Hmmmm, everything is done digital nowadays because it is THE practical/economical method.
That does not mean that all digital recording is 'done right'.
Did it fool ALL people...I expect not.
Yes and no.
That's the thing/the catch.......dimming the lights and kicking back 'with a glass in one hand and <insert> in the other' and listening to the music draws attention to the system if the system is 'not right'.
And the better the system gets, the more apparent the system errors become......as the system development achieves quieter/clearer self performance, the original recording information is revealed all the better........BUT.......the discords/embellishments/diminutions and maskings caused by the not quite right system become more apparent....an interesting conundrum.
Diminution and defining of system self noise is the key to good sound.....ie control of the spectral/dynamic behaviour of the residual is the key to achieving a subjectively good outcome/reproduction.
Different wires/connectors/caps/resistors etc....is one method of defining the residual, BQP is another method of defining the residual.
There is other and better method available.
Dan.
Grammar Nazi
Last edited:
I believe it was Jan that mentioned it on the JC thread, and yes it fooled everybody I believe.
From my own experience in the electronics world, if components, wires etc have such an effect on a system then it is not very well designed.
As to digital, its like the clarity and resolution that can be achieved by todays digital cameras and lenses, the same with music, there is more their to hear, more resolution, and possibly it is all that extra information that some cant handle...
Do todays high resolution pictures hurt your eyes... I know many use software to recue the resolution and create the effects of old film stock for its artistic effect (subjective) as I do, but it does not make them better pictures.
You love tempting my dark side with mentions of the scam device, I refuse to bite as Destroyer OS has said I get to excited....
But I have been looking at the similarities that digital is bringing to both photography and audio in terms of increased resolution... The pictures taken with a Sigma 50mm f1.4 art lens on a high resolution camera are astounding and full of detail, yet in some instances deliberate blurring of the image makes a more subjectively pleasing photo....
From my own experience in the electronics world, if components, wires etc have such an effect on a system then it is not very well designed.
As to digital, its like the clarity and resolution that can be achieved by todays digital cameras and lenses, the same with music, there is more their to hear, more resolution, and possibly it is all that extra information that some cant handle...
Do todays high resolution pictures hurt your eyes... I know many use software to recue the resolution and create the effects of old film stock for its artistic effect (subjective) as I do, but it does not make them better pictures.
You love tempting my dark side with mentions of the scam device, I refuse to bite as Destroyer OS has said I get to excited....
But I have been looking at the similarities that digital is bringing to both photography and audio in terms of increased resolution... The pictures taken with a Sigma 50mm f1.4 art lens on a high resolution camera are astounding and full of detail, yet in some instances deliberate blurring of the image makes a more subjectively pleasing photo....
Unbelievable lol.....seriously too.
I'm talking about subtle consequential effects of component/layout non linearities...if the residual is zero then yes of course.......real world says there will be some kind of residual.
For typical audio systems, that extra resolution and dynamics can change/cause more objectionable system residuals.
That's called affecting/effecting in the pro audio world.
BQP is an affect/effect device...the website blurb is another matter....total scam ?, NO, BQP does alter system sound.
Affect/effect.
I get to PB recordings of musos that I know the live/actual sound of...the cleaner the REC/PB system the closer you get to the real thing....blurring things can sorta sound ok.
Dan.
More on modulation. FM audio receivers have 50 KHz steps, because channel bandwidth must be at least as large as signal bandwidth, which is 2 (for stereo) * 15 KHz = 30 KHz. This holds true for AM, too. AM has only 7 KHz bandwidth, so channels may be narrower.
I doubt, that Compacts Discs had greater information bandwidth than vinyl discs. Digital stress is partly due to the fact, that Sony and Philips swept proven analogue technics and related wisdom such as Magnetic Theorem --make fsample at least 2*Pi*fsignal-- off the table in order to obtain working space for their new stuff.
I doubt, that Compacts Discs had greater information bandwidth than vinyl discs. Digital stress is partly due to the fact, that Sony and Philips swept proven analogue technics and related wisdom such as Magnetic Theorem --make fsample at least 2*Pi*fsignal-- off the table in order to obtain working space for their new stuff.
