John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II - Page 3192 - 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 29th December 2012, 10:06 PM   #31911
fas42 is online now fas42  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
fas42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NSW, Australia
Blog Entries: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telstar View Post
Now, why higher (than 88.2 which is min to preserve what current mics can acquire, at least those from 2L) sampling rate sounds better if the HF content is the same?
Somebody said earlier in this thread "noise", and I agree - pushing the hf noise further makes it less audible (by whichever mechanism the ear/brain use).
As I've mentioned a couple of times, in other posts and threads, it's all about the implementation of the circuitry of the D/A converter and surrounding analogue elements. The "fantasy" of the digital engineers is that because under very precise test conditions the circuit behaves itself, it comes up with the "correct", very low distortion figures that this will perfectly transfer to the real world. Sorry, it ain't happening -- I, and many others have been fighting this audio myth for many, many years; it's why digital sound has got such a bad name for itself.

So, virtually all digital implementations are audibly flawed, and then the trick is how to get around this. One answer, which I've found works very nicely, is to simply resample to a higher rate; in a low cost, nothing special DAC environment it always improves the sound. You're saying that hf noise is less audible; I would say that the electronics are adding less audible distortion to the sound because the implementation failings have less impact.

Frank

Last edited by fas42; 29th December 2012 at 10:08 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th December 2012, 10:12 PM   #31912
a.wayne is offline a.wayne  United States
Sin Bin
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Front Row Center
So what about NOS DAC's ......
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th December 2012, 10:23 PM   #31913
diyAudio Member
 
Kindhornman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Los Angeles, California
Fas42,
Could you point me to an article that explains how by re-sampling you are getting more information than was in the original sample? Not quite following how this works.
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th December 2012, 10:56 PM   #31914
diyAudio Member
 
john curl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: berkeley ca
No, they were just little things.
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th December 2012, 11:20 PM   #31915
diyAudio Member
 
john curl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: berkeley ca
This goes with previous graph:
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 15c.jpg (237.8 KB, 141 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th December 2012, 11:50 PM   #31916
fas42 is online now fas42  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
fas42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NSW, Australia
Blog Entries: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kindhornman View Post
Fas42,
Could you point me to an article that explains how by re-sampling you are getting more information than was in the original sample? Not quite following how this works.
No, I'm not getting more information, from the digital file. My exercise with the resampling demonstrates that doing those sorts of fiddles in most cases does not alter the audio-relevant information in the file.

However, by changing the way the audio file is fed to the DAC you can change how it sounds. Because, the level and type of distortion generated in the analogue side of things alters. So, first you have be convinced that there is no magic imperviousness of the analogue circuitry to interference effects, just because the source is digital; I can do that very easily for myself by bringing an active mobile or cell phone near the DAC area: if the system is half decent you should be able to hear the effect, which is not to inject very audible bleeps and rasping sounds, but rather is to dull, add a grey murkiness to the sound. The typical complaint a lot of people have about digital sound, in other words.

So, if you can hear this happening, then it's only a short step to realise that if you alter the high frequency signature of electrical behaviour in the area of the DAC, by changing the rate at which digital data is retrieved and fed to the DAC, then the sound will also change. Ultimately, it's all about a type of distortion where very little effort has been made to thoroughly understand it.

NOS DACs "win" because the amount of high frequency electrical activity overall is much less than for, say, S-D. Less high speed circuitry, better sound, is a very rough, general guide ...

Frank

Last edited by fas42; 29th December 2012 at 11:57 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th December 2012, 11:51 PM   #31917
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Cooktown, Oz
Default Supersonic SACDs?

Gentlemen, I've lost the link to the 2L free download page. Could someone please repost it.

Frank, can you tell me which of the 2L recordings you have downloaded? I don't want to repeat your work though I only want to see if the ultrasonic stuff on their recordings is 'musical' or just noise.

Anyone with opinions of which ones will show off the ultrasonic content?

So far we only have a few Telarc SACDs suggested by Pavel.
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2012, 12:11 AM   #31918
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Oakmont PA
Quote:
Originally Posted by fas42 View Post
No, I'm not getting more information, from the digital file. My exercise with the resampling demonstrates that doing those sorts of fiddles in most cases does not alter the audio-relevant information in the file.

However, by changing the way the audio file is fed to the DAC you can change how it sounds. Because, the level and type of distortion generated in the analogue side of things alters. So, first you have be convinced that there is no magic imperviousness of the analogue circuitry to interference effects, just because the source is digital; I can do that very easily for myself by bringing an active mobile or cell phone near the DAC area: if the system is half decent you should be able to hear the effect, which is not to inject very audible bleeps and rasping sounds, but rather is to dull, add a grey murkiness to the sound. The typical complaint a lot of people have about digital sound, in other words.

So, if you can hear this happening, then it's only a short step to realise that if you alter the high frequency signature of electrical behaviour in the area of the DAC, by changing the rate at which digital data is retrieved and fed to the DAC, then the sound will also change. Ultimately, it's all about a type of distortion where very little effort has been made to thoroughly understand it.

NOS DACs "win" because the amount of high frequency electrical activity overall is much less than for, say, S-D. Less high speed circuitry, better sound, is a very rough, general guide ...

Frank
If a CD player outputs 44,100 words per second along it's digital output, how many words does the DA have to decode? (per second)

What is the accuracy of the CD clock that is producing the words?

What is the accuracy of the DA's receive clock?

How do you make sure that they match?
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2012, 12:22 AM   #31919
RNMarsh is offline RNMarsh  United States
diyAudio Member
 
RNMarsh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: 2457 Cascade Trail; Cool, CA. 95614
Quote:
Originally Posted by john curl View Post
This goes with previous graph:
This is what I call a design for a flat random-incidence response. To be used far field. Thx-RNMarsh
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2012, 12:40 AM   #31920
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Cooktown, Oz
Quote:
Originally Posted by john curl View Post
This goes with previous graph:
JC, are you now claiming that having advised B&K, Ampex and a zillion other incompetent engineers how to do better, ...

... that your Jurassic circuits which far exceed Scott's designs in noise, distortion & sheer musicality ....

... also miraculously compensated for the directivity of a rigid piston at the end of a tube?

I have some small interest in the subject as the Mk4 Soundfield is a better omni than a 1/2" B&K up to 10kHz.
  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 09:43 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