Re: Re: Re: Re: Mp-3
they said the same thing about 20khz limit - actually most of us become deaf at about 16khz. But that hasn't prevent scores of people from hearing even into 100khz. They claim that anyway.
so it wouldn't surprise me if someday someone out of nowhere jumps out to say he can hear down to 256m bits.
Sure. It is so easy to make a claim but much harder to prove one. you know, that shannon kid didn't do nothing.
But audio seems to be an area that is not governed by the laws of physics anyway.
planet10 said:
they said the same thing about 20khz limit - actually most of us become deaf at about 16khz. But that hasn't prevent scores of people from hearing even into 100khz. They claim that anyway.
so it wouldn't surprise me if someday someone out of nowhere jumps out to say he can hear down to 256m bits.
planet10 said:
Sure. It is so easy to make a claim but much harder to prove one. you know, that shannon kid didn't do nothing.
But audio seems to be an area that is not governed by the laws of physics anyway.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mp-3
I never subscribed to that limit....the ear-brain is capable of detection of signal (maybe not straight sin waves) at much higher frequencies.
If we were to translate 20k the same as 21 to 24 bits then we would have 20 Mhz.
dave
tlf9999 said:
I never subscribed to that limit....the ear-brain is capable of detection of signal (maybe not straight sin waves) at much higher frequencies.
If we were to translate 20k the same as 21 to 24 bits then we would have 20 Mhz.
dave
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mp-3
nor does everyone to the 24bit theory.
Once you use personal believes in place of scientific facts that applie to all of us in general but not everyone of us specifically, you end up with countless artificial claims.
planet10 said:
nor does everyone to the 24bit theory.
Once you use personal believes in place of scientific facts that applie to all of us in general but not everyone of us specifically, you end up with countless artificial claims.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mp-3
It's not a 24 bit theory, its a 21 bit theory. 24 bits is just convienent from a computer point of view.
ie if we had the same margin of error for FR, and we belived that 20 kHz was fine, then that would be equivalent to a system capable of 20 Mhz... ie there is enuff margin that it is likely anything more than 24 bits is a no-care. It is important to have a higher bit rate internally because of floating point math.
At any rate the sampling frequency is a more imprtant factor than the bit depth.
dave
tlf9999 said:
It's not a 24 bit theory, its a 21 bit theory. 24 bits is just convienent from a computer point of view.
ie if we had the same margin of error for FR, and we belived that 20 kHz was fine, then that would be equivalent to a system capable of 20 Mhz... ie there is enuff margin that it is likely anything more than 24 bits is a no-care. It is important to have a higher bit rate internally because of floating point math.
At any rate the sampling frequency is a more imprtant factor than the bit depth.
dave
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mp-3
I am sure that's true.
have you thought about publishing that in Nature? or maybe rewriting all of the laws of physics based on your believes?
planet10 said:
I am sure that's true.
have you thought about publishing that in Nature? or maybe rewriting all of the laws of physics based on your believes?
Another example of the dim wit of tlf9999
I constantly see posts that are about as bright as a 5 watt bulb coming under the call sign of tlf9999.
I have a theory that it is a group of ( 9999? ) ex B**E want to be engineers that are mad at anything audio. And are so disgruntled at the system that they fail to see the forest for the trees.
IT'S ABOUT THE ENJOYMENT OF MUSIC!!!!!!!
(read yelled outloud )
not the perpetual downer that the tlf9999 entity is on
Mark
I constantly see posts that are about as bright as a 5 watt bulb coming under the call sign of tlf9999.
I have a theory that it is a group of ( 9999? ) ex B**E want to be engineers that are mad at anything audio. And are so disgruntled at the system that they fail to see the forest for the trees.
IT'S ABOUT THE ENJOYMENT OF MUSIC!!!!!!!
(read yelled outloud )
not the perpetual downer that the tlf9999 entity is on
Mark
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mp-3
I don't think they'd publish an analogy. What do the laws of physics have to do wih it? I certainly haven't suggested anything that would contrevene those.
dave
tlf9999 said:
I don't think they'd publish an analogy. What do the laws of physics have to do wih it? I certainly haven't suggested anything that would contrevene those.
dave
A plaintive olive branch
Hi tlf9999
Tell us something about your music system, or one you listen to a lot, that you LIKE!
