Much less off-topic than the previous post:
Audio cable break in, analog vs. digital nonsense
enjoy!
jd
Audio cable break in, analog vs. digital nonsense
enjoy!
jd
This is a new one as far as I know:
/quote:
"Would anyone be interested in my DVD- and Blu-Ray rewinder? The bit domains in a disc eventually become skewed by being spun in only one direction during playback, which increases the amount of error correction alarmingly. My rewinder spins the disc backwards, but only after applying a gradual, and acceleration-limited ramp up to approximately 60,000 rpm. After only 12 days, your disc is completely re-aligned and ready to be played once more."
jd
/quote:
"Would anyone be interested in my DVD- and Blu-Ray rewinder? The bit domains in a disc eventually become skewed by being spun in only one direction during playback, which increases the amount of error correction alarmingly. My rewinder spins the disc backwards, but only after applying a gradual, and acceleration-limited ramp up to approximately 60,000 rpm. After only 12 days, your disc is completely re-aligned and ready to be played once more."
jd
There is no need for that. Papers on dither won't convince those that either lack the mathematical insight required (no offence) or just don't want to be convinced.
Last year I wrote an article for TNT that demonstrates flat dither and noise shaping. It includes sound clips of a hypothetical 4-bit system.
Listening beats reading.
That Dither Thing - [English]
A well-known audio designer I hold in high esteem, despite his own mistrust of dither, listened to the clips and remarked that the music was too sparse and 'safe' to be of value here. I then made him the same sort of demo, now with solo drums and cymbals. After this he shut up.
--
As an aside to Joachim: the Korg Audiogate resampling software is not
exactly the best available, see src.infinitewave.ca
Last edited:
No, not after the third or fourth time you've trotted out that notion and had it refuted.
I think you've hit that one dead center. The result is counterintuitive, and unless one understands the math and understands the results of the quotidian confirmation of theory, the reaction is likely to be, "But it CAN'T work!" The other portion, of course, is a seemingly emotional need to cling to old modes of thought and resist progress. Thanks for the interesting link- there's also a link in there to the excellent and educational paper by Hicks.
I still could be 'mistaken' because I don't know anything different.
I have interacted in print and in person for more than 30 years with Dr. Lipshitz and his colleagues, and I have some idea of their position. In fact, to show my position let me quote something that I wrote to rebut Doug Self, almost 25 years ago. This was never sent into the magazine, either WW or HFN, but it still reads well today.
"... I realize that some 'authorities' in the audio profession will never accept that any capacitor differences are sonically important, but remember that these same individuals hear little if any differences between whole preamps and power amps. Also, these same individuals have ignored any criticisms of the limitations of their version of double blind testing, even from fellow academics who, as well, are university professors. In any case, I can do little about that, or their persistent opinion that improvement over traditional circuitry is unnecessary. I personally choose to ignore unproductive criticism, and will endeavour to develop the best designs possible with present technology."
This was written about 1987. Has anything changed much? My position, theirs? If so, please give me a direct answer to what they are about, and how I am 'mistaken'.
I have interacted in print and in person for more than 30 years with Dr. Lipshitz and his colleagues, and I have some idea of their position. In fact, to show my position let me quote something that I wrote to rebut Doug Self, almost 25 years ago. This was never sent into the magazine, either WW or HFN, but it still reads well today.
"... I realize that some 'authorities' in the audio profession will never accept that any capacitor differences are sonically important, but remember that these same individuals hear little if any differences between whole preamps and power amps. Also, these same individuals have ignored any criticisms of the limitations of their version of double blind testing, even from fellow academics who, as well, are university professors. In any case, I can do little about that, or their persistent opinion that improvement over traditional circuitry is unnecessary. I personally choose to ignore unproductive criticism, and will endeavour to develop the best designs possible with present technology."
This was written about 1987. Has anything changed much? My position, theirs? If so, please give me a direct answer to what they are about, and how I am 'mistaken'.
So when you misrepresent their research conclusions, it's intentional?
I'm still not sure how this transitioned from jj to Doug Self (who doesn't research MP3) to Stanley Lipshitz (I don't know if he's researched MP3) in just a few sentences, but I'm not breathing the Berkeley air.
Interesting experiment Werner. I didn't dare listen to the tracks though, the measurements told all I needed.
Well, I never new there was any controversy over dither or noise shaping or heard any arguments that it didn't work. But, I wouldn't be surprised if there was. I assumed that using dither is now standard fare in recording studios?
