Interesting, so Objective numbers are good when they support your preference. I thought you are sick of Objectivists.
Try putting a piece of vinyl record on top of LSI's etc.
Did you take a listen to the Dropbox links I sent you ?, ditto Scott and Andrew.
M1 and M2 loopback recordings incorporate Vinyl in the equation - Jump
Dan.
T is saying that digital capture ought not to seriously degrade (alter) vinyl source.
In practice I find that to be true....I have plenty of vinyl transfers in various digital audio formats that sound good, really good........for vinyl that is.
Ok not quite the same as playing the real thing, even better maybe when considering convenience repeatability etc.
For completeness of the digital vinyl recreation hologram a turntable positioned tiny speaker reproducing stylus direct acoustic radiation is required.
Dan.
I listened. Nice demo song, btw....... but where would I get graphite filled vinyl? I havent owned an LP or LP system in a couple decades.
So explain your story with these files.
I dont hear much of any difference via this computer's built-in DAC. Maybe if I down loaded the files and played back thru my really good reference system. Dont know.
-RNM
Last edited:
Grounding of Oscillator cans is another cause of subjective changes, and ime for the better.
Usually doable with 5mm or so of wire or just small solder bridge on some boards....lead free is somehow better sounding than lead based alloys ime/imo.
Dan.
Last edited:
Be careful, if you keep challenging him, he will put you on his ignore list, or at least he will say so.
I had read your quote.
Oh, Lord !!!!
Could-you explain to your interlocutor that, if the fastest car do not necessary win the formula one race, no way to win with a VW Beetle ?
I don't have such list...nobody wants to talk with me...i'm lonely.Do you wanna play with me?I have candy!Be careful, if you keep challenging him, he will put you on his ignore list, or at least he will say so.
if you share your candy, I can share my list with you. Not a lot of people, but all exceptional ;-)
Thanks I will pass the compliments on, my sister is the girlie vocal.
I don't understand 'graphite', I didn't mention it.
I mean donor ordinary vinyl records 33 and 45, and shellac 78 too for curiosity.
Different vinyl formulations (ie labels, releases, genre etc) impart different sounds, there is usually a huge choice in any local thrift store or recycling centre.
Scratched, damaged etc doesn't matter, they are not for playing.
Ok, I downloaded 320k MP3 file and converted to Wav file equivalent.
Used this Original.Wav file as source file for three loopback recordings all using the same interconnect cable assy.
TS.Wav is first loopback recording with unaltered Test Standard custom cable.
M1 and M2 loopback recordings are using same TS cable but with either of two Modifiers.
You ought to hear difference between 'Original' and any of the three loopback recordings, this should be evident to some extent on any system.
To fully appreciate this difference you need to go to your big system, and next is listening for differences between the three loopback recordings.
These differences are clear on my system and my findings are confirmed by others.
For you it might be "for me it is a 'FEEL' response." as my sister commented.
For me the 33 used as M1 and 45 used as M2 are distinctly different, both are coloured compared to clean TS.
I find M1 is pretty good sounding in the manner of a good LP, and M2 is slightly 'shouty' in the manner of many 45's.
The point for me of this round of my testing/investigation is to prove to my satisfaction that cable construction and dielectric materials are of critical importance and can have great influence over systems behaviour.
More over alterations in recording systems behaviours are evident when recordings of these changes are played on various other independent systems.
My method described here in outline constitutes a means of remastering and 'correcting' or deliberately modifying existing recordings, with properties of acoustic image stabilisation, subjective denoising and audio lost information 'reconstruction' and new information insertion.
Applications include archival and forensics applications in addition to of course speech transmission and musical enjoyment.
Dan.
Dick, John are you paying attention? Don't condemn without examination.
Could be cheaper than Bybees.No, it doesn’t really. What tests show you that it works or does not? I test nearfield with a spectrum analyzer and probes. Then the product goes to an anechoic chamber. You really don’t have experience here I can tell.
You can stick all the copper foil you want on top of ICs and poorly connect it to "ground" which probably isn't a plane on some junk audio PCB.
I don't know what data leads you believe the ICs have major radiated emissions problems anyway. It's important to distinguish between radiated and conducted emissions, correctly. If you are going to shield it, you should at least do it right.
It might work, but how do you know what it did? You're not even covering the IC completely.
Last edited:
It is indeed another form of Bybee, but it don't work nearly so well without Goop© or the TS GoopCable© in the equation, sorry about that.Dick, John are you paying attention? Don't condemn without examination.
This is nothing new, we have all been using Modifiers of varying influence in our systems since the very first days of crystal radio....pcb substrates, encapsulations, dielectrics, connectors, enclosures etc are all Modifiers.
What is new is introducing known and controlling/dominating Modifiers in lumped form at system energy (signal) entry and exit points.....BQP is one implementation, there are others.
Here's another treated/mastered recording session - Goodman 1938 -
And here's some Test Dept I promised you and Andrew.... please grab them before I need to reclaim the Dropbox space.
I found these The Flying Luttenbachers - Storm of Sh*t guys the other day and instantly thought of you.
Dan.
Last edited:
Fascinating. Chips radiating significant EMI. Not PCB high speed clock and bus lines, but chips themselves. And from the top. And a thin sheet of grounded metal screening this EMI.
Sometimes I wonder if you guys are really serious or just yanking other people chains for fun. Kind of Bybees reinvented over and over again.
Yep. It's funny because it feels like it's always hard to create an antenna when you want one, but never hard to create an antenna when you don't.
All I know is that it's usually pretty hard to make a good antenna below the GHz range out of a few square mm. Without real testing, easy to blame the IC when it's radiating from the traces.
Ears is plenty enough to discern these kinds of subtle changes.
Assumptions, assumptions.
Copper foil chip encapsulation covers are factory standard in some Jap audio gear, nothing new.
Don't need to and probably don't want to.
I suspect that the foil constitutes a loading in addition to shielding, and is also a local field effect Modifier of the chip/encapsulation itself.
Comparing copper leaf/silver leaf/gold leaf ought to be interesting and distinguishable.
Dan.
@bonsai I went through the trouble today to revisit the DNR issues around digital RIAA and even I was surprised.
I took an LP from the RCA/JVC RDC direct to disk 45 RPM series, these are recognized by many as being some of the finest LP's ever made. I looked at the waveform statistics with and without RIAA pre-emphasis, picking a 50sec section of extreme dynamics, and I mean extreme improvisational music literally wailing on drums, bells, chimes, etc. and there was not even one bit of DNR lost. With normalization at 1kHz the max code of the music (@16bits) was 22433 and applying an inverse RIAA it was 33692. The crest factor also showed less than a 6dB increase.
You have to think of this in the time domain not the frequency domain.
I took an LP from the RCA/JVC RDC direct to disk 45 RPM series, these are recognized by many as being some of the finest LP's ever made. I looked at the waveform statistics with and without RIAA pre-emphasis, picking a 50sec section of extreme dynamics, and I mean extreme improvisational music literally wailing on drums, bells, chimes, etc. and there was not even one bit of DNR lost. With normalization at 1kHz the max code of the music (@16bits) was 22433 and applying an inverse RIAA it was 33692. The crest factor also showed less than a 6dB increase.
You have to think of this in the time domain not the frequency domain.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.