Temporal resolution - Page 3 - 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
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 9th November 2013, 09:48 AM   #21
gk7 is offline gk7
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vienna, Austria
Quote:
Originally Posted by SY View Post
Noise floor, not signal-to-noise. The integration is important!
Yes, for measurements of static test tones.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2013, 09:50 AM   #22
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
For any measurements. This is a general theorem. Even a so-called "static" test tone is continuously varying.

20log sqrt (22,000) = 43dB, the difference between noise floor and S/N.
__________________
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
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2013, 09:59 AM   #23
gk7 is offline gk7
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vienna, Austria
There is a lot of whishful thinking among those who are in need to defend this long obsolete CD technology developed in the late seventies.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2013, 10:06 AM   #24
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by SY View Post
To be clear, although he made a fundamental mistake in interpretation, Kunchur's experimental results are solid and have not, to my knowledge, been refuted.
Yes, Kunchur measured experimentally the timing resolution of human hearing. This is the good part of the paper.
Saying that redbook audio does not reach that timing resolution was wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2013, 10:51 AM   #25
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by gk7 View Post
There is a lot of wishful thinking among those who are in need to defend this long obsolete CD technology developed in the late seventies.
There is a lot of wishful thinking among those who are in need to defend this long obsolete gramophone technology developed in the middle of the 19th century.



Its fine when people prefer vinyl playback.
But saying vinyl comes closer to the electrical signal coming out of the mastering studio, than digital, is wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2013, 11:33 AM   #26
gk7 is offline gk7
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vienna, Austria
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohammed li View Post
There is a lot of wishful thinking among those who are in need to defend this long obsolete gramophone technology developed in the middle of the 19th century.
Well "grammophone technology" evolved a bit from in the middle of the 19th century
until now. CD is bound to 16/44 forever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mohammed li View Post
Its fine when people prefer vinyl playback.
But saying vinyl comes closer to the electrical signal coming out of the mastering studio, than digital, is wrong.
Depends on your criteria. Hard bandwith limited at 20 kHz ? Preringing of
digital filters (which has no analogy in the real world) ?
Increasing distortion with decreasing amplitude (which has no analogy in the real world) ? etc.

Fortunately nowadays we already really can get what comes "out of the mastering studio" (24bit, 96kHz or more),
of course the high priests of the church of DBT will say there is no difference to CD...

Last edited by gk7; 9th November 2013 at 11:36 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2013, 11:44 AM   #27
45 is offline 45  Italy
diyAudio Member
 
45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by SY View Post
Kunchur was incorrect, and many people with actual training and background in DSP have corrected him in the intervening years; that's the nature of science and its greatest strength.
References? Many people who? What did they do? What did they use? A simple statement cannot argue against a published article (peer-reviewed).
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2013, 11:46 AM   #28
gk7 is offline gk7
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vienna, Austria
BTW I have about 500 classical recordings in 16/44 an I would of course want that
this is "perfect sound forever", but I donīt delude myself.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2013, 11:47 AM   #29
gk7 is offline gk7
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vienna, Austria
Quote:
Originally Posted by SY View Post
Kunchur was incorrect, and many people with actual training and background in DSP have corrected him in the intervening years...
Yes please bring on the "data".
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2013, 11:48 AM   #30
45 is offline 45  Italy
diyAudio Member
 
45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by SY View Post

Quote-mining is a poor substitute for understanding, but perhaps useful in propagandizing. Fortunately, the engineers who designed the CAT scanner that saved my life were more interested in getting things correct than rationalizing nostalgia.
Your quoting is poor as well because you give no proof! A CAT scanner is not a human being that is FUNDAMENTAL mistake!!!
  Reply With Quote

Reply


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
resolution loudspeaker? Tony.ca Multi-Way 4 22nd May 2005 02:46 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:32 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright Đ1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2