This talk of time domain is all very well, but the psychoacoustic research seems to show the ear as more of a frequency domain instrument.
Music plays with both domains. Drums create patterns that make sense in the time domain, pitched instruments make patterns that are best appreciated in the frequency domain.
Music plays with both domains. Drums create patterns that make sense in the time domain, pitched instruments make patterns that are best appreciated in the frequency domain.
Only for determining timbre.
If we want to localize sound then timing differences are used.
Isn´t recorded music always distorted to some degree ? If we do not
allow for adjustments done with the intention to recreate the original
as faithfully as possible then even the volume control has to go.
Are we allowed to alter linear distortions but not nonlinear ones ?
Other than that I agree with you of course. (And if I want to "refresh" a recording
on an old cassette tape I cannot find new, I rather use an Aphex aural exciter than
a tube SET.)
Last edited:
Of course it is. This is exceedingly unlikely to be improved by adding uncorrelated distortions downstream.
Software solutions can be even better these days. More control and flexible customization of the effects. I've been playing with a system out of Holland that seems to work quite well. More info in an upcoming Linear Audio.
Fidelity means closeness to the original. From that I reckon any intellligent person can work out what high fidelity means. It certainly doesn't mean "What I like".
Unfortunately this website seems to contain both hi-fi enthusiasts and audio enthusiasts. It is unfortunate because the distinction between the two is lost. Hi-fi enthusiasts love music, and want their system to fiddle with it as little as reasonably possible so they can hear the music; the system is merely a necessary artifact. Audio enthusiasts love audio and even sometimes describe themselves as audiophiles; they like listening to their system, so the music is merely a necessary signal source.
Now of course both types may or may not also be electronics enthusiasts but again a distinction is not always drawn. An electronics enthusiast loves electronics so will learn about it to the level of which he is capable, together with the underlying physics and maths. He can make either hi-fi or audio equipment, and recognises the difference. Those who are not electronics enthusiasts have to either buy stuff or simply follow fashion; circuit explanations necessarily go over their head. Some (the wiser ones) recognise this and are perfectly happy to take advice; others seem to regard their own ignorance as somehow superior to the knowledge of others and even regard themselves as at liberty to reject the known results of science.
I wasn't going to contribute to this thread as it (the thread) seems pointless, but now you know why I think it is pointless.
Unfortunately this website seems to contain both hi-fi enthusiasts and audio enthusiasts. It is unfortunate because the distinction between the two is lost. Hi-fi enthusiasts love music, and want their system to fiddle with it as little as reasonably possible so they can hear the music; the system is merely a necessary artifact. Audio enthusiasts love audio and even sometimes describe themselves as audiophiles; they like listening to their system, so the music is merely a necessary signal source.
Now of course both types may or may not also be electronics enthusiasts but again a distinction is not always drawn. An electronics enthusiast loves electronics so will learn about it to the level of which he is capable, together with the underlying physics and maths. He can make either hi-fi or audio equipment, and recognises the difference. Those who are not electronics enthusiasts have to either buy stuff or simply follow fashion; circuit explanations necessarily go over their head. Some (the wiser ones) recognise this and are perfectly happy to take advice; others seem to regard their own ignorance as somehow superior to the knowledge of others and even regard themselves as at liberty to reject the known results of science.
I wasn't going to contribute to this thread as it (the thread) seems pointless, but now you know why I think it is pointless.
Sure, but then it nullifies this thread and the rest of the tweakery of diyaudio?
Actually it comes from the latin word fidelis witch means faithful or loyal. Fidelity thus means being faithful or loyal.
For the rest I agree with your post.
Yes if you want to consider the word "language" in that sense. Music has a different one. I said that at some one just starts goinig around in circles and this is an example.
I said that.
And actually, it has enough bits for accuracy well beyond the clock jitter. Which of course, would be useless enough.
It requires sufficient bit depth at the output math section to interpolate the true waveform.
This is the same concept that causes output voltages in excess of the digital full scale value.
Um, the DAC.
Why would a class D amp need reconstruction math??
Which is great for a D amp, but only applies to a DAC which has no interpolation math. A D/A feeding just a S/H with some filter.
And for that simplicity, you pay for it with a loss of temporal information.
On the other hand, if you use a recursive IIR or FIR math package to interpolate, you tradeoff a few milliseconds in program delay to acquire better temporal accuracy.
I've seen no studies which present the tradeoff between output conversion Z number and temporal control, so do not know what Z value is necessary for say, 100 nSec temporal accuracy.
Nor have I seen anything which would indicate the level of preprocessing math necessary to control temporal accuracy at the front end A/D section. I am not confident that Z=0 is sufficient at the front end.
jn
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.