Beware of purveyors of quantum perfection theora. They often buy or sell cryogenically treated power cables, quantum-aligned optical fibers and phase-aligned titanium nitride tweeter drivers¹. I offer that most of the movement is an underlying appeal to steampunk... Note that without exception, the quantum-perfected accouterments are also exotically labelled, sheathed, pigmented, dyed, bound, connectorized, buffed and polished. If it looks like a Rolex, is it a Rolex?
GoatGuy
¹ taking into account the speed of sound, for one's tweeters to be "phase aligned", they'd have to be within 350,000 / F millimeters of equal placement to each other relative to one's wobbling noggin, to maintain that phase alignment. It is just an example of quantum-foolishness, used to sell the really-expensive but otherwise not that special tweeter. The tuck-and-finish though is quite nice. And purple. Oooohhhh...
GoatGuy
¹ taking into account the speed of sound, for one's tweeters to be "phase aligned", they'd have to be within 350,000 / F millimeters of equal placement to each other relative to one's wobbling noggin, to maintain that phase alignment. It is just an example of quantum-foolishness, used to sell the really-expensive but otherwise not that special tweeter. The tuck-and-finish though is quite nice. And purple. Oooohhhh...
Last edited:
Proven wrong, got that on the first go, don't need it told to me the second time.
I already was proven wrong and realize that my understanding of physics is wrong, I even admitted it. And stated that I needed to learn more before I opened my mouth.
I even felt deeply ashamed and embarassed that my understanding was voiced and that I cannot remove it or edit it.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/lounge/265154-ignore-its-moment-stupidity-9.html#post4131896You will also become better at sifting out a lot of the BS posted on the net
Is diyaudio a place of professionalism? I guess not.
I suppose that now anyone reading this thread will think that my observations from my tda1543 and tda1541 dac are also complete ******** now.
I do these expensive comparisons out of my own charity, spending 4 hours in listening sessions being as unbiased as possible because I want to give the best possible results to the diyaudio community.
I'm not as full of crap as some of you think.
Last edited:
Don't feel ashamed or embarrassed. Quite the opposite, your honesty makes you a better man than the alarming numbers of people who will not change their minds even in the face of contrary evidence. You should feel pretty good about yourself- your attitude is worthy of high respect.
I can offer several consolations:
1. What is wrong today could be right tomorrow.
2. So what. Yeah, it makes little difference.
4. Mistakees make you human and people around will sympathise. (No, I don't think this is particularly funny, clever or amusing but I have been wrong before)
5. It's always too late for regrets. Plus I doubt you'll be able to correct yourself.
6. There's always something wrong in what you say, in what you do. If you ever get married you will understand this truth. Absolutely normal.
1. What is wrong today could be right tomorrow.
2. So what. Yeah, it makes little difference.
4. Mistakees make you human and people around will sympathise. (No, I don't think this is particularly funny, clever or amusing but I have been wrong before)
5. It's always too late for regrets. Plus I doubt you'll be able to correct yourself.
6. There's always something wrong in what you say, in what you do. If you ever get married you will understand this truth. Absolutely normal.
I agree with that too, and is a valid topic. Recording and playback of a continuous, analogue signal with digital media has for the most part (in past) been limited to a pretty low sampling rate, and lowish resolution. And the sampling frequency, I think has been quite the issue. 48 kHz is about the minimum sampling rate you can get decent playback from, and we are for sure listening to alot of our CDs recorded and decoded at that rate. If you have listened to music recorded original music and played back on .wav file at 32 bit, 96kHz without any error coding/compression/decompression on a good amp with good speakers, I'm pretty sure you find it astonishing how ''real'' it can sound. I can't even tell the difference between the live analog ''monitor'' out of the board and the playback through the recording. 32 Bit resolution is better dynamic range than my hearing probably by an order of magnitude (!) and I can only hear up to about 13 kHz where it drops off rather quickly. So maybe we just have to worry about getting to the point where the performance of technology can surpass the capability of what we can hear and discern , but not necessarily worry about measuring it beyond our listening limits?
freax, I was not ascribing these qualities to your posts which were made in good faith. I was trying to make the point that the term quantum is so frequently exploited by the loony fringe, egotists and the unscrupulous it can become difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff due to the sheer volume of BS posted online: all claims need to be examined critically. I am sorry this was not made clear.
Your previous posts have absolutely no bearing on the veracity of your DAC observations. There is no connection between the two.
No surprise, I've always considered audio (and all related activities) as a form of electronic masturbation. It's all about corpuscular slamming.
Says who I'm full of crap, and understand JS about quantum mechanics.
Hi DF96, yeah it's fine probably sampling to 32 kHz if it's well enough engineered, for most folks. But thankfully now we have the ''luxury'' of very inexpensive storage media, and processors that can do 24/32 bit at 96Khz for relatively low cost, so hey why not? I never trusted Nyquist, or at least the assumption that representing a continuous complex wave with only 2x sample at upper cutoff seemed to me like a bare, absolute minimum..even from an engineering viewpoint. Just to say we probably agree that the state of ''affordable'' technology today is easily capable of out-performing what we can hear?
