I guess you must have missed all the discussions about why it isn't provided. Are you by chance a Windows application programmer? We need one willing to do a little work to help advance science. Heck, the programmer can even have the Stereophile award for whatever contribution to proving audibility.
Why don't we have what we need to settle these matters as to who can or can't hear what? Because nobody really cares to know. What does that mean? it means it will cost a little money, and not much, to make very slight modifications to Foobar ABX so it works consistent with the way recording and mastering engineers are trained to listen.
The problem is nobody wants to pay one cent to make it happen. They are perfectly happy to argue in forums, but that's all they really seem to be motivated to do when it comes down to making some progress towards settling issues of audibility.
To his credit, at least Bill seems interested. Thanks, Bill!
Last edited:
People still use Windows?
Stereophile has plenty of dough. They’d just prefer not to flush it down the drain, hence lack of interest in plunking down investment capital.
Who is to say this hasn’t already been done but the results where so embarrassing / crippling that it all went into the shredder?
I take it your background isn’t in sociology or economics?
Stereophile has plenty of dough. They’d just prefer not to flush it down the drain, hence lack of interest in plunking down investment capital.
Who is to say this hasn’t already been done but the results where so embarrassing / crippling that it all went into the shredder?
I take it your background isn’t in sociology or economics?
Dave Allen on the Vagaries of the English Language.
Brits and yanks both get a serve, very funny and very clever.
Dan.
I once knew a lot about cognitive psychology. Not much impressed by sociologists, or economists, well, maybe except I like Richard Thaler. But, he is kind of chummy with guys like Daniel Kahneman, one of those cognitive psychologists somebody apparently mistook for an economist.
Also, just to clarify, you are talking to someone who doesn’t believe in the development of an amplifier, dsp, or a loudspeaker as elements in isolation. So, discussion of an amplifier’s measurement data and whether one could possibly hear it for me misses the point entirely.
As with Richard’s JBL’s or Linkwitz’s offerings, or the CBT36, or the K III’s, or the B&O I’ve come to believe that the true modern technical achievements in listening can only be brought about by a holistic approach of the loudspeaker as a combination of these things.
I don’t see your considerations as the relevant factors when looked at in context.
I believe the philosophy of separates is outmoded, based on economic considerations and greed and that attempting to glean transformative insights from such a poor original premise a total waste of mental energy in 2018.... maybe you could have gotten me on board in 1985.
As with Richard’s JBL’s or Linkwitz’s offerings, or the CBT36, or the K III’s, or the B&O I’ve come to believe that the true modern technical achievements in listening can only be brought about by a holistic approach of the loudspeaker as a combination of these things.
I don’t see your considerations as the relevant factors when looked at in context.
I believe the philosophy of separates is outmoded, based on economic considerations and greed and that attempting to glean transformative insights from such a poor original premise a total waste of mental energy in 2018.... maybe you could have gotten me on board in 1985.
Last edited:
That is alright Space, there is a place for separate components. You can insert a different piece of gear of needed. With and all in one, your kind of screwed. Have to go get a whole new all-in-one unit and start all over again.
Anything all in one is so jam packed full of it...or maybe I'm missing something.
Anyone have an all-in-one they like? Share the information...please and does it still work? What do they cost?
Never mind, not worth my time.
Cheers,
So what exactly does this mean? "...holistic approach of the loudspeaker as a combination of these things."? I guess you are agreeing with what Richard is searching?
Anything all in one is so jam packed full of it...or maybe I'm missing something.
Anyone have an all-in-one they like? Share the information...please and does it still work? What do they cost?
Never mind, not worth my time.
Cheers,
Last edited:
What considerations and what greed? I am not greedy, nor am I selling anything, nor hoarding anything. And I never said speakers, amplifiers, etc, should not be considered together as composite systems. Obviously they can be considered components of a composite system, just as they are comprised of sub-components at a lower level. It seems you have a very active imagination, whatever else may be going on.
