For JC.... Quantum effects put to good use:
Raytheon: Think faster: advantages of quantum processing shown in head-to-head race - Scientists show a clear advantage to a prototype quantum processor over a classical processor in solving a machine learning algorithm
-RM
Raytheon: Think faster: advantages of quantum processing shown in head-to-head race - Scientists show a clear advantage to a prototype quantum processor over a classical processor in solving a machine learning algorithm
-RM
Last edited:
The application to audio? Maybe coopting the word and pasting it into your marketing BS?
Hi all. Just poking my head in here after casually reading here and there for some time. As a non-EE and novice hobbyist most of this is far too over my head, so it's more for me like watching a multi-year long fencing match.
However, I did come across something that might have interest to you all and I have a quick question if John would be so kind.
I came across what appears to be an unused (or at least completely pristine) SOTA head amplifier with all the paperwork and sundries. Serial number 295 stickers still there looking sharp. Was really blown away that it all just seemed in time capsule condition.
However, upon opening it up unnoticed a crack in the D battery holder and the professional D batteries I purchased don't seem to fit inside either. I'm wondering if someone botched a retrofitting of this holder, or if its original? From the pics I see on the internet the battery holders looked differently. Perhaps this was a later design change or perhaps this had to do with why it was stored so long unused?
Have D batteries really changed in size over the years? If so that kind of defeats the purpose of having a standard.
If I go through the effort to get the battery clip straightened out, would it be worthwhile to replace those caps? About 30 years old at this point I'd imagine?
Anyhow, I thought some photos might have some relevance or just be an interesting time capsule shot for you all.
And John if the physics you are discussing is quantum mechanics, I too would like to see a quantum DAC or chipset. Except I'd rather not have to turn my listening area into a cryogenic chamber in order to cool it effectively. But maybe it would convince me to stop lugging around all these LPs, which would really lighten my life up. As always, have to weigh those pros and cons ;-)
In addition I saw you made some kind of call for enthusiastic novices / guinea pigs? I'll take the bait if you aren't getting any action.
However, I did come across something that might have interest to you all and I have a quick question if John would be so kind.
I came across what appears to be an unused (or at least completely pristine) SOTA head amplifier with all the paperwork and sundries. Serial number 295 stickers still there looking sharp. Was really blown away that it all just seemed in time capsule condition.
However, upon opening it up unnoticed a crack in the D battery holder and the professional D batteries I purchased don't seem to fit inside either. I'm wondering if someone botched a retrofitting of this holder, or if its original? From the pics I see on the internet the battery holders looked differently. Perhaps this was a later design change or perhaps this had to do with why it was stored so long unused?
Have D batteries really changed in size over the years? If so that kind of defeats the purpose of having a standard.
If I go through the effort to get the battery clip straightened out, would it be worthwhile to replace those caps? About 30 years old at this point I'd imagine?
Anyhow, I thought some photos might have some relevance or just be an interesting time capsule shot for you all.
And John if the physics you are discussing is quantum mechanics, I too would like to see a quantum DAC or chipset. Except I'd rather not have to turn my listening area into a cryogenic chamber in order to cool it effectively. But maybe it would convince me to stop lugging around all these LPs, which would really lighten my life up. As always, have to weigh those pros and cons ;-)
In addition I saw you made some kind of call for enthusiastic novices / guinea pigs? I'll take the bait if you aren't getting any action.
On the subject of amplifier technology, it seems a little odd to me that with all the people here apparently interested high performance audio, so far no one has claimed to hear any differences in A/D converter files I posted a couple of times.
Also, recently when we tried listening to some cymbal files, it later came out that at least some people are using old, low cost converters, or even whatever sound card came with a laptop computer.
And many people seem to have little or no interest in learning to hear, or to notice, defects of sound, such as low level distortion.
So, the thing is, I'm having some trouble reconciling things that in some way kind of seem to be at odds with each other.
I guess it would all make sense if we consist mostly of a bunch of techie types, who happen to like music too. But maybe we don't want to succumb to what we think can only be audiophile foolishness. Like, surely any laptop with 75dB THD+N should be perfectly good to hear anything that can be heard (with a possible substitution of the exact number to coincide with whatever equipment we already have).
Why all this now? It's because I don't think either of the sides in the polemics here have it exactly right. Sure, technology keeps improving, and distortion keeps getting lower. And, Sure, some distortion stuff that is often claimed to be below the threshold of hearing by old research isn't below everybody's threshold, but maybe some is.
But we don't even have people here in the forum who can hear the difference between high quality 24-bit and 16-bit audio. Of course, some of that could be due to Windows playing games with SRC, but some of it must have to do with less than SOA equipment. Doesn't it?
