It would be better if you sometimes went to the theater to listen to a live orchestra rather than waiting for someone to measure and confirm that an orchestra exists and plays music.
But a little musical education would help you go beyond the measurements to understand what you're listening to.
But I believe you are one of those who cannot recognize a Steinway from a Yamaha.
For you they are the same, exactly like DACs.
You wont believe this Andrea, but each time i wake up in the morning, i throw myself a glass of water at my face. then i light up the stove put my hand on it when i think it is red. After that i slap myself in the face 5 times, then poke the cat until he bits me. I hold my breath for 1 minute to see i lack oxygen. After that i call my brother and father to see if they answer and react accordingly to whatever i say for 5 minutes i say then hang up. after that finally i go to work in the subway naked and look for reactions around me. Then i can work with a moderate assurance i didn't wake up for nothing. Sometimes, i think it is a bit hard but everyone should do the same nevertheless...totally worth it! It's the only way for me to sleep at night and keep the cycle going.
🙂
🙂
Last edited:
Sure, I believe that.
Maybe you should measure the temperature of the water and the stove to understand if they are the same thing, just like DACs.
The perception of heat and cold is not enough to discriminate them.
Not at all, I'm really convinced that a minimum of musical education would be necessary before approaching audio.
are you saying i may be dreaming..all that time? 😱
😉
(by the way i'm more on tour side about subjective listening, but it has to be repeatable and confirmed by others to gain credibility)
Last edited:
Unfortunately yes, without a suitable measurement nothing can be defined as real.
Your perceptions are fantasy.
Joking aside, I agree, it has to be repeatable and confirmed.
At the same time we should accept the reality of what we perceive even if we still cannot explain it with equations and measurements.
Clueless as usual.
I was not pointing to the absolute precision of the target location (that's another guidance system), but the relative precision at the target. For example, a guided missile has a precision to target of, say, 50ft. radius. This radius is determined, among others, by the phase noise of the clock, since it introduces a random variable in the process. Since the Central Limit Theorem applies, the sum of all the independent random variables (and there are quite a few) is converging to a normal distribution (aka Gaussian, aka Bell curve). One less random variable lowers the standard deviation, therefore the precision (say, 3 sigma) is increased to, for example, a 30ft. radius. For a bunker buster missile, that would be a huge improvement in efficiency.
Same with GPS, currently it's about 10ft. precision, could get down to say 5ft. Where those 10ft. or 5 ft. are located with respect to an absolute coordinate system, that's a different story, and indeed depends on the long term precision. But this was not what I had in mind.
Happy listening!
Not the best instrument but you are on the right way.🙂
I'm sorry but I can't accept the claim that DACs are all the same, because I know it's not so.
So I am led to think that it is a problem related to the ability to perceive music as it really is, that is, as in a live concert.
BTW, keep it up guys, now that we set aside pataphysics, the entertainment value is priceless.
So it's not long term, flop-kaboom, reference in that case. How about shock and vibration optimisations in that case? I haven't seen Andrea specifying those.
Anyway, it's a guess if its suited for all those other specs, besides PN.
i suppose you have the study that shows the effect of clock jitter on missiles...?
Vibrations are a real issue, they affect a lot the close in PN and generate spurious.
Even the air motion.
I measured this!😀
Last edited: