Behold had a prototype playing in Munich. The one that I saw had a Benz Glider installed, rather than a ClearAudio. It was an interesting stunt, but given the lack of any electrical shielding around the ADC board, it could be difficult obtaining electrical standards approval.
Behold also had a digital preamp and power amp. I was told that the signal remains fully switching throughout the preamp and front end of power amp, but that the power amp output stages were fully analog. 😀
hth, jonathan carr
Behold also had a digital preamp and power amp. I was told that the signal remains fully switching throughout the preamp and front end of power amp, but that the power amp output stages were fully analog. 😀
hth, jonathan carr
Christer said:
(off topic)
Digital Photography and I'm not called for?
1) They are not CCDs anymore, but CMOS today. Large
CCDs are utterly uneconomical. Large CMOS slightly less so.
I know ... my company makes the 14 megapixel devices that
go into Kodak's big SLRs.
2) 35mm chips indeed exist but are used in only a fraction of
DSLRs. Presently only the one big Canon (11MP) and two Kodaks
(14 MP). Other DSLRs use smaller chips, APS format or less.
Feel free to ask any questions, preferrably in private.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
And also because digital audio is already pushing the limits of what is possible. In my view the 24-bit 192 kHz CODECS are almost "fake" since the effective precision is much lower.
In "real" (non-audio) applications you hardly ever use ADC with more than 22 bits and they are really slow (mS), in part because you have to integrate for a long time in order to reduce noise o r otherwise the extra bits would be useless.
There would simply be no point in making a 32-bit DAC, the last 13-14 bits or so would just be noise. You would need a resolution of less than one nV which is much below the level of the thermal noise in the system.
In "real" (non-audio) applications you hardly ever use ADC with more than 22 bits and they are really slow (mS), in part because you have to integrate for a long time in order to reduce noise o r otherwise the extra bits would be useless.
There would simply be no point in making a 32-bit DAC, the last 13-14 bits or so would just be noise. You would need a resolution of less than one nV which is much below the level of the thermal noise in the system.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------Havoc said:
All points to ear being very sensitive. Dynamic range is huge and you can hear into noise.
---------------------------------------------------------sreten said:
And they talk about Brits being negative - must be the papers.
fmak said:
Compatibility is always an issue, and you always have that into account before liberating any new development/product.
You can's ask people to always chenge their hardware just because you have a new software/disc with more resolution.
Analog TV is basically the same for decades, because it's an airwave transmission and a standard (several, in fact) that affects everyone.
But at your home, in your PC, you can have the best videocard and the best monitor and the maximum resolution.
And you can record your music in the resolution you like, as long as your soundcard is compatible.
But don't expect that to see software for sale with audio at that resolution.
Most people would not buy it, because of hardware limitations.
So, evolution always has a limitation, and that is compatibility.
It's not by hazard that a DVD player plays audio CDs (CD-DA).
🙂
fmak said:
Can't say I have ever encountered these beasts but suppose for an instant the whole video industry suffered a collective rush of blood to the head and leapt from 10bit to 32bit video. Have you considered the storage and processing implications of this?
That maybe the only way to bring digital addict into analog. If that work than it's a great idea cause the more we will be the more vinyl will be press ( hopefully!)
But i wouldn'T be interested to scew my analog into digital.
Daniel
But i wouldn'T be interested to scew my analog into digital.
Daniel
Hi,
Fmak probably just meant 32 bit colur rendering.
Which nothing more than True Colour and is as common as mud nowadays.
Maybe I'm wrong though...
Cheers,😉
Fmak probably just meant 32 bit colur rendering.
Which nothing more than True Colour and is as common as mud nowadays.
Maybe I'm wrong though...
Cheers,😉
Tobbe_L said:
Interesting take. What would your opinion be on what a realistic maximum resolution in audio? Given a realistic notice to real world noise floors in audio equipment.
How much is really needed to capture the audio signal, with all its harmonics, interactions, delays, etc.?
Back to digitizing the audio signal at the headshell. I do like the idea of signal control at the headshell, it makes sense. RIAA and amplification right off the bat makes for easier signal transmission down the wire. But why digital?
Interesting take. What would your opinion be on what a realistic maximum resolution in audio? Given a realistic notice to real world noise floors in audio equipment.
How much is really needed to capture the audio signal, with all its harmonics, interactions, delays, etc.?
Back to digitizing the audio signal at the headshell. I do like the idea of signal control at the headshell, it makes sense. RIAA and amplification right off the bat makes for easier signal transmission down the wire. But why digital? [/B][/QUOTE]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You would want to remove the temporal and resolution issues imposed by the digital/analog filters. You would also want actual resolution to be as close to 24 bit or more. One problem is that digital audio mostly depend on cheap chips made by 3 chip makers, and one cannot really contrrol what is inside. dCS equipment sound way better because of it's own softeware for digital processing and you can really hear the differences in sample fredquency, bit depth, and type of filter in their equipment. Another unit where the digital filter controls sound is the Sony SCD1/777ES.
How much is really needed to capture the audio signal, with all its harmonics, interactions, delays, etc.?
Back to digitizing the audio signal at the headshell. I do like the idea of signal control at the headshell, it makes sense. RIAA and amplification right off the bat makes for easier signal transmission down the wire. But why digital? [/B][/QUOTE]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You would want to remove the temporal and resolution issues imposed by the digital/analog filters. You would also want actual resolution to be as close to 24 bit or more. One problem is that digital audio mostly depend on cheap chips made by 3 chip makers, and one cannot really contrrol what is inside. dCS equipment sound way better because of it's own softeware for digital processing and you can really hear the differences in sample fredquency, bit depth, and type of filter in their equipment. Another unit where the digital filter controls sound is the Sony SCD1/777ES.
johnkramer said:
I'm now thinking...
you'll have to pass PSU wires for this thing inside the arm.
Next to the sensitive and non-shielded thin wires.
fmak said:
Have you heard the SCD1 playing CDs?
Just horrible.
There are better 100 Euros CDPs ou there.
Yes, it's those 5-bit
delta-sigma dacs.Even DSD is transformed to 5 bits.
Then there's oversampling, noise-shaping and all kinds of tricks to get somewhere near 20 bits , and with huge distortion and noise at high frequencies.
SACD has more distortion at 20khz than CD.
You're right, digital filter artifacts dominate here.
I'm not saying the format is bad, it just has many more years of evolution ahead.
Doesn't convince me yet.
And the truth is I couldn't bear to listen to two CDs of mine on an SCD1.
Bass was simply indistinguishable, a continuous tone.
A very JITTERY presentation.😀
Those discs are my favourite for tests, just a few seconds playing and you know if you're listening the good or the s**t.😀
BTW instead of making SACD players with pure 1-bit DSD dacs, manufacturers are using 5-bit delta-sigmas.
Go figure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------carlosfm said:
I'm now thinking...
Next to the sensitive and non-shielded thin wires.
Have you heard the SCD1 playing CDs?
Just horrible.
There are better 100 Euros CDPs ou there.
Yes, it's those 5-bit
Even DSD is transformed to 5 bits.
Then there's oversampling, noise-shaping and all kinds of tricks to get somewhere near 20 bits , and with huge distortion and noise at high frequencies.
SACD has more distortion at 20khz than CD.
You're right, digital filter artifacts dominate here.
I'm not saying the format is bad, it just has many more years of evolution ahead.
Doesn't convince me yet.
And the truth is I couldn't bear to listen to two CDs of mine on an SCD1.
Bass was simply indistinguishable, a continuous tone.
A very JITTERY presentation.😀
Those discs are my favourite for tests, just a few seconds playing and you know if you're listening the good or the s**t.😀
BTW instead of making SACD players with pure 1-bit DSD dacs, manufacturers are using 5-bit delta-sigmas.
Go figure.
You may believe this but to me it is nonsense. There are many high end users happy with the SCD1 and 777, especially modified like mine.
Just read the test reports before you make silly remarks like jitter and lack of bass. The SCD1/777 has very low jitter and is known for good bass.
Your 100 euro CDs must have come from mars.
fmak said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may believe this but to me it is nonsense. There are many high end users happy with the SCD1 and 777, especially modified like mine.
Just read the test reports before you make silly remarks like jitter and lack of bass. The SCD1/777 has very low jitter and is known for good bass.
Your 100 euro CDs must have come from mars.
Hey, I didn't talk of lack of bass.
I said bad bass, quantity but not quality.
The SCD1 in question was NOT MODIFIED .
And I was talking about the standard SCD1 playing CDs.
Clear?
It's crap, sorry.
Don't believe the hype.
Listen and judge.
BTW, I don't care what reviews say.
When I listened to this thing with CDs I didn't want to believe, but I listened and listened and... CRAP!
carlosfm said:
Hey, I didn't talk of lack of bass.
I said bad bass, quantity but not quality.
The SCD1 in question was NOT MODIFIED .
And I was talking about the standard SCD1 playing CDs.
Clear?
It's crap, sorry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, either your system is crap or you are talking crap
If I remember correctly, you like the NE5534. This tells a lot.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.