To give an example, mentioned recently,- Relax, by Frankie Goes ..., etc. Excellent material to work with - there is a water splashing sound in the mix - and the trick would be able to lift that particular element more and more out of the mix, so it stands completely separate from the rest of the sounds, with complete integrity in itself - it lives in its own acoustic, and can be easily
The sample of the band jumping in the pool was sampled and 'played' as far as I can tell by JJ mashing the fairlight keyboard.
According to this article
The Well-Tempered Computer
That is output. Looking at the some DAC reports running J test data the 2 give identical performance. I run coax out my bluray just because I have a spare coax input on the DAC for it as the TV and PC use the optical inputs. I think I can conclude that, for now, I have bigger problems to look at in my system.
If i had the TV connected to my system i would use an optical link to help avoid ground loops. I only use one source these days, simplicity sometimes brings benefits and i rarely watch the telly these days anyway. Endless repeats ain't my thing, my memory is still pretty much intact. My sanity - well thats another story
Yes, classic synthesizer techniques - some sounds are generated by first principles, others by using sampled sounds - premium digital pianos sold today uses samples of the best acoustic grands, which are carefully adjusted to suit the velocity of the key stroke, etc, etc.
A sampled sound has no problem in itself of being "low" quality - it is a recording, which just happens to be played back at a certain time, a number of times, just like adding another track in a DAW. It is no different, in essence, from having members of a jazz group completely acoustically separated for recording, in different rooms, each allocated their own track, and then being mixed down into a master.
In the early 80s there was nothing classic about the fairlight. It was state of the art. The mellotron had been the only game before that. People were learning as they went. Sadly this eventually gave us the frog chorus and the orchestra stab overload that culminated in 'a view to a kill' theme.
If i had the TV connected to my system i would use an optical link to help avoid ground loops. I only use one source these days, simplicity sometimes brings benefits and i rarely watch the telly these days anyway. Endless repeats ain't my thing, my memory is still pretty much intact. My sanity - well thats another story
well when we have film nights I want to get good sound
simplicity is for the kitchen stereo setup.What is the spec for allowing jitter to not be audible?
http://www.nanophon.com/audio/jitter92.pdf
THx-RNMarsh
http://www.nanophon.com/audio/jitter92.pdf
THx-RNMarsh
Classic, as from the perspective of now,
. I saw the beast at a hifi show in Sydney, in those early years, being shown off as a piece of gee whiz electronics - the oohing and aahing by the audience was mainly about the screen interface, with the light pen - the demo people, probably the developers, were very enthusiastic at pushing that side of it ... .Well....? It still looks like what I hear and measure is not enough bits at the typical listening levels - This bit depth is what determines the accuracy of the amplitude measurements per sample. The higher bit-depth allows greater audible perception in the loudness-the dynamic range. 16/44.1 is just shy of what is needed to be truely transparent:
https://www.meridian-audio.com/meridian-uploads/ara/coding2.pdf
The graphs towards the end show the loudness curves and distortion and noise overlaid on them for audibility.
THx-RNMarsh
https://www.meridian-audio.com/meridian-uploads/ara/coding2.pdf
The graphs towards the end show the loudness curves and distortion and noise overlaid on them for audibility.
THx-RNMarsh
Can't you extend the sample rate of say a 16 bit file, and use the ultrasonic frequencies for dither, and this way increase the effective bits at audio?
Although most DAC datasheets I've seen show that THD is higher at higher samplerates. So higher samplerate comes at the cost of harmonic distortion in most real cases. So for the DACs I've seen I wonder if 96KHz/16-bit with dither would be ideal (as suggested in that article in fact). It would also be a more space-effective HD format.
I wonder if dither has any strong effect on the compressibility of a file by increasing ENOB while adding random noise, perhaps adding more incompressible data?
Although most DAC datasheets I've seen show that THD is higher at higher samplerates. So higher samplerate comes at the cost of harmonic distortion in most real cases. So for the DACs I've seen I wonder if 96KHz/16-bit with dither would be ideal (as suggested in that article in fact). It would also be a more space-effective HD format.
I wonder if dither has any strong effect on the compressibility of a file by increasing ENOB while adding random noise, perhaps adding more incompressible data?
it is due to the reflexions of photons on the edge of the fiber, with different angles. At the distance of the light and the lengths you use in your home, go figure.
You can have Jitter if you use a level trigger on those edges. You need to re-clock your signal with a good clock (precise and fast edges) -> End of the issue.
Amazing that this debate keeps grinding on, and how "technical data" is used to push an agenda ...
It's all very simple ... CD often sounds like it lacks resolution, because that's how it manifests lacklustre, faulty implementation, in a system setup. People are so used to hearing it sound like that, they assume it must be because there is an intrinsic flaw with the concept ... well, it ain't! It only takes a single playing of a "poor" disk in a system without problems, to realise that the issue is poor system engineering badly undermining the sound quality potential.
I said I think the difference between a CD (16/44.1) and the improved sound of 24/96 from files is just the 24 bits mostly. Still seems to be true from everything I've read. I have not misunderstood the bit depth.
The distortion shown in the graphs is what I am hearing as the major difference.
This is dated at 1998 and he has moved on, himself with products of 24/96.
THx-RNmarsh
That has limited appeal to me... I want to get as close to SOTA as possible and funds allow... Every little bit counts
OK. Now I am really done.... I found the answere to my question of why my CD player doesnt sound as good as 24/96 files and have moved on to higher performance. Going to get that ADC and run tests. >>back to LPs and optimizing your choises for greater musical enjoyment.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Right at the earth rod , or a (separate)house circuit that is not being assaulted by modern "tech" (ill -designed consumer SMPS's).
My amps (and other 20'th century analog) have their own dedicated mains breaker/
ground.
OS
Yeah that's why I always change the brand label when I mod it. Difference of day and night!
Jan
- Status
- Not open for further replies.