Hmmm.. I have several calorimeters. Again, it goes back to knowing what something should look like if you know the subject displayed. In playback systems, its knowing what real musical instruments sound like. But, when I do a video display calibration I find the result looks best... esp skin tones etc that we all are familiar with to some degree. It is also the look of what the producer saw and maybe you wont like what the producer saw but it will be accurate when calibrated correctly.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
This is really strange Ken, I woke up this morning thinking it's been a while since Ken has posted the latest over-unity results. I was actually wondering what has happened with Steorn, MEG, Brown's gas, Black Light, etc., after all it's been years since our science trampling has been "just around the corner".
What happen to the professor in Indonesia who was making fuel out of water?
My talk wasnt about pcb. It was about Da in audio and its affects. "Hook" is about pcb's DA.
The original company was a customer, they bought analog multipliers to use in servos. The dust issue was real.
Jesus. Isn't this all the same subject?
Adjusting your stereo so that everyone can enjoy the output? Adjusting your TV so that everyone can enjoy the output? And that's why we employ standard models of hearing, sight and calorimeters and microphones.
But you still want the freedom to tweak the settings to suit your own ears or eyes?
I just can't get my head around how you get your head around these incompatible ideas.
The problem that was not over come adequately was a means to follow where the groove went. ... variable groove spacing, changing radius, out of round centering hole etc.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Its easy. I do NOT want to tweak the setting to suit my likes. I want to hear it as the producer/artist put it down only with out any personal changes...... as accurately as possible. How I go about doing that is a personal choice of what works best for me as my problem solving approach.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Well, apparently distortion isn't one of them. I'll chalk it up to another "diodes in your wires" measurement cockup.
se
I've heard a ELP at Boston Audio Society demo - unfortunately the originally scheduled technologist wasn't available and we just got the brochure explaination from a marketing type
if you get the chance you should query them about the optics spot size - the website # is laughably implausible
laser beams don't focus to single wavelength spots thru practical f-number optics - ask about, look up Gaussian beam, diffraction limit, f number, Airy disc for optical systems
with any depth of field, high f number optics have a many wavelength Gaussian beam waist diameter
if you get the chance you should query them about the optics spot size - the website # is laughably implausible
laser beams don't focus to single wavelength spots thru practical f-number optics - ask about, look up Gaussian beam, diffraction limit, f number, Airy disc for optical systems
with any depth of field, high f number optics have a many wavelength Gaussian beam waist diameter
Ahhh! Another point I need to check up on! Although I would think that once you clinch the following of the track as such, it shouldn't make a difference how fast/slow the track moves radially, i.e. it's pitch, within reason of course.
And the dust issue as mentioned by Scott.
Jan
Well I'm not sure I am competent in this area - probably just enough to pass for a dilettante. And I will meet with a typical user, not the design team.
But my measurements should at least show some info, and of course the listening test!
How did it sound to you at the time, do you remember?
Jan
Are you sure you are thinking of the same thing? The ELP does work in the follow the groove sense, but the mechanical problems of spinning groove are not eliminated. Not many realize immediately that an off center disk will have the same rotational wow as a conventional system, unless DSP and the tracking servo info are used in a clever manner.
IIRC the ELP recovered and used an analog signal. Computing power has gotten to the point where this is hopelessly out of date.
Over the years, I had had plenty of chances to see how audiophile-gone-wild bunch works. In my view, their key mistake fits in well with Frank's philosophy, unfotunately the wrong way about. From my experience, the key factor is perpetual change of everything in search of tr "real" sound.
And they never seem to get there, which is logical to me.
One component, say a amp, can sound ideal under one set of conditions and less than ideal under another set. In my life, I have never comes across an amp which was ideal sunding no matter what you attached to it as a load, even if the difference between two loads was miniscule, if one can hear it then it's important. Now when you start wildly chasing a dream with a TT, a preamp, an amp, a CD player and loudspeakers, you may well end up chaising that dream forever when you change everything a lot. Rather, I feel one should choose one part of th system, in my case the loudspeakers, and build on from there, find an amp which is excellent with them, then a say preamp which fist in perfectly, and so forth. The imporatnt thing is that you have something that is used as your key pivot point for balancing the rest of the system.
Searching for "the perfect amp", or "perfect" anything is a wild goose chase few manage to finish with any results.
And they never seem to get there, which is logical to me.
One component, say a amp, can sound ideal under one set of conditions and less than ideal under another set. In my life, I have never comes across an amp which was ideal sunding no matter what you attached to it as a load, even if the difference between two loads was miniscule, if one can hear it then it's important. Now when you start wildly chasing a dream with a TT, a preamp, an amp, a CD player and loudspeakers, you may well end up chaising that dream forever when you change everything a lot. Rather, I feel one should choose one part of th system, in my case the loudspeakers, and build on from there, find an amp which is excellent with them, then a say preamp which fist in perfectly, and so forth. The imporatnt thing is that you have something that is used as your key pivot point for balancing the rest of the system.
Searching for "the perfect amp", or "perfect" anything is a wild goose chase few manage to finish with any results.
It's OK, I figgered it out. You genuinely believe your hearing is that good.
Go take the Philips Golden Ear Challenge, come back and show me your score, no matter what it is, I'll start to take you more seriously.
I'll bet you $10 to the charity of your (my) choice you can't even discriminate between the MP3s at different bitrates. Most people can, with practice, so it's pretty much a sucker bet for you, if you can be bothered to make the effort to learn.
In this system the exact location of the beam should? be available so the instantaneous groove velocity (in fact maybe even in three dimensions with focus information) can be computed. The transformation to a virtual perfectly straight groove of constant velocity is probably mathematically trivial. It would be a continuous resampling or a variable sample rate that would go to a DAC at a constant average rate.
EDIT - maybe the PureVinyl guys and the ELP guys should get together there could be a $100,000 product in there somewhere.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.