Nor Canaduh ! ...............
OOH my composers ! What would we do without em, I'm sure you can dig deeper than this Jacco ......
As far as I know, it became the Papermate Power point. The gift shop at Goddard sells "space pens".
I posit lack of noise modulation in the AMR vs the Weiss as the primary subjective difference. But I've listened to neither so this is just conjecture on my part.
Yes, both.
Well who is the 'we' ? If you're including the magazines, the more (i.e. closer) that measurements correlate with sound quality, the less there will be to write about. So I doubt they really consider such progress to be in their interests - this might be why Stereophile didn't pursue its initial foray into making measurements of noise modulation.
I think JA would be interested in such measurements, if they were relatively easy to perform and the results sufficiently reliable. The more technical details he can write about the better, even if the subjective evaluations will always be paramount.
And considering the length of this thread and the absence of agreement, I hardly think the magazines are likely to achieve a satisfying correlation of measurements and sound quality.
But speaking of additional measurements, I hope JA can be persuaded to start measuring phono preamps taking parallel (i.e. "current") noise into account. But this is tricky, compared to merely connecting the AP2 to the preamp output and shorting the preamp's input --- despite how inaccurate this may be.
Hi,
Well, given that no-one has illustrated that these measurements in particular generate better sound quality if they are better, all we can conclude is that Weiss DAC actually measures better.
Really hard to say. But I would like to turn this around a little.
One of the main areas where the AMR processor is "worse" are noisefloor, around -132dBfs FFT noisefloor vs. -148dBfs FFT noisefloor on the J-Test signal, in other words the Weiss has 16dB Lower noisefloor. The AMR also has 120Hz PSU modulation somewhere, amounting to around -115dBfs (this can be seen in the jitter plot with zero jitter engaged - it is not actually jitter but analog noise, as is the noisefloor in the jitter plot, incidentally).
That said, if we consider peak replay SPL's and the abilities of recording microphones I would suggest that either processors noisefloor is below what is audible, to the best of our current knowledge. If it is not inaudible then the fact that Weiss's noisefloor seems heavily signal dependent, while the AMR shown no such may be a key, however I rather doubt it.
The other is distortion. The AMR shows a whopping 0.1% 2nd HD and 0.03% 3rd HD at digital full scale, dropping to 0.04% 2nd HD and 0.001% 3rd HD for -10dBFs, while the Weiss has an exemplary 0.0002% 2nd HD at 0dBfs.
However, once we relate the two sets of measurements to actual audibility of distortion at various SPL's we must conclude that distortion of either processor is unlikely to be audible and invariably will be swamped by that of the speakers used in auditioning, or even headphones.
In other words, in the areas where the performance between the two apparently differs greatly and appears to favour one product over the other, using best evidence methods we cannot support that there will be audible difference caused by the measurable differences.
So, IF there are audible differences (and in my experience, as well as that of others, there are significant differences), they must perhaps originate in areas that are not covered by those traditional measurements, as we cannot as such even support the thesis that "people like added distortion and noise" from the measured results.
I am in serious that most audio engineers have the faintest clue how the human hearing really works. When it comes to performance requirements much of what they use is purely faith based, numbers somehow concocted on a green table and never seriously referenced to reality.
This situation was made worse when the advertising people seized upon the numbers produced when measuring audio equipment as marketing tool (0.000001% Distrotion, 1,000,000 Dumping Factor, 10,000 Watt P.M.P.O. ring any bells?).
This further embedded the perception that "better measurement are a 'good thing'" with both the public at large and the engineering public, yet still no reference to reality is being made and the whole thing is no more evidence based than Scientology's Auditing as means of medical treatment.
Yet one is commonly declared to be "scientific method" and the other is a "quack cult". I would rather consider that the two have by far more in common than different (down to way in which adherents of the respective cults attempt to demonise any dissenters and the methods within which they do so...
I think the very first step would be to actually discard the faith based foundation and to apply the scientific method. That is to use empirical evaluation of the reality, generating enough real data to attempt any determinations.
