I might suggest finding the articles by Richard S. Burwen regarding tick and pop reduction/elimination published in Audio I believe in the 80's, (Transient Noise Eliminators) not sure when. I can't find what I remember reading, somewhere, at some point in time
I recall he had data on click and pop from the cartridge before equalization. Primarily the bandwidth and level data that has been being discussed.
Cheers
Alan
I have found the service manual and cct diagram for the TNE7000 and a ref to an AES preprint that has the juicy AES E-Library >> Suppression of Low Level Impulse Noise
I should also note that the design for the audio Palette he did had a neat clipping circuit that could be used for those worried about their ADCs
There were not enough tests done for ANY conclusions to be drawn unless you happen to work for a hifi magazine or high end audio marketing department!
True, no question. But, individual people may be left wondering how they got the results they did. Perhaps one of those situations where some alarm bells should be going off. But an alarm isn't proof of fire, only an event suggesting to take a look for a cause.
Just wondering, aren't you curious? I think something is going on that is not tantamount to audiophoolery, or Bybeeism.
What is frustrating is that no scientific progress ever seems to be towards drawing a more accurate line between what is possible and what isn't. I guess this isn't the place to find people interesting in doing something about it though. Probably time to shut up and stop annoying the natives.
Last edited:
Given that a significant percentage of an insignificant sample said they couldn't hear anything and of those who could they were mainly the people who bragged about their listening ability, no. Karl is the outlier for me being the creator of the potato vs banana interconnect test and the new blindingly obvious ABX test. If you look at the tricks a trained sommelier can do with one slurp, a true golden ear should be able to tell the studio used, tape formulation and op-amp mods done to the mixing desk in a few seconds. But they can't.
I also have bigger issues to deal with in my system at the moment due to self-inflicted chronic project backlog.
I also have bigger issues to deal with in my system at the moment due to self-inflicted chronic project backlog.
What about Pavel, and you know who who is on my ignore list? Surprise to me if you hold them both in such low regard.
There is also me, but I don't want cloud things up more than they already have to be. Whatever I said, it sure wasn't intended to be bragging. If you think it was, you are reading my typing in the wrong tone of voice.
There is also me, but I don't want cloud things up more than they already have to be. Whatever I said, it sure wasn't intended to be bragging. If you think it was, you are reading my typing in the wrong tone of voice.
Last edited:
I don't recall Pavel or Daniel posting scores so didn't account for them. Apologies to both of them if they did.
I meant the braggers when I mentioned bragging. Those who said 'this was easy to tell apart' at first. You accepted that you had to do some fairly heroic things to sort them and couldn't tell them apart when just listening to the actual music rather than your forensic switching approach.
I meant the braggers when I mentioned bragging. Those who said 'this was easy to tell apart' at first. You accepted that you had to do some fairly heroic things to sort them and couldn't tell them apart when just listening to the actual music rather than your forensic switching approach.
BTW, schematic of the Burwen TNE7000. http://jayrose.com/tutorial/burwen/TNEsche.GIF
This is about as far from flat earth minimalist audio as you can get without adding a cello palette to your system. (note I so want a Palette)
This is about as far from flat earth minimalist audio as you can get without adding a cello palette to your system. (note I so want a Palette)
No you don't. I listened to a full on Cello system, sounded like shite. I listened in the context of they were trying to sell something.
Last edited:
thats all mildly interesting stuff, but what I was referring to was data he collected on the nature of reproduction of clicks and pops on LP. That is what is desired to evaluate the interaction with digital, notably the bandwidth needed to get the information to accurately capture the event and do the best whatever transform on it to eliminate the "distortion/unwanted noise". Such as was being discussed a few messages ago.
I recall an article where he goes into the bandwidth needed to capture enough information in the control chain of his process of detection and replacement.
[Irony]
(note: I changed it to clicks to not be offensive to tickandpop
)[/Irony]
Cheers
Alan
Last edited:
I wrote that I didn't vote simply because after doing a cursory listen, there wasn't anything jumping out. I also didn't want to confer that I couldn't hear any difference, so I recused myself there as well. I also would like to be clear that I *don't* pretend to have good hearing.
And that Mark's behavior amuses me to no small end.
I DL'd the article. Its really light on most details. Key takeaway was that the most unobtrusive removal was to just "zero" the signal during the event. Its not long and doesn't have a lot of really serious research into identification of 'clicks" etc. probably to protect what IP he had with it. he also says: "An electronic circuit which can reliably utilize all the clues in the program content long before and long after the tick becomes unduly complex and expensive. In the system to be described real time detection occurs based on the very low duty factor of noise impulses as compared with the high frequency content of the program." Today with DSP power what was unduly complex is not.
If you want a copy PM me.
Richard Burwen is a very competent design engineer who first got Mark Levinson on the path to hi end audio. I think he was one of the founders of Analog Devices, before IC's became practical. His audio equalizer is considered one of the best in the business, and his transient suppressor is probably very competent in design and detail. Unfortunately, he cannot hear differences between most op amps, so he uses them profusely in his designs. This has been true since the early '70's. I may disagree with him in design approach, but I find it unprofessional to criticize his efforts, without real cause. Most here can't compare to him as a design engineer.
Or make up a story and talk through your hat. Much more productive than anything else, the Bentley owners will buy it.
Or the Lambo. Both cars are all story and talking thru their hat. They really do not perform better than lesser cars. Not worth the price therefore. I have a nice hardly used DAC2 - you will love it. Cheap enough just for you.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Demian: Thanks, but right now I'll have no time to give it justice. I should also get off my posterior and do some measurements. Whilst I'm not about to take a hacksaw to a record as B&K did I have plenty of second hand vinyl with scratches on and, whilst I can't prove anything to AES levels I can certainly give myself confidence.
Scott: You not liking the sound of something! I thought that was reserved for horns ?
Scott: You not liking the sound of something! I thought that was reserved for horns ?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.