ratio was smaller. By about the ’00s, hard drives had overtaken optical media and left them in the dust.
A beautiful explanation. I can't imagine how you struggled to achieve such an elegant and balanced presentation without mathematics. Thanks! Ive been thinking about this topic for years and today you've helped me reach that very important intuitive feel.
I'm so glad you said "giant leap" instead of "quantum leap." It bugs me when people say "quantum leap" because it's the smallest possible change that can be detected in chemistry.
A nice simple explanation of a very complicated topic. The video storage method you speak of at the end is the Sony PCM-1630 format and it was used on both U-Matic and 1" C format videotape, there was a consumer version the PCM-F1 that was normally used with Betamax VCR's (although any analog video recorder would work).
I've worked with those devices before. I thought it was cool at the time to think that you could store digital audio on a video cassette and then of course ADAT came along to do multi-track.
Audiophiles are the flat earthers of music. I hope some watch this formidable explanation and accept the hard facts of physics and maths, leaving behind some mambo jambo mojo mythology about digital being worse than analog.
I think most audiophiles just pretend they hear the difference between 100$ and 1000$ audio cable, even if they don’t hear or know for sure there isn’t. People really like the idea of belonging to the elite, so no other audiophile would destroy this illusion, or they all would draw themselves as pretentious liars at best or fools who spent insane amount of grands on something practically useless at worst. You need to train your ears and brain for a loooong time in order be able to analyze what you hear. This isn’t a skill you obtain passively listening music. After certain threshold even the best audio engineer in the world wouldn’t notice difference in “quality” or whatever. Not to mention that the older you get the narrower your hearing range becomes (especially it’s upper threshold)
You are officially the first channel I have supported on patreon. Every video is informative, free of gimmicks, well written with great nerd humor thrown in.
This is why I've always hated people who claim records are better than digital, if they prefer the inferior sound of a record that's fine, but they could just hook the output of a record player up to a digital recorder and save that, then when they play back the digital recording and it will sound exactly like the record with all it's flaws included. That's also why the "records sound the way the artist intended" argument is so bullshit, if they really wanted their songs to sound like it does when played from a record then they would use a record to make the digital recordings.
But it would still be inferior to a digital recording played back on the same equipment. Even if you had an absolutely perfect never before played record, it would only match the quality of a digital recording on the first play, the second playback would be objectively worse from the wear of the first playback, even with an optical/laser turntable in a vacuum there would be eventual wear and degradation of the record over time. Some people might prefer the sound of a record, which again is perfectly fine, I have no doubt a lot of people do and they are not wrong for preferring it, but there is no real objective benefit to a record over digital, digital is superior in just about every way.
A digital recording cannot be played back on the exact same equipment as an analog medium. In order to really compare analog a digital, what is needed is comparison of an analog and a digital recording similar in dynamic range, frequency response, etc.
I like and buy vinyl. But it's because I appreciate them as art objects and enjoy sort of the ceremony of Putting On and Listening to a Record. I, of course, also buy CD's for the same reason and the high quality sound. :P
Records tend to sound better than CDs overall because mastering was better in the days of vinyl. And they do sound the way that the artist intended because the artists approved the master. That's not necessarily true of the catalog CD that was released decades after. But there's no technical limitation keeping CDs from sounding as good, it's just that most of the time they don't. Of course not all of this is true if you only listen to newer music so your experience may be different than mine.
You just angered every single audiophile on the entire planet! :o Also, I've heard the graph called a 'lollipop graph' - because it's representing sampled points, not an actual curve.
Man, I remember learning about Nyquist's sampling theory in an engineering class and being pretty sceptical as to how that would actually work. We were told to just accept it at the time but this makes it so much more logical!
I'm just waiting for the Golden Ear brigade to hit the comments. 'But I have special hearing that goes way beyond 20Khz! (no you don't)' 'I can "feel" the music better with an infinitely accurate analog signal (no you can't)' 'Digital doesn't capture all the "nuances" of music (yes it does)'
I am audiophile and agree with the above, the thing is that machines are not perfect and you need great engineering to make this work well. I am a fan of CDs because they got it right from the beginning using math and the physics. LPs are cool and effortless to reproduce but have lots of flaws. A turntable is a "simple" machine, a CD player/DAC are pretty complex ones. So the difference in reproduction is in the equipment not in the theory and there is a big difference between consumer audio gear and high fi gear.
Some people can hear up to 24KHz, but only people who haven't abused their hearing AND that are under the age of 24. This extra range doesn't contribute much to the overall sound though, and most people able to hear this tiny bit of extra frequencies don't care about good music anyway.
Some people CAN hear past 20 kHz, as it's only the human average, not a set-in-stone value. I'm one of those freaks who can hear some of it, like when some kinds of electronics are running. Nearly broke a window because of it. My ex had left some kind of air-filter/ionizer... thing in my closet when she moved out. I pulled it out to see if it worked. Plugged it in, turned it on while holding it (worst mistake ever...), and it started making one of the highest frequency noises I've ever heard. I literally threw it across the room, yanking the cord out of the socket and almost out a window. It was awful. And no, being able to hear those higher frequencies doesn't add anything to the "music experience." All the really high frequency stuff just gets drowned out 99.9% of the time. You're seriously not missing out on anything if your hearing doesn't go outside the average range, other than the occasional headache because you can hear some tiny, awful tone/sound from a coworkers' computer that literally no one else in the office can hear.
Welp, this one finally did it, subscriber I now am. This video was excellent and so far up my ally it's almost uncanny. The visuals and concise descriptions of 15 minutes just taught me more then 2+ weeks of random internet research and has really brought an understanding to it all. The band limit on the input AND output is what really brought it home, as did the descriptions of "infinite" frequency transitions causing strange looking recreations. So thank you so much for all you've done.
Thanks for another great tech deep-dive video. Please consider another video explaining SACD 1-bit PWM audio encoding system. It's almost not covered among audio-tech enthusiasts...
It took me days to get my head around that. The fact that it's recursive means there's no easy starting point - every loop needs the previous looped steps to have happened for there to be any data to make sense of/learn about.
Not really. In as much as you can't have a waveform without multiple samples, yes. But, the effect of past samples diminishes greatly in a short time due to the band limiting again. Instead of multiple vertical steps, as in the (PCM) examples in this video, DSD or PWM (same thing, different marketing) just oscillate from the extreme top and bottom values at a much much higher rate. Instead of 65536 vertical steps at 44kHz, there are only two steps but at a couple MHz.
That's one of the steps in the simpler form of PWM. Omitting lots, the error between this 0 or 1 is constantly fed back into the input to give a correct average over time (essentially making the 0s and 1s "down" or "up" commands for the drawing of the waveform). It's not as simple as just increasing the sample rate and decreasing the bit depth. I studied this stuff.
I think you're thinking of Delta-Sigma modulation, which uses successive approximation to achieve the result of a resistor ladder without the requirement of super high precision resistors. PWM doesn't have or need a feedback signal. The duty cycle determines the output. Whatever is encoded in the bitstream gets transmitted as-is and low-passed. You can actually make a DSD "DAC" with a push-pull TTL output, and an RC filter. Now if you're talking about the encoding process, then yes - you need an oscillator, a comparator (too high? too low?), and a feedback from after the filter as an input to the comp. I study this stuff too. ;-)
I always assumed the "stair stepping" would never reach the output, basically because DAC is not a misnomer. If it says it puts analog out, it puts analog out.
@@BrianMarshall1 that's why I've had my professor at school explain to me and our class that for digital signals, digital is just a layer over analouge. We just interpret voltage levels as digital data. That's why noise/interference can be harmful to a digital signal. Even if the data is right, noise/interference can cuase the bits to flip.
nope, there is definitely spectra associated with outputting a jagged signal. ('infinite' mirrors of the baseband signal), and basically we remove all that with analog filters to get the 'perfect reconstruction'
I learned a few things from this, despite being very interested in this stuff already. Thanks, great video! And here's a little fact for you, which I came up with decades ago: If you were to record a band's live performance lasting about 1 hour and 40 minutes (which seems plausible) in CD quality stereo, uncompressed, then you'd need... 1 gigabyte! 1 "gig" of data, to store a gig. Hee hee!
UA-cam randomly recommended this video to me this morning, even though I already watched it some time ago, and I decided to see it again. After that, today I had a course in digital electronics (I'm a student in Computer Science) and, no joke, basically everything I was told in the course was contained in this video; my teacher was amazed I knew what the Nyquist-Shannon theorem stated 😂😂😂
oh my god, i think I actually get this the dots represent the segments between curves that follow particular shape rules, so that's all you need to store. It's like a compression algorithm built into the geometry of sound...?
Yes. The samples are simply snapshots of a point on a waveform in a small fraction of time. Mathematically, the only possible waveform that can pass through all those sample points is the original waveform. Thus the samples recreate the exact waveform that was sampled. Nyquist states that to reproduce the exact waveform you must have at least 2 sample points between a peak and a trough. Thus you must sample at twice the frequency you wish to be your upper limit. So CD is 44,100 samples a second to perfectly recreate frequencies below 22,050 Hz.
That Monthy video on digital audio is the holy grail for us who want to learn deeply about the topic, without getting too complicated with the mathematical part of it.
Because you are dealing with theoretical vs. practice. It's easy to say "the low pass filter..." but low pass filters aren't perfect. Early brick wall filters rang horribly, causing artifacts to the audio as it limited it. Even today they're not perfect. Then DACs are also not perfect. It's nearly impossible to design ladder DACs these days because resistors have variances and they cannot be trimmed to an accuracy where even the two channels in a stereo DAC provide the exact same output per mono channel fed into either channel. Modern single bit DACS have their own issues, and finally, there's that filter problem again. There are also a variety of other issues, but these are some of the easier to explain ones.
There also the truth that while analog audio has much more errors and smearing than in digital realm, those "problems" can sound comfortable and even really good. That's why analog recorded albums sound (subjectively) better and why people love vinyl even today. Guitars are perfect example of this. Electric guitars get their traditionally distinctive soundscape from poorly designed amplifier circuits, sometimes enhanced by pushing them too far to create walls of analog distortion.
@@VideoArchiveGuy Digital low-pass filters are actually perfect, within the limitations of what a real-life oscillation is. The ringing of a very steep low-pass filter is concentrated at the knee frequency, meaning it would be at 20 kHz or above for 44.1 kHz. There are three reasons why digital can be abhorred by "audiophiles". The first one is that these low-pass filters were originally done in analogue, and that caused analogue ratty distortion on the top end of a signal. Nowadays converters don't work the same way at all. They capture a very high frequency range, way outside the limit of hearing, and then apply a digital filter that doesn't cause that distortion. The second one is that a lot of people have absolutely no idea about the info in this video. I have heard the "stairstep", the "ultrasonic info", and the "minimum timing information" myths from people who really, really should have known better amongst sound engineers; the average Joe would fare way worse. The third one is that music often sounds pretty cool with the added distortions of tape, vinyl, and extra analogue stages. A lot of that distortion sounds nice! Even today, most pop music recordings have distortion added to them because, well, it sounds better that way. People would be shocked at the amount of distortion, either digital or analogue, added to almost every pop and rock album even today. However, if it sounds better to add more distortion at the playback stage, it means that maybe the producers and engineers should have added it at the production stage. But that's just a preference. The absolute proof that digital is a better medium than vinyl is that you can record a digital signal into vinyl and it will sound like vinyl. However, you can record a vinyl signal into digital, and it will sound *exactly* like the vinyl.
@@distortingjack Digitally sourced vinyl still usually sounds like digital. It is true that vinyl recorded to digital will retain character of the vinyl, with many listeners preferring the sound of a digital recording sourced from a good LP to that released as a digital recording.
I am very glad that years ago a hobbyist musician took me under his wings and had bulletproof arguments against a sound card I wanted to buy back then and that was acclaimed by lots of audiophiles. He pretty much debunked their marketing slang and made me see it for what it was. An overly expensive consumer device. This made me explore the rabbit hole of digital audio. And now I’m here, glad to find a well produced video aiming to debunk another myth I used to believe in back then. Thank you!
I thought it created audio that was choppy but sampled fast enough to be indistinguishable. It's interesting to know that the low pass filter smooths it out and that it's truly lossless.
It makes you realise that many CD's that sound bad sound bad because they are perfectly reproducing a bad recording and not because they are cd's. Then you see that the so called "hi-res" music (which isnt needed as cd audio is designed to be perfect anyway) sounds better because they used a better quality recording. So why are us consumers being messed with when buying cd's?
Just want to add that the stairstep output + lowpass combination isn't quite how proper DACs work. The lowpass part is fine, but the stairstep method itself (zero-order hold) does not have a flat frequency response below the Nyquist limit, it actually drops to 0 as you get there. Real DACs use a combination of tricks. For example, if instead of having a stairstep that goes from sample to sample, you have 1/2 sample width "bars" at each sample, with the signal dropping back to 0 volts for half of each sample, then the high frequency response is more gradual, going to 0 at twice the Nyquist frequency. There is still some loss in the audible range that you care about, but then you can compensate it with a digital filter before the DAC (often part of DAC chips themselves). If instead of spitting out an on-off pattern directly like that you create it digitally (by doubling the sampling rate and having zeros between samples), then add a digital filter, you've just created an oversampling DAC which is even more effective. Here's a nice PDF from TI that shows the various approaches: training.ti.com/sites/default/files/docs/TIPL4705%20-%20DAC%20Output%20Response.pdf But really, the important takeaway is that we understand all of this and we can engineer real DACs to be pretty much perfect as far as our hearing can tell. Correction: I'm off by a factor of two about the response. Sample and hold drops to 0 at the sampling frequency (twice the Nyquist limit) and the 1/2 width method drop to 0 at twice the sampling frequency.
Yes, that's what I said in my earlier comment. Basically, if you have stair-step signal, you get about -3 dB loss at 20 kHz. With 2x oversample, the loss will be -0.75 dB, and with 4x, it's -0.18 dB. Coincidentally, an effect on the frequency response of using 50% duty cycle bars will be the same as 2x oversample, and with 25% duty cycle it's same as 4x oversample. With true oversample, though, you'll just get the aliases farther in frequency, so you can use a simpler analog filter.
Ah, yes, I was off by a factor of two. It goes to 0 at the sampling frequency (which makes sense) and at half that you get 2/π, which is -3.9dB or so. And yeah, the point of oversampling is to get rid of the aliasing within the new wider response digitally, so then the analog filter is much easier to make.
Some folks may be surprised to learn that the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem is also extremely relevant in the field of astrophotography. And for the same reason: it is the digital representation of an analog signal. Amazing how their work in the 1920's is still massive relevant over 100 years later.
Its perfectly fine to prefer the analogue stuff. While it may be objectively less identical to the original recording, that doesn't make it worse, in the same way a painting is no worse nor better than a photo.
Regarding 4:51-5:09, I have explained this before and will say it again; The sample value going between the highest and lowest possible values at half the sample rate can only represent a sinewave at one phase or exactly the opposite phase. Two samples per cycle are not enough because of the possibility of phase mismatches, and these are even quite likely. If those two samples fall on zero crossing points, the waveform cannot hit them at all. The sampling rate needs to be greater than twice the highest frequency of a baseband signal to avoid phase mismatches, and there is never a need for a "perfect" filter.
Yeah, as I understand it, the sample rate only needs to be very slightly above double the frequency limit, but it can't be exactly double. It's an exclusive minimum.
Please remember that the sample rate on a CD is 44100 and the filter cuts all frequencies above 20Khz. The sample rate is actually well above the nyquist rate and so any sine wave that passes the filter has its phase relationship preserved.
I'll tell you what man, the quality of your content is just simply top notch. idk if you do all this by yourself, but seriously good job. been following your channel for a while and you know sometimes I find myself binge watching some of the older stuff just a little too often, but again that only just helps stress what I've previously stated; you, my friend do an excellent job! keep it up!
I tip my hat to you, sir. This is one of the most concise and elegant explanations of the digital sampling process for a non-engineer that I have ever seen. You've elegantly avoided talking about a reconstruction kernel, but at the same time put a stop to the never-ending digital-analog audio wars. Thank you!
awesome video! i wasn't aware of the LPF in the DAC and i always thought it was like a square wave caused by digital processing, but it isn't. MINDBLOWING!!!
I have been digging into the schematics of the Atari 2600 and when you showed the DAC in this video, I realized that the resistors hanging off of the TIA (Television Interface Adapter) were doing the same function, raising and lowering the voltage at the speed of the clock to generate color and brightness. Thanks for showing the resistor circuit, I never would have looked that up, and would have never put 2+2 together.
Nooo! Don't give me this oppressive math that proves my beloved analog audio isn't better than your goddamn mass produced CD! Physics and math only apply when I say that my music is limited by atoms! *which it isn't* Another nice note to add, is that our ears themselves use basically the same fourier transformation. We don't just hear a continuous wave, but instead, our ears pick up thousands of different frequencies. We basically hear in frequency domain not time domain, and this is how people can be deaf to very specific frequency tones. My dad for example is 100% deaf to the frequency of most digital thermometers or wristwatch alarms, after some years working near old IBM bank printers of the 80s-90s.
Brilliant informative video. I learn so much! I knew that the theorem allows perfect replication of analog audio digitally, which is why it bugs me when people say they hear a quality difference between CD and high-res audio. Which is true if you want to hear an orchestra at real-life volume and then a mouse squeaking straight after.
@@Myrtone Sampling is for frequency response, quantising does noise level. 16 bits does a very, very, very low noise level, I recall somethling like 85+db, and dithering drops that much further. Way beyond what you can discern in a typical listening environment.
I studied this stuff in college, and I must say this a great explanation of it, your motion diagrams regarding the Fourier series and aliasing were very informative. I've never gotten into the habit of arguing with audiophiles; it's rather like arguing with flat earthers or other such nuts who refuse to listen to logic, but it's good to be able to explain this stuff to those who are willing.
Oh, I was writing 10 khz+ square waves to type 1 cassette, trying to figure out their max frequency, and the square waves kept coming out as sine waves, and as triangle waves at frequencies as low as 5 hkz, I think. Long story short, I tried different tapes, and all the same, I thought my tape player had a harmonic, or wow and flutter problem, but this video just tought me my player is just fine!
I always wondered about this but now I understand the filter is key - and just when I was questioning how ADC's work, out popped the answer. Very cool video indeed thank you - Technology Connections is fast becoming my favourite UA-cam channel.
Douglas Quaid I was wrong. You DO lose bandwidth due to reduced sample rate with each new opened channel, except when going from 3 to 4 channels, bit it’s due to lost resolution only. Though, that all being said, the minimum sample rate is 250Msamples/sec, which theoretically can do 100mhz but you’re really cutting it close there.