Then cross-referencing this data with related results and observations in other fields of the science of human hearing and to derive from this the information to formulate a revised, scientific and evidence based theoretical foundation for electro-acoustics that can then provide us with the necessary quantities to measure and to target.
Then an Engineer has a well defined target to design for where "good sound" is concerned.
This is eventually bound to happen, possibly sooner than later, as related fields, such as work on hearing prosthetics progresses, no matter how the Orthdox Church of so called "Audio Engineering" attempts to resist any reforms, by hook, crook and disinformation.
Ciao T
Well, given that no-one has illustrated that these measurements in particular generate better sound quality if they are better, all we can conclude is that Weiss DAC actually measures better.
Really hard to say. But I would like to turn this around a little.
One of the main areas where the AMR processor is "worse" are noisefloor, around -132dBfs FFT noisefloor vs. -148dBfs FFT noisefloor on the J-Test signal, in other words the Weiss has 16dB Lower noisefloor. The AMR also has 120Hz PSU modulation somewhere, amounting to around -115dBfs (this can be seen in the jitter plot with zero jitter engaged - it is not actually jitter but analog noise, as is the noisefloor in the jitter plot, incidentally).
That said, if we consider peak replay SPL's and the abilities of recording microphones I would suggest that either processors noisefloor is below what is audible, to the best of our current knowledge. If it is not inaudible then the fact that Weiss's noisefloor seems heavily signal dependent, while the AMR shown no such may be a key, however I rather doubt it.
The other is distortion. The AMR shows a whopping 0.1% 2nd HD and 0.03% 3rd HD at digital full scale, dropping to 0.04% 2nd HD and 0.001% 3rd HD for -10dBFs, while the Weiss has an exemplary 0.0002% 2nd HD at 0dBfs.
However, once we relate the two sets of measurements to actual audibility of distortion at various SPL's we must conclude that distortion of either processor is unlikely to be audible and invariably will be swamped by that of the speakers used in auditioning, or even headphones.
In other words, in the areas where the performance between the two apparently differs greatly and appears to favour one product over the other, using best evidence methods we cannot support that there will be audible difference caused by the measurable differences.
So, IF there are audible differences (and in my experience, as well as that of others, there are significant differences), they must perhaps originate in areas that are not covered by those traditional measurements, as we cannot as such even support the thesis that "people like added distortion and noise" from the measured results.
I am in serious that most audio engineers have the faintest clue how the human hearing really works. When it comes to performance requirements much of what they use is purely faith based, numbers somehow concocted on a green table and never seriously referenced to reality.
This situation was made worse when the advertising people seized upon the numbers produced when measuring audio equipment as marketing tool (0.000001% Distrotion, 1,000,000 Dumping Factor, 10,000 Watt P.M.P.O. ring any bells?).
This further embedded the perception that "better measurement are a 'good thing'" with both the public at large and the engineering public, yet still no reference to reality is being made and the whole thing is no more evidence based than Scientology's Auditing as means of medical treatment.
Yet one is commonly declared to be "scientific method" and the other is a "quack cult". I would rather consider that the two have by far more in common than different (down to way in which adherents of the respective cults attempt to demonise any dissenters and the methods within which they do so...
I think the very first step would be to actually discard the faith based foundation and to apply the scientific method. That is to use empirical evaluation of the reality, generating enough real data to attempt any determinations.
Then cross-referencing this data with related results and observations in other fields of the science of human hearing and to derive from this the information to formulate a revised, scientific and evidence based theoretical foundation for electro-acoustics that can then provide us with the necessary quantities to measure and to target.
Then an Engineer has a well defined target to design for where "good sound" is concerned.
This is eventually bound to happen, possibly sooner than later, as related fields, such as work on hearing prosthetics progresses, no matter how the Orthdox Church of so called "Audio Engineering" attempts to resist any reforms, by hook, crook and disinformation.
Ciao T
Well they won't be easy to perform at first - that's how things are with new techniques. Eventually they'll get built into boxes like AP2 (AP3?) and be available at the click of a mouse.
Decent short-term dynamic range measurements would definitely be a worthwhile step in the direction of correlating a number with factors such as 'PRaT' and perceived dynamics.
Hi,
For MC I usually use an RCA Plug with a 10 Ohm resistor for noise measurements in addition to a short.
For MM I normally use a 10K resistor in addition to short, this will reveal any current based noise well, as real MM Cartridges tend to pick up too much environmental hum to be useful in the context.
Ciao T
For MC I usually use an RCA Plug with a 10 Ohm resistor for noise measurements in addition to a short.
For MM I normally use a 10K resistor in addition to short, this will reveal any current based noise well, as real MM Cartridges tend to pick up too much environmental hum to be useful in the context.
Ciao T
Ohhh those smart "Russians" they have given the world so much ...
Wayne, I don't keep a tab on who did what, when and how, but I seem to remeber some writers, like Tolstoy and Dostoyevski, a series of classic music composers, and so forth. I seem to remeber a Dr Pavlov, who "invented" the Pavlov reflex, used today to the hilt by the US adevrtising, and so forth.
Ultimately, if memory serves, the first man in space was one major Yuri Gagarin, was he not?
Let's not get into that sort of thing, Wayne, not here, or we would necessarily have to bring in those people who claim and show evidence that the US astronuts never really landed on the Moon until much later than advertised. Some even poke fun at this, like in the James Bond movie "Diamonds are forever".
This would also necessarily start invoking of names, which may mean nothing to most of us, but were people whose feats in their fields are considered most important by people in those fields.
Just a small example - today's debate of whether we are globally warming or heading into a new ice age (which does not have to be taken literally) has been foreseen and a schedule worked out in 1901 by a Serbian scientist called Milutin Milanković. Fortunately, he had a tendency to write everything down, so there is a volume of his works to check this up. The best thing is that everything DID go down EXACTLY as per his calculations. And he and his work are very well known in climatology, but to us, we never herad of him.
Besides, evaluating entire NATIONS is both ridiculous and mostly untrue, simply because nations are a living body, they change, they evolve, just as we as individuals should be doing as well. I would have thought we were past things like those pesky xxx, those stinking yyy, etc.
Actually you can visit AirSpace museum in Washington DC and see Aggregat 4 not far from the Moon landing module. An excellent museum BTW.Nor Canaduh ! ...............
NASA was leaded by a team of German engineers captured in Germany by US in 1945. The rest of German specialists were deported to USSR and did the same.
Basically both Soviet and US launch vehicle technology is a split off Werner Von Braun V2 (Werner Von Braun was a chief of NASA later on).
Also modern experts claims that if Germany will start manufacturing of Me-262 half a year earlier that would be Germany who celebrates the victory in WWII.
Sorry pal but you should watch this at least before saying NO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Race_(TV_series)
In general support of what Thorsten spoke about, I'd like to mention just two cases I find very interesting and know first hand.
Many years ago, a German made power amplifier, from a company called LAS (Linear Audio Systems), landed on my table. I had no previous knowledge of this company. Anyway, the amp was made semi-old and semi-new school, the voltage amplifier consisting of a differential pair with a current mirror, followed by a cascode stage. Its open loop bandwidth was a whopping 5 kHz, and its overall NFB factor was around 60 dB. Total disaster! But, its output stage used four pairs of TI's BD 249/250 C, the European version of their TIP 35/36 C - but not a straight copy, the BD models had a moderate Ft of ">3 MHz", but their Ton time was just 1 uS and Toff was below 4,5 uS. Remeber, this was in 1980, when typical Ton and Toff times were at least twice that on even the best of them. 2x15,000 uF for both channels, rated at 100 V/uS.
Switch it on and be shocked. Contrary to all reason, that amp made some wonderful music come true. It worked way better than it had any right to.
