20db headroom is correct
Tacitly, most engineers already know that they have 20 more dB in DR.
Based on this infographic (in Wikipedia's dedicated headroom article)...
.... "compact disc 16-bit audio" allows 20db more headroom (yellow)
cbdb: Why are you including "radio" in your reply? That medium was not discussed nor implied in the orig. disc. In radio (older FM/AM, specifically), station engineers apply their own compression.
Please research your reply carefully before posting!
No!
Tacitly, most engineers already know that they have 20 more dB in DR.
Based on this infographic (in Wikipedia's dedicated headroom article)...
.... "compact disc 16-bit audio" allows 20db more headroom (yellow)
cbdb: Why are you including "radio" in your reply? That medium was not discussed nor implied in the orig. disc. In radio (older FM/AM, specifically), station engineers apply their own compression.
Please research your reply carefully before posting!
Stay ON-TOPIC, please!
Hugely disappointed in the majority of responses of this thread ...
... the typical distractions and moot-point focusings, pedantic "corrections', as in the following comments:
"A volume pot is not a variable resistor. It is a constant resistor "
...and ...
"Wrong. It gave them more dynamic range. The head room is adjustable by picking the nominal level. Eg set 0 VU to -20dbfs and you have 20db of headroom."
...and...
"Under good conditions FM radio can approach 70dB dynamic range."
... the topical query remains a mystery....in all its depth and scope.
Please, folks, I know we're no longer under the crossing-guards guidance to keep us in check ...
Stay ON-TOPIC, please -- this is not a time-to-kill thread! Thanks!
Hugely disappointed in the majority of responses of this thread ...
... the typical distractions and moot-point focusings, pedantic "corrections', as in the following comments:
"A volume pot is not a variable resistor. It is a constant resistor "
...and ...
"Wrong. It gave them more dynamic range. The head room is adjustable by picking the nominal level. Eg set 0 VU to -20dbfs and you have 20db of headroom."
...and...
"Under good conditions FM radio can approach 70dB dynamic range."
... the topical query remains a mystery....in all its depth and scope.
Please, folks, I know we're no longer under the crossing-guards guidance to keep us in check ...
Stay ON-TOPIC, please -- this is not a time-to-kill thread! Thanks!
Respectfully (and you know what that means), you asked a question and then, when engineers, with real world skills and experience, answered and pointed out the problems with your question and thinking, you say you are "disappointed" with the responses?
DF96, for example, is an engineer who does understand the question but you don't like the answer.Perhaps his earlier suggestion might be in order?
Abs
DF96, for example, is an engineer who does understand the question but you don't like the answer.Perhaps his earlier suggestion might be in order?
Abs
I'll buy your reply if ....
"...engineers, with real world skills and experience..."
Wow ... what a blurb!
(I'm startin' a new DIY blog ... can I use that line? ... I'll even pay for it, bubs. Harvard Press book back-jackets are loaded with this sort of hyperbole. Not sayin' it's all $$. Some folks actually, really believe in their abilities (i.e., confabulation/cognitive dissonance) 'cause they paid off their massive-debt college loans -- that bought EE degree -- and/or some piece of paper on the wall -- the professional engineer's license -- or they read Gladwell and buy into that 10,000-Hour Rule )
Anyway ...
IAC ... you seem to be protecting the "brotherhood" as DF96 did in his comment "That graphic confirms what cbdb said. "
Okay, I'll concede to your criticisms if you, personally, (or anyone, i.e., "engineers, with real world skills and experience" ... can do likewise ... ) can provide a possible answer to the OP. (VladimirK's reply in #14, and Monte's remark about Johnson noise in #17 are good examples; DF96's confusing response in #19 is not a good example to follow. IMO, of course!)
NOTE/WARNING: This same query has been posed, possibly by 'me', on myriad other EE or "hifi"-type forums/blogs. If a conclusion to the issue was attained, this thread would no longer be active. So y'all've got ya work cut out for ya ...
One last bit of sage advice: The real-world reason for the phenomenon in the OP may require outside-the-box thinking. So, not as a glorified, well-fed engineer or modder or DIYAUDIO extraordinaire ... but, maybe as someone with some background in, e.g., psycho-acoustics, music theory, etc.
"...engineers, with real world skills and experience..."
Wow ... what a blurb!
(I'm startin' a new DIY blog ... can I use that line? ... I'll even pay for it, bubs. Harvard Press book back-jackets are loaded with this sort of hyperbole. Not sayin' it's all $$. Some folks actually, really believe in their abilities (i.e., confabulation/cognitive dissonance) 'cause they paid off their massive-debt college loans -- that bought EE degree -- and/or some piece of paper on the wall -- the professional engineer's license -- or they read Gladwell and buy into that 10,000-Hour Rule )
Anyway ...
DF96 is an engineer? Are you , Absconditus, also member DF96? Is being an engineer that important? If so DF96 can speak for himself ... and prove it, right? ... so, a LinkedIn page, please.
IAC ... you seem to be protecting the "brotherhood" as DF96 did in his comment "That graphic confirms what cbdb said. "
Okay, I'll concede to your criticisms if you, personally, (or anyone, i.e., "engineers, with real world skills and experience" ... can do likewise ... ) can provide a possible answer to the OP. (VladimirK's reply in #14, and Monte's remark about Johnson noise in #17 are good examples; DF96's confusing response in #19 is not a good example to follow. IMO, of course!)
NOTE/WARNING: This same query has been posed, possibly by 'me', on myriad other EE or "hifi"-type forums/blogs. If a conclusion to the issue was attained, this thread would no longer be active. So y'all've got ya work cut out for ya ...
One last bit of sage advice: The real-world reason for the phenomenon in the OP may require outside-the-box thinking. So, not as a glorified, well-fed engineer or modder or DIYAUDIO extraordinaire ... but, maybe as someone with some background in, e.g., psycho-acoustics, music theory, etc.
Is a PhD in EE from a reputable British university sufficient evidence for you? Unfortunately I am not on LinkedIn. Potential dividers appear fairly early in circuit theory courses, not long after Ohm's Law.hollowman said:
No, he is not. I am me. Nobody else is me.
No "brotherhood", just an interest in truth and a desire to teach others.
Questions generally get asked on myriad forums when the questioner doesn't like or doesn't understand the replies, sometimes demanding 'proof' that their own misunderstanding is false.
a simple request...
"Potential dividers" -- another 'new', distracting, use of terminology (why not just call them volume controls?) -- are hardly novice. Otherwise YOU (or someone) would have provided some topical, scientific reply ... i.e., engage the original query.
Or simply do not post in this thread: indeed, why is that simple course of action -- ignoring this thread -- so psychologically difficult to overcome?
Yes. There is. And your substanceless reply is demonstrative of that ...
"Potential dividers" -- another 'new', distracting, use of terminology (why not just call them volume controls?) -- are hardly novice. Otherwise YOU (or someone) would have provided some topical, scientific reply ... i.e., engage the original query.
Or simply do not post in this thread: indeed, why is that simple course of action -- ignoring this thread -- so psychologically difficult to overcome?
Volume controls based on potentiometers (another "new, distracting use of terminology?) whether switched or continuous are potential dividers. If you understand potential dividers then you almost understand potentiometers. They are "novice", in the sense that they are one of the aspects of circuit design which are usually learnt early on. Failure to understand the basics, which you appeared to demonstrate, means you will struggle to understand the subtleties. That may lead to wholly erroneous 'explanations' for alleged 'experiences'.hollowman said:
False maybe; lifer, never!
I'm afraid the losers are those who feel they have something to lose ... including their reputation/face in amongst their "peers" ... so, e.g., if one mega-posts RELIGIOUSLY on Facebook or a forum ... they are effectively lifers to that crowd. If that sounds cynical or pejorative ... use it as constructive criticism.
Yes, I can partly agree with that ... and proving something false ... including privately-held beliefs (if ultimately that's the reality) is no great ego-buster here. It's been demonstrated many times that individuals learn more from their mistakes than successes. And that's an element of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD (null hypothesis) So win-win here.
I'm afraid the losers are those who feel they have something to lose ... including their reputation/face in amongst their "peers" ... so, e.g., if one mega-posts RELIGIOUSLY on Facebook or a forum ... they are effectively lifers to that crowd. If that sounds cynical or pejorative ... use it as constructive criticism.
And I'm exactly as my avatar suggests -- a plumber (I specialize in soil stacks ... literally, the dirtiest location in a modern building).
Misquote ...
You forgot the "a" ... "I got banned from a HiFi forum" ... but, indeed, even that sig line is a bit dated, now. There's been AudioCircle (???) and a few other's that've made it to the hallowed list.
Because they are "potential dividers", something that first year engineers learn. Engineers also learn very early on that the word "potential" is the word used for a difference in "voltages" (which is a measure of potential).
You are attempting to argue about electronics with someone who has a PhD in EE (DF96, if it needs to be said and who I've always found very reasonable, personable and helpful) from a real university; one from which qualifications CANNOT be bought. Do you not see the folly in this?
Me too!
Abs
Last edited:
Logical fallacies!
This may be because you know or don't care about the OP (which is okay) ...and/or you don't know/care about the OP and just want to vent and socialize (which is okay, too.)
And here are several more ... see how many your remarks are in concordance with:
Fallacies
MAIN ISSUE .... any takers?
Vollage dividers, potential dividers, volume controls, etc. ...my earlier criticism stands... many of you concentrate on low-hanging fruit: nomenclature (blame and shame-on-yous and one is dumb if one does not know that, etc.) if you instead of staying on topic and addressing the ORIGINAL QUERIES.
This may be because you know or don't care about the OP (which is okay) ...and/or you don't know/care about the OP and just want to vent and socialize (which is okay, too.)
Many follies ... and they are mostly in the form of typical logical fallacies ... so all the academic edifications are a form of Argument from Authority.
And here are several more ... see how many your remarks are in concordance with:
Fallacies
MAIN ISSUE .... any takers?
Groan...................
Maybe you should look at your original post within the context of your strong proponency of logical fallacies (which I do understand). In order to get a sensible answer, you should ask a sensible question, based on an understanding of the processes involved. As this did not happen, some people who do have substantial qualifications in the specific are tried to point these out to you, and where your thinking is flawed, to no avail.
Falliing back, quite falsely, on claiming it to be logical fallacies, when you've shown plenty of your own, is disengenuous, at the very best. You made a claim that the low resistance in the potential divider is better SQ; do you know this for a fact, and, if so, where is your evdence?
You also asked this question;
Abs
Maybe you should look at your original post within the context of your strong proponency of logical fallacies (which I do understand). In order to get a sensible answer, you should ask a sensible question, based on an understanding of the processes involved. As this did not happen, some people who do have substantial qualifications in the specific are tried to point these out to you, and where your thinking is flawed, to no avail.
Falliing back, quite falsely, on claiming it to be logical fallacies, when you've shown plenty of your own, is disengenuous, at the very best. You made a claim that the low resistance in the potential divider is better SQ; do you know this for a fact, and, if so, where is your evdence?
You also asked this question;
Do you think attaching an anthropomorphic characteristic to an electrical signal is sound reasoning?
Abs
[sic!!!!!!!!]
I can qualitatively (subjectively) say that of the following headphone-amp topologies (two version of the now-classic CMoy) -- when level-matched -- the simpler version (top) "ain't soundin' as broke".
A(nother) possible reason, as elucidated in the CMoy article, is that volume pot's resistance may affect the threshold frequency of the high pass filter (ahead of it).
P.S.
A PERSONAL OBSERVATION:
A lot of yous yaps lot but don't say much ... i.e., your replies/posts lack diagrams, hyperlinks, URLs, etc.
Sorry folks ... off-the-top-of-one's-head musings are not useful in the information age.
I don't know anything for sure fact (ipse se nihil scire id unum sciat) ... hence the OP was in the form of a PROBING query.
I can qualitatively (subjectively) say that of the following headphone-amp topologies (two version of the now-classic CMoy) -- when level-matched -- the simpler version (top) "ain't soundin' as broke".
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
A(nother) possible reason, as elucidated in the CMoy article, is that volume pot's resistance may affect the threshold frequency of the high pass filter (ahead of it).
P.S.
A PERSONAL OBSERVATION:
A lot of yous yaps lot but don't say much ... i.e., your replies/posts lack diagrams, hyperlinks, URLs, etc.
Sorry folks ... off-the-top-of-one's-head musings are not useful in the information age.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.