Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Opposite of Mu-law?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
May 18, 2004 12:18:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp (More info?)

Mu-law decreases noise at low levels but makes the audio vulnerable to
clipping. Is there any codec that does the opposite?

I am looking for one that gives rich quality at loud levels but has
the drawback of a poor s/n ratio. Any hope?

More about : opposite law

Anonymous
May 18, 2004 7:43:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp (More info?)

"Curious" <curious11112001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:34a4f456.0405171918.8263e25@posting.google.com...
> Mu-law decreases noise at low levels but makes the audio vulnerable to
> clipping. Is there any codec that does the opposite?
>
> I am looking for one that gives rich quality at loud levels but has
> the drawback of a poor s/n ratio. Any hope?

I'd go with linear PCM with enough dither to mask the correlated noise. Even
at four bits, dither helps. Dynamic range would be about 24 dB (48 dB for 8
bits), but it would be "clean" except for the noise. If you didn't use
dither, the sound would be distorted and grainy.
May 18, 2004 1:14:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp (More info?)

"Karl Uppiano" <karl_uppiano@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<YDfqc.81567$sK3.30189@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>...
> "Curious" <curious11112001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:34a4f456.0405171918.8263e25@posting.google.com...
> > Mu-law decreases noise at low levels but makes the audio vulnerable to
> > clipping. Is there any codec that does the opposite?
> >
> > I am looking for one that gives rich quality at loud levels but has
> > the drawback of a poor s/n ratio. Any hope?
>
> I'd go with linear PCM with enough dither to mask the correlated noise. Even
> at four bits, dither helps. Dynamic range would be about 24 dB (48 dB for 8
> bits), but it would be "clean" except for the noise. If you didn't use
> dither, the sound would be distorted and grainy.

Adobe Auditon does allow converting to linear PCM format. Dithering is
also possible w/ AA.

If I want more of this "anti-Mu Law" effect should I dither more bits?
Related resources
Anonymous
May 18, 2004 6:35:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp (More info?)

Curious wrote:

> "Karl Uppiano" <karl_uppiano@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<YDfqc.81567$sK3.30189@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>...
>
>>"Curious" <curious11112001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:34a4f456.0405171918.8263e25@posting.google.com...
>>
>>>Mu-law decreases noise at low levels but makes the audio vulnerable to
>>>clipping. Is there any codec that does the opposite?
>>>
>>>I am looking for one that gives rich quality at loud levels but has
>>>the drawback of a poor s/n ratio. Any hope?
>>
>>I'd go with linear PCM with enough dither to mask the correlated noise. Even
>>at four bits, dither helps. Dynamic range would be about 24 dB (48 dB for 8
>>bits), but it would be "clean" except for the noise. If you didn't use
>>dither, the sound would be distorted and grainy.
>
>
> Adobe Auditon does allow converting to linear PCM format. Dithering is
> also possible w/ AA.
>
> If I want more of this "anti-Mu Law" effect should I dither more bits?

Mu-law is a compression standard. The transfer function is IIRC an
approximate hyperbolic cosine. It is used to compress a signal for
transmission. Its inverse (again IIRC), an arc hyperbolic cosine, is
used at the receiving end to restore (expand) the original signal.

Note that "compress" and "expand" don't refer here to the usual audio
compander pair which works on volume, but to instantaneous values
of the signal.

What you want to do sounds interesting, but either I don't fully
understand you, or you don't understand what mu-law is all about.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Anonymous
May 18, 2004 8:24:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp (More info?)

On 17 May 2004 20:18:22 -0700, curious11112001@yahoo.com (Curious)
wrote:

>Mu-law decreases noise at low levels but makes the audio vulnerable to
>clipping. Is there any codec that does the opposite?
>
>I am looking for one that gives rich quality at loud levels but has
>the drawback of a poor s/n ratio. Any hope?

Not entirely sure what you mean about clipping - Mu law is just a
level weighting within the operating range of the DAC. Once you hit
the biggest number, you clip - whatever the law.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
May 18, 2004 9:07:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp (More info?)

Got a "cannot find server" error so posting again. Sorry for resulting
multi-posts.

Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:<40aa5787$0$3013$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...
> Curious wrote:
>
> > "Karl Uppiano" <karl_uppiano@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<YDfqc.81567$sK3.30189@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>...
> >
> >>"Curious" <curious11112001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:34a4f456.0405171918.8263e25@posting.google.com...
> >>
> >>>Mu-law decreases noise at low levels but makes the audio vulnerable to
> >>>clipping. Is there any codec that does the opposite?
> >>>
> >>>I am looking for one that gives rich quality at loud levels but has
> >>>the drawback of a poor s/n ratio. Any hope?
> >>
> >>I'd go with linear PCM with enough dither to mask the correlated noise. Even
> >>at four bits, dither helps. Dynamic range would be about 24 dB (48 dB for 8
> >>bits), but it would be "clean" except for the noise. If you didn't use
> >>dither, the sound would be distorted and grainy.
> >
> >
> > Adobe Auditon does allow converting to linear PCM format. Dithering is
> > also possible w/ AA.
> >
> > If I want more of this "anti-Mu Law" effect should I dither more bits?
>
> Mu-law is a compression standard. The transfer function is IIRC an
> approximate hyperbolic cosine. It is used to compress a signal for
> transmission. Its inverse (again IIRC), an arc hyperbolic cosine, is
> used at the receiving end to restore (expand) the original signal.
>
> Note that "compress" and "expand" don't refer here to the usual audio
> compander pair which works on volume, but to instantaneous values
> of the signal.
>
> What you want to do sounds interesting, but either I don't fully
> understand you, or you don't understand what mu-law is all about.
>
> Jerry

What I would like is to increase the clipping point - that is, the
increase the loudnest sound that can be recorded without causing
distortion. I would like a type of codec that does this. Has a
strength of being able to handle louder sounder w/out clipping, yet
with the price of decreased SNR. Mu-law seems to do the opposite.

BTW I tried dithering with AA, it did *not* increase the clipping
point at all. The dithering *does* makes the sound less "choppy" at
lower levels. This is not what I was looking for though.

I am looking for something that increases the ability to handle louder
sounds.
Anonymous
May 19, 2004 12:15:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp (More info?)

Opposite of mu law is mu law isn't it? Instead of compressing , transmitting
then expanding you expand, transmit and then compress.

Best of Luck - Mike
"Don Pearce" <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
news:40aa383a.5429015@news.plus.net...
> On 17 May 2004 20:18:22 -0700, curious11112001@yahoo.com (Curious)
> wrote:
>
> >Mu-law decreases noise at low levels but makes the audio vulnerable to
> >clipping. Is there any codec that does the opposite?
> >
> >I am looking for one that gives rich quality at loud levels but has
> >the drawback of a poor s/n ratio. Any hope?
>
> Not entirely sure what you mean about clipping - Mu law is just a
> level weighting within the operating range of the DAC. Once you hit
> the biggest number, you clip - whatever the law.
>
> d
> Pearce Consulting
> http://www.pearce.uk.com
Anonymous
May 19, 2004 3:41:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp (More info?)

Curious wrote:

> Got a "cannot find server" error so posting again. Sorry for resulting
> multi-posts.
>
> Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:<40aa5787$0$3013$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...

...

>>Mu-law is a compression standard. The transfer function is IIRC an
>>approximate hyperbolic cosine. It is used to compress a signal for
>>transmission. Its inverse (again IIRC), an arc hyperbolic cosine, is
>>used at the receiving end to restore (expand) the original signal.
>>
>>Note that "compress" and "expand" don't refer here to the usual audio
>>compander pair which works on volume, but to instantaneous values
>>of the signal.
>>
>>What you want to do sounds interesting, but either I don't fully
>>understand you, or you don't understand what mu-law is all about.
>>
>>Jerry
>
>
> What I would like is to increase the clipping point - that is, the
> increase the loudnest sound that can be recorded without causing
> distortion.

There are two ways to do that: increase the number of bits, or use
something like mu-law. Mu-law allows a channel with only eight bits to
pass 12-bit levels without clipping.

> I would like a type of codec that does this. Has a
> strength of being able to handle louder sounder w/out clipping, yet
> with the price of decreased SNR. Mu-law seems to do the opposite.

No. That's exactly what mu-law was designed to do. The price is not only
SNR, but a modest amount of non-linear distortion. With voice signals
-- mu-law's intended material -- primarily intermodulation distortion.
You could use a more severe compression curve that allows, say 14 bits
before clipping, but the distortion will be higher.

> BTW I tried dithering with AA, it did *not* increase the clipping
> point at all. The dithering *does* makes the sound less "choppy" at
> lower levels. This is not what I was looking for though.

Why did you think that dithering would allow higher levels? There's
profit in answering this. Think about how dithering affects dynamic
range.

> I am looking for something that increases the ability to handle louder
> sounds.

Halve the gain so loud sounds don't overload. Use dithering to gain the
bit back as the low end. Then mu-compress the dithered signal.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Anonymous
May 19, 2004 5:08:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp (More info?)

"Curious" <curious11112001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:34a4f456.0405181607.2613281b@posting.google.com...
>
> I am looking for something that increases the ability to handle louder
> sounds.

Just do like the guy in "Spinal Tap" and get an amp that goes to eleven ;-)

Clay.

p.s. Actually mu-law gives about 35 dB of S/N of about a 60 dB range. Not
bad for just 8 bits. You can extend this idea to whatever you need.
Anonymous
May 19, 2004 12:00:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp (More info?)

"Curious" <curious11112001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:34a4f456.0405180814.271ffc3f@posting.google.com...
> "Karl Uppiano" <karl_uppiano@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:<YDfqc.81567$sK3.30189@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>...
> > "Curious" <curious11112001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:34a4f456.0405171918.8263e25@posting.google.com...
> > > Mu-law decreases noise at low levels but makes the audio vulnerable to
> > > clipping. Is there any codec that does the opposite?
> > >
> > > I am looking for one that gives rich quality at loud levels but has
> > > the drawback of a poor s/n ratio. Any hope?
> >
> > I'd go with linear PCM with enough dither to mask the correlated noise.
Even
> > at four bits, dither helps. Dynamic range would be about 24 dB (48 dB
for 8
> > bits), but it would be "clean" except for the noise. If you didn't use
> > dither, the sound would be distorted and grainy.
>
> Adobe Auditon does allow converting to linear PCM format. Dithering is
> also possible w/ AA.
>
> If I want more of this "anti-Mu Law" effect should I dither more bits?

No, for linear encoding, triangular probability density dither at the 1-bit
level is optimal. Adding more dither than that simply adds excessive noise.
Adding less dither creates less noise, but leaves more distortion. The
clipping level stays the same regardless of the dither level. In fact, if
linear *or* Mu-law encoders and decoders are calibrated so that digital full
scale has the same analog reference level, the clipping levels will be
identical, so the clipping question becomes moot.

No matter what, you won't get something for nothing. Mu-law is just a way to
re-allocate bits so that they're closer together where the signal is
smaller, and farther apart where the signal is larger. It tends to improve
the perceived audio quality, but it's hardly what you'd call high-fidelity
in its typical implementation. Mu-law was developed so that 8-bit
telecommunication channels could transmit voice messages with acceptable
intelligibility with minimal processing. It is a very primitive form of
audio data compression. There are much better ways of reducing bandwidth
these days -- MP3 for example. Even the lowest bit-rate MP3 encoding should
sound better than any of the low bit-rate formats discussed previously,
assuming you have the necessary codecs and processing horsepower available.