Yeah, but is easy to imagine the digital data make "square-ish" waves while analog waves are not. So it's valuable to have a good technical explanation of how it really is.
Vinyl vs digital can be mythbusted by specs alone - vinyl sensitivity around 60-70 dB, frequency range is quite dependent on the mastering and manufacturing process. CD on the other hand has sensitivity of 96dB, always and frequency response of 20-20kHz, always, independent of mastering and manufacturing (please bear in mind that it doesn't mean the recorded material actually has all the frequencies in range of 20-20kHz, just that the CD is able to always store them). If you increase sampling rate you get better frequency range and sensitivity and you ALWAYS have them available, not depending on how you manufacture the media.
He did bust the "vinyl reproduces sound more accurately than digital". However, there are many more reasons that would one chose one format over the other. I am on team digital here, but it gets quite subjective from person to person.
Thank you so much. I am currently writing a audio modem in python from ground up. I had much theoretical knowledge about those mathematics and processing techniques, but had never REALLY UNDERSTOOD IT. Thanks to your video I do now. Thank you so much. Please keep on bringing those videos
Sounds like the reverse of how the ZX Spectrum computer loaded data from a program stored on cassettes, which created sounds similar to dial-up internet that produced raster bars on the screen.
"You wouldn't want this blocky waveform screwing around with your favourite recording of Beethoven's 9th. But you forget dear Audiophile .." Is that A Clockwork Orange Reference?
Greetings to the brainwashed audiophiles who think that their ears are better than math (because some businessman decided to give a little volume boost to the 96/192 music that he put on sale). I recently found an example of a phenomenon person who claimed to hear the difference when switching the "cable direction". Yeah. Not only the one from the receiver to the speakers, but also the HDMI one from the computer to the receiver (yeah!). That psychologically modified organism spent two hundreds of euro for cables only :) The audio industry is happy.
Cables wise, I've found there's three levels of quality to me: Cheap, adequate, and waste-of-money. I have a few 3.5mm->RCA connectors, one is super-super cheap, and it's garbage. I also have a Monster-branded one (bought used at a Goodwill, for $5), and a $15 Walmart one. The latter two I can't tell apart unless my ear is right to the speaker, and I can't tell which is better. This seems to apply for any A/V cable I've ever owned, anything beyond mid-or-upper-mid range (Alloy plating is nice for durability anyway) and it's a waste.
@@DFX2KX Note that this person was talking about an HDMI cable, in other words a cable transporting a *digital* signal... A digital signal is either correctly transported or not, there's no gradient of quality in this case !!! Analog signal is a bit different though of course any cable beyond "reasonable quality" is an absolute rip-off. (I'm not talking about the physical qualities of cables here either, some are just nicer to look at, last longer, don't break the first time you try to bend them and so on)
This is absolutely mind blowing , it’s interesting how an curved analogue signal gets digitized into an square pattern, then a adc converts that square pattern back to a curved pattern analogue signal. But 16bit audio is not all, the S/N ratio, the sample rate and the amount of kbps also play’s key rule in audio quality.
Hummm. That brings me to Think that... if, ANY audible waveform can be reproduced propely with a 44.1 kHz sampling rate, that anything flashy of 192 kHz is just snake oil... because there are some good and some crappy mastering on cd's and, if there's a bad mastering one on the market, what a great opportunity to master it again and put it on some hi res cd? Thanks a lot for those explanations. I'll stick to 44.1 and 48 kHz and nothing above it, even for pro audio digital mixing, except if higher sampling rate allow for lower latences of live sound. That's the only benefit I could see useful for higher sampling rate.
I think that's the exact intent behind high-bandwidth audio If you want the opportunity to remaster it might be a good idea, otherwise, nobody's going to hear the difference. I've heard also that high-bandwidth audio works better when passing through the high and low pass filter sets used to split bass from treble in tower speakers. Knowing what I know now from the video... I'm not sure how that would make a difference.
Having higher frequencies for remixing isn't going to make a single difference. Bit depth will do as it does with image correction where banding appears when tweaking levels on a 24 bit rgb source ( 8 bit per color). For crossovers... that's non sense... they are just band limiters... there's just a ton of snake oil and missconceptions
I'm gonna adjust my glasses and wag my finger while saying that the cutoff frequency of a filter is measured when the output has changed 3dB. I also need to say that you make awesome videos that keeps me entertained and informed.
He was also talking about an analog filter and as far as I remember it's a definition for all filters but it's been about 16 years since I finished my education in electronics en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutoff_frequency
I just watched a video about something I knew absolutely nothing about 17 minutes ago. Now I'm actually interested enough to learn more and I understand how important it is in my life.
the sampling frequency has to be bigger then two times the highest frequency contained in the signal and not bigger or equal. imagine measuring sin(wt) and sampling it at exactly twice it's frequency, and the timing of the samples exactly so that each sample is taken when the signal is 0. how do you know the signal is sin(wt) instead of -sin(wt) or just 0? that's why the sampling frequency has to be higher then two times the highest signal frequency.
Exactly, considering what would happen if the sampling rate is exactly twice the frequency and the timing of the samples is not taken when the signal is at the peak voltage, this has escaped Alec's attention.
Even at "exactly Nyquist" the amplitude information also isn't meaningful, since the sampling phase will affect sample values. Finally, samples at zero crossing points will mean no signal at all, that is "mid-mid-mid" not "low-high-low".
This is true, but it's of more interest to mathematicians than engineers, since an engineer will never encounter a wave at the exact frequency cut-off of the low-pass filter.
Some of the concepts here might be easier to demonstrate in audio form if you used some lower sample rate files (say at 8000 or 11025 samples per second), so that the reproducible frequency limit is within the range of normal hearing.
There seems to be some confusion over the meaning of the word "harmonic". I still liked the video overall. 1) 3:35 - All 1D signals can be represented as an infinite sum of sine waves, but only strictly periodic signals are composed of harmonics, i.e. frequencies that are integer multiples of some base frequency. 2) 4:43 - Same 3) 5:11 - "You eliminate all high frequency harmonics", noooo... high frequency content, yes. 4) 6:22 - "harmonic frequency", aargh. The mechanical frequency response of a speaker cone is most definitely not harmonic. 4:28 and 4:33 were the only technically correct usages of "harmonic".
A big thank you for this, I knew the Nyquist limit but couldn't reconcile that with the sample-and-hold of the output making an obviously imperfect reproduction. The missing part in my understanding was putting a bandwidth limit on the OUTPUT, and now it makes intuitive sense.
I presume you will eventually deal with the fact that the vast majority of audio DAC's aren't resistor ladders (because of the required precision you mentioned)?
I was going to comment the same. A properly manufactured LaserDisc is one of the few analog formats that is not prone to wear and decay, since it's optically read.
I greatly appreciate the level of detail you achieve in your videos. UA-cam is somewhat typecast by videos that are extremely topical and high level - one doesn't really learn anything from so many of the technology channels on this platform. Your channel, on the other hand, has never failed to teach me something new and often valuable with each video of the couple dozen I've watched. Thank you.
Solid video bringing into attention one of the most shocking aspects of digital audio: the fact that you can actually *perfectly* reconstruct an analog signal from its digital samples
Well, not quite. What the video actually brings to attention is that one can unambiguously reconstruct a band-limited time continuous signal from analog samples. That's right, analog samples, an examples is the cycles of the carrier in A.M radio. Remember these are still continuous in amplitude.
@@KairuHakubi I will tell you having met those people. There are individuals on this planet who actually think the earth is flat, they are not joking or trolling. They actually think it's flat and you can either walk off the edge or will walk into the dome.
@@2009dudeman i'm sorry you think that, dude. it's really weird to me how many people are so easily convinced of something proven false, but all you have to do is hear 'lol some people think the world is flat' and i guess your reflex is to believe it to gain superiority over them.. it's an old, old lie that I thought had gone away. but keep perpetuating it I guess, see where that gets us.
@@KairuHakubi Maybe there is something getting lost in translation. I don't think the earth is flat. I am saying other people who are not me believe the earth is flat.
I got it - Image-Line has published Xiph.org's videos to UA-cam. They must have been recorded with a screencasting tool from their UA-cam channel. But you can download the original ones for free!
Just out of curiosity, is there some sort of theoretical limit to the highest frequency sound that can be carried by air itself? It probably varies based on pressure and such, but I was curious.
That is about right. The mean distance a molecule travels between collisions can be estimated as 50-100 nanometers. With the speed of sound of 340 m/s you can get your limit. If the wavelength is smaller than what a molecule runs between collisions, you can expect the regions of high and low pressure become extremely ill-defined. It gives you a limit of about 2 to 5 GHz. This is an estimate, of course. I imagine the signal becomes too noisy and attenuates too fast way before you reach this limit. (the estimate is specifically for air at room temperature and the pressure of 1 atmosphere; solids work differently and transfer sound faster)
@Technology Connections - Excellent and accurate explanation. More people need to see this when they start to say, "But, stair-steps!" Because I have tried to explain this far too many times, over the years.
Nyquist Shannon Theorem would have to be the single most valuable piece of knowledge to do with digital signal processing. So handy to be able to answer a customer re. how much bandwidth to allow for a signal: “yes, I am sure that is the bandwidth needed. No, the signal will be perfect. Yes. Literally perfect.”
There's a shot in this video that's upside down because... I forgot to un-upside down it. Sigh.
That is, in fact, the technical term for it. It's under Clip > Transform > Un-upside-down.
