That's what I meant....dither shape the noise to mimic the noise spectrum of phono...or tape..or a well damped room or a rainforest even.
DSP gurus - is this doable?.
Eric.
Dither is applied at the 'recording' (encoding) stage, whereas the other examples you mention only apply at the D/A stage.
Depends on how to define "nostalgia".
Hot tubs with dither added to blend-in farts still seem to be on the rise globally, though the Jacuzzi brothers may not enjoy the competition nowadays.
As one, grown up on a hot chili diet and a (highly needed) water bottle in the John, i fail to see why "modern" folks spend dollars on multi-nozzle massage showers, but lack an oil change pit.
Back when, i had to hop over to France to get a bidet for the bathroom, buying one overhere cost ten times as much.
Nowadays i've got both a fully automated one (that includes a monthly surprise prostate check-up) and a manual operated model, still plenty folks around who reckon it's for washing socks.
Same deal for TT and CD.
I have a relative who worked at the lab where and when the first Philips player was developed, thanks to a connection at Philips medical systems in Egg-hoven i've been enabled to be part of the pre-production demo crowd.
Mounting a puck or lowering the prick is same-same to me, and the CD transport i use looks pretty much identical to a turntable.
One of the best on the block, as if there's much of a choice these days, definitely the best looking around for folks with a strong distaste for gold fillings, imo.
Blow-out piccy added (being rather familiar with the manufacturer guy, brand label removed to avoid the impression of advertising)
I'd gladly retire both CD and TT, just not happy enough with the alternatives at current.
(then, me had hippie moments, but i adore anything that shoots. says who, one can't be somewhat of a democrat with a socialist itch, but distrust the government and totally and completely loathe law(yer) works. Or both worked operating rooms and ER, and got off on demolishing more folks than Sly did in his stage mind)
Attachments
I'm not sure - but as you sound so confident, let's see the evidence you have to support your view.
Jan,
according to my shrink, best way to shake periodic catholic choirboy virus attacks is to write it off.
Examples of that? Plenty of people choose magical thinking, not just in this sphere.
You're not curious to explore why you find that irritating? Why it suits you to deny what others say on a whim of merely 'finding it irritating' ? I agree, you're not such a hard-line objectivist after all, you're a fair-weather subjectivist because you dismiss what others say based on your own feelings rather than the veracity of their words. I can only suggest the age-old maxim of the Greeks - 'know thyself'.🙂
I originally wrote that doctors don't say that patients 'are imagining themselves better'. This is ambiguous in English - could be read two ways - so I qualified that doctors accept that placebo effects are real (i.e. not imagined) effects. You seem to take the view that placebo effects are imagined - i.e. that while patients say they're better, they're not. Do I read you correctly?
Indeed. Bias and emotion so often get in the way. I think this applies to a lot of people on this forum and others. It happens to the subjectivists as well, but they don't make the claim of being, well, "objective." 😉
This thread is getting really good.
Yes it's ambiguous.
No, I believe that there are actually physiological changes in patients that have received placebos, such that they actually are 'cured'. In that sense, I believe that this comes about from them 'imagining' that the placebo actually is a working medicine, that they are convinced that the placebo, which they think is actual medicine, will work.
I base this believe on research showing that 'believe' or 'imagining' can and does actually change people and chance their body state.
BTW This is not just limited to a placebo. ANY belief or imagining can and does change the 'body state' in concert with brain activity.
jan didden
What a strange, selective response to my post where I went to the trouble of telling you exactly why I was irritated, and very unusually around here what I know about my own personality - in the section you chose not to quote.
For anyone curious, here is the section that abraxalito chose to omit which follows on from the paragraph he quotes:
Now, does abraxalito's response to my post sound in any way appropriate?
This is a very peculiar place!
Edit: Abraxalito , looking again at my post, it does explain exactly why I was irritated, and that I do, indeed "know myself". Why did you write the response you did? It seems you are not alone either; Pano jumping in with "Yeah. What he said!". I am genuinely bemused by some of the people here.
Last edited:
@ Werner and dithering
The concept of dithering may appear artificial and contorted and non-purist to some. However, it is quite the contrary; it is used by both the eye and the ear to lift signals that would otherwise go unnoticed to above the threshold of detectability (the same trick is used in some artificial neural networks).
Everybody with working eyes and ears is or can become aware of this phenomena easily. When the light intensity dimishes, two effects will be noticed. First of all a gradual disappearance of colour, and second the onset of increasing amounts of noise. With hearing it is pretty much the same. The ear generates noise, which can be heard once the external sound level decreases below a certain point.
In short, from a purist point of view and taking into account the way we perceive sound, dithering is nothing more than mimicking nature.
The concept of dithering may appear artificial and contorted and non-purist to some. However, it is quite the contrary; it is used by both the eye and the ear to lift signals that would otherwise go unnoticed to above the threshold of detectability (the same trick is used in some artificial neural networks).
Everybody with working eyes and ears is or can become aware of this phenomena easily. When the light intensity dimishes, two effects will be noticed. First of all a gradual disappearance of colour, and second the onset of increasing amounts of noise. With hearing it is pretty much the same. The ear generates noise, which can be heard once the external sound level decreases below a certain point.
In short, from a purist point of view and taking into account the way we perceive sound, dithering is nothing more than mimicking nature.
Ah, then it looks like we broadly agree after all. Thanks for the clarification 😀 That's not contradictory to my original meaning, rather you're offering up a plausible hypothesis for a mechanism.😎
'Went to the trouble' ? You mean you're not here because its fun to chat about such issues? If you're making sacrifices in posting here, then that's your loss - I suggest going and doing something more fulfilling. I did read the part that I snipped, and no, its not an answer to why you feel irritated. Rather its a description of some situations where the irritation occurs.
My mother whose own mother I think was from Yorkshire used to say 'There's nowt s'queer as folk' and I can't say as I disagree 😉
<edit> Just noticed your edit - feel free to PM me if you want to ask more questions - that kind of topic is not appropriate for this thread.
Last edited:
It appears you are still laboring under the delusion that people come to places like this to discuss issues with the goal to increase understanding and insight.
You'll get over it 😉
jan didden
Actually there is a great deal more of that here than on many forums - audio or otherwise. The S/N ratio here is rather better than most places.
For an increase of understanding and insight of human nature, marvelous population, the N/S in particular. 
- Status
- Not open for further replies.