What is your application and/or goal? If you're looking for highest quality
and lowest bit-rate, you should consider recording with at least 16-bit
linear PCM at 44.1 KHz, and then convert it to MP3 or WMA at the highest
bit-rate you can afford. On the other hand, if you're looking for an
"effect" of some kind, I'd need a lot more information.
Anonymous
May 19, 2004 3:08:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp (More info?)

18 May 2004 17:07:19 -0700, curious11112001@yahoo.com (Curious) pisze:

>What I would like is to increase the clipping point - that is, the
>increase the loudnest sound that can be recorded without causing
>distortion. I would like a type of codec that does this. Has a
>strength of being able to handle louder sounder w/out clipping, yet
>with the price of decreased SNR. Mu-law seems to do the opposite.

I think HDCD works that way. See:
http://www.hdcd.com/partners/proaudio/articles.html
and
http://www.hdcd.com/partners/proaudio/GainScale.pdf


--
Pozdrowienia

Andrzej Popowski
Anonymous
May 19, 2004 4:26:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp (More info?)

On 18 May 2004 17:07:19 -0700, curious11112001@yahoo.com (Curious)
wrote:

>What I would like is to increase the clipping point - that is, the
>increase the loudnest sound that can be recorded without causing
>distortion. I would like a type of codec that does this. Has a
>strength of being able to handle louder sounder w/out clipping, yet
>with the price of decreased SNR.

If you attentuate the signal going into the A/D (by, say, 10dB),
the signal level that causes clipping will be louder (by that same
10dB). This is the standard way of doing things. For a given system,
setting the level is always a compromise between headroom and noise.
This all seems too simple - can you explain your application in
more detail? Why do you need to "increase the clipping point?"

>Mu-law seems to do the opposite.
>
>BTW I tried dithering with AA, it did *not* increase the clipping
>point at all. The dithering *does* makes the sound less "choppy" at
>lower levels. This is not what I was looking for though.
>
>I am looking for something that increases the ability to handle louder
>sounds.

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley
May 20, 2004 12:15:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp (More info?)

Ben Bradley <ben_nospam_bradley@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<e91na0957hsjf8o9hvccqnq9o411jn22ci@4ax.com>...


> If you attentuate the signal going into the A/D (by, say, 10dB),
> the signal level that causes clipping will be louder (by that same
> 10dB). This is the standard way of doing things. For a given system,
> setting the level is always a compromise between headroom and noise.

But I am not doing A/D. I have a CD-ROM that can extract digital audio
from the CD itself rather than recording from the CD.

> This all seems too simple - can you explain your application in
> more detail? Why do you need to "increase the clipping point?"

I want loud music w/out the clipping. I don't like the "red" when I
play through my computer software. Clipping has the effect of making
me "feel sorry" for the system. It makes the music depressing. I also
get the creepy feeling that something in the computer is getting
physically damaged because of the clipping. No signs of any damage but
the "placebo effect" stresses me out.
Anonymous
May 20, 2004 8:27:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp (More info?)

"Curious" <curious11112001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:34a4f456.0405191915.8b13ad2@posting.google.com...
> Ben Bradley <ben_nospam_bradley@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:<e91na0957hsjf8o9hvccqnq9o411jn22ci@4ax.com>...
>
>
> > If you attentuate the signal going into the A/D (by, say, 10dB),
> > the signal level that causes clipping will be louder (by that same
> > 10dB). This is the standard way of doing things. For a given system,
> > setting the level is always a compromise between headroom and noise.
>
> But I am not doing A/D. I have a CD-ROM that can extract digital audio
> from the CD itself rather than recording from the CD.
>
> > This all seems too simple - can you explain your application in
> > more detail? Why do you need to "increase the clipping point?"
>
> I want loud music w/out the clipping. I don't like the "red" when I
> play through my computer software. Clipping has the effect of making
> me "feel sorry" for the system. It makes the music depressing. I also
> get the creepy feeling that something in the computer is getting
> physically damaged because of the clipping. No signs of any damage but
> the "placebo effect" stresses me out.

If you're going "in the red" it means that you have run out of bits to
represent the audio. All that stress, depressing sound and creepy feelings
are the direct result of distortion, and there's no silver bullet that will
break, modify or bend the laws of physics for you. You've hit top end,
that's all there is, there isn't any more.

Doesn't your computer play loud enough? It's possible that something isn't
set up correctly, or isn't working correctly. Assuming everything is working
properly, and you want ear-shattering sound levels, the only way you can
make the music louder without overloading the system's design parameters is
to play it back with a bigger amplifier or more sensitive
speakers/headphones. Assuming your ears can take it, you can get practically
unlimited loudness by purchasing a powerful enough amplifier. That's what
they do at rock concerts. You can get thousands of watts of clean audio, but
you still have to stay within the system parameters. You can't go into the
red without distortion, no matter what.
Anonymous
May 20, 2004 2:12:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp (More info?)

Curious wrote:

> Ben Bradley <ben_nospam_bradley@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<e91na0957hsjf8o9hvccqnq9o411jn22ci@4ax.com>...
>
>
>
>>If you attentuate the signal going into the A/D (by, say, 10dB),
>>the signal level that causes clipping will be louder (by that same
>>10dB). This is the standard way of doing things. For a given system,
>>setting the level is always a compromise between headroom and noise.
>
>
> But I am not doing A/D. I have a CD-ROM that can extract digital audio
> from the CD itself rather than recording from the CD.
>
>
>> This all seems too simple - can you explain your application in
>>more detail? Why do you need to "increase the clipping point?"
>
>
> I want loud music w/out the clipping. I don't like the "red" when I
> play through my computer software. Clipping has the effect of making
> me "feel sorry" for the system. It makes the music depressing. I also
> get the creepy feeling that something in the computer is getting
> physically damaged because of the clipping. No signs of any damage but
> the "placebo effect" stresses me out.

