John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II - Page 1715 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Member Areas > The Lounge

The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion.

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 30th October 2011, 11:27 PM   #17141
diyAudio Member
 
Joachim Gerhard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Who ? William from Orcam ?
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th October 2011, 11:28 PM   #17142
diyAudio Member
 
Joachim Gerhard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
That was more in the middle ages.
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th October 2011, 11:31 PM   #17143
diyAudio Member
 
Joachim Gerhard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646 - 1716)
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th October 2011, 11:31 PM   #17144
rsdio is offline rsdio  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Seattle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hornbeck View Post
Special pleading involving the ears' perception should be applied to all noises, so wash out in this discussion.
There are many types of noise, but you cannot lump correlated noise with uncorrelated noise.

Human hearing can perceive uncorrelated noise with concentration, but can also easily ignore it (speech being recognizable in the presence of a higher level of uncorrelated noise, thus negative S/N). Nature is full of uncorrelated noises. Correlated noise, though, is typically highly objectionable and rather difficult to ignore. Thus, pure quantization noise, from an undithered source, is quite grating. Granted, it may be difficult to find undithered digital recordings these days, but that doesn't mean you can treat all noise as the same.
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th October 2011, 11:41 PM   #17145
diyAudio Member
 
scott wurcer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: cambridge ma
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joachim Gerhard View Post
Who ? William from Orcam ?
Athanasius Kircher

BTW the concept of binary vs. decimal representation has nothing to do with the sampling theorem, the basis of digital audio.
__________________
"The question of who is right and who is wrong has seemed to me always too small to be worth a moment's thought, while the question of what is right and what is wrong has seemed all-important."

Last edited by scott wurcer; 30th October 2011 at 11:45 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st October 2011, 12:19 AM   #17146
diyAudio Member
 
Chris Hornbeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Little Rock
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsdio View Post
There are many types of noise, but you cannot lump correlated noise with uncorrelated noise.

Human hearing can perceive uncorrelated noise with concentration, but can also easily ignore it (speech being recognizable in the presence of a higher level of uncorrelated noise, thus negative S/N). Nature is full of uncorrelated noises. Correlated noise, though, is typically highly objectionable and rather difficult to ignore. Thus, pure quantization noise, from an undithered source, is quite grating. Granted, it may be difficult to find undithered digital recordings these days, but that doesn't mean you can treat all noise as the same.
True, but I was trying to be conservative. Typical room noises, the original point, are impulsive and obtrusive by comparison to dither. It's very hard to keep a discussion about anything digital on an apples-to-apples basis - it's subsumed by emotion.

Personally, I still have more than 50 feet of vinyl records, two Keith Monks record cleaning machines, and lotsa other analog street cred, so don't mind trying to defend the *concept* of digital storage in this hostile environs. Somebody's gotta!

Thanks,
Chris
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st October 2011, 12:24 AM   #17147
diyAudio Member
 
scott wurcer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: cambridge ma
Quote:
Originally Posted by scott wurcer View Post
Athanasius Kircher

BTW the concept of binary vs. decimal representation has nothing to do with the sampling theorem, the basis of digital audio, I should say quantized audio, a very important point the enabling technology of choice is irrelivant.
__________________
"The question of who is right and who is wrong has seemed to me always too small to be worth a moment's thought, while the question of what is right and what is wrong has seemed all-important."
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st October 2011, 12:29 AM   #17148
rsdio is offline rsdio  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Seattle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hornbeck View Post
Typical room noises, the original point, are impulsive and obtrusive by comparison to dither. It's very hard to keep a discussion about anything digital on an apples-to-apples basis - it's subsumed by emotion.

Personally, I still have more than 50 feet of vinyl records, two Keith Monks record cleaning machines, and lotsa other analog street cred, so don't mind trying to defend the *concept* of digital storage in this hostile environs. Somebody's gotta!
I like your phrasing. I own vinyl and expensive playback equipment, but it is not my preference because vinyl noise is "impulsive and obtrusive" by nature. A great number of humans seem perfectly capable of ignoring this noise. I find that a well-executed digital recording is much less obtrusive to my listening experience than vinyl.
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st October 2011, 12:30 AM   #17149
diyAudio Member
 
Joachim Gerhard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Sure, Kircher researched the ear and musical instruments. I could even imagine mathematics based on additions only ( Pascals Pascaline ). Additions and multiplications are no problem ( massive addition ), subtraction and division indirectly ( Zweierkomplement ? Wikipedia ). Nevertheless Leibnitz`s work made computers possible and that led to digital audio in a way.
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st October 2011, 12:35 AM   #17150
diyAudio Member
 
Joachim Gerhard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
rsdio, maybe this is something for you. It claims to reduce clicks and pops plus hiss to nearly inaudible levels. Its all analog and very expensive though. I have no idea how Manuel Huber is doing it. He thought about it at least since the 80th.
***:*:*** FM ACOUSTICS LTD. ***:*:***domestic products ***:*:***
  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



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:14 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