Quite the opposite with another amp, by Pioneer, I forgot its model designation. Open loop response to over 40 kHz, moderate overall NFB, latest RET (Ring Emmitter Transistors) devices by Sanken, audiophile parts, the works, and it weighed in at over 40 lbs, no joke at all. Capacitors 2x12,000 uF per channel, dual mono, the works.
Switch it on and stay expecting something which will never come. Detailed, but cold and lifeless, no slam, bass lines subjectively say -2 dB below what they should be. Very much a cold shower in comparison with what one would expect from such a product.
So, even measured specs can not only fail to convey the truth, but can actually even be misleading, since that Pioneer measured better in just about every field in the book, and was made much more up to the current philosophy at the time. In both cases, THD and IM were below the 0.01% mark, both had damping factors well over 200:1 at 1 kHz into 8 Ohms (though both were rated at more than delivered), and so forth.
All of which only further convinces me that there are only two absolute certainties in life:
1. You will pay taxes, and
2. Nothing is as simple as it seems to be.
Many years ago, a German made power amplifier, from a company called LAS (Linear Audio Systems), landed on my table. I had no previous knowledge of this company. Anyway, the amp was made semi-old and semi-new school, the voltage amplifier consisting of a differential pair with a current mirror, followed by a cascode stage. Its open loop bandwidth was a whopping 5 kHz, and its overall NFB factor was around 60 dB. Total disaster! But, its output stage used four pairs of TI's BD 249/250 C, the European version of their TIP 35/36 C - but not a straight copy, the BD models had a moderate Ft of ">3 MHz", but their Ton time was just 1 uS and Toff was below 4,5 uS. Remeber, this was in 1980, when typical Ton and Toff times were at least twice that on even the best of them. 2x15,000 uF for both channels, rated at 100 V/uS.
Switch it on and be shocked. Contrary to all reason, that amp made some wonderful music come true. It worked way better than it had any right to.
Quite the opposite with another amp, by Pioneer, I forgot its model designation. Open loop response to over 40 kHz, moderate overall NFB, latest RET (Ring Emmitter Transistors) devices by Sanken, audiophile parts, the works, and it weighed in at over 40 lbs, no joke at all. Capacitors 2x12,000 uF per channel, dual mono, the works.
Switch it on and stay expecting something which will never come. Detailed, but cold and lifeless, no slam, bass lines subjectively say -2 dB below what they should be. Very much a cold shower in comparison with what one would expect from such a product.
So, even measured specs can not only fail to convey the truth, but can actually even be misleading, since that Pioneer measured better in just about every field in the book, and was made much more up to the current philosophy at the time. In both cases, THD and IM were below the 0.01% mark, both had damping factors well over 200:1 at 1 kHz into 8 Ohms (though both were rated at more than delivered), and so forth.
All of which only further convinces me that there are only two absolute certainties in life:
1. You will pay taxes, and
2. Nothing is as simple as it seems to be.
Hi,
Yup, post WW2 there where many instances when russian tech and american tech collided in combat or other areas and they where so closely matched, even in looks, that it surprised anyone who did not know that both sides where working with the same blueprints from Germany and the designs teams had origanted from a single team in Germany during WW2.
I rather doubt that. Germany in WW2 had several major weak points in their military strategy and make-up of the military forces that proved the undoing and can be laid mostly directly at the feat of the beastly Austrian and his Austrian "Comrades" who dominated the Nazi Party.
The biggest issue was not having superior or "miracle" weapons (except the A-Bomb perhaps) in good time. Most of what Germany had in more conventional stuff was plenty good enough to stand up to anything fielded by the allies on a 1:1 basis. What was missing was enough fuel to operate them and enough raw materials to build enough of them.
For example, the lack of a heavy bomber force stopped Germany from doing to the russian and english war industry and air force infra structure early on what the Americans and British did to the german in the latter part of the war (at horrendous civilian casualties it may be added).
