Hmm, yea... they must have been a bit "unlucky" when they wrote that part. Temp changes the "group delay" I suppose. But the rest is good.
//
Attachments
Last edited:
The telecom/cellular industry runs on well filtered SMPS from 250 watts to 100 kW at 24,48, 120, and 240 VDC. Output and input EMI conducted and radiated are both low and units are paralleled for redundancy and capacity. The pricing is too high for application in audio.
Here is a picture of the high end type of this type of product with internal AC transfer switch between 2 AC sources, an internal 30 kva dual electrostatically shielded front end transformer, 3 phase 6 kW switch mode rectifiers running in parallel with less than 1 watt of electrical noise, DC dual paralleled lithium ion 125 VDC batteries, paralleled 1 kva inverters, DC and AC distribution panel with SNMP and Web monitoring of all functions. It is one of the first industrial applications of large size lithium ion batteries in the U.S.
Here is a picture of the high end type of this type of product with internal AC transfer switch between 2 AC sources, an internal 30 kva dual electrostatically shielded front end transformer, 3 phase 6 kW switch mode rectifiers running in parallel with less than 1 watt of electrical noise, DC dual paralleled lithium ion 125 VDC batteries, paralleled 1 kva inverters, DC and AC distribution panel with SNMP and Web monitoring of all functions. It is one of the first industrial applications of large size lithium ion batteries in the U.S.
Attachments
Where's the beef?
Agree it remains wrong. To this, I am willing to offer a challenge.
Proof, where is the proof. I am willing to consider this when the total playing time from the cue sheet, the total published track time, the time on the playback display, and an actual atomic clock disagree by more than 1/100th of a second, and by this I'm using a 32nd (!) note recorded at the tempo of 240bpm for a measuring stick - which is wicked fast for a composition and usually only shows up on a percussion score for the snare drum. My old metronome only goes up 208 BPM.
The likelihood of a credible sample with that level of tolerance means that a statistically significant variation with reproducible results is completely unexpected.
As a former brass player, I can agree that a rise in temperature can affect pitch. But this has nothing to do with playback tempo variance at this level of observation.
Let's look at how this could be heard, in real life. In an actual performance, say an outdoor marching band at an american Football game. (Yes, this is an absurd comparison) Everyone on marching on a football field, all 100 plus performers keep the same clock, i.e. tempo going in their head to stay on tempo being led by the conductor. Even with the natural variation from player to player yes tighter synchronization leads to a better final result but this is due to playback from multiple sources, in this case greater than 100.
In this case, our performer (an audio source e.g. FIFO) is only one performer being given instructions regulated by one tempo source (whatever frequency that might be) but from moment to moment a slight amount of error is still corrected in that moment and does not change the pitch (in part, I am willing to guess out loud because it does not reorder its output based on a variation of that much, and since I don't know how it works at the transistor level, I don't know if it even is capable of reacting to a change).
Case in point when you give a computer conflicting instructions, it stops working:
If you can "hear" a 32nd note's difference at 240 bpm, count yourselves one of the best ears of all time. Tchaikovsky, eat your heart out.
Agree it remains wrong. To this, I am willing to offer a challenge.
Proof, where is the proof. I am willing to consider this when the total playing time from the cue sheet, the total published track time, the time on the playback display, and an actual atomic clock disagree by more than 1/100th of a second, and by this I'm using a 32nd (!) note recorded at the tempo of 240bpm for a measuring stick - which is wicked fast for a composition and usually only shows up on a percussion score for the snare drum. My old metronome only goes up 208 BPM.
The likelihood of a credible sample with that level of tolerance means that a statistically significant variation with reproducible results is completely unexpected.
As a former brass player, I can agree that a rise in temperature can affect pitch. But this has nothing to do with playback tempo variance at this level of observation.
Let's look at how this could be heard, in real life. In an actual performance, say an outdoor marching band at an american Football game. (Yes, this is an absurd comparison) Everyone on marching on a football field, all 100 plus performers keep the same clock, i.e. tempo going in their head to stay on tempo being led by the conductor. Even with the natural variation from player to player yes tighter synchronization leads to a better final result but this is due to playback from multiple sources, in this case greater than 100.
In this case, our performer (an audio source e.g. FIFO) is only one performer being given instructions regulated by one tempo source (whatever frequency that might be) but from moment to moment a slight amount of error is still corrected in that moment and does not change the pitch (in part, I am willing to guess out loud because it does not reorder its output based on a variation of that much, and since I don't know how it works at the transistor level, I don't know if it even is capable of reacting to a change).
Case in point when you give a computer conflicting instructions, it stops working:
If you can "hear" a 32nd note's difference at 240 bpm, count yourselves one of the best ears of all time. Tchaikovsky, eat your heart out.
Last edited:
Dick did you mean pedal or is this some word play we non-native speakers don't get??
Jan
If that .pdf is acceptable as a white paper, then I am glad I didn't print it because I already have a similar supply of paper in my own home. I discarded some of it this morning it piecemeal without further concern of its utility, and am certain that tomorrow, the same thing will happen.
This recalls the short letter to the newspaper editor from Max Reger, who was displeased about the negative review of one of his recently-premiered pieces.If that .pdf is acceptable as a white paper, then I am glad I didn't print it because I already have a similar supply of paper in my own home. I discarded some of it this morning it piecemeal without further concern of its utility, and am certain that tomorrow, the same thing will happen.
It read:
I am sitting in the smallest room in the house. I have your review before me. Soon it will be behind me.
There were many reasons to roll off the bass in RIAA/Phono. One is from the commonly used standard ---
Question.... How was the RIAA LF roll off practiced in circuit designs of the LP era?
Question..... did it ever cause a voltage drop across the cap from the unwanted freqs?
THx-RNMarsh
Question.... How was the RIAA LF roll off practiced in circuit designs of the LP era?
Question..... did it ever cause a voltage drop across the cap from the unwanted freqs?
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Personally, I don't agree with electronically rolling off the bass of the phono preamp. It is best done with the 12dB resonance in the arm-cartridge (compliance) combination.
Well, the vast majority of phono stages in SS equipment and receivers used a polar electrlytic cap in a couple coupling places to do the job.
For someone who had a newer high-end system.... maybe it can be eliminated..... with the SOTA turntable etc. But often you get something like this as a result:
THx-RNMarsh
Thank you elektroj. I had never seen this company’s products before.
This is the site of Fidelix (through Google Translate). The translation is lousy but nevertheless
https://translate.google.com/transl...8&u=http://www.fidelix.jp/&edit-text=&act=url
Thank you Richard.
I haven’t tested a cap multiplier past the SMPS. I will try it
It’s not deja vu
George
- Status
- Not open for further replies.