Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="arion_p" data-source="post: 642906" data-attributes="member: 45945">Just like Tourettes said, it is not possible to retrieve any of the information that is lost during the A to D conversion. But during the D to A conversion you can remove some &quot;Quantization Noise&quot; introduced by A to D. A dumb D to A will output a staircase like signal. That signal would normally be &quot;smoothed out&quot; by the analog electronics and of course the speakers that cannot reproduce the abrupt level changes. But this smoothing out is uncontrolled and not optimal. By oversampling you can place intermediate sample to smooth out the signal in a way that &quot;sounds&quot; better (but not necessarily closer to the original signal).To picture the difference compare upscaling an image in Photoshop using &quot;nearest neighbor&quot; vs &quot;bicubic&quot;. The D/A effectively upsamples the signal to infinite resolution (analog signals are equivalent to having infinitely small time steps and infinitely small level steps)But I want to emphasize that Tourettes is right: the result is not necessarily closer to the original, it just may sound better.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="arion_p, post: 642906, member: 45945"] Just like Tourettes said, it is not possible to retrieve any of the information that is lost during the A to D conversion. But during the D to A conversion you can remove some "Quantization Noise" introduced by A to D. A dumb D to A will output a staircase like signal. That signal would normally be "smoothed out" by the analog electronics and of course the speakers that cannot reproduce the abrupt level changes. But this smoothing out is uncontrolled and not optimal. By oversampling you can place intermediate sample to smooth out the signal in a way that "sounds" better (but not necessarily closer to the original signal). To picture the difference compare upscaling an image in Photoshop using "nearest neighbor" vs "bicubic". The D/A effectively upsamples the signal to infinite resolution (analog signals are equivalent to having infinitely small time steps and infinitely small level steps) But I want to emphasize that Tourettes is right: the result is not necessarily closer to the original, it just may sound better. [/QUOTE]

Verification