Nyquist and Fourier .
Isn't it remarkable both were mostly right . As far as I know Nyquist was saying for telephone use . A big deal as it required a doubling in bandwidth when that was usually a very limited thing . The pay off improved reproduction . The last reasonably perfect square-wave comes at about 280 Hz from a CD player . The 79th term ( 1/79 F 79 ) . At about - 38 dB .
I often used a CD player as a sine wave generator . A Hi Fi News test disc . I had to work hard to design a generator that was better .
Isn't it remarkable both were mostly right . As far as I know Nyquist was saying for telephone use . A big deal as it required a doubling in bandwidth when that was usually a very limited thing . The pay off improved reproduction . The last reasonably perfect square-wave comes at about 280 Hz from a CD player . The 79th term ( 1/79 F 79 ) . At about - 38 dB .
I often used a CD player as a sine wave generator . A Hi Fi News test disc . I had to work hard to design a generator that was better .
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't this been the bugbear of audio for about as long as audio as we know it has existed?
Self-styled gurus gallore?
People who hear things nobody else hears? On occasion, I suggested that instead of their cables they change their pot supplier, they been smokin' some bad ganja, man.
On the other hand, I have been known to actually invite some sharp ears to auditions of things like my own speakers, but these were professors from the Academy of Music, people with zero vested interests either way. And even they didn't agree among themselves, thought they so much more politely than your average audiophiles. One thought Levinson was the best amp out there if it was driving big B&W speakers and had them in his own class, another believed Klein & Hummel active speakers were the top, etc.
Point is, I recognize and accept without reserve the fact that there are people who can hear a hell of a lot more and better than I can, and anyway, I never thought of myself as anything special hearing-wise. Summa sumarum, I've done pretty well voicing my own projects given this fact, as a strong majority of listeners felt they sounded good (as in better than average). That's good enough for me to justify the time, work and expense involved.
DDD recordings .
I was lead to believe many DDD recording were in fact using something like Dolby A and Revox . The name of the Dolby they used escapes me . Often a direct copy on Sony PCMF1 and a back up Revox . Back at base the Revox and PCMF 1 would be compared . If the Revox was better a number of transfers would be done until an optimum PCMF1 copy was produced . This would be handed over as the DDD master . The point being . The transfer could be done within the very narrow window of ideal PCMF1 performance better than guessing when live . The hiss levels would not be vastly different . The compression ability of the Revox would be useful . As the guy who told me said . Any recording engineer would know as wow and flutter is noticeable on a Revox if one is used to it . ADD was a useful way to do it . The Dolby upgrades were aimed at keeping the older stuff alive .
My friend John said something about ADD that I can not agree with . He states masters meant for cutting LP's were direct transferred to CD . That alone was the big initial problem . I don't beleive that . It makes the people in the recording studios look a bit stupid . If they are able to jig a recording for LP it should be a very small step get it right for CD . They didn't understand ? I bet they understood better than most ?
The BBC Golden Ear panel I think were reliable and sceintific in their approach .
I was lead to believe many DDD recording were in fact using something like Dolby A and Revox . The name of the Dolby they used escapes me . Often a direct copy on Sony PCMF1 and a back up Revox . Back at base the Revox and PCMF 1 would be compared . If the Revox was better a number of transfers would be done until an optimum PCMF1 copy was produced . This would be handed over as the DDD master . The point being . The transfer could be done within the very narrow window of ideal PCMF1 performance better than guessing when live . The hiss levels would not be vastly different . The compression ability of the Revox would be useful . As the guy who told me said . Any recording engineer would know as wow and flutter is noticeable on a Revox if one is used to it . ADD was a useful way to do it . The Dolby upgrades were aimed at keeping the older stuff alive .
My friend John said something about ADD that I can not agree with . He states masters meant for cutting LP's were direct transferred to CD . That alone was the big initial problem . I don't beleive that . It makes the people in the recording studios look a bit stupid . If they are able to jig a recording for LP it should be a very small step get it right for CD . They didn't understand ? I bet they understood better than most ?
The BBC Golden Ear panel I think were reliable and sceintific in their approach .
..recorded by "hd" 150€ cameras
but not this one, with 4khd scarlet camera AFAIK
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvZgV3gkpNA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxBKC0ny_wA
Last edited:
Aaah, yes ... Kenrick Sound - one of the "decent ones", at least for a couple of the clips - the Pioneer is good, hadn't heard that one before, but the small Rey Audio units are fairly lacking -- best of the bunch is the big daddy RM-7V ...
Even here it's a curate's egg - e.g., the JBLs are uniformly pretty awful ...
Even here it's a curate's egg - e.g., the JBLs are uniformly pretty awful ...
In a high resolution system everything makes a difference , everything , change the cables , a difference , power cords ? a difference , where golden ears fail in publication is not researching why it makes a difference ...
Not enuff Objectivity ....
..recorded by "hd" 150€ cameras
but not this one, with 4khd scarlet camera AFAIK
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvZgV3gkpNA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxBKC0ny_wA
Camera distortion , makes you almost want to get a horn speaker ...
those reyaudio boxes weight a lot, handle 500W, some more. had not luck to gather info on prices
if i sell 911gt3 them maybe i can afford them (not telling that i have one)
Well, you can argue, but it's not likely to do much good.yes, sorry I meant to edit to make that clear,the second part was a more general rant
I have been able to talk some sense into someone wanting to wire his amp inputs with pure silver wire once. It was on a French forum. Those sorts of things are rare, tho. High dollar audio grade USB cables, anyone?OK, but I see it as more than that. As SY is fond of saying, getting the signal right thru the playback and amplification stages isn't difficult, but once you get to the speakers, the problem becomes much more complex. I'd say "All Hell breaks loose."
