Then please explain why a state of the art digital rig gets creamed by a 30 year old mid level TT. And SY I Do get out, quite a lot in fact..
Why then does everyone use digital recording these days, your statement is not really true but just an opinion....
IIRC the 68040 FPU had 8 - 80 bit FP CPU registers. Apple used to have a demo where Mathematica could invert a nearly singular matrix on a MAC but not on Intel. This was circa 1989
I don't understand. Working on a subject for a living necessary means to be intellectually dishonest, non objective, cynical, mercenary ?
What can-you give better to others than your own expertise and experience ?
All the few things i know in Hifi, i learned them from professionals, passionate people sharing their knowledge.
I had splendid conversations with Raymond Cooke (Kef). He was never attempting to "sell" anything. Same thing with one of my good friends, an engineer from Audax.
Well, it was in an other century....
I don't know about this 'creamed' stuff but if you mean that you prefer a mid-level TT to digital, I have nothing to explain. Nor have you. It's your preference and that's the end of the argument, no?
jan
Nobody has any issue with that. Your preference is your preference.
But why do you want to convert everybody else that we ALL should have exactly the same preference you have, as if it is a kind of universal law?
Jan
Last edited:
LOL
Even laying out 24 bit DACs is problematic, you have to be very careful and optimise the PCB not cut down layers etc.
No surely not, there's absolutely no universal law, and for sure you don't have to appreciate the same as I do, but there's a but...
30 years later we have despite digital revolution not moved an inch towards better replay. I would have loved the difference had been night and day towards the new stuff. Fact is that its not, that's the real problem, the numbers going into audio as a hobby confirms it. Why on earth should anybody of the young people even care, when what they have in ear-buds is musically better than what comes out of most high end systems. I find it kind of tragic.
30 years later we have despite digital revolution not moved an inch towards better replay. I would have loved the difference had been night and day towards the new stuff. Fact is that its not, that's the real problem, the numbers going into audio as a hobby confirms it. Why on earth should anybody of the young people even care, when what they have in ear-buds is musically better than what comes out of most high end systems. I find it kind of tragic.
That's not true. Reproduction quality in terms of getting more accurate reproduction of the source has made big strides.
You STILL confuse personal preference with provable, objective progress in accurate reproduction.
Jan
It is because of the aura audiophiles have created around themselves, and LIVING IN THE PAST that deters youngsters... Also the snobbish attitude regarding replay systems and cost.... If it don't cost enough you wont hear the benefit....
Just for reference. The thermal noise level of a microphone is around -135 dBm. 32 bits above that is + 60 dBm or 1,000 watts.
Now in acoustic power -8 dB is about the lowest level than can be heard. So 187 dB above that is just a bit under complete atmospheric modulation.
Can't wait till someone tries for 48 bit encoding. That upper limit would require destroying the solar system.
Now in acoustic power -8 dB is about the lowest level than can be heard. So 187 dB above that is just a bit under complete atmospheric modulation.
Can't wait till someone tries for 48 bit encoding. That upper limit would require destroying the solar system.
Meh, it's a pretty good song, I used to play in a band that covered it. But just overplayed, that's all. Not as good as, say, "With You There to Help Me" or "To Cry You a Song." It shouldn't scare kids.
I don't think anyone with any scientific background is going to say that vinyl as a media is superior to any recent digital storage source, that makes no sense in any way. Now do some prefer the sound of albums and the ritual that goes with that yes. Otherwise why don't we see some really wicked designers making a robotic turntable that takes the records off and turns them over and selects the next one. Oh Yes I forgot. they called those Juke boxes! How about those laser players that would never need to touch the vinyl and no wear or surface pops, just pure drivel on those points, there is no science behind any of it. The information must be truncated that goes on vinyl or we all know what happens, the stylus would jump out of the track.
Now MIIB,
Let me suck you into speaker design and some of what I call pure bs in the speaker building business and what I observed just looking at a picture of your companies speaker page. Now at the same time before I ask the question I can say I haven't heard your speakers and they may sound wonderful, they may even sound incredible, I don't know.
