Re: [linux-audio-user] 192kHz

On Tuesday 07 February 2006 04:26, David Cournapeau wrote:
[...]
>
>Also, both frequency range and bit width have influence on maximum
>SNR: bitwidth change is obvious; in the case of frequency range, you
>can think as a way to "spread" the "floor noise" on higher bandwith,
>effectively decreasing the level on the hearing range. In ideal
>conditions which never happen in the reality, one bit more is 6 dB, and
>a doubling of frequency bandwith is 3 dB.
>
I've taken the liberty of a spelling correct above s/on/one to make it
correct.

>Nyquist is an *exact* theorem. Mathematically, any function without
>any frequency above fr/2 can be *exactly* characterized by its sampled
>coefficient. Now, it assumes a perfect filter (infinite slope, no
>modification below the frequency cut) which does not exist.
>
>David

My thoughts on this run toward a 1 bit sample at 256khz (or more since
we could do it at many megahertz today) driving both the output data
stream, and a 24 to 32 bit counter whose input is the same clock, and
the direction bit is this 1 bit a/d's output. The catch here is that
the 1 bitter is comparing the output from a d/a driven by this counter
with the next sample to make its data bit that then slews the counter
one way or the other by this one bit.

Such a device would be slew rate limited at the higher frequencies, but
should not generate any aliasing products whose magnitudes would be
greater than the bit ratio allows, and its input anti-aliasing filter
could be very simple. Its output would already be pretty well
compressed, particularly as the slew rate approaches the limit, and
further digital processing of the 32 bit range down to 24 bit might
offer a considerable amount of additional compression (you cand read
that as noise reduction) to be done. It would of course assume a
counter driving the d/a that did not overflow in either direction, and
some sort of circuitry to attempt to ac couple the signal by doing a
very slow slew toward the 50% point exerted over a t=rc of about .2
seconds, which should be ignored for the most part by the reproduction
system.

Such a devices nyquist limitations and the subsequent aliasing would be
a long way below the human ears range of being able to detect them
under any conditions I can imagine, even by those who can hear an
acoustic doppler burglar alarm.

That said, its also an old idea/technique, waiting only for sufficiently
well behaved electronics which we've had for what, 2 decades or more
now?

Or has this quietly occured in the utilitarian devices we buy today
without being an important enough detail to make it to the propaganda
on the box? Are these then considered to be implementation details
that are considered proprietary/trade secrets & best not mentioned,
yadda yadda?

I don't know, so you all tell me please.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word
'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's
stupid bounce rules.  I do use spamassassin too. :-)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.