Vinyl: more noise, and better too

[sfogg]

"but I don't know what is wrong with each of your tones, I only know they are different..."

The differences you are hearing are due to the varying levels of distortion in the tracks.

This file has a touch under 10% second order distortion in it. Contrary to the claims that that would not be audible it is plainly audible.

"how does this THD compare to CD jitter?"

It doesn't, they are two totally different things. Jitter is timing errors on the various clocks and serial data line that feed a DAC. If it gets bad enough it can cause a DAC to misinterpret a bit. When that happens you get some spurious noise spikes in the output of the DAC.

Shawn

[Colin]

Shawn I know the differences I am hearing "are due to the varying levels of distortion in the tracks." But they don't sound wrong, just different. Not if you tell me they are the same note, then I am quite surprised. Without sounding ugly or harsch, distortion does not even sound like the same note!

[pauln]

"Already demonstrated that if the fundamental is removed the harmonics are still present."

I don't see how that disproves what the Navy teaches at all. Of course removing the fundamental (the undeformed aspect of the waveform) from a signal will leave behind the deformed part of the waveform. That no more reveals the true origen of these frequencies than arguing that thier presence must be attributed to having been generated in the element in the first place.

When you suppress a component waveform from a complex waveform you must choose the one to suppress. If you are familiar with this kind of analysis of superposition you may know that the process works no matter what the type of wave is used as the member of the superposition - the classical and standard waveform used is the sine wave, and it is common to see statements that imply that complex waves are built up from sine waves of various amplitude and phase; but Fourier analysis works perfectly well if one selects square waves, sawtooth waves, tuba waves, or any continuous periodic waveform as the basic wave from which to derive all other waveforms using superposition. Sine waves are used because their math is simple, not because they are the actual ultimate reality truth of the form of the component waves that make up a complex wave.

The Navy would probably reply that the harmonic distortion remaining after suppressing the fundamental will be considered to have not been actually produced in the element, but that
rather the effect on the output signal is the same as if these
harmonics had been introduced.

What I mean is that logically the supression of the fundamental to see the remaining distortion does not act as a proper test of the idea that the distortion frequencies are not generated in the element but that the effect on the signal is as if they were...

I think the issue may be that just because a distorted waveform may be conceptually thought as superposition of additional frequencies of a particular form of wave (sine wave) to a fundamental does not necessarily imply that those particular types of waveform were generated by the addition of those sine frequencies to a fundamental.

Ultimately, the selection of the type of waveform used to decompose a complex wave is arbitrary - any continous repeating waveform can be used to perform the analysis. This is what underlies the concept of Complementarity in physical measurements. There is no a priori absolute correct waveform to use as the building block for decomposing complex waves. Each one measures a different attribute.

This also addresses the assertion that "Music is of course made up of nothing but sine waves." That is conceptually true if you select sine waves to perform the decomposition. If one selects any arbitrary continuous periodic wave to do the analysis ("X" wave) one may just as well claim that all music is made of nothing but X waves.

I think the writers of the Navy manual knew this but did not go into it because is was just an electronics training book, not a discussion of modern physics and old math.

[BLSamuel]

Yeah, down with the CD its sucks Yeah!!! Yeah!!! Yeah!!! Yeah!!! Yeah!!!, (sorry my vinyl is skipping)

JB. Better send me all your CDs now. Better to get that crap out of your house before it's too late and it ruins your life. I'll see that they're, uh, properly recycled. I'll also take your CD players and have them recycled also. Time to get that digital crap out of your life, now, before it ruins it. Not sure how I'll recycle those CDs but all that plastic and foil has got to be recyclable or reusable.... anything to keep 'em out of the landfill. Maybe fuse stacks of them together and resell as component feet with special anti resonant properties ... and the pitted foil, when aligned at the proper angle can also dissipate any stray magnetic fields from ones equipment from entering other pieces of equipment.

[sfogg]

istortion in the tracks." But they don't sound wrong, just different. Not if you tell me they are the same note, then I am quite surprised. Without sounding ugly or harsch, distortion does not even sound like the same note!

They are the same note, that is the whole point. The only difference is the distortion added to the fundamental note.

Shawn

[sfogg]

"and it is common to see statements that imply that complex waves are built up from sine waves of various amplitude and phase; but Fourier analysis works perfectly well if one selects square waves, sawtooth waves, tuba waves, or any continuous periodic waveform as the basic wave from which to derive all other waveforms using superposition."

I really don't know what you are arguing for. You initially said "The thing many mistakenly believe is that the harmonic distortion comes from adding the additional frequency components, but in reality what happens is the waveform is slightly deformed as if these frequency components were added." Now you are using Fourier to try and prove your point? Fourier analysis shows that the distortions are additional waves in the signal. You do realize that all the distortion spectra I posted are FFTs don't you? FFT = Fast Fourier transforms. They plainly show the harmonics as added waves to the signal. The reason the 1000hz second order distortion file sounds so different then the reference file is you are hearing a 1000hz tone with a 2000hz tone (second order harmonic distortion) on top of it at slightly lower level. Mix a 1000hz tone and a 2000hz tone together in the right ratio and it will sound the same... because it is the same.

Ditto performing a FFT on a square wave, sawtooth wave, tube waves etc...etc. The FFT will break it down to all the component sine waves in the signal. For example a square wave is nothing more then a sine wave with many odd order harmonics. That is why clipping generates lots of odd order harmonics, you are squaring off the signal. Clipping an amp tends to burn out tweeters, even if you clip well below the tweeters range. It does so because the added odd order harmonics (higher frequency waves that are added to the signal) are routed by the crossover in the speaker to the tweeter and it gets more power then it can handle.

Shawn

[pauln]

I understand all of that.The idea I am arguing is that when you start with a sample waveform and decide to break it down into its components, breaking it down into component sine waves is only one of the ways to do the breakdown.

You can also break it down into other kinds of waves, although the amplitudes, frequencies, and phases of those waves will be different. The Fourier decomposition does not require that the component waves are sine waves. A sample waveform is not "naturally" composed of sine waves - it can be broken down using Fourier to be composed of any kind of wave.

The implication of this is that a particular sample wave may be reconstructed from component waves of any type, not just sine waves; although again the amplitudes, frequencies, and phases of those component waves will be different, depending on the type of component wave selected to build up the sample wave.

This means when one asks what kind of wave "really" is the building block that is used to combine them in superposition to result in the sample complex wave, the answer is "you have your choice to use any wave as the component - most use sine waves because that is usually easiest, but in reality, it can be whatever you chose".

This is why it is misleading to believe that the element is "generating" the additional frequencies in distortion. Those particular frquencies only hold when the signal is analized from the standpoint of decomposing the complex wave into those specific components by selecting a particular shape of component wave. In 'reality' those particular frquencies are an artifact of the shape of the component wave selected (usually the sine wave) with which the Fourier decomposition was performed. Chosing to decompose the complex wave into sawtooth waves will work just as well, but the resulting frequencies of the components will be different.

There are no intrinsic component frequencies in a wave until one chooses the type of wave shape one will use to decompose the complex wave. Only then you get a set of amplitudes, freqs, and phases. For electrical/audio/acoustic applications the selection is almost always the sine wave. But that is not required. Any wave shape may be selected and consistent and correct values for amplitude, freq, and phase will come out of the Fouier transform.

It is like asking what is a factor for 60? There are an infinite number of them, but if all you need is 2x30, which is easy, the others don't get used only because they are more difficult but no less correct. But it would be misleading to always see 2x30 and eventually assume that is the "most real" or only factor.

[Don Richard]

Complex audio waveforms are absolutely caused by frequencies different from the fundamental being added to that fundamental frequency. Harmonic distortions are integer multiples of the fundamental that are added in various proportions to the fundamental. If one runs an FFT on a waveform, the result is a spectral plot of individual frequencies. A single, individual frequency can exist only as a sine wave, and a complex waveform can only be made up of sine waves of various frequencies and amplitudes.

The characteristic sound of a musical instrument is composed of a note of a certain pitch plus it's harmonics. That's why two reed instruments, an oboe and a saxophone, sound different. The relative mixture of the fundamental frequency and harmonics of an oboe and a sax are quite different. Adding harmonics in a sound reproduction system can make a noticeable change in the timbre of instruments. But, as has been stated previously, these distortions may be euphonic in nature and pleasing to some listeners.

Personally, I'm sensitive to harmonic distortion. Where some hear "increased warmth and fullness" I hear harmonic distortion. When some say "I hear things I never heard before with this new whatever", I'm thinking "Me too. Distortion". Anything added to the original by the reproduction system is, by definition, distortion. Whether you like it or not.

[bliss53]

Way over my head but I like it. Distortion can be ok, who knew.

[pauln]

"Complex audio waveforms are absolutely caused by frequencies
different from the fundamental being added to that fundamental frequency. ... A
single, individual frequency can exist only as a sine wave, and a
complex waveform can only be made up of sine waves of various
frequencies and amplitudes."

That is all I am trying to point out - the sine wave is not king of the
waves nor is it the primary most basic element from which all other
waves are composed - but by selecting the sine as the "measuring" tool
your results will yield a specific collection of frequencies,
amplitudes, and phases. Those are also not basic or primary. When all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail. As long as one fixates on the idea that sine waves are the only "real" building block of complex waves my points will be lost.

One watches complex waves go into Fourier and sine waves come out - this is ONLY because the sine wave is chosen by the operator as the shape of the component into which the complex wave is decomposed. The sine is chosen because the math is easier, NOT because it is a special primary waveform. There is no such special primary waveform.

One may perform the same operation choosing another arbitrary waveform as the shape of the component into which the complex wave is decomposed. Different choices of component wave shape will result in different values of the frequency, amplitude, and phase - this is why it is misleading to think that there are additional frequencies existing independent of a measuring process. Each shape wave used as the choice of component will yield different frequencies of these components, and no choice of component wave shape is prior, superior, more fundamental, or more "real" than any other. The sine is chosen to make the math easy. The selection of the sine determines the frequencies that yield; other waves yield other frequencies.

When you write "A
single, individual frequency can exist only as a sine wave", that is not strictly true.. First of all, it is critical to see how there are no frequencies prior to selecting the component wave shape one will use to decompose the complex wave. The specific frequencies only "appear" by virtue of the shape selected to perform the decomposition. Chosing another shape will yield different frequencies.

When you write that "
complex waveform can only be made up of sine waves of various
frequencies and amplitudes", this is clearly not true. A complex wave may be made up of any arbitrary shape of periodic wave of various freqs and amplitudes (and phases). It totally depends on the operator's choice for the component wave shape when making the measurement or calculation.

[sfogg]

"I am not in favor of adding distortion after the performance. However,
taken out of context, the notion of "not liking harmonic distortion"
has a wide implication of not liking the sound of many very wonderful
and common musical instruments and techniques. "

No it doesn't. The harmonics of an instrument are the signal itself. Distortion is a corruption of the signal, it occurs later in the chain.

Shawn

[Don Richard]

This would be heard by some as "changing the amount of harmonic distortion" and therefore, just the act of playing music on one's instrument would cause some people to reject the sound as unsatisfying or unmusical or unreal or unlistenable, even though it is simply the music.

When the saxophone was invented in the mid-1800s many people felt exactly that way because of the different sound it produced. The sax creates high amounts of odd-order harmonics that make it sound rather like a square wave, and that was an unusual sound for the time. The sax is my personal favorite out of all the reed instruments to play - I like that "blatty" sound!

[DrWho]

When you write that "
complex waveform can only be made up of sine waves of various
frequencies and amplitudes", this is clearly not true. A complex wave may be made up of any arbitrary shape of periodic wave of various freqs and amplitudes (and phases). It totally depends on the operator's choice for the component wave shape when making the measurement or calculation.

Your whole argument could be summed up another way....you're simply pointing out that one can measure distance in feet or in meters.

What you're missing is that it doesn't matter what units one chooses to measure something in - the derived meaning is always the same. 3.28 feet is the same as 1 meter, even though the numbers are different.

And like you said, sine waves are used because the math is simple, but intertwined with the simple math is that the relationships are more readily apparent. By all means, flood yourself in a world of needless complexity, but don't let the complexity fool you into thinking it has more meaning.

[Mallette]

Paul gets my vote for the "Patience of Job" award for quietly and calmly stateing an eloquent case.

Bravo!!!!

Regards,
Dave