Last edited:
That's not how FM works, you know. Bessel functions are involved. Frequency deviation of the carrier isn't just equal to the highest modulation frequency.
-Gnobuddy
What a load of rubbish...
Read my comment on digital photography its the same there, digital photography is overtaking analogue in terms of resolution and sharpness... the same with audio only for a longer period.
And if that don't convince you go look at ATLAS (CERN)
Last edited:
Max I will not discuss the scam product any more, your continuing support of such a product is disappointing. Like I have said previously it appears only in the audio world because real engineers laugh at it and its claims (and that includes cutting edge submarine project).
Of course if you can find proof to counter the measurements done by Sy and others t hen i will listen but after nearly 8 years I don't hold any hope of any appearing, and now he's moved into crystals, and restricted compounds cant be sold to the general public.....
But analoge playback from an LP is blurring compared to a digital recording the analogy stands.....
Of course if you can find proof to counter the measurements done by Sy and others t hen i will listen but after nearly 8 years I don't hold any hope of any appearing, and now he's moved into crystals, and restricted compounds cant be sold to the general public.....
But analoge playback from an LP is blurring compared to a digital recording the analogy stands.....
Haha, keep your shirt on brother.
I have never endorsed BQP, and I don't.
I have indeed said that BQP does affect/effect system sound and I stand by that finding.
Dan.
I have never endorsed BQP, and I don't.
I have indeed said that BQP does affect/effect system sound and I stand by that finding.
Dan.
If you doubt that, I guess you have a method to calculate or guesstimate the information bandwidth in each medium, to conclude one is larger (or not) than the other?
Can you explain the method you used?
Jan
"Is this supposed to be parody?"
No, but it is, nonetheless.
"Haha, keep your shirt on brother.
I have never endorsed BQP, and I don't.
I have indeed said that BQP does affect/effect system sound and I stand by that finding."
And, of course, you will post evidence for this assertion? I probably won't see it though; the Ignore List makes far more sense than reading unsustainable assertions in breach of evidence to the contrary.
No, but it is, nonetheless.
"Haha, keep your shirt on brother.
I have never endorsed BQP, and I don't.
I have indeed said that BQP does affect/effect system sound and I stand by that finding."
And, of course, you will post evidence for this assertion? I probably won't see it though; the Ignore List makes far more sense than reading unsustainable assertions in breach of evidence to the contrary.
Last edited:
I fear not. He really is as confused about electronics as he appears to be. If it was intended to be parody it would surely be funnier?SY said:
so misguided.... and so wrong to be unbelievable, reality does not support your view.
Let me ask all you that have this thing against sighted digital being fatiguing, would you ditch your modern hi-res digital TV and go back to the wonderful world of analogue TV...
I know I wouldn't....
Its not a parody is a sad repeat of the usual digital is bad, analogue is better, just another misplaced belief that some have.... I enjoy both and don't get so worked up. it must be so frustrating if you have convinced yourself that digital give you listening fatigue, you'll never enjoy it because before the first note hits your ears you have set yourself up for a disappointment...
Let me ask all you that have this thing against sighted digital being fatiguing, would you ditch your modern hi-res digital TV and go back to the wonderful world of analogue TV...
I know I wouldn't....
Its not a parody is a sad repeat of the usual digital is bad, analogue is better, just another misplaced belief that some have.... I enjoy both and don't get so worked up. it must be so frustrating if you have convinced yourself that digital give you listening fatigue, you'll never enjoy it because before the first note hits your ears you have set yourself up for a disappointment...
That depends what conclusion you wish to reach.
Some DAC's stress me out, being edgy and clinical. While others very analog detailed and sweetness. I would like to offer some blind listening tests with current dac/pre power amp and speakers, streaming audio and SACD and CD. Even during long listening sessions I don't feel a trace of stress, just the opposite.
Good parody is difficult to write, and even more difficult in a second language. Poe's Law is ever-present. I'm still not convinced that this isn't that case here.
Maybe soon he will tell us that he has spent his life designing radio receivers, and some of them have sold extremely well so he must be right.
Perfect, I can bring my turntable, I have lot of freetime.
I live in Ottawa, are you reasonable close driving distance?
I listen to classical music 99% of the time
- Status
- Not open for further replies.