5:01, I presume?
Oh wow, I didn't even notice. I just thought it was part of the presentation =D
You have to cater the antipodes as well.
In VideoPad, it's called re-rightsideupify
The hardest part of how sound works for me was how multiple sound sources combine to a single data stream, a single wave form. Everything an ear hears is the input of a single wave traveling through the liquid of your cochlea, and your brain does extremely complicated processing on it to separate those elements, identify them, and locate them in 3d space. This is why your headphones don't need separate audio outputs for every instrument in the song you're listening to.
Yes that's right.
There are 3 ways the brain separates the position of sounds with the help of our 2 ears.
1. Difference in volume
2. Difference in time
3. Difference in timbre
The first point is pretty self explanatory.
The second point relies on the distance between our ears and the fact that there will be a time difference left to right (or vice versa) between any sounds that are to the left/right of you. If two similar sounds arrive at your ears within 50ms of each other, then your brain uses this difference and interprets it as a position, favouring the side that received the sound first. Any longer and you will hear two separate sounds.
The third relies on the fact that if a sound directly hits one ear, then your head will "shield" the other ear from the higher frequencies in the sound. This is because higher frequencies are more directional than low frequencies and are less likely to "bend" around your head. The side with more high frequency content is interpreted by your brain as being more likely to have heard the sound first.
C. H. The biology and high level concepts are fascinating and I can comprehend them pretty well. The physics, though, that's another story. The way multiple sound waves combine into a single two dimensional signal that still works for us as they're still distinct is the hard part. Harmonics, different sounds interacting by being amplified or cancelled out, etc. All that physical stuff that happens in between the 100 piece orchestra and the microphone turning their combined work into single series of numbers (or two for stereo :p)
I believe it's as simple as summing them. In the digital recording domain you've got a hard top limit to go by as well, so if you're using a basic DAW you're averaging the values and then amplifying them (or not) depending on how mush headroom you have. Newer DAWs with 64-bit internal precision mean that the summing can just happen without the master fader ever clipping.
This is also why you can have lossy coding like MP3 and it still sounds fine.
Just like a fourier series, it is indeed just as simple as summing them.
I was a young lad when CD's became big but I can still remember the first time I heard a CD back in the late 80's... sounded like the musicians were in the room with me. To my ears it was superior to any cassette tape or vinyl record because there was no background noise... just a clarity of sound I had not experienced until then.
This is how I like to think of low pass filters "de-jaggying" (antialiasing).
A low pass filter, at it's absolute simplest, is a capacitor (with a current limiting resistor to keep the smoke in)
Capacitors resist change in voltage.
Like a weight on a spring resists change in length of a vertical spring.
So that infinite rate change stair step is slowed down by the capacitor.
That's it.
The digital signal tells the voltage to "CHANGE RIGHT NOW NOW NOW GO GO GO"
Then the capacitor replies, "OK, will do, gimme a second, I'm getting there, plod plod plod"
Simples.
assuming that voltage is torque and current is rotation speed, I like to think to the capacitor as the spring and the inductor as the flywheel. In fact, the equations governing them are pretty much the same
Gianluca Ghettini this is like a perfect analogy!
Wouldn't that be inductors? Or am I reading it wrong?
TiagoTiago yes, my bad. Updated!
Gianluca Ghettini
Ok, I get a flywheel resisting change in RPM.
I get torque being Voltage.
What is this spring? And how is it resisting change in torque? Is it between the torque source and the drive shaft? Is it line with the drive shaft and stores torque as potential?
Also, is this instead of my analogy of a weight on a spring?
It probably would have better maths because I guess it's polar maths? Amd when you watch the voltage try to track the digital input you're watching the flywheel edge on, rotated 90 through the vertical?
Xiph Monty? The same Monty from the opus and vorbis codecs? Damn this dude deserves an award!
Yes, that Monty. :)
Plus a hug for those royalty free codecs.
Monty also has a good video that explains A/D and D/A conversion. ua-cam.com/video/cIQ9IXSUzuM/v-deo.html
"Don't worry about it."
-Technology Connections 2018
You can't worry about it. You don't have a choice between some oscillations and none unless you're going to invent a new technology. He pointed out how both analog and digital are exactly equally faulty in this sense.
You're taking my comment _waaay_ too seriously. I merely found the phase's use in thia video funny.
what timing?
“So the key here is: Don’t worry about it!”
@@littlegandhi1199 It's not faulty. That's just how analog sounds happen in the real world. It's that if you could project a perfect square wave, your ears will still have those ocilations. Because your eardrum can not physically teleport from the top to the bottom of the canal.
"wiggly wobblies"
I told you to cut out the technobabble!
+mohomed1208 i hear it's reached a very high level of development, its THE FUTURE
It's as bad as Dr. Who's timey wimey stuff.
All hands on deck! Swirly-thing alert!
is it timey wimey?
*Very* cool explanation of the Nyquist-Shannon theorem. Made it easy to wrap my head around it. Thanks!
Yes, but the sufficient condition given isn't quite right. A sample rate exactly twice the highest frequency suppresses that frequency whole or in part, depending on the phase, and unless the samples fall right on peaks.
This whole time I've been wondering what happens if the samplerate falls out of phase...
A series of samples going high-mid-low-mid-high describes a frequency of a quarter of the sampling rate. A series going high-high-low-low-high-high also describes the same number of samples per cycle but at a different phase.
If the sampling rate is an integer multiple of the frequency described, the exact pattern of samples depends on relative phase.
The work of the low pass filter is producing analog integration of signals... seems to me.
Yeah, too bad he got it wrong.
The Nyquist-Shannon theory is one of my favourite. It just can't be questioned. It just is solid mathematics.
While it can't be questioned, about about the effects of dithering.
Some people can hear above 20khz though... Solution? 48khz instead of 44.1
Dalton what’s funny is that it’s possible that what the ‘audiophools’ are referring to a ‘more perfect’ of vinyl sounds is actually the imperfections that limits the analog signal: physical defects.
@@pilotavery Just going up to 48khz helps a lot, CDs 44khz make everything over 15khz sould more and more like noise where 20khz sound 100% like noise if it is more complicated then a pure sine wave...
@@a64738 Oversampling does in fact change the signal to noise ratio, I like a crisp high end but I question the "musical" application of frequencies over 20KHz...
I request one in-depth video on DACs, please. Or whatever, since you've yet to have a bad video on this channel.
Agreed, everything he does is gold. I'd like to see a Technology Connections video on peanut butter just to see what he does with it.
I suggested the CD.... EFM, hilman diffie encoding, tracking, focus etc.... fits right in with your DAC suggestion.
That's pretty much this video. If your DAC is poor then reproduction won't be in such a nice waves as were shown here and there will be more artifacts (inaccuracies).
@fred I sure do, it's just a little more developed than a 10 year old's.
You see one in action if you use the falstad circuit simulator, click on the "Circuit" menu -> "Analog/Digital" and load up a DAC like the R-2R Ladder DAC. www.falstad.com/circuit/circuitjs.html
I've been a fan of technology connections for the longest time and have been watching the channel for fun, but I never expected it to explain a topic in one of my classes better than my professor! What a pleasant suprise, thanks for the video :)
I have a 4 year physics degree and have worked as an electronic testing engineer for the avionics industry for 2 years.... this video finally helped me understand what the Fourier transform does. Sure, I used it all the time on my physics and math homework in college, but I could never wrap my head around what it actually does. After this video, it finally makes sense!
This is hard to believe. You worked them out by hand all the time without knowing the basic idea of what it is?
In my physics bachelors, I didn't use them "all the time." I used Fourier series in probably one or two classes.
The Covox Speech Thing and Disney Sound Source are two practical examples of really simple ladder resistor DACs. They both plugged into the parallel port of an old PC and used its 8 data lines to drive 8 resistor networks tied into a mono analog audio out. This chumpy setup basically created an 8-bit DAC with a sample rate that was limited only by the speed of the parallel port. Unfortunately, as they were completely dumb hunks of passive electronics, they couldn't tell the difference between data meant to be converted into sound and data meant for the printer. If their output was left on when printing, they made a horrible squealing noise.
And yet another great video. I had read Monty's article eons ago, for a long time I had lost track of it. As an audiophile I used to share it with other audiophiles to help them understand how digital audio works and also help explain why buying audio downloads sampled at 192kHz is just a waste of money (maybe not for Batman). The reality is that almost no one understands the math and engineering underneath (including some engineers). The problem usually is a lousy ADC/DAC not the digital medium. Your lecture in this video is the closest I 've seen to make such complex issue understandable for those who lack the science background. Amazing work! Respect and Thanks!
His video clearly shows the issues is completely misunderstood. Now, beyond the arithmetics of audio, let's get.deeper into audio itself. I was educated in sample rate affects by THE Rupert Neve. If you don't know his name, you don't know audio. Look him up. Anyhow, he can show the affect of higher sample rates (frequency) based on overtones and how they can affect what we can hear directly through physics. I have heard EXACTLY what he is taking about through experience, and no, I don't claim to be a geeky audiophile. You just have to listen. Overtones above our hearing threshold affect frequencies within our hearing threshold. Those who smugly tell you "you can't possibly hear above 20 kHz" are only partly right, but significantly wrong when it comes to what those frequencies can do to other frequencies. Simpletons don't know this and say its "just audiophiles acting snobbish" when in reality they just don't have the wider experience and education on audio (analog) and physics. It's more complex than the Nyquist theory and the digital side of things. Sad that this is not more widely understood.
@@videodistro I've read things saying those are just unwanted harmonics within the amplifier or speaker, and when the file is accurately output, they are no longer present. What's your take on that?
there's a reason audiophiles dont blindly abx test these things and then use nebulous terms to describe differences between certain dacs.
@@hand__banana Bingo!
Can we all agree that 24 bit is better? Even at 44.1k, it sounds better in the deep bass and treble region
"The key here is... don't worry about it." Had me literally laughing out loud. Thanks again for these awesome videos. You inspire me to work harder on my own channel's production and entertainment value. 😀
Wow, this is an eye opening video! Like how DAC is a resistor ladder, it is so simple!
I've seen a DAC that plugged into the parallel port and simply had a bunch of identical resistors soldered to the output pins. Not the most professional solution, but this was the early 1990s, and people didn't have sound cards lying about.
You think about COVOX.
That was most likely a R2R-ladder. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistor_ladder#R%E2%80%932R_resistor_ladder_network_(digital_to_analog_conversion)
Most common DACs today are not resistor ladder because they're actually quite complicated. Most are sigma-delta these days.
Yup, the raspberry doesn't have an analogue out - it uses either PWM or Sigma-Delta. However, one-bit CD-players(MASH) are quite old, and SACD is 1 bit.
Thanks! Claude Shannon is absolutely an unsung hero. He should be as famous as Von Neumann (to me)! He was clearly a genius, and - more than any other person - is the father of information theory. He laid the groundwork for the digital age, and he did it back in the 1940s. tavi.
а Котельников сделал это в 1930s
Band-limiting was the conceptual bit I have been missing for ages! Thank you for putting it all together.
Agreed. That was the keystone that tied it all together for me too.
Man this guy is awesome!
The low pass filter in my opinion was the one that I had the hardest time understanding, and probably, for many of my digital audio recorders, never bothered to used because I wanted to edit it myself and have it be recorded totally RAW and with no effects included in the audio and such, except the intensities of the audio and such (This is why when I go to concerts, I put it at the low volume so it doesn't end up distorting, compared to classroom sessions where I put it on medium, but it picks up a ton of fan noise in the background, which sucks but that's what it is sadly).
650Mb was a lot of data. When I bought my first CDR writer in 1997, my entire hard drive was only 2Gb in size. CDs represented an absurdly cheap way to store data. Fast forward to today... and that's no longer the case even for dual layer blu-rays, which are far more expensive per gigabyte than hard drives.
Particularly since PC hard drives of the period were only on the order of tens of megabytes. This was a particular issue to those trying to create CD-ROMs. Even when DVDs first came out, they held more than the common hard drive capacity, though the ratio was smaller.
By about the ’00s, hard drives had overtaken optical media and left them in the dust.
@@lawrencedoliveiro9104 but there's still no cheaper way to give someone some music they might like to listen to in their car
The car I’ve been driving lately (newer than my own) has no CD player, but it does have Bluetooth and USB ports.
@@nthgth I mean, you could download it on your phone which has a cheaper storage to cost ratio
A purist will point out that it's 650 MB, not 650 Mb. Megabytes, not megabits. Huge difference. But I'm not that fussy.
A beautiful explanation. I can't imagine how you struggled to achieve such an elegant and balanced presentation without mathematics. Thanks! Ive been thinking about this topic for years and today you've helped me reach that very important intuitive feel.
I'm so glad you said "giant leap" instead of "quantum leap." It bugs me when people say "quantum leap" because it's the smallest possible change that can be detected in chemistry.
inertia186 I think you'll find it's actually a time travel comedy drama with a catchy theme tune.
Oh boy.
Same nonsense as using Ultimate to mean the best when it, in fact, means final as in the Ultimate destination.
True, but if something is the best then clearly you won't need another version of whatever said thing is because it's already as good as it can be.
I'm pretty sure it's in reference to how much QFT changed how we view the universe
Someone explain to me how this guy can't hit 200K when Linus Tech Tips is approaching 7 million?
Best explained by CGP Grey: ua-cam.com/video/rE3j_RHkqJc/v-deo.html
Also, different audience (not *that* many people are interested in this kind of stuff)
Lack of RGB.
People just want to be entertained whilst shutting their brain off. They don't get that understanding things can be entertaining too.
*MOLECULAR FOOD SCANNERS*
A nice simple explanation of a very complicated topic. The video storage method you speak of at the end is the Sony PCM-1630 format and it was used on both U-Matic and 1" C format videotape, there was a consumer version the PCM-F1 that was normally used with Betamax VCR's (although any analog video recorder would work).
I've worked with those devices before. I thought it was cool at the time to think that you could store digital audio on a video cassette and then of course ADAT came along to do multi-track.
Audiophiles are the flat earthers of music. I hope some watch this formidable explanation and accept the hard facts of physics and maths, leaving behind some mambo jambo mojo mythology about digital being worse than analog.
"Audiophiles are the flat earthers of music". I love it! (I'm also stealing it...). :-)
@@zaphodsbluecar9518 You're very welcome! LOL
Not all audiophiles... Take a look at .FLAC vs mp3 so digital audiophiles would touch mp3 FLAC only 😂
@@alexschoenfelder-lopez4374 32bit/384kHz min or keep it to yourself 😒
I think most audiophiles just pretend they hear the difference between 100$ and 1000$ audio cable, even if they don’t hear or know for sure there isn’t. People really like the idea of belonging to the elite, so no other audiophile would destroy this illusion, or they all would draw themselves as pretentious liars at best or fools who spent insane amount of grands on something practically useless at worst.
You need to train your ears and brain for a loooong time in order be able to analyze what you hear. This isn’t a skill you obtain passively listening music. After certain threshold even the best audio engineer in the world wouldn’t notice difference in “quality” or whatever.
Not to mention that the older you get the narrower your hearing range becomes (especially it’s upper threshold)
You are officially the first channel I have supported on patreon. Every video is informative, free of gimmicks, well written with great nerd humor thrown in.
Same here. Just did it.
This is why I've always hated people who claim records are better than digital, if they prefer the inferior sound of a record that's fine, but they could just hook the output of a record player up to a digital recorder and save that, then when they play back the digital recording and it will sound exactly like the record with all it's flaws included. That's also why the "records sound the way the artist intended" argument is so bullshit, if they really wanted their songs to sound like it does when played from a record then they would use a record to make the digital recordings.
I think they are referring to the best quality records (in mint condition), played on high end equipment.
But it would still be inferior to a digital recording played back on the same equipment. Even if you had an absolutely perfect never before played record, it would only match the quality of a digital recording on the first play, the second playback would be objectively worse from the wear of the first playback, even with an optical/laser turntable in a vacuum there would be eventual wear and degradation of the record over time.
Some people might prefer the sound of a record, which again is perfectly fine, I have no doubt a lot of people do and they are not wrong for preferring it, but there is no real objective benefit to a record over digital, digital is superior in just about every way.
A digital recording cannot be played back on the exact same equipment as an analog medium. In order to really compare analog a digital, what is needed is comparison of an analog and a digital recording similar in dynamic range, frequency response, etc.
I like and buy vinyl.
But it's because I appreciate them as art objects and enjoy sort of the ceremony of Putting On and Listening to a Record.
I, of course, also buy CD's for the same reason and the high quality sound. :P
Records tend to sound better than CDs overall because mastering was better in the days of vinyl. And they do sound the way that the artist intended because the artists approved the master. That's not necessarily true of the catalog CD that was released decades after. But there's no technical limitation keeping CDs from sounding as good, it's just that most of the time they don't.
Of course not all of this is true if you only listen to newer music so your experience may be different than mine.
You just angered every single audiophile on the entire planet! :o Also, I've heard the graph called a 'lollipop graph' - because it's representing sampled points, not an actual curve.
Man, I remember learning about Nyquist's sampling theory in an engineering class and being pretty sceptical as to how that would actually work. We were told to just accept it at the time but this makes it so much more logical!
I'm just waiting for the Golden Ear brigade to hit the comments. 'But I have special hearing that goes way beyond 20Khz! (no you don't)' 'I can "feel" the music better with an infinitely accurate analog signal (no you can't)' 'Digital doesn't capture all the "nuances" of music (yes it does)'
I think people that like vinyl for everything just don't know what they're talking about, are comparing vinyl to mp3, or have terrible DACs.
I am audiophile and agree with the above, the thing is that machines are not perfect and you need great engineering to make this work well. I am a fan of CDs because they got it right from the beginning using math and the physics. LPs are cool and effortless to reproduce but have lots of flaws. A turntable is a "simple" machine, a CD player/DAC are pretty complex ones. So the difference in reproduction is in the equipment not in the theory and there is a big difference between consumer audio gear and high fi gear.
Some people can hear up to 24KHz, but only people who haven't abused their hearing AND that are under the age of 24. This extra range doesn't contribute much to the overall sound though, and most people able to hear this tiny bit of extra frequencies don't care about good music anyway.
are you saying that you only detect sound through your ears?
Some people CAN hear past 20 kHz, as it's only the human average, not a set-in-stone value. I'm one of those freaks who can hear some of it, like when some kinds of electronics are running. Nearly broke a window because of it.
My ex had left some kind of air-filter/ionizer... thing in my closet when she moved out. I pulled it out to see if it worked. Plugged it in, turned it on while holding it (worst mistake ever...), and it started making one of the highest frequency noises I've ever heard. I literally threw it across the room, yanking the cord out of the socket and almost out a window. It was awful.