Technically superior can be in the mind's eye of the beholder. There isn't even much agreement on that. But if it sounds like the real thing - consistently - then that's what I want. Out of curiosity I want to know why it sounds right and what were the methods used to get there. But the technical aspect is only the means to the goal - my goal is that it sounds real.
Other people have other goals. "Real" might not be important. Numbers may or may not be important. Technical merit is the goal of some. "Sounds Good" is a simple goal for most people.
I was happy until here.
.
I can do good as good can be through headphones, but the pathos is overwhelming. No speakers seem to be comfortable in my small stone room.
"Sounds like the real thing" is ambiguous. Maybe you could elucidate on the what the real thing is?
I hope one day music will sound realistic, in being a convincing live performance in my room. For me, that would not just sound like the real thing, it would actually be the real thing.
Good isn't proving simple for me
. I can do good as good can be through headphones, but the pathos is overwhelming. No speakers seem to be comfortable in my small stone room
."Sounds like the real thing" is ambiguous. Maybe you could elucidate on the what the real thing is?
I hope one day music will sound realistic, in being a convincing live performance in my room. For me, that would not just sound like the real thing, it would actually be the real thing.
"Sounds good" is all I really want, though I wouldn't object to some technical merit, of course.
This is the DIY forum, not a technically pure forum, nor dedicated to the academics to train their craft as such.
I understand this as a fun forum, where we can all have our own opinions and not fight about it. I want to know what other people think, I don't have to agree with them, but I still want to hear their opinions. Not to even mention practical advice from those more experienced than myself.
Like somebody from Germany (I think) mentioning that the best power supply line decoupling was using 100 uF, 3.3 uF and 100 nF in parallel. That kind of info is gold.
This is the DIY forum, not a technically pure forum, nor dedicated to the academics to train their craft as such.
I understand this as a fun forum, where we can all have our own opinions and not fight about it. I want to know what other people think, I don't have to agree with them, but I still want to hear their opinions. Not to even mention practical advice from those more experienced than myself.
Like somebody from Germany (I think) mentioning that the best power supply line decoupling was using 100 uF, 3.3 uF and 100 nF in parallel. That kind of info is gold.
I wish he'd hint at his electronic solution!
"This is NOT Mel Torme!" (Albert Potato, from Top Secret!)
It might be one thing for you to CLAIM this (they might say honest people would disagree, and they would feel better than you in that they can hear things you cant), but it would REALLY cause a poop-storm if you suggested using the D word (no, not digital, but rather DBT).
So I'm reading up to this point, and I'm wondering, what would you suggest? Alps? Bourns?
Oh. (Emily Latella voice) Never mind.they been smokin' some bad ganja, man.
Last edited:
I can only tell you what it is for me. For me it's the sound of acoustic, unamplifed instruments and the human voice. That's what I grew up with and what I like. Getting a system that really nails that, across many different recordings and musical styles, is wonderful.
An example. At one time I was working daily in the music biz and dating a cellist. I heard live, unamplified music at least 3 times a day for 2 weeks leading up to an audio show. Concerts big and small, rehearsals, etc. No other reference, no Hi-Fi, no records or CDs - I didn't even listen to the radio. Then I walked into an audio show and everything sounded good, but not real. Then boom! There it was. A system that sounded exactly like real musicians playing real instruments. It just nailed it, it was so obvious that it didn't sound like speakers - it sounded like musicians playing. I kept going on and on about to anyone at the show who would listen. "Yes, yes, it's good" they'd humor me, "but not the best system here." They'd clam this or that system was technically superior for some reason or another. (price often entered into it). No one seemed to hear how stunningly life like the system was. I did, and I had the reference of 2 weeks filled morning to night with live music of all sorts - and no amplified playback - as my reference. I felt a bit chagrined. (There is more to the story)
And at other shows thru the years I've walked down a hall to hear drums and think "that IS a recording, right?" Had to check to be sure. Or saxophone, or whatever. You get what I mean.
If my reference were not live acoustic music, then I might have other preferences in Hi-Fi. Rock, Reggae and Dubstep fans have other needs. But what I want, and I know it can be done, is a system that consistently fools me into believing it's "The Real Thing".
Hope that helps make clear what I'm talking about. Thanks for reading.
Hi. Thanks for the gold.
Amplifier with good 2-tones color will greatly help to minimizing fatiguing. I got this while making my n2 amp, but it still have littlte hf fatiguing caused by compensation cap, now am working on n3 proto trying reducing this cap.
Don't worry, Pano, there's at least one other person who knows exactly where you're coming from ...
. I've been astounded by what some people call "good sound", while I stood besides them listening to the same material ... I guess that they are so obsessed with some technical aspect of what they're hearing that it completely fills their inner acoustic universe, excludes all other considerations. So, I do wonder at times whether there's any point in trying to improve the quality of replay in a general sense, if for the majority of listeners it just completely goes over the top of them ...You know, pearls and swine and all that sort of thing ...
Edit: You have to pity the families of the people who are coming to audio from one of these technical angles - the audiophile is jumping up and down with excitement at some "improvement" that he's made, and then he seeks approval from his good partner. "Very nice, dear", she manages to offer up, and inwardly thinks, "Well, at least it doesn't sound as awful as it normally does!!" ...
Last edited:
I reckon it would sense for people to nominate YouTube videos of high end systems playing music, which they considered the "best" they've come across ... and most importantly, why! Yes, technically very impure, etc, etc ... but it's easy, at least for me, to pick the complete crap from setups that are actually managing to convey something realistic. That way we get some semblance of an idea of the angles that people are coming from ... ,
, - Status
- Not open for further replies.