Mu-law is used for digital telephony. It's about dynamic range, not
power level, and has nothing to do with what you want to accomplish. To
get more loudness out of a sound system, you have to put more power into
it: get a bigger amplifier and stop wasting everybody's time.

When I was 15, a thirteen-year-old asked me how to make gunpowder, and I
told him. I should have learned right then to stop answering questions
without knowing the whole context.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Anonymous
May 20, 2004 7:11:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp (More info?)

On 19 May 2004 20:15:45 -0700, curious11112001@yahoo.com (Curious)
wrote:

>Ben Bradley <ben_nospam_bradley@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<e91na0957hsjf8o9hvccqnq9o411jn22ci@4ax.com>...
>
>
>> If you attentuate the signal going into the A/D (by, say, 10dB),
>> the signal level that causes clipping will be louder (by that same
>> 10dB). This is the standard way of doing things. For a given system,
>> setting the level is always a compromise between headroom and noise.
>
>But I am not doing A/D. I have a CD-ROM that can extract digital audio
>from the CD itself rather than recording from the CD.

Oh, THAT explains it. You're playing a commercial audio CD recorded
or remastered within the last ten years or so. And the distortion is
coming from the CD.

BTW, CD's are recorded with linear PCM, and this has nothing to do
with mu-law encoding.

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH YOUR EQUIPMENT. oops, sorry, didn't
mean to yell...

Furthermore, there is nothing you can do about the situation with
the CD's you have. The appropriate thing to do is complain to the
record label about the sound, but don't hold your breath waiting for
them to release a 'fixed' copy.

>> This all seems too simple - can you explain your application in
>> more detail? Why do you need to "increase the clipping point?"
>
>I want loud music w/out the clipping. I don't like the "red" when I
>play through my computer software. Clipping has the effect of making
>me "feel sorry" for the system. It makes the music depressing. I also
>get the creepy feeling that something in the computer is getting
>physically damaged because of the clipping.

Okay, you don't have to worry about that last thing, even if you
already 'know' that you can't damage anything thay way. All that can
really be damaged is the music, and most unfortunately, it is ALREADY
damaged on the CD.

>No signs of any damage but
>the "placebo effect" stresses me out.

You're far from the only person to complain about clipping and
distorted sound recent CD's. Here's an infamous article about a recent
RUSH release. This is about a heavy metal record, but this
"hypercompression" to make each CD sound louder than the competition's
CD's covers almost all genres of popular music. This article tells the
story:

http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/articles/8A13...
-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley
May 20, 2004 11:39:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp (More info?)

Ben Bradley <ben_nospam_bradley@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<2uvpa0lj88ptfjonqmim3mppsqv135ga0d@4ax.com>...
> On 19 May 2004 20:15:45 -0700, curious11112001@yahoo.com (Curious)
> wrote:
>
> >Ben Bradley <ben_nospam_bradley@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<e91na0957hsjf8o9hvccqnq9o411jn22ci@4ax.com>...
> >
> >
> >> If you attentuate the signal going into the A/D (by, say, 10dB),
> >> the signal level that causes clipping will be louder (by that same
> >> 10dB). This is the standard way of doing things. For a given system,
> >> setting the level is always a compromise between headroom and noise.
> >
> >But I am not doing A/D. I have a CD-ROM that can extract digital audio
> >from the CD itself rather than recording from the CD.
>
> Oh, THAT explains it. You're playing a commercial audio CD recorded
> or remastered within the last ten years or so. And the distortion is
> coming from the CD.

Nothing wrong with the CD. The original sound is recorded loudly. The
song is "We Live". The singer is Bosson.


> THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH YOUR EQUIPMENT. oops, sorry, didn't
> mean to yell...
>
> Furthermore, there is nothing you can do about the situation with
> the CD's you have. The appropriate thing to do is complain to the
> record label about the sound, but don't hold your breath waiting for
> them to release a 'fixed' copy.

> >> This all seems too simple - can you explain your application in
> >> more detail? Why do you need to "increase the clipping point?"
> >
> >I want loud music w/out the clipping. I don't like the "red" when I
> >play through my computer software. Clipping has the effect of making
> >me "feel sorry" for the system. It makes the music depressing. I also
> >get the creepy feeling that something in the computer is getting
> >physically damaged because of the clipping.
>
> Okay, you don't have to worry about that last thing, even if you
> already 'know' that you can't damage anything thay way. All that can
> really be damaged is the music, and most unfortunately, it is ALREADY
> damaged on the CD.

You mean the "song" is damaged. Cuz it was originally recorded at that
high volume.

Some songs are just recorded loudly. Time travel would be necessary to
correct that.

I don't really hear the clipping, however, I still get worried when
the "red" is hit.
May 20, 2004 11:49:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp (More info?)

Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:<40acbce3$0$3124$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...

> To
> get more loudness out of a sound system, you have to put more power into
> it.

Which amplifier has all four characteristics:

1. Max. power capacities

2. Highest upper-frequency response

3. All audio processing is purely digital [excluding the obvious ADC and DAC]

4. No lossy compression or data reduction

5. Digital audio input

????
Anonymous
May 21, 2004 4:46:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp (More info?)

Curious wrote:

> Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:<40acbce3$0$3124$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...
>
>
>>To
>>get more loudness out of a sound system, you have to put more power into
>>it.
>
>
> Which amplifier has all four characteristics:
>
> 1. Max. power capacities
>
> 2. Highest upper-frequency response
>
> 3. All audio processing is purely digital [excluding the obvious ADC and DAC]
>
> 4. No lossy compression or data reduction
>
> 5. Digital audio input
>
> ????

We evidently mean different things by "amplifier". I meant a device that
accepts a weak low-power analog input in the audio range, and puts out a
higher power version of the same signal. It does no "processing", either
digital or analog. As to maximum power, I know of some available that
provide 25 kilowatts, but I've never heard of one of them driving a
loudspeaker. The purpose of the amplifier is to provide more power to
your loudspeakers than your present system can. You don't need digital
input, and there are too many standards for it to make sense anyway.
Drive it from the line-out jack on your sound card.

No DAC I'm aware of can provide enough power to drive a loudspeaker. You
need an analog amplifier between a DAC and the speaker. If you don't
have one now, that's your problem.

Each new question you ask reveals a wider gap in your knowledge than the
previous. There is such a state as not knowing enough for me to tell you
anything. I'm not yet convinced that that's the case, but we're getting
closer.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Anonymous
May 21, 2004 8:05:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp (More info?)

"Curious" <curious11112001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:34a4f456.0405201849.7c9e6f1d@posting.google.com...
> Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:<40acbce3$0$3124$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...
>
> > To
> > get more loudness out of a sound system, you have to put more power into
> > it.
>
> Which amplifier has all four characteristics:
>
> 1. Max. power capacities
>
> 2. Highest upper-frequency response
>
> 3. All audio processing is purely digital [excluding the obvious ADC and
DAC]
>
> 4. No lossy compression or data reduction
>
> 5. Digital audio input
>
> ????

Before I answer that, I would need to know what kind of listening you do:
Headphones? Speakers? Using a computer with something like Windows Media
Player or WinAmp? I-Pod? Hi-Fi sound system?

Some of your questions don't make sense, taken together:
1. Maximum power? Compared to what? Headphones only need a few milliwatts.
Speakers might need a hundred watts or more.
2. Upper frequency response? Your ears, and most source material don't go
any higher than 20,000 Hz.
4. Lossy compression or data reduction is a function of the storage or
transmission medium, not the amplifier.
Anonymous
May 21, 2004 5:09:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp (More info?)

On 20 May 2004 19:39:31 -0700, curious11112001@yahoo.com (Curious)
wrote:

>Ben Bradley <ben_nospam_bradley@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<2uvpa0lj88ptfjonqmim3mppsqv135ga0d@4ax.com>...
>> On 19 May 2004 20:15:45 -0700, curious11112001@yahoo.com (Curious)
>> wrote:

>> >But I am not doing A/D. I have a CD-ROM that can extract digital audio
>> >from the CD itself rather than recording from the CD.
>>
>> Oh, THAT explains it. You're playing a commercial audio CD recorded
>> or remastered within the last ten years or so. And the distortion is
>> coming from the CD.
>
>Nothing wrong with the CD.

I'm sure the CD is giving you the same bits that the engineers and
producers put on it and intended to be there, so there's nothing wrong
with it in the most reductionistic techical sense. But in the sense of
the CD carrying a good, clean, clip-free recording, there's plenty
wrong with it.

>The original sound is recorded loudly. The
>song is "We Live". The singer is Bosson.

Have you loaded it into a .wav editor and seen what the waveform
looks like? Does it look like any of those in the article on the
recent Rush CD?

>> THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH YOUR EQUIPMENT. oops, sorry, didn't
>> mean to yell...
>>
>> Furthermore, there is nothing you can do about the situation with
>> the CD's you have. The appropriate thing to do is complain to the
>> record label about the sound, but don't hold your breath waiting for
>> them to release a 'fixed' copy.
>
>> >> This all seems too simple - can you explain your application in
>> >> more detail? Why do you need to "increase the clipping point?"
>> >
>> >I want loud music w/out the clipping. I don't like the "red" when I
>> >play through my computer software. Clipping has the effect of making
>> >me "feel sorry" for the system. It makes the music depressing. I also
>> >get the creepy feeling that something in the computer is getting
>> >physically damaged because of the clipping.
>>
>> Okay, you don't have to worry about that last thing, even if you
>> already 'know' that you can't damage anything thay way. All that can
>> really be damaged is the music, and most unfortunately, it is ALREADY
>> damaged on the CD.
>
>You mean the "song" is damaged. Cuz it was originally recorded at that
>high volume.

Yes, the music, the song, the recording is damaged.

>Some songs are just recorded loudly. Time travel would be necessary to
>correct that.

What would be neccesary is to change the attitude of the major
labels. Without that, they'd still make it clip. What happened here is
NOT an accident, it was intentional.

>I don't really hear the clipping, however, I still get worried when
>the "red" is hit.

You may not hear blatant clipping, but I'm sure it doesn't sound as
clean as it could have. Go to a used CD store and get a CD or two made
15 years ago (not a recent re-release of music over 15 years old, but
where the actual CD was made and sold back then), and compare it to
the CD's that are showing clipping. With an older CD, he clip light
will rarely if ever come on, and the sound will be cleaner.
The music industry 'standards' for making a CD have changed in the
past decade or so. A song that sounds 'louder' is, at first listen,
deemed more interesting and exciting, so it will sell more CD's than a
clean-but-not=as-loud song, so record labels are making songs sound
louder to increase sales. Yes, they're sacrificing sound quality to
make more money.

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley
Anonymous
May 21, 2004 5:28:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp (More info?)

Ben Bradley wrote:
[snip]
> The music industry 'standards' for making a CD have changed in the
> past decade or so. A song that sounds 'louder' is, at first listen,
> deemed more interesting and exciting, so it will sell more CD's than a
> clean-but-not=as-loud song, so record labels are making songs sound
> louder to increase sales. Yes, they're sacrificing sound quality to
> make more money.
>

Sounds as if OP should write a forceful, but polite, complaint letter
to the offending label. Don't bother with "customer relations"
[whatever they call it]. Send it to CEO or Chairman of Board of Directors.
May 21, 2004 9:39:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp (More info?)

