Mark, this just isn't the case at all.
Please go and listen to a really good pro tape machine before making
comments about polishing turds. There are still people that mix down to 2 tr
analog because it sounds so good.
TCD
😕
Isn't that exactly what I was saying? Tape can sometimes be used to make a turd mix (possibly with digititus) sound better, and in such cases the mastering engineer may run it through a tape machine exactly to make it sound subjectively better.
EDIT: Of course, the word 'better' often means subjectively better during the music production process. For music reproduction, 'better' usually refers to accuracy of reproduction.
Hopefully, that clarification will help avoid any confusion, intentional or not. (comment not directed at Terry)
Last edited:
Kind of, but the inference was that the tape machine is a band aid of sorts,
which really doesn't do them justice. Once you hear really good direct analog
replay, digital starts to sound colored... and in a bad way. 🙂
You should buy one Mark. I've got 4 now. 1 x Otari 1/4" 2Tr, 2 x MCI 1/4" 2
Tr, 1 x 3M 2" 16 Track. The 3M is a beast.
TCD
I elect Terry to listen to your DAC mods. From his experience and posting record I trust his ears, we can find more.
Last edited:
Fine with me if you want to send him over after the virus thing calms down some more. I think we would enjoy meeting each other, and I'm sure Jam would like to meet him too.
Is that the "Royal we"? Perhaps you should call youreself "king of the mountainman bob" 🙄 You could hold court with Mark and command the peasants be sent round to entertain you.
Dennis: What I object to is you automatically treatin' me like an inferior.
Arthur: Well, I am king.
Dennis: Oh, king, eh? Very nice. And how'd you get that, then? By exploiting the workers! By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society! If there's ever going to be any progress--
Dennis: We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as sort-of-executive officer for the week--
Hierfi,
in the usually shallow rhetoric there is a scarcity of reference to the high distortion involved in sampling. The brain can easily fill in the gaps to create continuity in the absence of nasty high frequency samples. Why not concentrate your resources on a decent discrete analog amplifier with proper impedance matching?
You are using meaningless and irrelevant terms.
Dennis: Oversampling is a fool’s errand.
Arthur: Well, I am king.
Dennis: Upgrading a DAC clock is a stupid thing to do.
Arthur: Now you are treatin' me like a king.
in the usually shallow rhetoric there is a scarcity of reference to the high distortion involved in sampling. The brain can easily fill in the gaps to create continuity in the absence of nasty high frequency samples. Why not concentrate your resources on a decent discrete analog amplifier with proper impedance matching?
You are using meaningless and irrelevant terms.
Dennis: Oversampling is a fool’s errand.
Arthur: Well, I am king.
Dennis: Upgrading a DAC clock is a stupid thing to do.
Arthur: Now you are treatin' me like a king.
Thanks N101N,
The following is a URL of a conference paper by Malcolm Hawsford, as provided by Abraxalito in another thread. It identifies some of the import issues in I/V conversion.
(PDF) CURRENT-STEERING TRANSIMPEDANCE AMPLIFIERS FOR HIGH-RESOLUTION DIGITAL-TO-ANALOGUE CONVERTERS
My object was to theorize some form of possible alternative issue to direct of circuit design. This is in lieu of pursuing other things generally viewed meaningful and relevant, and that over time has now evolved to become meaningless and irrelevant. Harmonic distortion is one.
Harmonic distortion below 0.01% could be considered irrelevant from the perspective of hearing harmonics themselves. If we consider a physical SPL of 90dB as reasonably loud, whereupon 0dB (in an anechoic room) is the threshold of human hearing, these harmonics are at 1/10000, or 80dB down, hence 10dB above the threshold of human hearing. Such detectability limits are in absence of the presence of 90dB SPL, hence must still be heard as notwithstanding the presence of such an SPL. If these harmonics are detectable under such circumstances (as unlikely) this still requires increased bit resolution to determine of being pleasant or unpleasant to warrant being acted upon. This is to suggest that any distortion perceived below 0.01% is unlikely attributable to harmonic detection, rather of some other causality by the nonlinearity. Hence some alternative theory becomes necessary to advance the importance of distortion below 0.01%.
In the past all amplifiers personally designed and constructed were discrete analog in form. This was for reasons that they were superior in SQ to integrated devices. Yet operational amplifiers can be thought of as networks made up of integrated discrete components, hence discrete networks have no necessary advantage over those being equally reproduced in integrated form. To reject all integrated operational amplifiers seems would require that the integration process itself be held responsible for the lower SQ.
Currently I am concentrating on developing a hybrid "integrated/discrete” I/V amplifier intended to best interface to a digital-to-analog current output device. Given that an ideal d/a has infinite fast rise/fall time an integrated approach has advantages in terms of speed over discrete implementations (shorter path lengths). So it is that looking at devices identified by DIY members having a good reputation in I/V applications has the potential as a better solution to discrete networks being currently considered or designed.
It is probably enough that complex music consists of many individual frequencies, especially so when we consider the dynamically changing harmonic structure of vocals and other complex musical sounds. Cymbals produce a very wide variety of frequencies, as one other example. IME, as a result most of distortion that may be heard is IMD arising from the same nonlinearity originally characterized in terms of its HD.
Last edited:
This does not follow at all without credible evidence. I'm sure you can make some up.
There is a fundamental mistake being made as such relates to the reference point being used to thereupon take actions as a result. This is to state that the decision to engage in using an operational amplifier, or build a discrete network, consists of engaging in such credibility as only respecting oneself to oneself in making that decision or choice. There is nothing to prove to you, being made up or otherwise.
For anyone engaged in designing circuits there are countless changes that require interpretation as "for better" or "worse". Decisions to move forward or backward are notwithstanding the level of significance or credibility. Decisions must be made as not halted in the absence of credible evidence.
But aren't you the one who posted a claim on this forum ("In the past all amplifiers personally designed and constructed were discrete analog in form. This was for reasons that they were superior in SQ to integrated devices.")? Perhaps you can back up your posted claim with supporting evidence.
From a philosophical perspective the statement "A is superior to B" is a presentation asserting some value of superiority. The assignment of value as relates to "superior" can take on any value of any amount greater than B. That is all that can be gleaned from my assertion in and of itself.
The implied false assertion of yours is that my claim has absolutely no value to anyone unless supporting evidence is provided. It further precludes the concept of variant weighting being assigned by others who could agree or have more background as specific to the context behind the statement "A is superior to B". This is to state that anyone can weight "superior" as they please. Why should I necessarily care or be offended?
You can post what you want. It's what happens afterwards that I was pointing out. You can choose to care about it or not. So far, you don't seem to be liking the aftermath of your posted claim.