I sense vacations mode.
Enjoy!
George
You sense well. Drinking my coffee just now in Belgrade, but I'll be eating dinner on Kassandra tonight. What's 750 km for GM and me?
I listen to a lot of MP3 type files of 1920's 78's. Two formats not considered hi fi. The result is often tears of joy at how good my speakers are and the skills of the transcriber.
Seeing all of the problems of cutting 78's or LP's they are a miracle. When I protested that I didn't like CD people gave various reasons. The most convincing being my system had evolved to play vinyl. Complimentary errors.
Then an opportunity came. A lady I know ( she even has that title, three times a Lady I couldn't say ) was given some Quad 63's. She had about $1100 to do something. I got her a Yamaha 520 amp and matching CD player plus Rega P3. We started with the CD. It was abysmal, it seemed it must be the budget priced amp. I had gambled that Yamaha might be like Quad. Then the Rega. The system was magic when vinyl. Sure some wow which all P3 suffer, the RB300 puts on a good show as did Goldring 1042. Quad always played politics on this and said any CD player through ESL would be fine and preferable to vinyl. That attitude cost them many friends. It was for peculiar reasons telling lies. I suspect if Naim said black Quad said white being the intellectual level of it? I have to say on vinyl is was 80% perfect which is seldom true. The system that bettered it costing $25 000 with the same speakers. Luck played into my hands with that one. I also heard 63's with a big B&O receiver . Not bad. If you saw the circuit it resembles a Velleman kit with cheap Darlingtons, even by my standards it is minimalist. B&O did make silk purses out of sows ears. 63's are difficult to match. You know when it is right as they stop being bland or terrible. As they say, clean the windows to see how bad the garden is. Real life is opening the windows. Most hi fi is an aircraft window of the well used type.
I had the chance to hear Led Zeppelin 4 being cut with SACD to compare ( same engineer having done both ). They was no doubt, the cut sounded more accurate. I would say the jump from master-tape ( analogue ) to CD is 30 % of the original ( my ears, not numbers ). The jump between CD to MP3 is not great in comparison. MP3 is often more swings and roundabouts easy to live with. Someone said CD is 10 % of the original. That may well be true as the samples are very few at HF . The mathematical significance says not true. The assumption being the HF carries equal information. If I was to go back in time I would have used 16 bits with 100 kHz sampling and 40 dB dynamic range expanded to 80 dB. Dolby Pro proves that companders can work. If having a digital reference that would work fine rather than the crude analogue test tones. Pre-emphasis could be used. I would favour 75 uS. That would have been possible then. Possible in 1930 when films. Most will not know digital formats were linked to optical sound track standards ( never used ? ). I doubt if ever used. I seem to remember 48 kHz edits every 4 shot. The means edit with scissors to be possible in optical digital . I assume a digital break every 4th shot to make for uncritical editing? That might have caused many problems we hear today?
Early Denon digital is larger than life. It was not too bad on LP. I guess people hearing mastertapes told big lies. They felt given time the sound would arrive where we are now? My guess is it killed mainstreme hi fi ? The people soon become bored with nasty sound. They assume the grew out of the toys of old? I gave a party using my poor relation LP12. Friends were gob-smacked. Why don't you have a CD player? Just imaging how good it would sound as even vinyl is OK. That's where we are. A bunch of lies that killed the industry. Perfect lies that last forever. Phillips and Sony you deserve where you are today and Samsung where they are.
Off to do some PCB design, the good stuff in my life apart from my kids ( I am both mother and father to them ). This PCB is cut and paste as I am raiding the parts bin for this design. I followed the success of Harley Davidson. I use the same part as often as I can.
Seeing all of the problems of cutting 78's or LP's they are a miracle. When I protested that I didn't like CD people gave various reasons. The most convincing being my system had evolved to play vinyl. Complimentary errors.
Then an opportunity came. A lady I know ( she even has that title, three times a Lady I couldn't say ) was given some Quad 63's. She had about $1100 to do something. I got her a Yamaha 520 amp and matching CD player plus Rega P3. We started with the CD. It was abysmal, it seemed it must be the budget priced amp. I had gambled that Yamaha might be like Quad. Then the Rega. The system was magic when vinyl. Sure some wow which all P3 suffer, the RB300 puts on a good show as did Goldring 1042. Quad always played politics on this and said any CD player through ESL would be fine and preferable to vinyl. That attitude cost them many friends. It was for peculiar reasons telling lies. I suspect if Naim said black Quad said white being the intellectual level of it? I have to say on vinyl is was 80% perfect which is seldom true. The system that bettered it costing $25 000 with the same speakers. Luck played into my hands with that one. I also heard 63's with a big B&O receiver . Not bad. If you saw the circuit it resembles a Velleman kit with cheap Darlingtons, even by my standards it is minimalist. B&O did make silk purses out of sows ears. 63's are difficult to match. You know when it is right as they stop being bland or terrible. As they say, clean the windows to see how bad the garden is. Real life is opening the windows. Most hi fi is an aircraft window of the well used type.