I find that HDCD encoded discs sound surprisingly good on my OPPO BPD83 Nuforce Edition, but not many out there. The music industry has dropped the ball when it comes to high end unfortunately. MP3 is king now, and that's life. It seems the LP has beat out the SACD in the high end format wars.
Well, I never new there was any controversy over dither or noise shaping or heard any arguments that it didn't work. But, I wouldn't be surprised if there was. I assumed that using dither is now standard fare in recording studios?
I find that HDCD encoded discs sound surprisingly good on my OPPO BPD83 Nuforce Edition, but not many out there. The music industry has dropped the ball when it comes to high end unfortunately. MP3 is king now, and that's life. It seems the LP has beat out the SACD in the high end format wars.
Last edited:
could this be inciteful (sic) or what??
I do believe you've stumbled on to what's wrong with NASCAR...
... too many "left-turns only"...
I do believe you've stumbled on to what's wrong with NASCAR...
... too many "left-turns only"...
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
" with small cracks rapidly growing into catastrophic breakages when centripetally stressed at 10,000 - 13,000rpm (i.e. 40-52× CAV). "
No actually the disk is turned into schrapnel in seconds.
Yes. We used to spin cryogenically (sp?) treated F100 jet engine compressor sections at 100.000 rpm for stress testing. If a blade broke off, it usually also was the end of the spinning installation.
The piece I quoted was actually a tongue-in-cheek from an audio sceptic.
I wonder how many pre-orders he got
jd
Well...
I have some interesting experience on this issue. A few years back IBM was experimenting with a new 72X drive (vendor=Kenwood) which spun CAV at 18,000prm. My company was their prime CD-ROM vendor and they began to experience disc explosions inside the drive, and believed that it was material fatigue and failure in the polycarbonate substrate.
As an experiment I took a 55 gallon drum, mounted a motor on a piece of 1/4" aluminum as a drum lid, then chucked CDs and spun them at up to 30,000 rpm for 10-15 minutes without ANY failures.
The IBM boys came in en masse with polymer scientists and engineers to witness the spectacle. It was only when I intentionally notched the disc edge and spun them for minutes that I could get them to fail explosively, which confused the polymer guys
, who had calculated differently.I was examining the discs they had brought with them and noticed the hub claming area was all scratched up as if the disc had been sliding in the CD-ROM drive magnetic chuck. I examined the CD-ROM drive they had brought and noticed it had a totally stock magnetic chuck, originally designed for the 1-3rd generation 4x-16x drives
. It was obvious from the hub damage that very minor substrate balance errors which were insignificant at low rpms were causing the discs to vibrate out of the chuck at 18,000 rpm, and explode when they hooked up with a piece of the transport. These balance issues were caused by asymmetrical printing, lacquer distribution or other causes. This of course would translate the rotational inertia into bulk compression in the polycarbonate and voila: dust! (and bent metal!) They were slightly embarassed that they had not noticed this aspect of the drive's design.Last thing they told me before closing the issue was that a new rare-earth magnetic chuck was being specified...moral of the story: unexamined legacy issues always come back to bite you when you least expect it!
Ahhh, the good old days of physical media...
Howard Hoyt
Dir. of Engineering
AMI, LLC
HQ disc replication
I've always enjoyed the Cryogenital-ly spelling version.
Lycoming heritage gasturbine engine in boats go from multi-million to scrap dollar just as fast.
Werner,
A very good demonstration, thanks for that.
How did you generate the 4 effective bit files?
WRT Korg SRC, true but it is acually not that bad.
cheers
T
Well, I've said my piece. Apparently, digital is 'perfect' with the addition of dither, double blind tests have proven that only certain things can be heard, and the rest of us are just deluded 'has beens' who yearn for the glories of the past, when audio decisions really made a difference, and music was recorded with now obsolete technologies.
Attachments
Last edited:
Years ago in the days of the first video disk players that used a 12" disk and a helium neon laser to read the analog information I had a museum exhibit that used one. After about 10 months of the same disk spinning they would shatter. As they were made of plastic that exhibits plastic behavior I found it interesting but not really surprising. When spun the stresses on the outer edges were much greater than at the middle, there probably was some material flow, stress built up, micro-fractures grew and finally impressive failure mode!
So I suspect the fictional device would actually help those who are playing their CD's at 64x speed continuously to get in more music faster. Of course if it takes 12 days to de-stress the disc I would only assume it took 12 days at the same speed to stress it.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.