There where many other such areas where the political leadership of Germany at the time made perfectly disastrous decisions about allocation of funding for research and production.
Well, ancient history. But it illustrates that superior quality does not always trump superior quantity.
Ciao T
Yup, post WW2 there where many instances when russian tech and american tech collided in combat or other areas and they where so closely matched, even in looks, that it surprised anyone who did not know that both sides where working with the same blueprints from Germany and the designs teams had origanted from a single team in Germany during WW2.
I rather doubt that. Germany in WW2 had several major weak points in their military strategy and make-up of the military forces that proved the undoing and can be laid mostly directly at the feat of the beastly Austrian and his Austrian "Comrades" who dominated the Nazi Party.
The biggest issue was not having superior or "miracle" weapons (except the A-Bomb perhaps) in good time. Most of what Germany had in more conventional stuff was plenty good enough to stand up to anything fielded by the allies on a 1:1 basis. What was missing was enough fuel to operate them and enough raw materials to build enough of them.
For example, the lack of a heavy bomber force stopped Germany from doing to the russian and english war industry and air force infra structure early on what the Americans and British did to the german in the latter part of the war (at horrendous civilian casualties it may be added).
There where many other such areas where the political leadership of Germany at the time made perfectly disastrous decisions about allocation of funding for research and production.
Well, ancient history. But it illustrates that superior quality does not always trump superior quantity.
Ciao T
I beg to disagree.
Having a new plane nobody can catch at that moment is a strong advantage, no doubt of it, and it would have dragged on that war for years yet, with untold additional victims.
However, the old military adage, dating back to Roman times, still holds true without exception: you will have only that territory which your soldiers' feet can tread.
Fast forward to our times, with technology undreamt of in WWII. The US and the West had Iraq under sanctions for years on end, but in the end, they had to send soldiers, people, to make anything happen. Same thing in Afghanistan. And what excatly did they achieve? Nothing, really, just more havoc and more civil war. Their soliders did NOT walk their entire territoty, which left plenty of space for the other side to hide and operate from.
The drones used today will no doubt evolve further, and while they can do significant damage, they will NOT win wars. They are much more of an assasination weapon than a war winning one.
Like it or not, it still comes down to living people.
Your post above is historically and factually quite true, and I'd just like to add one thing - just as what would become NASA took German scientists headed by Werner von Braun, so the OS which would become CIA took German espionage and counterespionage people to share their experiences in "fighting communism" (when it was well known that many of them hunted down Jews, Gypsies etc as well as native German opposition). Again, PEOPLE, not just records, models, etc.
My dad had started studying mechanical engineering in 1940, a year before the old Yugoslavia was involved in WWII. Fast forwarding, in 1944, some serious Allied help was delivered to Tito's Partisan movement, by then over half a million men strong.
Dad was in the technical corps, charged with the duty of introducing new US made tanks to the battle brew. Those tanks were used for exactly 3 days before they were sent to be rear support and reserve, while the Russian T-34 was pushed to the forefront.
The differences were cruical. The US tank (I think but am not sure it was the Patton, but I could be wrong) was easily the more suprior machine in practically all aspects - it had heavier armament, it was way better armoured than the T-34 all around, it's comms equipment was the lates word, etc, etc. Unfortunately, it also had a Detroit petrol engine, which did about 1 mile per 1 gallon of fuel, so they had to drag their own fuel tanks on wheels behind them, since they were deployed on exceptionally mountainous terrain, and in a country torn up in war, petrol was very hard to come by. Unlike G. Patton, we did not have the US Air Force send 50 McDonnel-Douglas Dakotas to drop fule by parachute 150 miles into the enemy territory.
The Russian T-34 in comparisom, if it didn't have its cannon and machine guns, could have been considered as a child's toy. Comms equipment as rumentary as it could be made, any armour to speak of was mounted only on the front of the tank, and so forth. But, it had an outstanding Diesel engine which was a legend in the way it was tolerant to inferior fuel, just what the army needs in time of war. And it was a KISS principle device, it was concieved as excpetionally easy to make - and was made in astounding numbers, so much so that it literally flooded the battlefield. Had to, because the only way a T-34 could hurt a German Tiger tank was to clobber him from behind, right into the engine bay, and for that to happen, there had to be enough of them so the German crew simply could not evade them all.