Think I will leave off here tonight. Good day to you, sir.
I think I will keep posting this image for as long as anyone is willing to discuss it.
What is a good list of the noise sources we need to take into account when we are evaluating a given grounding system?
1: Ground noise voltage injected by the DUT and other appliances between the source and sink ground.
2: EMF voltage induced in the ground system by external fields.
3: Currents induced in ground loops by external fields which cause IR voltage with effects similar to #1.
4: UHF common mode currents which skin along conductors and therefore take a different path than #1 or #2.
5: E-fields radiated by #4 from the surfaces of conductors.
6: Any of the above which occurs between multiple sources due to being connected to the same sink or with multiple sinks due to being connected to the same source.
I probably missed something, but why don't we find a few grounding diagrams and evaluate them based on these factors, and rate them relative to each other?
Another question about skinning... If I have a coax with two shields, and run a UHF signal through the middle shield and back through the outer, will the return current skin down the inside of the outer shield? In this way will the UHF be prevented from radiating from the outer surface of the shield?
If so I'm not sure it can be applied in jneutron's diagram but it seems like it could be useful for people who are willing to fiddle with multiple shields.
What is a good list of the noise sources we need to take into account when we are evaluating a given grounding system?
1: Ground noise voltage injected by the DUT and other appliances between the source and sink ground.
2: EMF voltage induced in the ground system by external fields.
3: Currents induced in ground loops by external fields which cause IR voltage with effects similar to #1.
4: UHF common mode currents which skin along conductors and therefore take a different path than #1 or #2.
5: E-fields radiated by #4 from the surfaces of conductors.
6: Any of the above which occurs between multiple sources due to being connected to the same sink or with multiple sinks due to being connected to the same source.
I probably missed something, but why don't we find a few grounding diagrams and evaluate them based on these factors, and rate them relative to each other?
Another question about skinning... If I have a coax with two shields, and run a UHF signal through the middle shield and back through the outer, will the return current skin down the inside of the outer shield? In this way will the UHF be prevented from radiating from the outer surface of the shield?
If so I'm not sure it can be applied in jneutron's diagram but it seems like it could be useful for people who are willing to fiddle with multiple shields.
Last edited:
No it would not be better. Not at all. I always LIKE it when it is more accurate. Because it sounds closer to real live music instruments being played in my room.
There is a lot of recorded music I don't like, though.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
I assume the criterion would be aliasing of the input waveform, which is always present if it is not dithered before truncation, whether or not noise is added after the fact.
When dithering is added before truncation, aliasing is still present, but it is no longer harmonically related to the input waveform and thus over the course of many samples the aliasing destructively interferes with itself, which allows time resolution to be traded for sub-LSB resolution (okay, I'm not sure if I'm correct on this).
When dithering is added before truncation, aliasing is still present, but it is no longer harmonically related to the input waveform and thus over the course of many samples the aliasing destructively interferes with itself, which allows time resolution to be traded for sub-LSB resolution (okay, I'm not sure if I'm correct on this).
Well, I’ll humor you anyhow. I think you misunderstood stood my meaning.
But yes actually I agree with Richards mentality with regards to his personal gear. I go for broke right out of the gate and then set it and forget it and allow myself to pursue other interests.
By the same token, I also agree with Scott’s points of disagreement with Richard and criticisms of a lot of what I see to be totally bizarre, and frankly not worthwhile to contemplate, claims. I also agree with Scott’s ethos in the punk-rock-junk-parts department. I like to make a mess as much as the next guy.
So do I really agree with anyone? Who knows.
My response was to a particular poster, but I think my point is totally misconstrued by now.... seems to be common.
I don’t mean that you cannot design a system for yourself, using separate enclosures to attain the same ends.
Richards JBLs are a multibox affair with the crowns and behringer. But it was designed to function in unison.
