The reference is a mic signal or multiple mic signals mixed together, evaluated, processed and reproduced over two loudspeakers in an acoustically treated control room.
The topic of this thread is about "DDR"; this is the point here.
In above quoted post involving wire choice the assertion is made from your use of the term "DDR" that your wire choice is based on the assessment of "DDR" for various types of wire and that you use wire with the highest value of "DDR" for the wires you have tested. Is this correct?
Now you are just trolling. We are discussion the phenomenom that is described by DDR, not the term.
dave
Bam! Game over!
Since when did the recorded and processed signal become the reference.
Case dismissed.
Every device in your hifi chain has a level of DDR.
Long before Allen Wright introduced me to the term DDR, Julian Vereker (founder of NAIM) left me with an important gem of wisdom. I paraphrase.
More often than not it is the subtle detail that is lost due to insufficient DDR.
dave
Can 'DDR' be measured? If not then the term is of no value. It's like saying 'it didn't sound good because it didn't sound good'.
That was around 1930 when stereo reproduction was invented
Let it go on record then that Pnix considers recorded music as his reference against which he assesses system or component performance.
Its not surprising that you have become so focussed on some of the measurement issues as there is a fundamental difference in world view between you and some of those you are arguing with.
In this industry there are objectivists / technologists, music lovers, and audiophiles (allowing for the derogatory usage that is found here in diyaudio).
The music lover group care about the enjoyment of the music ahead of all else, and use live music as their reference.
Isn't this the point of this hobby? To create a sense of realism to enable an emotional engagement with the artist's performance?
You are saying that CAT5 wire has higher DDR than 14 gauge stranded copper wire? Is it correct to assume that you assessed this by listening tests, since you've stated that no adequate methods of direct measurement are available for direct measurement of DDR?
I'm happy with a concept like DDR when applied to transducers, but I can't see it fitting with a conductor.
In its simpliest form it must be, it is the bottom limit of the dynamic range.
I would like to see a clear measure of that for speakers.
dave
Only requires one example to show the falsehood of that assertion.
If people were not complaining about jitter before the term was invented and tests were developed to measre to it, it would not have been quantified.
dave
Everything in the chain has a dynamic range, hence a lower limit, so has a DDR. With a conductor it is usually larger than everywhere else so it is rarely a problem, but if it can't handle the required current, or has some unusual properties, or perturbs the amplifier or is say a real nasty conductor it will have DDR that will intrude. Taken to the extreme limit of that last is a conductor that is an insulator. In a very high resolution system, a conductor that is not as good as the rest of the chain, could well get in the way.
dave
I think you've weakened your case in the eye of the objectivists, and a few who might have been supportive of you, by going down this path.
I'd say the limits imposed by a conductor would be able to be quantified without invoking DDR. They could be characterised by the usual units... resistance, capacitance, inductance.
Assuming that these parameters are not of significance in a given application the conductor would effectively have a dynamic range capability way beyond anything else in the system. And I can't see a mechanism that would lead to fine details being obscured in the presence of a large signal.
Usually the case. But if you look at any cable thread you will see that it can get long and get divisive fast on that last bit.
I prefer to stay out of the cable wars, but will comment on what i have found best to work in my system. It is important to remember, for speaker cables especially, what works best is quite system dependent.
dave
In my view, you've weakened your case by baiting him into it with a textbook strawman argument. Cables, really.
I don't have anything else I'd care to add to this thread.
I'll admit to hearing clear differences between cables, but I don't think I'd refer to them being DDR in the sense that might apply to a transducer.
And I agree, it's a discussion to stay away from.
OK, as long was we are not going to get dragged into a cables war, I'll bite.
Though I personally am fine with simply using the term 'resolution', DDR as a term makes a certain amount of sense, and is arguably more specific as to the type of resolution. I think it is related to but different from both dynamic range and signal to noise, both well known concepts. It is perhaps most closely related to if in fact not the same thing as auditory masking. pnix linked recently to a nice article on it in wikipedia, but we seem to have drawn opposite conclusions. (?)
Regarding the idea that if it cannot be measured it doesn't exist, that's not a reasonable argument if you look at it closely. 50 or 60 years ago, most of what we measure today was not measurable, does that mean it did not exist? Clearly some speaker systems of that vintage were better than others.
Though I personally am fine with simply using the term 'resolution', DDR as a term makes a certain amount of sense, and is arguably more specific as to the type of resolution. I think it is related to but different from both dynamic range and signal to noise, both well known concepts. It is perhaps most closely related to if in fact not the same thing as auditory masking. pnix linked recently to a nice article on it in wikipedia, but we seem to have drawn opposite conclusions. (?)
Regarding the idea that if it cannot be measured it doesn't exist, that's not a reasonable argument if you look at it closely. 50 or 60 years ago, most of what we measure today was not measurable, does that mean it did not exist? Clearly some speaker systems of that vintage were better than others.