Is there anybody here with a good reproduction system who seriously believes properly dithered 16-bit sounds as good as 24-bit?
Also, recently when we tried listening to some cymbal files, it later came out that at least some people are using old, low cost converters, or even whatever sound card came with a laptop computer.
And many people seem to have little or no interest in learning to hear, or to notice, defects of sound, such as low level distortion.
So, the thing is, I'm having some trouble reconciling things that in some way kind of seem to be at odds with each other.
I guess it would all make sense if we consist mostly of a bunch of techie types, who happen to like music too. But maybe we don't want to succumb to what we think can only be audiophile foolishness. Like, surely any laptop with 75dB THD+N should be perfectly good to hear anything that can be heard (with a possible substitution of the exact number to coincide with whatever equipment we already have).
Why all this now? It's because I don't think either of the sides in the polemics here have it exactly right. Sure, technology keeps improving, and distortion keeps getting lower. And, Sure, some distortion stuff that is often claimed to be below the threshold of hearing by old research isn't below everybody's threshold, but maybe some is.
But we don't even have people here in the forum who can hear the difference between high quality 24-bit and 16-bit audio. Of course, some of that could be due to Windows playing games with SRC, but some of it must have to do with less than SOA equipment. Doesn't it?
Is there anybody here with a good reproduction system who seriously believes properly dithered 16-bit sounds as good as 24-bit?
The bottomless can of worms. There are people (that I respect BTW) that think that 10W SET's and full range horns are the only possible system that anyone could take seriously. There is no such thing as a "good" reproduction system.
Let me elaborate, I first look at someone's taste and passion for music and their choices of what to listen to, their choice of system is secondary. In those that interest me I see no consensus of "good" reproduction at all.
Last edited:
Can't speak for others but in my own case, I read some DIYA-blowtorch messages more thoroughly and more carefully than other messages. I click the (internet hyper)links in some messages but not others. Often this has to do with who is the author of the message. Some writers get a greater share of my attention than others. There are only so many hours in the day. I can't speak for others.
But, if the D size battery doesn't fit, then they aren't D battery holders.
They could have been changed by the owner, or else during production,
with the "manual" not being updated.
Not so sure that's a good argument. If there are few wacky people, then there must not be any sane people?
How about we try looking at it from another perspective? Mastering engineers have to be able to hear what's on a record, because nobody knows what may or may not be reproduced on the many systems out there. It's their job to make sure no errors are left behind. To accomplish their work and stay in business, it seem unlikely that horns and SETs would suffice, or laptop computers.
So, my definition of a good system is one that lets a well trained listener with physiologically normal hearing, hear whatever is there that any other prospective listener might be able to hear. You know. And hopefully it doesn't sound bad either. Maybe you are simply suggesting I change my choice of terminology and not call it "good?"
Guilty, but I have a good excuse
I'm still in the 'remain to be convinced' camp. But the meta analysis does suggest at least some people can tell the difference. Whether this translates to 'goodness' is not obvious.
It has always sounded more detailed and less distorted (and less noisy) to me. Although it's not a big difference, it's still there. And if you like the music, and the recording was well made, then so far it has always sounded better to me.
On the other hand, I have heard mp3's that sound better than 16-bit CDs, when the recording was bad. Thankfully, the perceptual encoder apparently saw fit to dispose of some of the junk in the sound.
With respect to mastering I could mention the NS10 again, horrifying to my ears. In general the more passionate and complex the audience the less agreement on "good" you will have.
NS-10s are not for mastering! They were at one time used a lot for mixing though. Bad choice for mastering, as they have no bass, and they have other deficiencies as well.
But, they are very good very hearing certain things. And apparently, they are good enough to hear many types of distortion, despite whatever distortion they may add.
Part of their success probably has to do with the very tight time-domain response, but they are also good for judging and setting track balances in the difficult midrange frequencies.
Last edited:
You'uns that imply scientific insight that makes J.C.'s views outdated,
are yourselves wallowing in outdated Newtonian thought.
Reality (in modern physics (and thus physics itself)) is a fluid, mutable
essence. The ability of a piece of gear to reproduce past aural events
(assuming that as a goal) is controlled by the mind of the observer....
see : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tao_of_Physics
are yourselves wallowing in outdated Newtonian thought.
Reality (in modern physics (and thus physics itself)) is a fluid, mutable
essence. The ability of a piece of gear to reproduce past aural events
(assuming that as a goal) is controlled by the mind of the observer....
see : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tao_of_Physics
Not being in the biz I don't readily make the distinction, I wouldn't do anything with them but find someone else who wants them.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.