Which proves Thorsten's point - yes, quality matters, but enough quantity will eventually swamp the quality because quality is harder to make and can't keep up the pace.
An old WWII time saying:
The British understood WW2 as a game of croquet - hit one ball through the gate here, another there, and you will evetually end up at the last gate.
The Americans understood WW2 as a game of American football - grab the ball and go for a touchdown, and damn the cost.
The Russians understood WW2 as a game of chess - sacrifice the pawn here to grab the queen there.
Only the Germans took WW2 seriously and that's why they lost it.
abraxalito, ThorstenL,
Could you point me to any research/published work that backs up your view?
I find that usually people who "flirt" with the "subjectivists' side" often discard the objective approach altogether and make no effort in researching and backing up their "truth" any further.
Much like what they accuse their opponents of doing - but at least they have posted some data to back their modus operandi up.
It's all out there to prove wrong if you're up to the task. If you don't take that extra mile and just stick to your beliefs, working on your projects without providing any objective or at least structured evidence to justify your approach, it's not surprising people will get the impression you are a member of a cult building audio gear based on "beliefs".
It is engineering after all.
For example one can find boatloads of work on noise shaping and its usability.
I understand there are people who believe noise shaping is not actually as "harmless" as we're told and others who believe noise shaping is just noise.
Could you point me to any published, peer-reviewed work that invalidates previous work on noise shaping or at least provides some evidence of its "evils"?
Could you point me to any research/published work that backs up your view?
I find that usually people who "flirt" with the "subjectivists' side" often discard the objective approach altogether and make no effort in researching and backing up their "truth" any further.
Much like what they accuse their opponents of doing - but at least they have posted some data to back their modus operandi up.
It's all out there to prove wrong if you're up to the task. If you don't take that extra mile and just stick to your beliefs, working on your projects without providing any objective or at least structured evidence to justify your approach, it's not surprising people will get the impression you are a member of a cult building audio gear based on "beliefs".
It is engineering after all.
For example one can find boatloads of work on noise shaping and its usability.
I understand there are people who believe noise shaping is not actually as "harmless" as we're told and others who believe noise shaping is just noise.
Could you point me to any published, peer-reviewed work that invalidates previous work on noise shaping or at least provides some evidence of its "evils"?
Last edited:
I'm not sure where beliefs come into this. I listen to S-D type converters (AD1955, PCM1792) and find they don't sound like the real instrument when compared to a simple and dirt-cheap multibit DAC (TDA1545,3 for example). I know from reading people like Stanley Lipshitz that noise shaping has issues in regards to dither. I read the ESS datasheet and noise modulation is admitted to be a facet of that chip (a plot is shown of noise vs DC level), which is held up to be the best of the S-D incarnations. I don't think the issue of whether noise modulation exists is in dispute, what's disputed is whether its significantly audible. I'm making a leap of faith if you like - in attributing the qualitative differences in what I hear to this issue - its because I know of no other significant issue with the technology.
<edit> As regards to your remarks about absence of 'structured evidence to justify my approach' - why would you feel there's a need for me to provide such? The market is the final arbiter - if my approach sucks in terms of sound quality, I have no doubt the market will let me know by voting with its collective wallet.
<edit> As regards to your remarks about absence of 'structured evidence to justify my approach' - why would you feel there's a need for me to provide such? The market is the final arbiter - if my approach sucks in terms of sound quality, I have no doubt the market will let me know by voting with its collective wallet.
Last edited:
Hi,
I am neither interested, nor do I have the time to put together a complete list of references in support of all the many facets and aspects of my views, where they are backed by work of others (some is based on personal experience and evaluation).
If you ask more specifically with regards to a specific view, I can provide references.
