Re: [ARSCLIST] Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy)

["Steven C. Barr" <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard L. Hess" <ArcLists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> At 09:35 PM 1/13/2005 -0500, Steven C. Barr wrote:
> >There is a difference, easily demonstrable by an a/b comparison
> >using a pair of oscilliscopes. By definition, a digital waveform
> >is a series of finite steps, not a smooth curve. Just as in integral
> >calculus, the goal is to obtain an infinitely large set of
> >infinitely small variations. However, the experts tell us that
> >beyond a certain point the human ear and human mind cannot notice
> >an identifiable difference.
>
> Steven,
>
> If you can see the steps on an oscilloscope on the analog output of a
> properly designed digital to analog converter, it isn't properly designed.
> The "reconstruction filter" on the output is defined and will not show the
> steps. This is brother Nyquist.
>
> This is debated ad nauseam on the Pro-Audio list, and I'm not trying to
> bring that discussion here, but you shouldn't be able to see the
difference
> on an oscilloscope or hear the difference.
> Cheers,
> Richard
So...the d/a converter actually creates a smooth waveform rather than a set
of steps. Is this done by averaging the values of adjacent "steps" somehow?

I had no idea this was done...would the unfiltered signal sound essentially
the same, or could we hear a distinct difference?

Steven C. Barr