I was actually thinking about the limits of analogue recording media
Regarding the 20k and 2X samples, how much information is there in music above say 17K? and how many people can really hear that high....But when the analogue is reconstructed it looks pretty much OK.
Last edited:
Which analog recording media matters too. Getting 90 db of S/N on a Studer tape deck involved DBX on each channel record/playback, you would quickly lose HF if you dubbed over too many times. Not that it sounded ''bad'' at all, tons of really excellent analog material recorded by engineers who were brilliant ..but cost 40K for the Studer multitrack and another 40K for board and audio processors. Of course you have people now capable of recording with excellent digital media sounding like absolute overprocessed, synthetic, distorted and compressed garbage. And maybe, the one biggest factor in recording process: talent ?
Nothing like grabbing a 44.1kHz digital track of, say, a 19k, 20k sine wave in a waveform editor like Audacity, where the onscreen representation is "join the dots" - looks bloody awful, IOW - and then massively oversampling it, up to the MHz level, to see what goes on. The latter is exactly equivalent to an analogue reconstruction - and the "miracle" of Nyquist is that out pops - still drawn by joining the dots - a visually perfect sine wave ...
This is the 'new' sound, just like 50's rocknroll, 60's rock, late 70's punk, 90's Indi etc etc were the 'new'sounds in their day.
Plenty of modern music sounds overprocessed, synthetic, distorted and compressed.... on stage, in the audience, on the recordings and over the radio.
So it could be argued that the digital medium is actually faithful to the original.
Dan.
However, the good news - perhaps - is that extremely overprocessed recordings unravel themselves when the playback system is working at a sufficiently high state of tune - and then become interesting soundscapes to explore. I have been surprised a number of times of late, thinking that certain sorts of modern recordings had no redeeming values at all - but when the system was up to it all the underlying elements of the sound separated, totally cleanly. This then made the track very interesting, because the complex inner structure was clearly revealed, and the patterns of that fully occupied my attention.
It is somewhat like listening to modern equivalents of Bach - it's the textures of sound that make it intriguing to the brain ... provided the system can reproduce the elements cleanly ...
- is that extremely overprocessed recordings unravel themselves when the playback system is working at a sufficiently high state of tune - and then become interesting soundscapes to explore. I have been surprised a number of times of late, thinking that certain sorts of modern recordings had no redeeming values at all - but when the system was up to it all the underlying elements of the sound separated, totally cleanly. This then made the track very interesting, because the complex inner structure was clearly revealed, and the patterns of that fully occupied my attention.It is somewhat like listening to modern equivalents of Bach - it's the textures of sound that make it intriguing to the brain ... provided the system can reproduce the elements cleanly ...
I agree with that..it is good news. When you can take whatever recording media, work with it and it becomes a part of the performance..whether it's faithful or not to what brought forth the originating sound, is "talent" sometimes bordering on ''genius". Is an impressionist painting accurate to the original? Does it sometimes evoke a stronger response than a photograph or even looking at a real landscape?
If you make a recording of one instrument so perfect that its copy is indiscernable from the original, and mix that in contrast with a track that is unrecognizable as to its origin, is that a bad thing? The ''lens'' by which we listen to music is constantly, purposely being manipulated, and from a lot of your comments that is a very good thing indeed.
If you make a recording of one instrument so perfect that its copy is indiscernable from the original, and mix that in contrast with a track that is unrecognizable as to its origin, is that a bad thing? The ''lens'' by which we listen to music is constantly, purposely being manipulated, and from a lot of your comments that is a very good thing indeed.
[QUOTE it's the textures of sound that make it intriguing to the brain ][/QUOTE]
That my friend is exactly what musicians, engineers, and producers want to do with their listeners. Communicate to us directly on a visceral, emotional level. If they manage to do that on recorded media, that is talent, and much harder to do so than with live reproduction/amplification.
That my friend is exactly what musicians, engineers, and producers want to do with their listeners. Communicate to us directly on a visceral, emotional level. If they manage to do that on recorded media, that is talent, and much harder to do so than with live reproduction/amplification.
Dan: when this is done well, purposefully, it can sound great. Digital gives musicians and producers a powerful palette of sonic options. I would say analog equally so. There cannot be a right answer on analog vs digital, because listeners really don't have the right to ''dictate'' what the musician/artist chooses as their medium. That is half of the equation of recording/playback. Listeners can decide for them/ourselves if it is good or garbage, hit delete or save as it were.
Sure, I have plenty of modern recordings where the artists/producers have gone to town exploiting the capabilities of programmable keyboards, effects units, and DAW editing.
When done right the results can be spectacular when played on a fully capable PB system, as Frank states above.
I would argue that there is plenty of processing functionality/automation easily available in DAW, that is not practically doable in strictly analog recording/mixingdown/mastering.
Dan.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.