Hi Pavel,
Hi Scott,
-Chris
Thank you. I may have misunderstood some of those concepts as we were taught. I'll go back and re-examine the material I have if it's not still at my old shop. Otherwise I'll have to go hunting for this information.
Hi Scott,
That would seem to be what designers wanted to avoid from what I understand, and one of the basic reasons to move the noise components way out of band. In this case, a low order analog filter may be less effective if aliasing is allowed into the audio band. I can't see this working well if this is in fact the case.
-Chris
scott wurcer said:
That aspect is covered by:
"Psychological evaluation of sound quality
Table 2 shows the subjective evaluation of sound quality examined by Scheffé's paired comparison method (Scheffé 1952). A significant difference was evident between FRS and HCS in some elements of sound quality. Subjects felt that FRS was softer, more reverberant, with a better balance of instruments, more comfortable to the ears, and richer in nuance than HCS."
john curl said:
Maybe this papers are of interest:
http://www.kokkinizita.net/papers/index.html
and Software:
http://www.kokkinizita.net/linuxaudio/
Chris, let me say something that might make all of us profit, in future.
If I started to make a detailed analysis of digital processing or graduate level atomic physics on this or other websites (trust me, I have tried), others with more working experience, would fall upon me like a ton of bricks. Oh sure, I have all the books and the general yap down on both, but I did not do the college courses, or obtain EXTENSIVE working knowledge of these subjects.
I have learned to rely on others for this detailed info, IF I can get them to offer it.
For example, Charles Hansen has done EXTENSIVE research objectively and subjectively on this anti-aliasing filter compromise. So has Dr. Peter Craven. Second guessing them is almost pointless. Personally, I welcome any STUDIED comments on these and other subjects, and I will try to keep out of the way, except for questions, if I am not as fluent on the subject.
If I started to make a detailed analysis of digital processing or graduate level atomic physics on this or other websites (trust me, I have tried), others with more working experience, would fall upon me like a ton of bricks. Oh sure, I have all the books and the general yap down on both, but I did not do the college courses, or obtain EXTENSIVE working knowledge of these subjects.
I have learned to rely on others for this detailed info, IF I can get them to offer it.
For example, Charles Hansen has done EXTENSIVE research objectively and subjectively on this anti-aliasing filter compromise. So has Dr. Peter Craven. Second guessing them is almost pointless. Personally, I welcome any STUDIED comments on these and other subjects, and I will try to keep out of the way, except for questions, if I am not as fluent on the subject.
Jakob2 said:
Sorry missed that, though it is strange they don't give much attention to the subjective tests. And yes, there are contradictory findings between here and elsewhere.
I find the loudspeaker issues in both studies are difficult to deal with. It would be hard to find a speaker that eliminates the intermodulation issues that would be a normal commercial component for home use.
Hi John,
Thank you.
I try to do the same thing, for the same reasons. However, it seems that what I thought was correct- isn't. I have no problem correcting errors in my knowledge or admitting an error on my part. Had I not believed what I posted was true, I would not have posted anything but possibly a question to clarify this.
I have done a great amount of work with CD players since the original devices came out. I had to accept that what I was taught in the service seminars was correct at the time. Apparently, what we were given for information is in error. Made sense to me at the time, which makes these errors even more difficult to "unlearn".
I don't think any of us are in the habit of wanting to appear foolish, myself included. To that end, I do always ask when there is something I am unsure of. I'd rather be corrected than go on with bad information. That is the beauty of these forums.
-Chris
Thank you.
I try to do the same thing, for the same reasons. However, it seems that what I thought was correct- isn't. I have no problem correcting errors in my knowledge or admitting an error on my part. Had I not believed what I posted was true, I would not have posted anything but possibly a question to clarify this.
I have done a great amount of work with CD players since the original devices came out. I had to accept that what I was taught in the service seminars was correct at the time. Apparently, what we were given for information is in error. Made sense to me at the time, which makes these errors even more difficult to "unlearn".
I don't think any of us are in the habit of wanting to appear foolish, myself included. To that end, I do always ask when there is something I am unsure of. I'd rather be corrected than go on with bad information. That is the beauty of these forums.
-Chris
I'm with you, Chris. I have EVEN designed CD playback systems on paper, professionally, yet I am still 'out-in-the-woods', when it comes to the 'nitty-gritty' of digital systems. I suspected that much of the info you were giving, came from seminars. They often give misleading explanations to give something that people can get ahold of. Kind of like the 'planetary model of the atom' or that bipolar devices are current driven devices (exclusively) etc. It also happens in popular (for the masses) technical books.
Although, I may not seem this way, I also take exception to people who are unnecessarily petty about definitions or explanations made in a 'homespun' way.
For example, in my first interaction with Bob Pease, he virtually insulted me, by decrying my definitions of pulse characteristics, when I was trying to convey the Jung-Wurcer-Curl differential cap test to him and the test waveform that I selected. He was actually insulting.
I suspect that he was taught the 'proper' words early on, and could not accept the ad hoc descriptions of a degreed physicist, rather than an engineer.
Although, I may not seem this way, I also take exception to people who are unnecessarily petty about definitions or explanations made in a 'homespun' way.
For example, in my first interaction with Bob Pease, he virtually insulted me, by decrying my definitions of pulse characteristics, when I was trying to convey the Jung-Wurcer-Curl differential cap test to him and the test waveform that I selected. He was actually insulting.
I suspect that he was taught the 'proper' words early on, and could not accept the ad hoc descriptions of a degreed physicist, rather than an engineer.
Hi John,
Well, there is the danger inherent with trade education. Many other people couldn't get the concept, so I suspect there is a desire to "dummy it up" so that the main point of the seminar can be delivered expediently. It's up to the person attending these events to further filter what is technical truth, and what isn't. Terminology is used to further discriminate between those "in the know" and those who would like to know. That makes learning outside of an educational facility or research area more difficult than it really needs to be.
This is another example why I love industry technical papers that are peer reviewed. That's probably the best way to learn outside of the lab or university. That is unless you have a willing mentor to pass on the knowledge.
I guess we should all attempt to be a little more patient with people. We need a library of papers we can refer people to. That might allow threads to continue with a lower noise level.
-Chris
Well, there is the danger inherent with trade education. Many other people couldn't get the concept, so I suspect there is a desire to "dummy it up" so that the main point of the seminar can be delivered expediently. It's up to the person attending these events to further filter what is technical truth, and what isn't. Terminology is used to further discriminate between those "in the know" and those who would like to know. That makes learning outside of an educational facility or research area more difficult than it really needs to be.
This is another example why I love industry technical papers that are peer reviewed. That's probably the best way to learn outside of the lab or university. That is unless you have a willing mentor to pass on the knowledge.
I guess we should all attempt to be a little more patient with people. We need a library of papers we can refer people to. That might allow threads to continue with a lower noise level.
-Chris
Well fellas, it's good to know everyone has had those issues. We have our own egotists up here in Canada. Lipshitz attends the AES meetings here in Toronto, unless he has moved them to U of W now. He's the reason I haven't attended an AES meeting for over 10 years.
Being rude to someone reflects badly on the one being rude, some people just haven't figured that out yet.
-Chris
Being rude to someone reflects badly on the one being rude, some people just haven't figured that out yet.
-Chris
john curl said:
I’m sure he’s not rude, but he seems to be a very, I know everything, guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPOxSf3mxy0
BTW: What is not known here?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.