And no, being able to hear those higher frequencies doesn't add anything to the "music experience." All the really high frequency stuff just gets drowned out 99.9% of the time. You're seriously not missing out on anything if your hearing doesn't go outside the average range, other than the occasional headache because you can hear some tiny, awful tone/sound from a coworkers' computer that literally no one else in the office can hear.
Welp, this one finally did it, subscriber I now am. This video was excellent and so far up my ally it's almost uncanny. The visuals and concise descriptions of 15 minutes just taught me more then 2+ weeks of random internet research and has really brought an understanding to it all. The band limit on the input AND output is what really brought it home, as did the descriptions of "infinite" frequency transitions causing strange looking recreations. So thank you so much for all you've done.
Thanks for another great tech deep-dive video. Please consider another video explaining SACD 1-bit PWM audio encoding system. It's almost not covered among audio-tech enthusiasts...
It took me days to get my head around that. The fact that it's recursive means there's no easy starting point - every loop needs the previous looped steps to have happened for there to be any data to make sense of/learn about.
Not really. In as much as you can't have a waveform without multiple samples, yes. But, the effect of past samples diminishes greatly in a short time due to the band limiting again.
Instead of multiple vertical steps, as in the (PCM) examples in this video, DSD or PWM (same thing, different marketing) just oscillate from the extreme top and bottom values at a much much higher rate. Instead of 65536 vertical steps at 44kHz, there are only two steps but at a couple MHz.
That's one of the steps in the simpler form of PWM. Omitting lots, the error between this 0 or 1 is constantly fed back into the input to give a correct average over time (essentially making the 0s and 1s "down" or "up" commands for the drawing of the waveform). It's not as simple as just increasing the sample rate and decreasing the bit depth. I studied this stuff.
I think you're thinking of Delta-Sigma modulation, which uses successive approximation to achieve the result of a resistor ladder without the requirement of super high precision resistors.
PWM doesn't have or need a feedback signal. The duty cycle determines the output. Whatever is encoded in the bitstream gets transmitted as-is and low-passed. You can actually make a DSD "DAC" with a push-pull TTL output, and an RC filter.
Now if you're talking about the encoding process, then yes - you need an oscillator, a comparator (too high? too low?), and a feedback from after the filter as an input to the comp.
I study this stuff too. ;-)
Yes I was - you're right.
An excellent explanation of this phenomenon, at different levels of expertise to boot. This guy needs a wider audience. +1 sub for you sir
Yep
I always assumed the "stair stepping" would never reach the output, basically because DAC is not a misnomer. If it says it puts analog out, it puts analog out.
A discrete voltage is still analog.
@@BrianMarshall1 that's why I've had my professor at school explain to me and our class that for digital signals, digital is just a layer over analouge. We just interpret voltage levels as digital data.
That's why noise/interference can be harmful to a digital signal. Even if the data is right, noise/interference can cuase the bits to flip.
nope, there is definitely spectra associated with outputting a jagged signal. ('infinite' mirrors of the baseband signal), and basically we remove all that with analog filters to get the 'perfect reconstruction'
I learned a few things from this, despite being very interested in this stuff already. Thanks, great video! And here's a little fact for you, which I came up with decades ago: If you were to record a band's live performance lasting about 1 hour and 40 minutes (which seems plausible) in CD quality stereo, uncompressed, then you'd need... 1 gigabyte! 1 "gig" of data, to store a gig. Hee hee!
I really wish Monty would make more videos - he really had a great understanding of the topic and a excellent teacher.
UA-cam randomly recommended this video to me this morning, even though I already watched it some time ago, and I decided to see it again. After that, today I had a course in digital electronics (I'm a student in Computer Science) and, no joke, basically everything I was told in the course was contained in this video; my teacher was amazed I knew what the Nyquist-Shannon theorem stated 😂😂😂
This video is awesome! I love your explanation of Nyquist-Shannon. It's the first time I've heard it explained well. Plus all your videos are amazing.
oh my god, i think I actually get this
the dots represent the segments between curves that follow particular shape rules, so that's all you need to store. It's like a compression algorithm built into the geometry of sound...?
Yes. The samples are simply snapshots of a point on a waveform in a small fraction of time. Mathematically, the only possible waveform that can pass through all those sample points is the original waveform. Thus the samples recreate the exact waveform that was sampled. Nyquist states that to reproduce the exact waveform you must have at least 2 sample points between a peak and a trough. Thus you must sample at twice the frequency you wish to be your upper limit. So CD is 44,100 samples a second to perfectly recreate frequencies below 22,050 Hz.
That Monthy video on digital audio is the holy grail for us who want to learn deeply about the topic, without getting too complicated with the mathematical part of it.
I've been teaching Music Tech for several years, and yours was the clearest representation of A/D conversion I've seen yet!
Wiggly Wobblies....go easy with those technical terms, some of us are still new to this :)
Holy crap, that’s crazy! Why do audiophiles hate digital sound so much if it sounds perfect in the end?
Because you are dealing with theoretical vs. practice. It's easy to say "the low pass filter..." but low pass filters aren't perfect. Early brick wall filters rang horribly, causing artifacts to the audio as it limited it. Even today they're not perfect.
Then DACs are also not perfect. It's nearly impossible to design ladder DACs these days because resistors have variances and they cannot be trimmed to an accuracy where even the two channels in a stereo DAC provide the exact same output per mono channel fed into either channel.
Modern single bit DACS have their own issues, and finally, there's that filter problem again.
There are also a variety of other issues, but these are some of the easier to explain ones.
There also the truth that while analog audio has much more errors and smearing than in digital realm, those "problems" can sound comfortable and even really good.
That's why analog recorded albums sound (subjectively) better and why people love vinyl even today.
Guitars are perfect example of this. Electric guitars get their traditionally distinctive soundscape from poorly designed amplifier circuits, sometimes enhanced by pushing them too far to create walls of analog distortion.
Because nobody makes solid-gold transistors.
@@VideoArchiveGuy Digital low-pass filters are actually perfect, within the limitations of what a real-life oscillation is. The ringing of a very steep low-pass filter is concentrated at the knee frequency, meaning it would be at 20 kHz or above for 44.1 kHz.
There are three reasons why digital can be abhorred by "audiophiles". The first one is that these low-pass filters were originally done in analogue, and that caused analogue ratty distortion on the top end of a signal. Nowadays converters don't work the same way at all. They capture a very high frequency range, way outside the limit of hearing, and then apply a digital filter that doesn't cause that distortion.
The second one is that a lot of people have absolutely no idea about the info in this video. I have heard the "stairstep", the "ultrasonic info", and the "minimum timing information" myths from people who really, really should have known better amongst sound engineers; the average Joe would fare way worse.
The third one is that music often sounds pretty cool with the added distortions of tape, vinyl, and extra analogue stages. A lot of that distortion sounds nice! Even today, most pop music recordings have distortion added to them because, well, it sounds better that way. People would be shocked at the amount of distortion, either digital or analogue, added to almost every pop and rock album even today. However, if it sounds better to add more distortion at the playback stage, it means that maybe the producers and engineers should have added it at the production stage. But that's just a preference.
The absolute proof that digital is a better medium than vinyl is that you can record a digital signal into vinyl and it will sound like vinyl. However, you can record a vinyl signal into digital, and it will sound *exactly* like the vinyl.
@@distortingjack Digitally sourced vinyl still usually sounds like digital.
It is true that vinyl recorded to digital will retain character of the vinyl, with many listeners preferring the sound of a digital recording sourced from a good LP to that released as a digital recording.
Ah yes, Monty's video made me realize how wrong I was about digital audio years ago, that video is truly a MUST watch.
I am very glad that years ago a hobbyist musician took me under his wings and had bulletproof arguments against a sound card I wanted to buy back then and that was acclaimed by lots of audiophiles. He pretty much debunked their marketing slang and made me see it for what it was. An overly expensive consumer device. This made me explore the rabbit hole of digital audio. And now I’m here, glad to find a well produced video aiming to debunk another myth I used to believe in back then. Thank you!
First place I've actually been able to find information on what sample rate actually means. Thank you for a great video.
I thought it created audio that was choppy but sampled fast enough to be indistinguishable. It's interesting to know that the low pass filter smooths it out and that it's truly lossless.
It makes you realise that many CD's that sound bad sound bad because they are perfectly reproducing a bad recording and not because they are cd's. Then you see that the so called "hi-res" music (which isnt needed as cd audio is designed to be perfect anyway) sounds better because they used a better quality recording.
So why are us consumers being messed with when buying cd's?
Just want to add that the stairstep output + lowpass combination isn't quite how proper DACs work. The lowpass part is fine, but the stairstep method itself (zero-order hold) does not have a flat frequency response below the Nyquist limit, it actually drops to 0 as you get there. Real DACs use a combination of tricks. For example, if instead of having a stairstep that goes from sample to sample, you have 1/2 sample width "bars" at each sample, with the signal dropping back to 0 volts for half of each sample, then the high frequency response is more gradual, going to 0 at twice the Nyquist frequency. There is still some loss in the audible range that you care about, but then you can compensate it with a digital filter before the DAC (often part of DAC chips themselves). If instead of spitting out an on-off pattern directly like that you create it digitally (by doubling the sampling rate and having zeros between samples), then add a digital filter, you've just created an oversampling DAC which is even more effective.
Here's a nice PDF from TI that shows the various approaches: training.ti.com/sites/default/files/docs/TIPL4705%20-%20DAC%20Output%20Response.pdf
But really, the important takeaway is that we understand all of this and we can engineer real DACs to be pretty much perfect as far as our hearing can tell.
Correction: I'm off by a factor of two about the response. Sample and hold drops to 0 at the sampling frequency (twice the Nyquist limit) and the 1/2 width method drop to 0 at twice the sampling frequency.
Yes, that's what I said in my earlier comment. Basically, if you have stair-step signal, you get about -3 dB loss at 20 kHz. With 2x oversample, the loss will be -0.75 dB, and with 4x, it's -0.18 dB. Coincidentally, an effect on the frequency response of using 50% duty cycle bars will be the same as 2x oversample, and with 25% duty cycle it's same as 4x oversample. With true oversample, though, you'll just get the aliases farther in frequency, so you can use a simpler analog filter.
Correction: with stairstep signal, the frequency response at near Nyquist frequency goes to 2/π, not to 0.
Ah, yes, I was off by a factor of two. It goes to 0 at the sampling frequency (which makes sense) and at half that you get 2/π, which is -3.9dB or so. And yeah, the point of oversampling is to get rid of the aliasing within the new wider response digitally, so then the analog filter is much easier to make.
This is the best representation of the material I've seen, and would have been very useful back when I was in school studying this stuff.
Some folks may be surprised to learn that the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem is also extremely relevant in the field of astrophotography. And for the same reason: it is the digital representation of an analog signal. Amazing how their work in the 1920's is still massive relevant over 100 years later.
Home run. Excellent presentation. IMO one of your best edited text to digital video conversions.
Great job explaining the square wave form issue! I still prefer analog audio, but at least now I can't use the "stair stepping" argument anymore :)
Its perfectly fine to prefer the analogue stuff. While it may be objectively less identical to the original recording, that doesn't make it worse, in the same way a painting is no worse nor better than a photo.
Regarding 4:51-5:09, I have explained this before and will say it again; The sample value going between the highest and lowest possible values at half the sample rate can only represent a sinewave at one phase or exactly the opposite phase. Two samples per cycle are not enough because of the possibility of phase mismatches, and these are even quite likely. If those two samples fall on zero crossing points, the waveform cannot hit them at all.
The sampling rate needs to be greater than twice the highest frequency of a baseband signal to avoid phase mismatches, and there is never a need for a "perfect" filter.
Yeah, as I understand it, the sample rate only needs to be very slightly above double the frequency limit, but it can't be exactly double. It's an exclusive minimum.
Please remember that the sample rate on a CD is 44100 and the filter cuts all frequencies above 20Khz. The sample rate is actually well above the nyquist rate and so any sine wave that passes the filter has its phase relationship preserved.
I'll tell you what man, the quality of your content is just simply top notch. idk if you do all this by yourself, but seriously good job. been following your channel for a while and you know sometimes I find myself binge watching some of the older stuff just a little too often, but again that only just helps stress what I've previously stated; you, my friend do an excellent job! keep it up!
This is possibly the best video about sampling on UA-cam right now. Good job sir!
I tip my hat to you, sir. This is one of the most concise and elegant explanations of the digital sampling process for a non-engineer that I have ever seen. You've elegantly avoided talking about a reconstruction kernel, but at the same time put a stop to the never-ending digital-analog audio wars. Thank you!
I appreciate that the audacity waveform we saw was the audio we were hearing at the moment.
awesome video! i wasn't aware of the LPF in the DAC and i always thought it was like a square wave caused by digital processing, but it isn't. MINDBLOWING!!!
I've seen that video from Xiph.org before. It has excellent information.Thanks for referencing it.
I have been digging into the schematics of the Atari 2600 and when you showed the DAC in this video, I realized that the resistors hanging off of the TIA (Television Interface Adapter) were doing the same function, raising and lowering the voltage at the speed of the clock to generate color and brightness. Thanks for showing the resistor circuit, I never would have looked that up, and would have never put 2+2 together.
An excellent overview. You have a skill for simplifying such topics, which isn't easy.
Nooo! Don't give me this oppressive math that proves my beloved analog audio isn't better than your goddamn mass produced CD! Physics and math only apply when I say that my music is limited by atoms! *which it isn't*
Another nice note to add, is that our ears themselves use basically the same fourier transformation. We don't just hear a continuous wave, but instead, our ears pick up thousands of different frequencies. We basically hear in frequency domain not time domain, and this is how people can be deaf to very specific frequency tones. My dad for example is 100% deaf to the frequency of most digital thermometers or wristwatch alarms, after some years working near old IBM bank printers of the 80s-90s.
Brilliant informative video. I learn so much! I knew that the theorem allows perfect replication of analog audio digitally, which is why it bugs me when people say they hear a quality difference between CD and high-res audio. Which is true if you want to hear an orchestra at real-life volume and then a mouse squeaking straight after.
Except that digital audio is not just sampled, it is quantised.
@@Myrtone Sampling is for frequency response, quantising does noise level. 16 bits does a very, very, very low noise level, I recall somethling like 85+db, and dithering drops that much further. Way beyond what you can discern in a typical listening environment.
I studied this stuff in college, and I must say this a great explanation of it, your motion diagrams regarding the Fourier series and aliasing were very informative. I've never gotten into the habit of arguing with audiophiles; it's rather like arguing with flat earthers or other such nuts who refuse to listen to logic, but it's good to be able to explain this stuff to those who are willing.
Oh, I was writing 10 khz+ square waves to type 1 cassette, trying to figure out their max frequency, and the square waves kept coming out as sine waves, and as triangle waves at frequencies as low as 5 hkz, I think.
Long story short, I tried different tapes, and all the same, I thought my tape player had a harmonic, or wow and flutter problem, but this video just tought me my player is just fine!
I always wondered about this but now I understand the filter is key - and just when I was questioning how ADC's work, out popped the answer. Very cool video indeed thank you - Technology Connections is fast becoming my favourite UA-cam channel.
Nice choice with the ds1054z! Glad to see you finally took the plunge
Yeah by far, but 100mhz is only single channel, if you go to 2 channels it drops to 50mhz, and 3 or 4 goes to 25mhz.
soupisgdfood that is not true
Douglas Quaid I was wrong. You DO lose bandwidth due to reduced sample rate with each new opened channel, except when going from 3 to 4 channels, bit it’s due to lost resolution only.
Though, that all being said, the minimum sample rate is 250Msamples/sec, which theoretically can do 100mhz but you’re really cutting it close there.
You are 100% false. The sample rate drops, not the bandwidth. 1 channel 1GS/s 2 channels 500MS/s 250MS/s on 3channels...
Douglas...Quaid...check...the...edit................................
Thank you for this great video.
So... you mythbusted the "Vinyl is superior than digital" myth?
I suppose he did (in some sence)
It was busted a long time ago. Some people just refuse to listen...
Yeah, but is easy to imagine the digital data make "square-ish" waves while analog waves are not. So it's valuable to have a good technical explanation of how it really is.
Vinyl vs digital can be mythbusted by specs alone - vinyl sensitivity around 60-70 dB, frequency range is quite dependent on the mastering and manufacturing process. CD on the other hand has sensitivity of 96dB, always and frequency response of 20-20kHz, always, independent of mastering and manufacturing (please bear in mind that it doesn't mean the recorded material actually has all the frequencies in range of 20-20kHz, just that the CD is able to always store them). If you increase sampling rate you get better frequency range and sensitivity and you ALWAYS have them available, not depending on how you manufacture the media.
He did bust the "vinyl reproduces sound more accurately than digital". However, there are many more reasons that would one chose one format over the other. I am on team digital here, but it gets quite subjective from person to person.
Thank you so much. I am currently writing a audio modem in python from ground up. I had much theoretical knowledge about those mathematics and processing techniques, but had never REALLY UNDERSTOOD IT. Thanks to your video I do now. Thank you so much. Please keep on bringing those videos
I saw this hours ago but I had to come back and say thank you. The mathematics makes so much sense the way you explained it.
WOW.. I did not know that Umatic was used to store early digital audio! Who knew?? Thanks!
Indeed - professionally back in the day we used U-matic to master audio albums digitally and run analogue copies from that!
Yeah, was super cool to finally learn the origin of the weird 44.1 rate
Sounds like the reverse of how the ZX Spectrum computer loaded data from a program stored on cassettes, which created sounds similar to dial-up internet that produced raster bars on the screen.
Yep. Few know that it's the reason for 44.1kHz.
Yeah that blew my mind as well ;)
"You wouldn't want this blocky waveform screwing around with your favourite recording of Beethoven's 9th. But you forget dear Audiophile .." Is that A Clockwork Orange Reference?
Greetings to the brainwashed audiophiles who think that their ears are better than math (because some businessman decided to give a little volume boost to the 96/192 music that he put on sale).
I recently found an example of a phenomenon person who claimed to hear the difference when switching the "cable direction". Yeah. Not only the one from the receiver to the speakers, but also the HDMI one from the computer to the receiver (yeah!). That psychologically modified organism spent two hundreds of euro for cables only :) The audio industry is happy.
Cables wise, I've found there's three levels of quality to me: Cheap, adequate, and waste-of-money.
I have a few 3.5mm->RCA connectors, one is super-super cheap, and it's garbage. I also have a Monster-branded one (bought used at a Goodwill, for $5), and a $15 Walmart one. The latter two I can't tell apart unless my ear is right to the speaker, and I can't tell which is better.