What I mean is that there must be context to understand relative influence and see the big picture. I think an amplifier should be made for the speaker it drives. Often this isn’t the case as amplifiers are turned over much more often than speakers and amplifiers are wedged into the existing system. Then, the tendency becomes to critique the amplifier rather than examine more closely how it’s behaving with the loudspeaker or consider DSP solutions which can have orders of magnitude more influence than .0001THD.
The real loser in all this is the layperson, who doesn’t understand the nuances that come as common sense to a person such as yourself. With separates, the likelihood of misconfiguration or missed opportunity for optimization increases exponentially for these folks. The more control on the part of the designer, the more he or she can guarantee favorable results.
I think that’s a valid and sensible view, no?
I’m certainly not advocating bolting stuff together and calling it a day.
Last edited:
Dither is added before truncation because we often dither by a fractional amount, such as by, say, 1.5 bits. It means some dither noise is added below what will be the new LSB, which has the effect of mixing noise and very low level signal together. Since the process is addition, sometimes bits will be carry'ed up into higher bits above what will be the truncation level. So some signal from, say, below bit 15 (counting bits from 0 to 15) will sort of percolate up into bit 15, maybe 14, and so on. Same as if we were adding a columns of decimal numbers with one addition problem representing one discrete time sample. Sometimes when adding we have to carry over to the next column. So what is in that column becomes a mix of low level signal and noise. There may be as much or more noise than signal, but humans can pick out some signal below the noise floor. Then when truncation occurs, it is as if we throw away some right hand columns, doing so for the sum of each discrete time sample addition problem. Some carry'ed over low level signal remains in the un-truncated columns because of the earlier carry operations occurring from adding noise in with very low level signal.
On the other hand, if we truncate first then add dither noise some of which is below, say, bit 15, two things will happen. We will never get a carry because all the signal bits below bit 15 are zeros. The other thing is that we will end up with lower bits again so we will have to truncate again. Doesn't matter though. The low level signal columns were discarded long ago so there is no remaining very low level information to preserve.
Hope that makes sense. I tried to write it in hopefully intuitive terms for those not familiar with the math.
On the other hand, if we truncate first then add dither noise some of which is below, say, bit 15, two things will happen. We will never get a carry because all the signal bits below bit 15 are zeros. The other thing is that we will end up with lower bits again so we will have to truncate again. Doesn't matter though. The low level signal columns were discarded long ago so there is no remaining very low level information to preserve.
Hope that makes sense. I tried to write it in hopefully intuitive terms for those not familiar with the math.
Last edited:
Of course I’m not discussing sources or even line stages.
I’d argue that the all in one solution if implemented well wouldn’t necessitate the kind of obsessive compulsive gear swapping that is quite common.
I’d instead advocate improving on the one design, rather than stepping sideways.
Then, sure, start again. Sell it and make something new. Whatever floats your boat.
From a resale perspective maybe less optimal but otherwise I think it’s a more linear approach.
But nonetheless I don’t mean separates as in physically necessarily. I mean designed intentionally and specifically for one another.
I don't think it is an aliasing issue. As a thought experiment, how would turncation produce different numerical sample values as compared to if the signal were acquired in the first place using a low resolution ADC based on window comparitors? Such an ADC is essentially truncating analog values to at or above one window threshold but below the next higher threshold. So long as there is a good, proper reconstruction filter in the corresponding DAC on the way back to analog the signal should be recovered without aliasing, but with added noise. Right?
I have data to prove I have crap ears
Actual hearing examination results of your hearing.
"All in one" has at least the potential to:
(1) minimize ground loop problems
(2) properly interface one unit to another (impedances, signal level),
(3) minimize the number of interconnection plugs and cables
As space has already mentioned, the issue of boredom after building it, can be handled
My contribution was on those posts:
(don’t ask me for the wav files, they are gone)
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II
What is wrong with op-amps?
What is wrong with op-amps?
What is wrong with op-amps?
George
- Status
- Not open for further replies.