What about digital RIAA?

[Aleksunder]

What I think you might have failed to realize is that some of us actually write the kind of software you use. That means actually understanding how things work, rather than selecting from menus. It is a point of pride for us to make the software so easy to use that even people who don't understand any of the theory still can accomplish reasonable results.

Which software?

 

[billshurv]

You really should stop digging.

 

[Aleksunder]

What I think you might have failed to realize is that some of us actually write the kind of software you use. That means actually understanding how things work, rather than selecting from menus. It is a point of pride for us to make the software so easy to use that even people who don't understand any of the theory still can accomplish reasonable results.

Dear God. "Selecting from menus"?

I realise that you're not, er, communicating in your native language, but this is one of the lamest attempts at "one-upmanship" I've ever been confronted with.

 

[Bigun]

And you've been on this forum since 2006 ? - there's a lot more nonsense around here than you might think !

 

[Aleksunder]

Are any of you acquainted, at all, with Sonic Scenarist?

Any idea what's involved in using it?

Do you even know what a PGC is?

Please, don't posture as if you have a "superior" understanding of scripting/programming and expect that it will "win points" for you.

 

[SY]

The issue isn't programming, it's understanding the mathematical and experimental basics of sampling, reconstruction, filtering, dither... That's where your understanding needs help.

 

[Aleksunder]

The issue isn't programming, it's understanding the mathematical and experimental basics of sampling, reconstruction, filtering, dither... That's where your understanding needs help.

And if I come to understand the mathematical and experimental basics of sampling, reconstruction, filtering, dither, then I will see the light?

Or rather, I will hear the "pure, perfect sound", forever?

Amen.

 

[SY]

And if I come to understand the mathematical and experimental basics of sampling, reconstruction, filtering, dither, then I will see the light?

Well, you'll stop believing incorrect things and know things that you currently don't. For some of us, that sort of basic learning does nicely for "seeing the light."

 

[Aleksunder]

Well, you'll stop believing incorrect things and know things that you currently don't. For some of us, that sort of basic learning does nicely for "seeing the light."

The problem is that are many, MANY others, experienced and expert in their fields, real heavy-weights, who DO NOT share your opinions and sanguinity

 

[SY]

Sampling theory is not "opinion."

I'm definitely on the right-hand side of the IQ bell-curve - the "ignorance quotient", that is.

It's totally up to you what to do about that.

And congratulations for successfully derailing what was previously a useful thread.

 

[Aleksunder]

Whatever.

I'm going to experiment with using my PC as an RIAA stage (both pass-through and recording) and see if it betters the analogue RIAA stages I have available.

I know in advance that it won't, but it'll be a bit of fun.

 

[Aleksunder]

Sampling theory is not "opinion."



It's totally up to you what to do about that.

And congratulations for successfully derailing what was previously a useful thread.

So you got it, finally?

 

[Aleksunder]

Sampling theory is not "opinion."



It's totally up to you what to do about that.

And congratulations for successfully derailing what was previously a useful thread.

I'll get my coat, and report back when I have something to say which is directly pertinent to DSP RIAA.

ciao.

 

[scott wurcer]

The problem is that are many, MANY others, experienced and expert in their fields, real heavy-weights, who DO NOT share your opinions and sanguinity

I'm sorry this thread has gone this way but I have to ask, do you mean there are experts "real heavy weights" as you put it in digital signal processing that think dither is a band-aid that "hides" the distortion or is a marketing scam? I work with at least two people that invented a good portion of the field one a fellow of the IEEE and AES, they think these threads are laughable and don't think much of hi-rez audio in general.

 

[scott wurcer]

I know in advance that it won't, but it'll be a bit of fun.

Now that's expectation bias, too bad, did you feel that way yesterday?

 

[Julf]

I really shouldn't continue with the off-topic crap, but...

Are any of you acquainted, at all, with Sonic Scenarist?

As far as I know, it is a video editor / DVD authoring package. That has very little to do with audio.

Any idea what's involved in using it?

As with any software package, it involves using the interface the programmers designed. No real understanding of underlying technologies is necessary.

Do you even know what a PGC is?

I assume you are talking about the table of pointers involved in DVD authoring - rather irrelevant in a discussion about audio.

Please, don't posture as if you have a "superior" understanding of scripting/programming and expect that it will "win points" for you.

It is not the programming I am talking about, it is about actually understanding what happens beyond the user interface of an application program. The actual physics, mathematics and reality.

Let me guess, your software tool displays digital waveforms as staircases, right?

 

[Aleksunder]

Well, as good a place as any to query;

I mentioned the unusually low input-impedance of the Essence STX's line-in (4.3K ohms), and waddaya know;

the OBH-18SE phono stage actually has this printed on its back-panel ;

Load to 10Kohms or more

Should one actually listen to the Creek via the STX, or just assume that they aren't compatible?

Am I to assume that the signal from the Creek into the STX will be losing some peak volts, and hence producing less 'punchy' sound than it would otherwise be capable of?

Or this is this all just numbers, and completely academic?

 

[scott wurcer]

Well, as good a place as any to query;

I mentioned the unusually low input-impedance of the Essence STX's line-in (4.3K ohms), and waddaya know;

the OBH-18SE phono stage actually has this printed on its back-panel ;

Load to 10Kohms or more

The output impedance is listed at 100 Ohms the 10K is probably an arbitrary value chosen to measure the specifications. The difference in output level between a 100 Ohm and a 4.3 kOhm vs 10 kOhm divider would be trivial.

 

[Aleksunder]

I guess you didn't understand the term "band-limited".

Do you think you can actually hear any of the harmonics beyond 20 kHz? Do you think an analog recording will reproduce them?

this needs replying to;

'band limiting', and in particular the VERY steep low-pass filtering needed with 16-44.1/48 KHz, whether implemented in the analogue or digital 'domains', is impossible to achieve transparently.

It ALWAYS creates artifacts such as phase-shifting and impulse-ringing - a change in the sound or 'timbre' of voices and instruments, which is heard as a 'closing in' or lack of 'openness' in the sound.

The simple answer is NOT to steeply band-limit, which can be accomplished by ;

- using well aligned analogue (tape) recorders or

- high sample-rate digital.

Even people with hearing limited to 10KHz or less will notice clearer, more natural and generally more realistic instruments and voices.

 

[Aleksunder]

The output impedance is listed at 100 Ohms the 10K is probably an arbitrary value chosen to measure the specifications. The difference in output level between a 100 Ohm and a 4.3 kOhm vs 10 kOhm divider would be trivial.

I bow to your knowledge, as it's obviously superior to Mike Creek's.