Ben Bradley <ben_nospam_bradley@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<gbcsa09qdtps0pn0eu5ne5m1t0qa3svmi7@4ax.com>...
> You may not hear blatant clipping, but I'm sure it doesn't sound as
> clean as it could have. Go to a used CD store and get a CD or two made
> 15 years ago (not a recent re-release of music over 15 years old, but
> where the actual CD was made and sold back then), and compare it to
> the CD's that are showing clipping. With an older CD, he clip light
> will rarely if ever come on, and the sound will be cleaner.

The song "We Live" was made in 1999. That is the year Bosson made the
original recording.
Anonymous
May 21, 2004 10:36:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp (More info?)

In rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp, Richard Owlett <rowlett@atlascomm.net>
wrote:

>Ben Bradley wrote:
>[snip]
>> The music industry 'standards' for making a CD have changed in the
>> past decade or so. A song that sounds 'louder' is, at first listen,
>> deemed more interesting and exciting, so it will sell more CD's than a
>> clean-but-not=as-loud song, so record labels are making songs sound
>> louder to increase sales. Yes, they're sacrificing sound quality to
>> make more money.
>>
>
>Sounds as if OP should write a forceful, but polite, complaint letter
>to the offending label. Don't bother with "customer relations"
>[whatever they call it]. Send it to CEO or Chairman of Board of Directors.

Not to discourage such actions, but it's not like it's one
offending label. They've all been doing it, more and more over the
years. Here's another page on the topic:

http://www.mindspring.com/~mrichter/dynamics/dynamics.h...
-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley
Anonymous
May 22, 2004 6:45:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp (More info?)

"Ben Bradley" <ben_nospam_bradley@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:uu0ta055fd521oikgl9olo1mvg1tvr3e3e@4ax.com...
> In rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp, Richard Owlett <rowlett@atlascomm.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Ben Bradley wrote:
> >[snip]
> >> The music industry 'standards' for making a CD have changed in the
> >> past decade or so. A song that sounds 'louder' is, at first listen,
> >> deemed more interesting and exciting, so it will sell more CD's than a
> >> clean-but-not=as-loud song, so record labels are making songs sound
> >> louder to increase sales. Yes, they're sacrificing sound quality to
> >> make more money.
> >>
> >
> >Sounds as if OP should write a forceful, but polite, complaint letter
> >to the offending label. Don't bother with "customer relations"
> >[whatever they call it]. Send it to CEO or Chairman of Board of
Directors.
>
> Not to discourage such actions, but it's not like it's one
> offending label. They've all been doing it, more and more over the
> years. Here's another page on the topic:
>
> http://www.mindspring.com/~mrichter/dynamics/dynamics.h...
> -----
> http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

I don't disagree that CD mastering practices are far below perfection, but I
believe the OP has something else going on. He seems to be complaining of
inadequate playback volume, overtly gross distortion (probably due to some
sort of attempt to compensate for the lack of volume), and out of a general
misunderstanding of the principles involved, is searching for a magic bullet
to fix those problems. I think something on his sound system is broken or
mis-configured.
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 5:03:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp (More info?)

Hi Jerry,

Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:<40ad89ab$0$3126$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...
> No DAC I'm aware of can provide enough power to drive a loudspeaker. You
> need an analog amplifier between a DAC and the speaker. If you don't
> have one now, that's your problem.

How would you classify the new generation class D amps that go
straight from 16/24 bit audio to the speaker terminals? The only
digital to analogue conversion in those is right at the speaker.

Regards,
Steve
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 2:39:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp (More info?)

Steve Underwood wrote:

> Hi Jerry,
>
> Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:<40ad89ab$0$3126$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...
>
>>No DAC I'm aware of can provide enough power to drive a loudspeaker. You
>>need an analog amplifier between a DAC and the speaker. If you don't
>>have one now, that's your problem.
>
>
> How would you classify the new generation class D amps that go
> straight from 16/24 bit audio to the speaker terminals? The only
> digital to analogue conversion in those is right at the speaker.
>
> Regards,
> Steve

What I surmise is that PCM is converted to a variety of PWM. I call that
conversion to analog. The high power comes later. The input is signed
binary; the output is bipolar. What you refer to as A/D conversion in
the loudspeaker I call low-pass filtering.

Maybe my notion of how the device works is entirely wrong. Where can I
read about it?

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 7:43:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp (More info?)

"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:40b20922$0$3152$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
> Steve Underwood wrote:
>
> > Hi Jerry,
> >
> > Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:<40ad89ab$0$3126$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...
> >
> >>No DAC I'm aware of can provide enough power to drive a loudspeaker. You
> >>need an analog amplifier between a DAC and the speaker. If you don't
> >>have one now, that's your problem.
> >
> >
> > How would you classify the new generation class D amps that go
> > straight from 16/24 bit audio to the speaker terminals? The only
> > digital to analogue conversion in those is right at the speaker.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Steve
>
> What I surmise is that PCM is converted to a variety of PWM. I call that
> conversion to analog. The high power comes later. The input is signed
> binary; the output is bipolar. What you refer to as A/D conversion in
> the loudspeaker I call low-pass filtering.
>
> Maybe my notion of how the device works is entirely wrong. Where can I
> read about it?

PWM is analog. The fact that it's switched confuses a lot of people. The
pulse width is an analog quantity. The fact that distinction between digital
and analog can be blurred just underscores the similarity of the two
technologies in terms of mathematical signal analysis.
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 7:44:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp (More info?)