If for example you needed some background on how much distortion speakers produce, I can give a specific reference or raft thereof.
If you ask regarding the available SNR of a recording microphone, I can give examples.
If you wonder where I may gotten my notions what levels of HD at what SPL's and and of what order are audible with music or pure tones I may again be able to oblige.
I do not automatically post references for things I note, because much of the work is both extensive, long standing and widely publicised (except by certain people who would rather that true evidence based approaches would go away so they can continue to peddle their ideas).
So for the life of I cannot see what excuse anyone, involved with in the topic of audio quality and how measurements relate, may make to be unaware of it (my dog ate my homework)?
Ciao T
I am neither interested, nor do I have the time to put together a complete list of references in support of all the many facets and aspects of my views, where they are backed by work of others (some is based on personal experience and evaluation).
If you ask more specifically with regards to a specific view, I can provide references.
If for example you needed some background on how much distortion speakers produce, I can give a specific reference or raft thereof.
If you ask regarding the available SNR of a recording microphone, I can give examples.
If you wonder where I may gotten my notions what levels of HD at what SPL's and and of what order are audible with music or pure tones I may again be able to oblige.
I do not automatically post references for things I note, because much of the work is both extensive, long standing and widely publicised (except by certain people who would rather that true evidence based approaches would go away so they can continue to peddle their ideas).
So for the life of I cannot see what excuse anyone, involved with in the topic of audio quality and how measurements relate, may make to be unaware of it (my dog ate my homework)?
Ciao T
Shameless local plug,
The Air and Space Museum on the mall in downtown DC is definitively worth a trip. Finally, they are getting more "stuff" to put on display to give all due credit. You can't see it in only a day. Plus, you have to have a day to drive west to the Dulles annex where the SR-71 and Shuttle sit. You can no longer tour the old warehouses at Garber. Let me tell you cool it is to walk up inches from the only flying saucer, ( Avero) and hundreds of items that will never make it on display. A wall full of giant propellers off blimps and dirgables, but no one knows which ones. Engines. There was one sitting there: inline 6, twin overhead cam, direct injection, twin ignition driven from the cams, twin turbos with intercoolers. Features that would make any new Euro sedan proud. 1926. They also have what is left of the Japanese clone of the ME192. Built from memory as we sunk the sub with the plans.
Hi,
One more note.
Yet what we cannot find easily are works that actually are evidence based comparing which noise shaping algorithms at the levels routinely deployed in ADC and DAC's are able to preserve a music signal without audible degradation.
The we are treated to is a PhD doing a bit handwaving, referencing the equal loudness curves and claiming noise-shaping with the inverse of this is "psycho-acoustically optimised".
Given the evidence of the actual evaluation of by far more gentle noise shaping algorithms used for CD-Production one would be very werary of the introduction of much more aggressive versions, whithout extensive testing...
How about instead of asking me for evidence why noise shaping is "bad" you point me to any published, peer-reviewed work that validates previous work on noise shaping using rigorous and extensive listening testing (including sufficient positive and negative controls etc.) or at least provides some evidence of it being reliably inaudible?
Ciao T
One more note.
Yet what we cannot find easily are works that actually are evidence based comparing which noise shaping algorithms at the levels routinely deployed in ADC and DAC's are able to preserve a music signal without audible degradation.
The we are treated to is a PhD doing a bit handwaving, referencing the equal loudness curves and claiming noise-shaping with the inverse of this is "psycho-acoustically optimised".
Given the evidence of the actual evaluation of by far more gentle noise shaping algorithms used for CD-Production one would be very werary of the introduction of much more aggressive versions, whithout extensive testing...
How about instead of asking me for evidence why noise shaping is "bad" you point me to any published, peer-reviewed work that validates previous work on noise shaping using rigorous and extensive listening testing (including sufficient positive and negative controls etc.) or at least provides some evidence of it being reliably inaudible?
Ciao T
- Status
- Not open for further replies.