I had the chance to hear Led Zeppelin 4 being cut with SACD to compare ( same engineer having done both ). They was no doubt, the cut sounded more accurate. I would say the jump from master-tape ( analogue ) to CD is 30 % of the original ( my ears, not numbers ). The jump between CD to MP3 is not great in comparison. MP3 is often more swings and roundabouts easy to live with. Someone said CD is 10 % of the original. That may well be true as the samples are very few at HF . The mathematical significance says not true. The assumption being the HF carries equal information. If I was to go back in time I would have used 16 bits with 100 kHz sampling and 40 dB dynamic range expanded to 80 dB. Dolby Pro proves that companders can work. If having a digital reference that would work fine rather than the crude analogue test tones. Pre-emphasis could be used. I would favour 75 uS. That would have been possible then. Possible in 1930 when films. Most will not know digital formats were linked to optical sound track standards ( never used ? ). I doubt if ever used. I seem to remember 48 kHz edits every 4 shot. The means edit with scissors to be possible in optical digital . I assume a digital break every 4th shot to make for uncritical editing? That might have caused many problems we hear today?
Early Denon digital is larger than life. It was not too bad on LP. I guess people hearing mastertapes told big lies. They felt given time the sound would arrive where we are now? My guess is it killed mainstreme hi fi ? The people soon become bored with nasty sound. They assume the grew out of the toys of old? I gave a party using my poor relation LP12. Friends were gob-smacked. Why don't you have a CD player? Just imaging how good it would sound as even vinyl is OK. That's where we are. A bunch of lies that killed the industry. Perfect lies that last forever. Phillips and Sony you deserve where you are today and Samsung where they are.
Off to do some PCB design, the good stuff in my life apart from my kids ( I am both mother and father to them ). This PCB is cut and paste as I am raiding the parts bin for this design. I followed the success of Harley Davidson. I use the same part as often as I can.
Especially hear what over headphones?
Just curious because I'm mostly a headphone and IEM user.
The forum for people like me is usually head-fi, well at least it has the most traffic, in English, but the vast majority of that traffic seems to avoid technical discussion, DIY discussion and they defend "the finished product", instead of looking at a product piece by piece, they think all pieces in unison create some sort of perfect symphony.
O.k., sure, if you prefer to think so.
That the issues I mentioned here, http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/lounge/200865-sound-quality-vs-measurements-1434.html#post4013246, were not heard by a.wayne - tweaked cheap PC monitor speaker allow me to hear this easily, wondering if anyone else can register what I'm talking about ...
Miss understude that but still would not what is being played effect the quality of the process ? That given it works at all.Listen again its about putting both coils in series ....
I doubt it. By divisive I meant that the de-mag issue has very polarized sides. It has all the classic signs, the effect is dramatic, instantly obvious, you must be deaf not to hear it, and closed threads all over the interwebs.
The iPhone (all iOS stuff) are the odd one in audio playback. iOS only supports 48 KHz sample rates. The hardware has no ability for other sample rates. All commercially released music to date is at 44.1 so everything played on an iPhone has been sample rate converted. There is a lot of controversy over the quality of difference converters but its safe to say that going from 44.1 to 48 will be the most difficult to keep artifact free.
Mastered for iPhone is a package of tools to end up with a decent compressed 48K source (definitely better than the internal SRC) but seems like it should be unnecessary today.
Most Android systems operate at 44.1. They have a variety of problems as well but a few companies have provided for even 192K/24 bit playback (LG G2 for instance).
Using any of these systems for critical evaluation is only valid for the specific example.
Here lies a fundamental aspect of credibility: Does the effect work or not? Some here would say that any effect that they do not recognize MUST be fake, and the listeners are delusional. Others, at least try to reproduce the effect in the easiest most effective way, BY JUST LISTENING TO IT. And then they can make up their minds about it, even though, they 'might' be fooling themselves in testing that way. For me it is always: Listen first, trust your ears. This works for me, and many others.
It wasnt being used or never has for critical listening, frank is the one using PC speakers for critical listening .....
If one's hearing is attuned to the things that matter, then even pretty rough playback still allows one to hear the artifacts occurring - you're sensitised to the characteristics, and they are quite obvious even if one is not specifically looking for them to be there. I have a feeling that the system of the chap who did that particular review is quite susceptible, I recall another video from that website heard many months ago having similar issues - so probably was the same chap. As a contrast, another reviewer from that website who puts up listening videos doesn't have that problem, as least not obviously so in the YouTube clips.
I wouldn't get too fussed about the negativity, John - the problems are pretty obvious in waveforms, but so far there's no nice, convenient box, that's very expensive, and has the right manufacturer's name on the front cover, that pumps out nice numbers. I feel strong progress is being made - just give it some time ...
Tape Hiss is about all you have gotten right on this one frank, time to upgrade, I dont hear what you are talking about on any of the tracks, there is the usual camcorder dynamic overload, expected from stumps, he didn't vet the recording and had the level up too high.
Funny i dont get that kind of hiss from my RR, he must have had the gain way up, it does have fantastic live pop even through U-Boob, wonder how quite his Front end really is...?
I'm sure you will post your findings after looking at the recording waveform..
Funny i dont get that kind of hiss from my RR, he must have had the gain way up, it does have fantastic live pop even through U-Boob, wonder how quite his Front end really is...?
I'm sure you will post your findings after looking at the recording waveform..
- Status
- Not open for further replies.