Here goes. Why would any engineer chose to use multiple distributed magnets in the method used in the pictures I see, that just as Focal has done is purely for appearance rather than for maximization of magnetic energy and the least amount of induced eddy currents? Seriously you are going to say everything in those designs is to advance the quality of our audio systems? I rather think not, that is a marketing and sales gimmick. As I said they may sound wonderful but that is not the only thing driving those designs, marketing and visual appearance of a raw frame driver that nobody will see inside the enclosure is just to make a claim that holds no water. Do some magnetic motor analysis and tell me that is the best that you can do, I don't believe that.
Let the flame wars begin.
Now MIIB,
Let me suck you into speaker design and some of what I call pure bs in the speaker building business and what I observed just looking at a picture of your companies speaker page. Now at the same time before I ask the question I can say I haven't heard your speakers and they may sound wonderful, they may even sound incredible, I don't know.
Here goes. Why would any engineer chose to use multiple distributed magnets in the method used in the pictures I see, that just as Focal has done is purely for appearance rather than for maximization of magnetic energy and the least amount of induced eddy currents? Seriously you are going to say everything in those designs is to advance the quality of our audio systems? I rather think not, that is a marketing and sales gimmick. As I said they may sound wonderful but that is not the only thing driving those designs, marketing and visual appearance of a raw frame driver that nobody will see inside the enclosure is just to make a claim that holds no water. Do some magnetic motor analysis and tell me that is the best that you can do, I don't believe that.
Let the flame wars begin.
And I think the youngsters are ultimately more into actual music than the "high end" audiophiles who seem to be more into "sound," if you know what I mean.
se
Kind,
I never said that Vinyl is the better storage, we all know the issues there, I said that vinyl playback sounds better, because it's a better fit to our dynamically flawed speakers. Speakers are the worst in the chain, which is kind of natural since their job is across different medias a transformation from electrical signal to air-motion to a difficult to understand psycho-acoustic hearing. Naturally it creates problems when we drive something flawed with something perfect--- actually it's a lot worse we try to get a big speaker to behave as if it was a microphone.
Magnet-system---reason is compression and reflection, when you reduce the surface pointing directly at the membrane you get less reflection and lower compression, this can both be heard and measured. What Focal does I don't know.
When we listen to magnet systems there are clear audible between them, there simply is a difference in the way Neo-Alnico and Ferrite performs, some of that is due to different geometries, but some is also due to the fact that different magnet compounds are more or less resilient for VC-inductive magnetism bleeding into it. We test this by making a system with a coil around the pole-piece, when we then play a signal with a known amplitude we can measure the stiffness of the system also in the rise time of the drivers. We also use pole caps for some of the same reasons.
This is not bull **** there's much more to a magnet system than static field strength.
I never said that Vinyl is the better storage, we all know the issues there, I said that vinyl playback sounds better, because it's a better fit to our dynamically flawed speakers. Speakers are the worst in the chain, which is kind of natural since their job is across different medias a transformation from electrical signal to air-motion to a difficult to understand psycho-acoustic hearing. Naturally it creates problems when we drive something flawed with something perfect--- actually it's a lot worse we try to get a big speaker to behave as if it was a microphone.
Magnet-system---reason is compression and reflection, when you reduce the surface pointing directly at the membrane you get less reflection and lower compression, this can both be heard and measured. What Focal does I don't know.
When we listen to magnet systems there are clear audible between them, there simply is a difference in the way Neo-Alnico and Ferrite performs, some of that is due to different geometries, but some is also due to the fact that different magnet compounds are more or less resilient for VC-inductive magnetism bleeding into it. We test this by making a system with a coil around the pole-piece, when we then play a signal with a known amplitude we can measure the stiffness of the system also in the rise time of the drivers. We also use pole caps for some of the same reasons.
This is not bull **** there's much more to a magnet system than static field strength.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.