Any analogue filter (since they are "noncausal") will (mathematically) have the effect of a nonlinear phase response - which can be trainslated to different delays for different frequencies since the derivative of phase (group delay) is related todelay of a frequency component through the filter. This description makes sence if you are only concerned with an input of two discrete frequencies. However, for a complex input - such as music - this description breaks down somewhat and usually goes under the name of phase distortion. BTW this same phase distortion is why the need for equalization using training sequences on phone line modems to get any decent bit rate over a phone line. By using wider bandwidth filters and higher samping rates, then the effect of nonliner phase distortion can be minimized by putting the passband of interest in the flat phase repsonse of the filter - hence all frequencies are "delayed" by the same amount. Then by using digital signal processing a filter of constant delay over the passband of interest can be used. It is very easy to get filters of constant delay using digital filters and (mathematically) impossilbe to get this using analogue filters. I would expect on the initial CD's there were two issues, the first would be the amplitude response - different frequencies have different weights on the output amplitude. Part of quality of music (or voice for that matter) comes from the harmonics in the signal. If these are weighted differently then it upsets this harmonic relationship. Then add to the phase effect you noted, this causes an inteference relationships that will have the effect to produce an amplitude modulation or "beat" between harmonically related frequencies- and this can be quite annoying. The newer processing in the production should have solved these issues. Truman Austin Franklin wrote: >I don't believe any conclusion can be drawn by that. When CDs first came >out, they did not use oversampling to smooth out the output signal, and that >is why they sounded "digital", and in fact, sounded annoying to people who >weren't mental patients as well. This issue has long been attended to by >the use of oversampling and first order filters. Prior to using >oversampling, third order filters were primarily used, and these induced >phase shift in the output, simply because different frequencies take >different times to travel through the filter. The result is typically >annoying to human hearing. Not so with first order filters. > >Austin > > >
Message
Re: [Digital BW] Subject: Re: 360 dpi versus 300 dpi?
2003-05-26 by Truman Prevatt
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.