Karl Uppiano wrote:

> "Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message
> news:40b20922$0$3152$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
>
>>Steve Underwood wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi Jerry,
>>>
>>>Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message
>
> news:<40ad89ab$0$3126$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...
>
>>>>No DAC I'm aware of can provide enough power to drive a loudspeaker. You
>>>>need an analog amplifier between a DAC and the speaker. If you don't
>>>>have one now, that's your problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>How would you classify the new generation class D amps that go
>>>straight from 16/24 bit audio to the speaker terminals? The only
>>>digital to analogue conversion in those is right at the speaker.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Steve
>>
>>What I surmise is that PCM is converted to a variety of PWM. I call that
>>conversion to analog. The high power comes later. The input is signed
>>binary; the output is bipolar. What you refer to as A/D conversion in
>>the loudspeaker I call low-pass filtering.
>>
>>Maybe my notion of how the device works is entirely wrong. Where can I
>>read about it?
>
>
> PWM is analog. The fact that it's switched confuses a lot of people. The
> pulse width is an analog quantity. The fact that distinction between digital
> and analog can be blurred just underscores the similarity of the two
> technologies in terms of mathematical signal analysis.

Thank you for putting what I meant into better words.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 8:05:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp (More info?)

Allan Herriman <allan.herriman.hates.spam@ctam.com.au.invalid> writes:

> On Mon, 24 May 2004 10:39:25 -0400, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>>Steve Underwood wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jerry,
>>>
>>> Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:<40ad89ab$0$3126$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...
>>>
>>>>No DAC I'm aware of can provide enough power to drive a loudspeaker. You
>>>>need an analog amplifier between a DAC and the speaker. If you don't
>>>>have one now, that's your problem.
>>>
>>>
>>> How would you classify the new generation class D amps that go
>>> straight from 16/24 bit audio to the speaker terminals? The only
>>> digital to analogue conversion in those is right at the speaker.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Steve
>>
>>What I surmise is that PCM is converted to a variety of PWM. I call that
>>conversion to analog. The high power comes later. The input is signed
>>binary; the output is bipolar. What you refer to as A/D conversion in
>>the loudspeaker I call low-pass filtering.
>>
>>Maybe my notion of how the device works is entirely wrong. Where can I
>>read about it?
>
> http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/amp...

I stopped reading when I got to the part where he stated an amplifier
was "transparent but not neutral". What B.S.
--
% Randy Yates % "Though you ride on the wheels of tomorrow,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % you still wander the fields of your
%%% 919-577-9882 % sorrow."
%%%% <yates@ieee.org> % '21st Century Man', *Time*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr
May 24, 2004 11:03:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp (More info?)

curious11112001@yahoo.com (Curious) wrote in message news:<34a4f456.0405211639.5ff58435@posting.google.com>...
> Ben Bradley <ben_nospam_bradley@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<gbcsa09qdtps0pn0eu5ne5m1t0qa3svmi7@4ax.com>...
> > You may not hear blatant clipping, but I'm sure it doesn't sound as
> > clean as it could have. Go to a used CD store and get a CD or two made
> > 15 years ago (not a recent re-release of music over 15 years old, but
> > where the actual CD was made and sold back then), and compare it to
> > the CD's that are showing clipping. With an older CD, he clip light
> > will rarely if ever come on, and the sound will be cleaner.
>
> The song "We Live" was made in 1999. That is the year Bosson made the
> original recording.

Given that this is a pretty recent song, is their a solution to this.

Here's more info on "We Live". I have this on the CD. It is a CD
single with 4 songs. The info is on the back of the CD case:


1. We Live 3:41
2. We Live (Random Remix) 3:43
3. We Live (Engines Garage Mix)* 4:10
4. Happy 3:22


Produced by Bosson, Thomas Gustafsson & Hugo Lira
Mixed by Joakim Styren for 101 Kommunikation at Jam Lab Studio 3
*Remixed by Engine
Written by Bosson/Deeno
Published by MNW Music/Random Music/Potato Jam/Regatta

Original version appears on the forthcoming Bosson album
Track 4 Previously Unreleased

Artwork and Photography by Pelie Hokengren and Jonas Linell

Management: Terry and Anthony Anzaldo/Good Guy Entertainment

hollywoodandvine.com

Print Copyright 1999 Capitol Records, Inc.
Manufactured by Capitol Records, Inc.. 1750 Vine Street, Hollywood,
California 90028.
All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized Duplication is a Violation of
Applicable Laws. Printed in U.S.A.
May 24, 2004 11:05:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp (More info?)

curious11112001@yahoo.com (Curious) wrote in message news:<34a4f456.0405211639.5ff58435@posting.google.com>...
> Ben Bradley <ben_nospam_bradley@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<gbcsa09qdtps0pn0eu5ne5m1t0qa3svmi7@4ax.com>...
> > You may not hear blatant clipping, but I'm sure it doesn't sound as
> > clean as it could have. Go to a used CD store and get a CD or two made
> > 15 years ago (not a recent re-release of music over 15 years old, but
> > where the actual CD was made and sold back then), and compare it to
> > the CD's that are showing clipping. With an older CD, he clip light
> > will rarely if ever come on, and the sound will be cleaner.
>
> The song "We Live" was made in 1999. That is the year Bosson made the
> original recording.

I bought the CD in the summer of 2000 from a Wherehouse Music Store in La Puente
Anonymous
May 25, 2004 5:15:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp (More info?)

On Mon, 24 May 2004 10:39:25 -0400, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:

>Steve Underwood wrote:
>
>> Hi Jerry,
>>
>> Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:<40ad89ab$0$3126$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...
>>
>>>No DAC I'm aware of can provide enough power to drive a loudspeaker. You
>>>need an analog amplifier between a DAC and the speaker. If you don't
>>>have one now, that's your problem.
>>
>>
>> How would you classify the new generation class D amps that go
>> straight from 16/24 bit audio to the speaker terminals? The only
>> digital to analogue conversion in those is right at the speaker.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Steve
>
>What I surmise is that PCM is converted to a variety of PWM. I call that
>conversion to analog. The high power comes later. The input is signed
>binary; the output is bipolar. What you refer to as A/D conversion in
>the loudspeaker I call low-pass filtering.
>
>Maybe my notion of how the device works is entirely wrong. Where can I
>read about it?

