In what way though, and to what degree? I've put on a familiar recording, one that I know I like, but for some reason, when it starts to play it sounds awful, before now this has actually worried me, but I know from experience, at some other time it was sound fine again. There could be any number of reasons for this, as I've said before my hearing is fickle and is susceptible to goodness knows what.
Comfort of the surgeon is the best part of robotic surgery. This from the surgeon who used the robot on my father. Less fatigue can mean better work. Protected territory and consumables is where the money comes from.
This is before you go under the general anaesthetic, conscious awareness is a terrible thing 😉 Afterwards you won't know, and may never know anything again......
In a world of hobbies that includes/included; drag racing,oval track,hare scrambles/gncc, sportfishing, Sport drinking!, hunting, etc....
That number is quite reasonably low.😉
The wife actually enjoys the lack of injuries from the audio hobby!
I already have a question. We cannot ask a photographic lens to be both ultra sharp and to have all the softness that is suitable for a portrait.
For me, a DAC which would provide listening without fatigue whatever the source would be obviously a colorful DAC.
I'm looking for the ultra sharp. Which, I know, will reveal like a magnifying glass the qualities as the defects of the source. Even if it means using another one, when the source has too many technical faults, erasing them pleasantly.
I wonder how much of that was involved in coding for 737. Maybe working too much in their particular bubble? Company silo
effect.
Anyway, I think the MD analogy seems to hit a cord. Very similar situation. Starting with subjective description. Do T&M based on such subjective input and other subjective answers to questions. etc. Includes even not finding a test which finds the cause of subjective input. Sometimes a cure and some times no cure. Great variability with humans but no MD denial of their patients subjective experiences. They keep looking, keep testing, guessing even.
Thx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Could try one of these TT.......supposed to be one of the most clean dacs you can get for a reasonable price, all kinds of features too. There’s a pro version that does ad/da also.
ADI-2-DAC - RME Audio Interfaces | Format Converters | Preamps | Network Audio & MADI Solutions
It’s on my short list.
ADI-2-DAC - RME Audio Interfaces | Format Converters | Preamps | Network Audio & MADI Solutions
It’s on my short list.
What is the question? Soft portrait or sharp focus?
If so, I reject the premise of the question. A dac should sound like the master tape, only different to the extent the ADC made some errors that persist.
Last edited:
Before listening? I'm sure you did not listen to the differences between the 7805 and LT1963, and in general you had no common listening experience with Markv4, though you are ready to take his casual reports as true.
If that's not gullibility then I don't know what gullible is.
Gotcha, I presumed it was audio stuff they were selling, being an audio forum.
Made all the visual difference, I'm sure.
You are trying to equate matured technology like DACs, amps, cables to things like human genome, medicine and space travel, the technologies that are in their infancy.
Perhaps you just enjoy typing words online (not against the forum rule) but I'm not sure if that is the case so I asked.
Have you ever challenged those who make certain claims of them?
In your own bubble, of course. No criteria of fidelity to speak of?
How do you set up your listening evaluation? I'm asking because it matters when objectivity is to be applied. Lets see it.
Several weeks ago the discussion was whether filtering the HF content of a Cymbal changed anything to the LF part below 20Khz.
Scott made the brickest wall filter ever possible by setting all fequencies above 22,050Hz to zero and turned this back into a time domain signal through an inverse FFT.
He then subtracted the filtered signal from the original signal an made an envelope curve of the difference, using a Hilbert transform.
This Envelope showed the expected Gibbs exitation of 22.050Hz, but also a lower frequency patterns.
The question was then, could it be that the time domain signal is affected by this filtering and that our hearing system is envelope sensitive ?
Well, the answer to my opinion is that it depends on the frequency within this envelope.
When a frequency A way above 20Khz is amplitude modulated by a frequency B below 20Khz, you will see a B in the envelope as a part of the difference signal original minus filtered.
However you will not hear B because its content A is above ones hearing limit.
That's exactly what I further wanted to investigate following Scott's results, does this lower frequency content of the envelope only contains frequencies above 22,050 or is the filtered time domain signal somewhat altered by the filtering.
Scott was so nice to make his two .wav files available, the original plus the filtered one.
This time I did not look at the envelope, but studied both time signals plus their subtracted difference.
In the image below just as an example, you will see all three signals, resp from top to bottom the original, the inverted filtered and the magnified difference of both as a result of mixing the first two in Audacity.
All the dots you see are the 192Khz sample points.
Gibbs is all over the place in the difference signal, but in all cases where an imaginary envelope was below this Gibbs frequency, I came to the conclusion that this was caused as described above: a HF signal AM modulated by a LF signal and therefore not affecting the LF part of the sound that we can hear.
Hans
Scott made the brickest wall filter ever possible by setting all fequencies above 22,050Hz to zero and turned this back into a time domain signal through an inverse FFT.
He then subtracted the filtered signal from the original signal an made an envelope curve of the difference, using a Hilbert transform.
This Envelope showed the expected Gibbs exitation of 22.050Hz, but also a lower frequency patterns.
The question was then, could it be that the time domain signal is affected by this filtering and that our hearing system is envelope sensitive ?
Well, the answer to my opinion is that it depends on the frequency within this envelope.
When a frequency A way above 20Khz is amplitude modulated by a frequency B below 20Khz, you will see a B in the envelope as a part of the difference signal original minus filtered.
However you will not hear B because its content A is above ones hearing limit.
That's exactly what I further wanted to investigate following Scott's results, does this lower frequency content of the envelope only contains frequencies above 22,050 or is the filtered time domain signal somewhat altered by the filtering.
Scott was so nice to make his two .wav files available, the original plus the filtered one.
This time I did not look at the envelope, but studied both time signals plus their subtracted difference.
In the image below just as an example, you will see all three signals, resp from top to bottom the original, the inverted filtered and the magnified difference of both as a result of mixing the first two in Audacity.
All the dots you see are the 192Khz sample points.
Gibbs is all over the place in the difference signal, but in all cases where an imaginary envelope was below this Gibbs frequency, I came to the conclusion that this was caused as described above: a HF signal AM modulated by a LF signal and therefore not affecting the LF part of the sound that we can hear.
Hans
The resulting level is quite high in amplitude. Magnified? How much?
??
THx-RNMarsh
??
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
If someone casually said to you, I had a head ache yesterday. Do you believe them?
Most people would believe them... even if you never had the common head ache experience your self.
Its that fundamental orientation I referred to #2719, 2722.
THx-RNMarsh
A general common experience of similar nature (if not exactly the same) is enough reason to agree. Until/unless, proven otherwise. Like the person lied to get out of work.
Last edited:
Many head aches should not be taken literally. How many wives have you gone through?
Well, not all wives lie. Some might and when caught in a lie, cant use that one again....
So believed until proven other wise. I dont assume they are going to tell me a lie.
I dont see Mark, T, JC or anyone here lying or trying to deliberately deceive.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Nobody knows how sound a "master tape". Even ours. The best we can do is to try to remember how the whole thing was sounding in the studio.
What kind of persistent "errors" could-we expect when measurements show a flat response curve+ a Signal/[distortion+noise] ratio > 110dB ?
And yet there are differences. In micro dynamic, precision, focus, separation or sound stage.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.