This seems to apply for any A/V cable I've ever owned, anything beyond mid-or-upper-mid range (Alloy plating is nice for durability anyway) and it's a waste.
@@DFX2KX Note that this person was talking about an HDMI cable, in other words a cable transporting a *digital* signal... A digital signal is either correctly transported or not, there's no gradient of quality in this case !!!
Analog signal is a bit different though of course any cable beyond "reasonable quality" is an absolute rip-off.
(I'm not talking about the physical qualities of cables here either, some are just nicer to look at, last longer, don't break the first time you try to bend them and so on)
This is absolutely mind blowing , it’s interesting how an curved analogue signal gets digitized into an square pattern, then a adc converts that square pattern back to a curved pattern analogue signal.
But 16bit audio is not all, the S/N ratio, the sample rate and the amount of kbps also play’s key rule in audio quality.
What a beautiful background cabinet. I can see a lot of love and care went into it.
Hummm. That brings me to
Think that... if, ANY audible waveform can be reproduced propely with a 44.1 kHz sampling rate, that anything flashy of 192 kHz is just snake oil... because there are some good and some crappy mastering on cd's and, if there's a bad mastering one on the market, what a great opportunity to master it again and put it on some hi res cd? Thanks a lot for those explanations. I'll stick to 44.1 and 48 kHz and nothing above it, even for pro audio digital mixing, except if higher sampling rate allow for lower latences of live sound. That's the only benefit I could see useful for higher sampling rate.
I think that's the exact intent behind high-bandwidth audio If you want the opportunity to remaster it might be a good idea, otherwise, nobody's going to hear the difference.
I've heard also that high-bandwidth audio works better when passing through the high and low pass filter sets used to split bass from treble in tower speakers. Knowing what I know now from the video... I'm not sure how that would make a difference.
Having higher frequencies for remixing isn't going to make a single difference. Bit depth will do as it does with image correction where banding appears when tweaking levels on a 24 bit rgb source ( 8 bit per color). For crossovers... that's non sense... they are just band limiters... there's just a ton of snake oil and missconceptions
I'm gonna adjust my glasses and wag my finger while saying that the cutoff frequency of a filter is measured when the output has changed 3dB. I also need to say that you make awesome videos that keeps me entertained and informed.
That’s an analog definition. And what about higher-order filters?
He was also talking about an analog filter and as far as I remember it's a definition for all filters but it's been about 16 years since I finished my education in electronics en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutoff_frequency
Digital filters are quite capable of implementing a “brick wall” cutoff.
My guitar teacher told us that she could hear the text messages going through our phone, which I thought was amazing since radio waves are light....
Yup. I still remember the rhythm of it. Like a weird pseudo-sawtooth wave imitating a staccato swing jazz hi-hat, then a "flat-line"
Really appreciate your covering aliasing as the signal frequency approaches Nyquist.
I just watched a video about something I knew absolutely nothing about 17 minutes ago. Now I'm actually interested enough to learn more and I understand how important it is in my life.
the sampling frequency has to be bigger then two times the highest frequency contained in the signal and not bigger or equal.
imagine measuring sin(wt) and sampling it at exactly twice it's frequency, and the timing of the samples exactly so that each sample is taken when the signal is 0. how do you know the signal is sin(wt) instead of -sin(wt) or just 0? that's why the sampling frequency has to be higher then two times the highest signal frequency.
Exactly, considering what would happen if the sampling rate is exactly twice the frequency and the timing of the samples is not taken when the signal is at the peak voltage, this has escaped Alec's attention.
It can normally be exactly twice, only you won't have phase information at exactly Nyquist
Even at "exactly Nyquist" the amplitude information also isn't meaningful, since the sampling phase will affect sample values. Finally, samples at zero crossing points will mean no signal at all, that is "mid-mid-mid" not "low-high-low".
This is true, but it's of more interest to mathematicians than engineers, since an engineer will never encounter a wave at the exact frequency cut-off of the low-pass filter.
Some of the concepts here might be easier to demonstrate in audio form if you used some lower sample rate files (say at 8000 or 11025 samples per second), so that the reproducible frequency limit is within the range of normal hearing.
There seems to be some confusion over the meaning of the word "harmonic". I still liked the video overall.
1) 3:35 - All 1D signals can be represented as an infinite sum of sine waves, but only strictly periodic signals are composed of harmonics, i.e. frequencies that are integer multiples of some base frequency.
2) 4:43 - Same
3) 5:11 - "You eliminate all high frequency harmonics", noooo... high frequency content, yes.
4) 6:22 - "harmonic frequency", aargh. The mechanical frequency response of a speaker cone is most definitely not harmonic.
4:28 and 4:33 were the only technically correct usages of "harmonic".
A big thank you for this, I knew the Nyquist limit but couldn't reconcile that with the sample-and-hold of the output making an obviously imperfect reproduction. The missing part in my understanding was putting a bandwidth limit on the OUTPUT, and now it makes intuitive sense.
of all things I didn't expect you to have a video about a theorem, this is nice, I need it for my communication systems class
I really have no idea what 90% of this means, but I know I like it.
I presume you will eventually deal with the fact that the vast majority of audio DAC's aren't resistor ladders (because of the required precision you mentioned)?
Ian Tester "Don't worry about it."
XD
spugintrntl analog and digital are exactly as bad as each other... The only way you can worry about it is if you're going to invent an alternative
@@littlegandhi1199 All audio has to go through analog at some point. Because air pressure is analog.
You can have analog formats that don't break down from usage. See: Laserdisc
Jesse Donat True! But they are susceptible to laser rot, which is also an issue for CDs.
Errrm - Laserdisc was DIGITAL!
I was going to comment the same. A properly manufactured LaserDisc is one of the few analog formats that is not prone to wear and decay, since it's optically read.
@@NoiseWithRules It wasn't. See: Technology Connections videos on Laserdisc
I greatly appreciate the level of detail you achieve in your videos. UA-cam is somewhat typecast by videos that are extremely topical and high level - one doesn't really learn anything from so many of the technology channels on this platform. Your channel, on the other hand, has never failed to teach me something new and often valuable with each video of the couple dozen I've watched. Thank you.
Solid video bringing into attention one of the most shocking aspects of digital audio: the fact that you can actually *perfectly* reconstruct an analog signal from its digital samples
Well, not quite. What the video actually brings to attention is that one can unambiguously reconstruct a band-limited time continuous signal from analog samples. That's right, analog samples, an examples is the cycles of the carrier in A.M radio. Remember these are still continuous in amplitude.
All this.....and some people are still like THE EARTH IS FLAT!!
no. no they're not. that's made up.
@@KairuHakubi I will tell you having met those people. There are individuals on this planet who actually think the earth is flat, they are not joking or trolling. They actually think it's flat and you can either walk off the edge or will walk into the dome.
@@2009dudeman i'm sorry you think that, dude. it's really weird to me how many people are so easily convinced of something proven false, but all you have to do is hear 'lol some people think the world is flat' and i guess your reflex is to believe it to gain superiority over them..
it's an old, old lie that I thought had gone away. but keep perpetuating it I guess, see where that gets us.
@@KairuHakubi Maybe there is something getting lost in translation. I don't think the earth is flat. I am saying other people who are not me believe the earth is flat.
6:00 - why is there an FL Studio logo hidden in the bottom right corner?
I got it - Image-Line has published Xiph.org's videos to UA-cam. They must have been recorded with a screencasting tool from their UA-cam channel. But you can download the original ones for free!
so people who like records because it “sounds better” is just bs? i guess the like the imperfections in a record.
It was shown that some people like the inperfections in poor quality mp3's too. They grew up with them so their brains expected them to be there.
I just took a course on signal theory, and you explained this concept better than my professor ever could!
This is the best explanation of these concepts I’ve ever seen, including my college classes. Kudos and thanks!
E.E. here: Z transforms.... now those were the good ol' college days.
Just out of curiosity, is there some sort of theoretical limit to the highest frequency sound that can be carried by air itself? It probably varies based on pressure and such, but I was curious.
interesting question. Google says 5GHz?
That is about right. The mean distance a molecule travels between collisions can be estimated as 50-100 nanometers. With the speed of sound of 340 m/s you can get your limit. If the wavelength is smaller than what a molecule runs between collisions, you can expect the regions of high and low pressure become extremely ill-defined. It gives you a limit of about 2 to 5 GHz.
This is an estimate, of course. I imagine the signal becomes too noisy and attenuates too fast way before you reach this limit.
(the estimate is specifically for air at room temperature and the pressure of 1 atmosphere; solids work differently and transfer sound faster)
1kHz, 10kHz, was soo looking forward to see how 20kHz would look after been encoded then played back on CD. Perhaps an experiment left for the viewer.
It looks the same as 1kHz or 10kHz, i.e., perfect.
20 kHz would be reproduced as silence because of the low-pass filtering.
I would expect the signal to start rolling off at 20kHz as the filters are not perfect
Maybe it would still have near-full response at 20 kHz. In that case the output would be just as perfect as the other two waves.
See the video by Monty at xiph that's referenced on here. He tests with an oscilloscope at 20khz
@Technology Connections - Excellent and accurate explanation. More people need to see this when they start to say, "But, stair-steps!" Because I have tried to explain this far too many times, over the years.
Nyquist Shannon Theorem would have to be the single most valuable piece of knowledge to do with digital signal processing. So handy to be able to answer a customer re. how much bandwidth to allow for a signal: “yes, I am sure that is the bandwidth needed. No, the signal will be perfect. Yes. Literally perfect.”