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/amp...

Have a look at some parts:
http://focus.ti.com/docs/search/vparamsearch.jhtml?sear...

Regards,
Allan.
Anonymous
May 25, 2004 5:15:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp (More info?)

On Tue, 25 May 2004 01:15:14 +1000, Allan Herriman
<allan.herriman.hates.spam@ctam.com.au.invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 24 May 2004 10:39:25 -0400, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:
>

>>What I surmise is that PCM is converted to a variety of PWM. I call that
>>conversion to analog. The high power comes later. The input is signed
>>binary; the output is bipolar. What you refer to as A/D conversion in
>>the loudspeaker I call low-pass filtering.
>>
>>Maybe my notion of how the device works is entirely wrong. Where can I
>>read about it?

I would suspect the PCM gets converted/"up-sampled" with an
all-digital sigma-delta implementation to a single-bit
high-sample-rate (in the MHz range) PCM bitstream (which is not the
same as PWM, though the hardware from the digital output to the
speaker may be the same).

>http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/amp...

That's an "interesting" discussion but doesn't give a clue about
the internals of "digitally controlled Class D."

Googling found this paper which has some technical meat - it
mentions regular PWM, digital-input PWM, and "Direct delta-sigma
modulation" that is exactly what I was thinking of::

http://www.chipidea.com/essderc2003/presentations/essci...


>Have a look at some parts:
>http://focus.ti.com/docs/search/vparamsearch.jhtml?sear...

This is TI's standard "Class D" parts they've been offering for a
few years, and it appears none of them have digital input.

>Regards,
>Allan.

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley
Anonymous
May 25, 2004 5:15:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp (More info?)

Ben Bradley wrote:

...

> That's an "interesting" discussion but doesn't give a clue about
> the internals of "digitally controlled Class D."
>
> Googling found this paper which has some technical meat - it
> mentions regular PWM, digital-input PWM, and "Direct delta-sigma
> modulation" that is exactly what I was thinking of::

> http://www.chipidea.com/essderc2003/presentations/essci...

...

Thanks for hunting it down. I can see this sub-thread degenerating into
an interminable (at any rate, unterminating) argument over the meaning
of words. I'll get my licks in early, then run for cover and duck.

As far as I'm concerned, converting two's complement binary to PWM is an
D-to-A operation, despite the binary nature of the pulses' amplitudes.
Properly, "analog" as we use it is a misnomer, as is "digital" when
applied to gates and flip-flops. Digital is about numbers, analog is the
representation of one quantity as analogous to another, as voltage being
an analog of, say, mass. Despite that, we know what we mean by analog
and digital and if we don't "mere sandwich"* our terms, we won't get
sidetracked.

I claim that a box that accepts numbers and provides drive to a
voice-coil speaker necessarily does D-to-A conversion. The circuit
referred to does it before the H bridge.

Jerry
_______________________________________________
* When one is famished, nothing is better than a solid meal. A mere
sandwich, however, is better than nothing. A>B>C implies A>C. When one
is famished, nothing is better than a mere sandwich.
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
May 25, 2004 10:41:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp (More info?)

Reposted because it didn't show up on:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=curious11112001&hl=en...

curious11112001@yahoo.com (Curious) wrote in message news:<34a4f456.0405211639.5ff58435@posting.google.com>...
> Ben Bradley <ben_nospam_bradley@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<gbcsa09qdtps0pn0eu5ne5m1t0qa3svmi7@4ax.com>...
> > You may not hear blatant clipping, but I'm sure it doesn't sound as
> > clean as it could have. Go to a used CD store and get a CD or two made
> > 15 years ago (not a recent re-release of music over 15 years old, but
> > where the actual CD was made and sold back then), and compare it to
> > the CD's that are showing clipping. With an older CD, he clip light
> > will rarely if ever come on, and the sound will be cleaner.
>
> The song "We Live" was made in 1999. That is the year Bosson made the
> original recording.

Given that this is a pretty recent song, is their a solution to this.

Here's more info on "We Live". I have this on the CD. It is a CD
single with 4 songs. The info is on the back of the CD case:


1. We Live 3:41
2. We Live (Random Remix) 3:43
3. We Live (Engines Garage Mix)* 4:10
4. Happy 3:22


Produced by Bosson, Thomas Gustafsson & Hugo Lira
Mixed by Joakim Styren for 101 Kommunikation at Jam Lab Studio 3
*Remixed by Engine
Written by Bosson/Deeno
Published by MNW Music/Random Music/Potato Jam/Regatta

Original version appears on the forthcoming Bosson album
Track 4 Previously Unreleased

Artwork and Photography by Pelie Hokengren and Jonas Linell

Management: Terry and Anthony Anzaldo/Good Guy Entertainment

hollywoodandvine.com

Print Copyright 1999 Capitol Records, Inc.
Manufactured by Capitol Records, Inc.. 1750 Vine Street, Hollywood,
California 90028.
All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized Duplication is a Violation of
Applicable Laws. Printed in U.S.A.
Anonymous
May 26, 2004 2:32:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,comp.dsp (More info?)

Curious wrote:

(snip)

> I want loud music w/out the clipping. I don't like the "red" when I
> play through my computer software. Clipping has the effect of making
> me "feel sorry" for the system. It makes the music depressing. I also
> get the creepy feeling that something in the computer is getting
> physically damaged because of the clipping. No signs of any damage but
> the "placebo effect" stresses me out.

It is likely that others have explained the right answer to
this question, but in many cases dynamic range compression is
the right answer. Listening to classical music, which often has
a large dynamic range, on a car audio system is one. Between the
background road noise and the maximum power available or desirable,
the dynamic range may not be enough for some music.

In days past, compression/expansion systems like DBX were more
popular as noise reduction systems.

-- glen
!