Hi tlf9999
Tell us something about your music system, or one you listen to a lot, that you LIKE!
Hello Hugh,
Nice to see your good amp circuit....AKSA
I have seen some amps , in which VAS is driven from differential collector ->emitter follower -> VAS whereas like in yours and almost many other circuits There is no such emitter follwer in between differential collector and VAS....
I experimented with both ways and surprised to find out that the prototype without EF was sounding excellent and exceptionally transparent than the protoptype with EF stage.....
Could you please comment on this.....and also the use of a simple resistor rather than CCS on differential emitters yields very good sonics....Acc to you why is that so?
regards,
K a n w a r
Nice to see your good amp circuit....AKSA
I have seen some amps , in which VAS is driven from differential collector ->emitter follower -> VAS whereas like in yours and almost many other circuits There is no such emitter follwer in between differential collector and VAS....
I experimented with both ways and surprised to find out that the prototype without EF was sounding excellent and exceptionally transparent than the protoptype with EF stage.....
Could you please comment on this.....and also the use of a simple resistor rather than CCS on differential emitters yields very good sonics....Acc to you why is that so?
regards,
K a n w a r
TLF9999
"audio seems to be an area that is not governed by the laws of physics anyway."
At the reproduction stage, audio is entirely governed by the laws of physics, and very, very measureable At the preception stage, psychology becomes a dominant factor, particularly for those involved in Hi-Fi.
~~~~~~~~ Forr
§§§
"audio seems to be an area that is not governed by the laws of physics anyway."
At the reproduction stage, audio is entirely governed by the laws of physics, and very, very measureable At the preception stage, psychology becomes a dominant factor, particularly for those involved in Hi-Fi.
~~~~~~~~ Forr
§§§
I think more of us are angered by certain members, rather than enlightened by their 'superior' reasoning skills, and constant demand for proof in physical form......
...yet proof, when offered, is passed by unnoticed. Not even Susan Parker's Beautifully simple, testosterone - free design has been spared the picky criticism; which was brought on by totally missing the point.🙄
johnnyx said:
why shouldn't it? it is a beautiful design, but by no means a perfect design. By critism, we can improve up on it and make it better.
RAJ1
"I think more of us are angered by certain members, rather than enlightened by their 'superior' reasoning skills, and constant demand for proof in physical form......"
A faith which fears trials is not solidly based.
~~~~~~ Forr
§§§
"I think more of us are angered by certain members, rather than enlightened by their 'superior' reasoning skills, and constant demand for proof in physical form......"
A faith which fears trials is not solidly based.
~~~~~~ Forr
§§§
forr said:
that's why science isn't needed for audio: for some, it is FAITH that one amp/chip/transistor/topology/etc. sounds better than another.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mp-3
Give it a shot. You never know for sure until you have tried.
Because your refuse to accept the 20khz and your believe in the 21/24bit, without any solid science to back it up.
My point earlier is that science is generalization (or steretyping). It attempts to find something that fits us in generally but not specifically. Sony and Phillips have done a lot during the CD days to conclude that it was sufficient for a lot of us using 16bits and 44khz sampling.
That doesn't mean you will not hear any defact in CDs just that most of us will not. That is based on science.
Now, if you can provide evidence that a) we can resolve more than 16bits or b) we can hear well above 22khz, i am all ears.
Other than that, it is nothing but your personal gestimates. Valuable? yes. Credible? not exactly.
planet10 said:
Give it a shot. You never know for sure until you have tried.
planet10 said:
Because your refuse to accept the 20khz and your believe in the 21/24bit, without any solid science to back it up.
My point earlier is that science is generalization (or steretyping). It attempts to find something that fits us in generally but not specifically. Sony and Phillips have done a lot during the CD days to conclude that it was sufficient for a lot of us using 16bits and 44khz sampling.
That doesn't mean you will not hear any defact in CDs just that most of us will not. That is based on science.
Now, if you can provide evidence that a) we can resolve more than 16bits or b) we can hear well above 22khz, i am all ears.
Other than that, it is nothing but your personal gestimates. Valuable? yes. Credible? not exactly.
We should all look into a mirror and say that ten times!
Mr. TLF9999
The point made about the 21 versus 24 bits is firmly based on science. In fact it is wishfull thinking that all but the best designed DAC's will be able to resolve even 21 bits.
If you do a bit of digging into the theoryand more importantly the reality in circuit you will find the truth. Simple put anything below 21 bits is so vanishingly small in signal level that the voltage fluctuation that would be used to resolve it is buried in the noise floor of the DAC. Not really usefull.
There are few instruments that can be bought without a second mortgage that can resolve 24 bits. That includes almost every High End SACD player or what have you.
Science is not needed here.
The rule of the day is good old reality.
Reality bites us in the butt every time we overlook something as basic as background noise.
Mark
P.S. Tell us something that you enjoy related to sound reproduction!
Mr. TLF9999
The point made about the 21 versus 24 bits is firmly based on science. In fact it is wishfull thinking that all but the best designed DAC's will be able to resolve even 21 bits.
If you do a bit of digging into the theoryand more importantly the reality in circuit you will find the truth. Simple put anything below 21 bits is so vanishingly small in signal level that the voltage fluctuation that would be used to resolve it is buried in the noise floor of the DAC. Not really usefull.
There are few instruments that can be bought without a second mortgage that can resolve 24 bits. That includes almost every High End SACD player or what have you.
Science is not needed here.
The rule of the day is good old reality.
Reality bites us in the butt every time we overlook something as basic as background noise.
Mark
P.S. Tell us something that you enjoy related to sound reproduction!
Hi tlf9999,
Maybe you missed my previous posts soliciting your views or experiences with the enjoyment of audio. I made a mistake earlier...that of confusing an attitude you display with yourself. For that I am sorry. I should have been more specific, for all are welcome here. It is the tedium of response to issues which seem clear (or are willing to be accepted) that is tiring and unproductive.
You seem to feel the same way, to wit:
You seem to go to great lengths to find contradictions or points to pick (real or imagined) in the work of others when you might find cleaning up your own house more productive. You are great at asking questions. You pull responses from people just like a puppet master.
I'm sorry if you aren't happy. We can't do anything about that. A wise man has said that those who work the hardest at avoiding pain are the ones who experience it most.
Maybe you choose to ignore me now, if that is so, Thank You
Maybe you missed my previous posts soliciting your views or experiences with the enjoyment of audio. I made a mistake earlier...that of confusing an attitude you display with yourself. For that I am sorry. I should have been more specific, for all are welcome here. It is the tedium of response to issues which seem clear (or are willing to be accepted) that is tiring and unproductive.
You seem to feel the same way, to wit:
Mongo's italics
You seem to go to great lengths to find contradictions or points to pick (real or imagined) in the work of others when you might find cleaning up your own house more productive. You are great at asking questions. You pull responses from people just like a puppet master.
I'm sorry if you aren't happy. We can't do anything about that. A wise man has said that those who work the hardest at avoiding pain are the ones who experience it most.
Maybe you choose to ignore me now, if that is so, Thank You
Why in heaven's name are you folks letting yourselves be diverted?
When someone poses a question, sadly, we must often ask ourselves not only what the question is, but what is the real intent of the person posing the question. Are they seeking knowledge? Do they have a specific agenda? Are they motivated by some personality 'quirk'?
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=64554&perpage=10&pagenumber=1
as my Mama told me - Never wrestle with a pig. The pig enjoys it and you just get filthy.
When someone poses a question, sadly, we must often ask ourselves not only what the question is, but what is the real intent of the person posing the question. Are they seeking knowledge? Do they have a specific agenda? Are they motivated by some personality 'quirk'?
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=64554&perpage=10&pagenumber=1
as my Mama told me - Never wrestle with a pig. The pig enjoys it and you just get filthy.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.