John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#17,144
Chris Hornbeck said:
Special pleading involving the ears' perception should be applied to all noises, so wash out in this discussion.
Click to expand...
There are many types of noise, but you cannot lump correlated noise with uncorrelated noise.

Human hearing can perceive uncorrelated noise with concentration, but can also easily ignore it (speech being recognizable in the presence of a higher level of uncorrelated noise, thus negative S/N). Nature is full of uncorrelated noises. Correlated noise, though, is typically highly objectionable and rather difficult to ignore. Thus, pure quantization noise, from an undithered source, is quite grating. Granted, it may be difficult to find undithered digital recordings these days, but that doesn't mean you can treat all noise as the same.
 
#17,146
rsdio said:
There are many types of noise, but you cannot lump correlated noise with uncorrelated noise.

Human hearing can perceive uncorrelated noise with concentration, but can also easily ignore it (speech being recognizable in the presence of a higher level of uncorrelated noise, thus negative S/N). Nature is full of uncorrelated noises. Correlated noise, though, is typically highly objectionable and rather difficult to ignore. Thus, pure quantization noise, from an undithered source, is quite grating. Granted, it may be difficult to find undithered digital recordings these days, but that doesn't mean you can treat all noise as the same.
Click to expand...

True, but I was trying to be conservative. Typical room noises, the original point, are impulsive and obtrusive by comparison to dither. It's very hard to keep a discussion about anything digital on an apples-to-apples basis - it's subsumed by emotion.

Personally, I still have more than 50 feet of vinyl records, two Keith Monks record cleaning machines, and lotsa other analog street cred, so don't mind trying to defend the *concept* of digital storage in this hostile environs. Somebody's gotta!

Thanks,
Chris
 
#17,148
Chris Hornbeck said:
Typical room noises, the original point, are impulsive and obtrusive by comparison to dither. It's very hard to keep a discussion about anything digital on an apples-to-apples basis - it's subsumed by emotion.

Personally, I still have more than 50 feet of vinyl records, two Keith Monks record cleaning machines, and lotsa other analog street cred, so don't mind trying to defend the *concept* of digital storage in this hostile environs. Somebody's gotta!
Click to expand...
I like your phrasing. I own vinyl and expensive playback equipment, but it is not my preference because vinyl noise is "impulsive and obtrusive" by nature. A great number of humans seem perfectly capable of ignoring this noise. I find that a well-executed digital recording is much less obtrusive to my listening experience than vinyl.
 
#17,152
Last edited:
#17,155
#17,156
Joachim Gerhard said:
rsdio, maybe this is something for you. It claims to reduce clicks and pops plus hiss to nearly inaudible levels. It´s all analog and very expensive though. I have no idea how Manuel Huber is doing it. He thought about it at least since the 80th.
***:*:*** FM ACOUSTICS LTD. ***:*:***domestic products ***:*:***
Click to expand...
Which product? I see dozens on the linked page.

It's basically mathematically impossible (information theory) for single-ended noise reduction techniques to work for all material. Since digital audio does not involve pops and clicks, I'd rather focus on improving the minor issues with digital than get into gross techniques for vinyl.

P.S. I avoid SPDIF and AES3 for the same reasons. Why spend a lot of cash to fix a bad design when there are better designs available?
 
#17,157
Sorry I wasn't thinking, Zeno of Elea around 500BC has the best claim on inventing digital audio as we know it. Take a maximum goal and define a point between you and it by how many times you go half the distance. Forward is a one backward is a zero do it as many times (bits) as you want. A SAR A/D 2500 years ago. Joachim you miss the point computers have nothing to do with "digital" audio, they are simply our enabling technology of choice. About a month ago we discussed the DVM's that dialed up the input voltage with 10 position telephone relays.
 
Last edited:
#17,160
scott wurcer said:
Sorry I wasn't thinking, Zeno of Elea around 500BC has the best claim on inventing digital audio as we know it. Take a maximum goal and define a point between you and it by how many times you go half the distance. Forward is a one backward is a zero do it as many times (bits) as you want. A SAR A/D 2500 years ago.
Click to expand...

We (and bacteria) reproduce in binary, although it's pretty quiet so maybe can't be considered audio. But it is reproduction:

Flanders And Swann ~ Song Of Reproduction ~ (1957) - YouTube

Thanks,
Chris
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom