How better is a Turntable compared to a CD? - Page 316 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Source & Line > Analogue Source

Analogue Source Turntables, Tonearms, Cartridges, Phono Stages, Tuners, Tape Recorders, etc.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 8th November 2013, 10:19 PM   #3151
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by 45 View Post
Ok. But you need to have corrections to limit jitter which has also different forms. As you have no control on time how can you be sure that you are only removing "the bad and not the good" when it comes to musical signal? I have never found anything satisfactory about this and usually the reasoning stops a simple level relying on the usual hypothesis.
You absolutely have control over the time down to the picosecond level. Merely repeating something incorrect does not make it correct. Likewise, your repeated denial of Shannon-Nyquist does not gather weight with repetition.
__________________
You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.- Wilford Brimley
 
Old 8th November 2013, 10:27 PM   #3152
45 is offline 45  Italy
diyAudio Member
 
45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by SY View Post
Quite the opposite, you have exact control of time to the picosecond level. If you're now claiming that Shannon-Nyquist is incorrect, you'll need to do some rigorous analysis to show why generations of engineers are wrong, despite successfully using this very basic piece of mathematics to design CAT scans, MRI, radio telescopes, fighter jets...

Likewise, you seem to be denying the Fourier theorem. You'll need even more rigorous analysis and evidence to convince anyone of that, given a couple of centuries of its successful application.

Interestingly, the page you linked to states all of this as well.
You have control on the sampling rate that is made by clock! I am not claiming the Shannon-Nyquist is wrong don't confuse things. Rather, all those things you citing are not living objects!
In the same way I am not denying the Fourier theorem. It is not valid once you put the listener in the chain. It is valid until the signal leaves the speakers if you have a listener or even after if you have a microphone instead of a human being. It is written in the theorem why.
The audio "science" is so successful that you cannot tell how one thing will sound and you have to listen to it to decide if it is good or not. No such thing as CAT scans, MRI, radio telescopes, fighter jets...I am afraid.

Last edited by 45; 8th November 2013 at 10:29 PM.
 
Old 8th November 2013, 10:35 PM   #3153
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by 45 View Post
You have control on the sampling rate that is made by clock!
Yes, and that is accurate to a few dozen picoseconds (a couple of nanoseconds max for mixing boards). You may want to read through the page you linked.
__________________
You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.- Wilford Brimley
 
Old 8th November 2013, 10:38 PM   #3154
45 is offline 45  Italy
diyAudio Member
 
45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by SY View Post
You absolutely have control over the time down to the picosecond level. Merely repeating something incorrect does not make it correct. Likewise, your repeated denial of Shannon-Nyquist does not gather weight with repetition.
I think you have no arguments for my questions!
 
Old 8th November 2013, 10:39 PM   #3155
45 is offline 45  Italy
diyAudio Member
 
45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by SY View Post
Yes, and that is accurate to a few dozen picoseconds (a couple of nanoseconds max for mixing boards). You may want to read through the page you linked.
I know what it is says. I read before posting.
 
Old 8th November 2013, 10:39 PM   #3156
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
You had no questions that I can see, just a string of incorrect assertions.

Quote:
I know what it is says. I read before posting.
Apparently without understanding it, or perhaps missing the key parts.
__________________
You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.- Wilford Brimley
 
Old 8th November 2013, 10:41 PM   #3157
jcx is offline jcx  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: ..
the signal's noise floor creates a "time smear" way above better crystal oscillator sub nanosecond jitter, dithered 16 bit CD may "only" have single digit ns time resolution

the Shannon-Hartley Channel Capacity Theorem applies to analog signals as well as digital - you simply can't get more than BW*SN bits out of any "channel" - including vinyl

and vinyl's potential ~2x higher bandwidth doesn't come close to making up for the higher noise floor

so CD noise floor advantage by itself gives more accurate audio frequency "time" detail than vinyl playback before adding in all of (orders of magnitude larger) phonograph mechanical and time varying geometry arm ,cantilever, stylus contact patch "time smearing" errors
 
Old 8th November 2013, 11:09 PM   #3158
AJT is offline AJT  Philippines
diyAudio Moderator
 
AJT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Palatiw, Pasig City
this thread and other threads like these usually go around in circles, so save your energy build something instead, this thread is closed...i will ignore all pm's concerning this thread closure....
 

Closed Thread


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anyone compared Marantz CD-94 and CD-94MkII? oshifis Digital Source 3 6th February 2010 12:56 PM
Pass X 0.2 compared to X.1? output555 Pass Labs 7 7th December 2007 06:59 AM
12AX7 Compared! HiFiNutNut Tubes / Valves 48 29th April 2005 06:07 PM
jh6you compared with other X-eds ljozsef Pass Labs 7 16th December 2003 06:06 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:39 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2