missing samples |
missing samples |
Jun 11 2012, 14:25
Post
#1
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 11-June 12 Member No.: 100611 |
Hi,
I have a question about missing samples, or non-uniform samples. I found out that audio samples can be reconstructed if they are oversampled. My question is can a 20 second oversampled audio file be reconstructed from the first or last 10s of the same recording, or recover a missing audio from what ever that you have. I know that this has something to do with Fourier transform, so, please, can someone explain me how it`s done, or can it be done? I suspect it is possible with simple uniform frequencies, but not with real life audio recordings. Thanks |
|
|
|
![]() |
Jun 11 2012, 18:40
Post
#2
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 11-June 12 Member No.: 100611 |
Thank you all, those are great answers. So, when you missing bulk samples, i.e. last tenth or last half, doesn`t matter, it is impossible to recover it, but, as @lvqcl pointed out, if you have every second, or forth, or eight sample (the power of two rule applies here, I assume), the recovery of all samples is possible without loss. It seams that, basicaly, it all comes down to sample resolution. I didn`t see the undersampled option, thanks for pointing it out, @pdq. And, of course, corrupted samples are another matter all together.
|
|
|
|
Jun 11 2012, 18:57
Post
#3
|
|
![]() Group: Super Moderator Posts: 9261 Joined: 1-April 04 Member No.: 13167 |
the power of two rule applies here, I assume No, it is only because Ivqcl arbitrarily used an oversampling factor that was a power of two. If you oversampled by something that isn't so conveniently neat and tidy like 96/44.1 then you can't eliminate all but every x*n sample where n is some power of two (or some other integer that is not a power of two!) and retain the information. This post has been edited by greynol: Jun 11 2012, 19:17 -------------------- Everything sounds the same until it is proven otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Jun 11 2012, 20:30
Post
#4
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 11-June 12 Member No.: 100611 |
If you oversampled by something that isn't so conveniently neat and tidy like 96/44.1 then you can't eliminate all but every x*n sample where n is some power of two (or some other integer that is not a power of two!) and retain the information. Do you talking about prime number (dividable only by itself and 1) as a number of samples here? Because in that case you would be wright, and for every integer there would be a remainder which would represent bulk loss of samples and information. I assumed the power of two because of Fast Fourier Transform algorithm which requires that condition. I believed that every sample reconstruction algorithm uses FFT, but I guess I`m wrong. I`m also curious about the limit of missing samples. How much samples can you throw away before the recovery of those samples becomes unreliable or incomplete? |
|
|
|
dave1 missing samples Jun 11 2012, 14:25
pdq What do you mean by oversampled? Do you mean that ... Jun 11 2012, 15:02
dhromed If you have to use pre-existing knowledge of a sig... Jun 11 2012, 15:05
dave1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversampling
Yes, I m... Jun 11 2012, 17:25
pdq If you are proposing a scheme for error recovery i... Jun 11 2012, 17:38
lvqcl If some audio signal is 4x oversampled then it is ... Jun 11 2012, 17:40
Soap But, and if I'm reading the original question ... Jun 11 2012, 17:48
pdq In other words, if the signal was 4x oversampled, ... Jun 11 2012, 17:50
AndyH-ha Simple oversampling puts identical samples between... Jun 11 2012, 20:37
greynol As was mentioned before there are other (and far b... Jun 11 2012, 21:19
jensend Many of you have ignored the main thrust of his qu... Jun 12 2012, 06:42
knutinh 1. Establish a parametric model for the waveform g... Jun 12 2012, 12:00
db1989 Plus I think the question was more general, referr... Jun 12 2012, 12:27![]() ![]() |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 20th May 2013 - 22:50 |