Consider this: we have a very scratched, worn out 78 version of an event - and that is the only sound recording of that musical moment. We then apply very powerful DSP to a transcription of that, over and over again until we can strip away, subract a layer of all the muck, which can be shown to have no audible skerrick of the original event even slightly embedded within it.
The "cleaned" version is certainly different - has it been improved, made better, or because it no longer matches the "original", is it no longer "pure" ...?
The "cleaned" version is certainly different - has it been improved, made better, or because it no longer matches the "original", is it no longer "pure" ...?
It is a very advanced filter design and concepts born out of a lot of specialized test equipment and lab experience working in the field. Those and some power CFA amps were just getting started when the economy crashed and killed them off... before the crash there were 2000 hi-fi stores which are no longer in business.... thus no where to sell them. A few low-end stores survived but the new and better products just being introduced have never rebounded. You can find them on the eBay/Internet and would be a high value part of a audio/video system.
THx-RNMarsh
Interesting article. However, the newest 2-Dimension Carbonese seems to have many uses and its full speed ahead on getting it into production in many forms and uses.
THx-RNMarsh
So does 'difference' to you also include making a signal bigger, perfectly (the proverbial straight wire with gain) ?
I'm pragmatic by nature so I don't even consider what the original (by which I take it you mean the acoustic event if there even was such) might have been like, its inaccessible to me. I just have the recording to go on.
Agreed - if by 'input reference' you mean the recording you're presented with. However if by 'input reference' you mean the sound prior to capture by microphones then I can't see how its relevant (or even how it can be termed 'reference'), given its permanent inaccessibility as a reference?
OK. Here it is.... however, the affect, in numbers, depends on the metal, configuration, length etc.....having said that, a copper speaker wire of 18awg and 12-15 foot (4-5m) would have a loss due to skin affect only of approx 3% or 0.3dB at 20KHz. A plated surface conductor with Carbonese would reduce this amount by an additional 8% over silver plating's reduction.
3% isnt much attenuation at 20KHz and reducing it with Carbonese isnt a biggy...... But, that isnt the only affect of skin effect.... there is the affect on harmonics vs fundemantal, GDelay, etal. I would expect it to be even more useful and significant in high speed digital.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
I like to always write down experiment results. After writing down, it is easier to see some pattern. After seeing this pattern a conclusion is written down (for future reference). But the ability to draw a meaningful conclusion is the point why writing down the results is important.
Howie,
I am not a big fan of ABX on subtle differences. If they are obvious then it's fine. But as you example indicated, the one best able to tell the differences had the most familiarity. (Dolby Engineer)
When something is more subtle we can rely not on our hearing memory alone, but other expectations in memory that are more consistent. So I like to have someone listen to a device for two weeks, on a familiar stereo. Then switch back and the differences will be rather apparent if they exist - even subtle differences. We tend to build up expectations, and when they fall flat we're pretty sure.
I am not a big fan of ABX on subtle differences. If they are obvious then it's fine. But as you example indicated, the one best able to tell the differences had the most familiarity. (Dolby Engineer)
When something is more subtle we can rely not on our hearing memory alone, but other expectations in memory that are more consistent. So I like to have someone listen to a device for two weeks, on a familiar stereo. Then switch back and the differences will be rather apparent if they exist - even subtle differences. We tend to build up expectations, and when they fall flat we're pretty sure.
Depends on ABX conditions as well. You would have cassette x CD 100% rate success when listened with good headphones. One man in a sweet spot of a good home system would be successful as well. Large hall with 100 people participating the listening test would give the result close to 0% success.
Competely agreed, Howie. The best I have done so far is to make my speakers disappear as sources of sound and get the music into space beteeen them and me. Sort of, like music appears to be in space, not from two clearly heard sources of sound. It took some doing, but I did it, Frank (fas42) did it and I'm sure others managed it also. I believe that's as far as we can go, but it doesn't stop me from trying harder still.
You said it. The audience never got the chance to be properly introduced to quality products before the economic slump, and too much BS was already floating around and polluting the air space.
Then the Chinese got into the game and ruined everything. I have had several opportunities to open u some of their cheap power line filters, Richard, all that boils down to is 0.1 uF or some such cap from live to ground. But they are cheap, look good and that seems to be all the market is interested in.
Last edited:
Indeed there are a decent number of people who have achieved this - and most get a hint of it at various times. The "as far as we can go" can be extended quite a ways, that convincing illusion can be made more and more intense, more overwhelming - I certainly don't believe I've pushed it to any hard limit; the fact that most of the time I've used very ordinary equipment alone says that there are greater depths to be plumbed ...
Walking right side up again?
A wise man once asked, "If there's a sucker born every minute, where do the rest come from?"
Lol.
So you mean that page has been there since 1982
.Dan.
PS, what resistor values did you use ?.
I thought disappearing speakers was perfectly normal, maybe I need to get out more and hear some lesser systems.
Care with signal and power grounding to ensure that noise is coincident in both channels is a big part of enabling realistic soundfield/hologram.
When acoustic polarity is correct, sounds appear in space and come from way behind the speakers and from behind the listener and horizontally out past the speakers, and even the room itself disappears.
When this is achieved in the listening room, there is a great sense of this in other rooms in the house also, the backyard too.
Dan.
'
Doh !.
Thanks George, I did read that post of course but missed the 10k bit...eediot !
....too busy looking at the schematic.So, I need to hunt down some CC resistors...I'm not sure I have scrap boards with such resistors anymore....CRT neck boards have CC's iirc, I need to do some searching on some bottom shelves, else wise eBay.
It will be interesting to take a closer listen to different types/forms of resistors with Scott's bridge/in amp circuit.
Perhaps I can discriminate what BQP's do !.
Dan.
Last edited:
Oooooohhhh!
Its a bit overboard and pathetic with such distasteful references, this is a debate mate.
If you used the exponential approximation equation, your result is too high by a factor of 2 to 3, I'd guess in the 1% range at most.
If you include proximity effect, the result may be too low. I've no idea what it'll be at 20Khz that wire.
If you want group delay, you'll have to consider the drive, load, and cable impedances, as well as prop velocity and length.
Waaaaay over my head...
jn
Lol.
So you mean that page has been there since 1982
Dan.
PS, what resistor values did you use ?.
No actually, we have a new copier that scans right to compressed pdf via email and I have stacked everything up to go all electronic with my docs.
I don't remember the resistor values but since the excess noise goes as V squared a little more voltage goes a long way to make up any difference.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.