yeah but .003% distortion of ANY kind seems pretty good for listener detection. Dont you think?
Could only get better if speakers were better, i assume.
-RNM
In my experience and confirmed by two semi vendors the best ADC's usually perform better than the best DAC's. I have no idea why.
In what way? The SNR / THD specs appear to be better for the DACs. The best performing ADC still appears to be the discontinued AK5394A with -110 dB THD.
I understand/understood your concerns. Bob was the main audience.
Every English native speakers know what 'bias' is. The word is used in many books unrelated with Psychology. I found it used in Engineering books too. The main 'meaning' of the word is 'unfair opinion', 'prejudice'.
But I wanted to stress that I was referring to the 'Psychological bias' (I might have used these words if it crossed my mind) by stating an example (a popular one is 'expectation' bias). But I needed to stress that i was not talking about expectation bias either, so i used parenthesis. The parenthesis followed by 'e.g.' should have covered my intention, i thought.
Its not you in particular. There seems to be common misunderstanding about use of the term 'expectation bias' as it applies to the science of human perception among some EEs interested in audio. It would be good we could correct that before the problem becomes too widespread, is all. Your cooperation in that effort would be very much appreciated of course
Last edited:
It would be good we could correct that before the problem becomes too widespread, is all. Your cooperation in that effort would be very much appreciated of course
I can see many people here are so motivated in doing what they are doing. I'm just not one. Sometimes i felt happy seeing everyone going in the wrong direction 
This is very much my experience.
For example, so far I haven't had a Sabre based DAC through that I wanted to *really listen to for an extended period of time, that includes a big $ Accu*. They usually bowl you over with detail etc but in the long term, there is something not right.
In contrast, a PCM1704 (multibit) based DAC came through for mods, JLsounds USB bridge etc. I dug through a big part of the CD collection over quite a few days. Continually engaged and impressed.
I'd say this is the sort of digital John C would probably like.
T
Though I listen, my understanding of Indian Classical is extremely basic. But whatever little I know An indian classical singer has liberty to improve. Provided he/she is very talented and experienced. Just as Jazz music has improvisation indian classical performer can improvise things based on raga. Think of 'Raga' as a mould (Structure) an artist can improve its rhythm (tala) and scale (Up and down) and give his own performace without abondoning basic structure. Variatons can be infinite. If an artist has not so dynamic voice (comparatively speaking for lack of better word) He/she can still be appreciated by audience if his/her variations are liked by knowledgeable audience. Here is another catch if artist is a Master he can even very slightly change the basic Raga. In a nutshell tremendous possiblities to show mastery, talent and knowledge as a performer.
Regards.
It would seem that way if you have bias for JC and the likes.
Is it audible to us?
Do you design DACs? What about speakers?
I don't think so. It is very hard to take anything he says seriously when he believes in and plugs crap like Bybee Quantum Purifiers.
Don't you think he has listened to a non sigma-delta DAC sometime in the past 25-30 years? They aren't exactly new. He's also expressed preference for high-res 24/96 and up, so I highly doubt PCM1704 will deliver anything he is looking for. He will never like Redbook.
Last edited:
I'm jealous, never seen him in the flesh. As you say, his bands were incredibly tight, they had to be, working for such a task master
Yes, it's probably that I find it easier than some to filter out the bad and the ugly. It's a price I'm willing to pay
Rather a sweeping generalisation of mine.
I don't know enough about digital to comment, but even there, deconstruction is easier than reconstruction? I was thinking at the beginning and the end of the chain for instance, in simplistic terms, a microphone and line amp down to tape is simpler than the recovery at the other end. It struck me when I was a kid and looking at radios and ultimately of course of transmitters, how much simpler the transmitter was, like it's easier to talk than it is to listen. Don't you love a bad analogy?
Thanks, I think that's quite an accurate summing up, it's very much my takeaway from the programs I watched.
You are right, it is not easier. It must have been a kind of some amateurish audiophile guess.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.