| Products > Test Equipment |
| Most accurate signal generator |
| << < (22/34) > >> |
| ebastler:
--- Quote from: loop123 on April 02, 2024, 11:02:50 am ---I only use and familiar with Audacity which uses time scale in horizonal and not sample format. what other popular software uses samples format so i can try them all? tnx --- End quote --- It's really a simple conversion as long as a fixed sample rate is always used. 10,000 samples in 200 ms, 50 samples per ms, 1 sample per 20 µs. I am not sure where your problem with those plots lies? |
| loop123:
--- Quote from: ebastler on April 02, 2024, 11:11:50 am --- --- Quote from: loop123 on April 02, 2024, 11:02:50 am ---I only use and familiar with Audacity which uses time scale in horizonal and not sample format. what other popular software uses samples format so i can try them all? tnx --- End quote --- It's really a simple conversion as long as a fixed sample rate is always used. 10,000 samples in 200 ms, 50 samples per ms, 1 sample per 20 µs. I am not sure where your problem with those plots lies? --- End quote --- If you use 40000 samples per 20µs instead of 1 sample. and you zoominto the 900Hz sine wave. You can already see the jagged edge noises, isnt it? can you change the default sampling in Audacity? what is the default sampling in Audacity per 20 µs? |
| ebastler:
--- Quote from: loop123 on April 02, 2024, 11:21:36 am ---If you use 40000 samples per 20µs instead of 1 sample. and you zoominto the 900Hz sine wave. You can already see the jagged edge noises, isnt it? --- End quote --- No, not really. If you look at things on a time scale where the 900 Hz signal can be resolved (and looks smooth and sinusoidal), the noise will also look smooth and not jagged -- because its bandwidth is limited to 1000 Hz. If you look at things on a timescale where the noise looks jagged (say the timescale used for the 50 Hz plot), the 900 Hz signal will also look "jagged": You can hardly resolve its individual oscillations, and since it has a much higher amplitude than the noise, it will fill the whole screen with trace lines. You really seem to have a mental block here, assuming noise has to always look "noisy" -- a rapidly wiggling contribution which sits on top of your signal. But if you limit your noise spectrum to a range close to your signal frequency, the noise will indeed look similar to your signal. |
| nctnico:
--- Quote from: loop123 on April 02, 2024, 11:02:50 am --- --- Quote from: gf on April 02, 2024, 10:45:57 am --- --- Quote from: loop123 on April 02, 2024, 10:31:34 am ---gf (just wondering if a he or she), can you pls use the same sampling (used at 50Hz) at 900Hz to show the same noise as the 50Hz plot? --- End quote --- With the same time scale, 180 periods of the 900Hz signal. would need to fit into the screen width. Even w/o noise, the plot becomes so dense that you hardly can see the waveform any more. You had explicitly asked how it would look if you zoom-in in order to inspect the waveform in detail. --- End quote --- I only use and familiar with Audacity which uses time scale in horizonal and not sample format. what other popular software uses samples format so i can try them all? tnx --- End quote --- AFAIK you can configure Audacity to show the sample numbers. There is a bit of a learning curve, but Audacity is quite versatile. |
| gf:
--- Quote from: ebastler on April 02, 2024, 11:11:50 am ---It's really a simple conversion as long as a fixed sample rate is always used. 10,000 samples in 200 ms, 50 samples per ms, 1 sample per 20 µs. --- End quote --- Btw, just to clarify: I had calculated my plots at 48kSa/s (which is a commonly used audio sample rate). 1 seconds = 48000 samples, 200ms = 9600 samples, etc. Unfortunately, I was lazy. I should have labeled the time axis in seconds (instead of samples) to avoid confusion. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |