Funny quote. Especially from a, hum, contributor, who only spills hate and criticisms of what other contributors , chosen by sympathy, say.. Just do a search on his nickname:
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/search.php?searchid=21909961
On my side, I usually agree, indeed, with most of what Mr. Marsh says. Same taste ? It seems so, and that we listen to the same kind of music and focus our attention on the same aspects of reproduction.
I just wonder why a bunch of people are always attacking him, whatever he says.
Now, what do-you mean with your graph ? Out of the context, what is measured and how, how could we have an idea ?
It looks like the noise floor (including harmonics) of something, measured with a 1KHz signal that had been filtered by a huge Q rejection filter in order to increase the available dynamic of the measurement. Strange that there is no visible artifact around this frequency. But, for sure, not something designed by hand.
Last edited:
6.02*Bits+1.72~98dB applies for 16bit undithered only. With dither, we can hear pure undistorted signals down into the noise for at least another 10 or 20 dB. Do you understand dithering? Ahem...
While a real world 16bit system SNR is around 90dB, adding dithering allows hearing -100dBFS easily. Therefore, a real world CD system with dithering has over 100dB of dynamic range, and that's even before noise shaping the dither (which is currently used in all 16bit releases). Some are claiming 22bit effective SNR with noise shaping, probably an exaggeration, but certainly more than enough, as a release format, whatever the audiophools are claiming claim about 16bit. Do you understand noise shaping? Ahem...
Interesting (and amusing) note: the same audiophools are crying out loud that 24bit systems are falling short of the expected 144dB dynamic range. Yes, 24bit systems are not truly 24bit, and thanks God they are not! With such a theoretical system, if you would raise the volume to hear the noise floor in a quiet place (20dB SPL), the FS would kill you instantly at 164dB.
Maybe, but certainly the same level of knowledge/understanding (or lack, thereof).
An interesting idea. I like the concept of a wideband driver used for midrange crossed low and high if at all. Listening nearfield at reasonable levels would mean IMD would be minimal. I have Jordan Eikonas using similar "contraflex" cones as the original Jordan Watts modules. Some reading
http://www.ejjordan.co.uk/PDFs/EJJ_1966.11_WW_titanium.pdf
http://www.ejjordan.co.uk/PDFs/Jordan_Watts.pdf
Real world dithered -100dBFS signal burnt on CD is normally easily audible, of course at high volume setting and at least better than poor system re noise. It is interesting how people who are waving their experts hands have lack of basic knowledge.
I was referring to the modal region where flexibility in positioning is advantageous.
I hope so, as it was part of my professional job.
Again, I don't make my mind reading books, I'm not a believer to any religion. "Ahem".
Most of what i tend to share is based on personal experience.
It is obvious that in the studio we have tools that you do not have in your hands. One of them is a simple button, with the word "SOLO" engraved on it which allows us to listen to an instrument alone at the level where it is in a mix. Even on what's out of reverb gears. 16 bits ? Not totally enough.
This said, it is only a theoretical discussion. CDs are enough for me at home. 24/96 slightly better, but, what the hell ? MP3 are enough in my car.
It is funny that, at the time we discussed, between sound engineers and technical managers of studios about 24/96, most of them advocated about 24 bits, and me about 96KHz. But, now, I'm older, losses lot of high frequencies and I have respect for others experiences: we are not all exactly identical.
Last edited:
Absolutely nonsense, not worth of even trying to debunk. It would be like trying to talk relativity with someone not understanding Newton.
I said "understand" not "heard about". Otherwise, the usual tactics... When caught in offside, move the focus from numbers to subjective crapola. The discussion was about the 16 bit dynamic range, not about your preferences.
Untrue of course, unfortunately he needs correcting more often than most, why I'm not sure, odd that you appear to have a issue with that.
Maybe same actual conclusions from actual experience 55 years in recording and playback and acoustic tests.
Experience matters. T's and my experience seem to come to similar conclusions.
syn08... your input does not matter to my point. I dont care if you had 200 db dynamic range with your straw man. I am talking about the room environment.... background to listening level. That it is obvious we have far greater dynamic range capability today than most people will get to hear on recordings (uncompressed) in an average home.
How you miss such obvious points and go off on some tangent is truly an amazing feat of your mind.
Thx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Two out of over 6 billion. Not statistically significant really...
I find this very very funny.
I'm sure it doesn't 😀... I was addressing your obvious error in understanding the CD format SNR and dynamic range, observed by PMA, Hans and others.
Do I need to add I don't care of what you think? Be factually correct and you'll have much less opportunities to argue about.
Last edited:
Hey but each is one in 6 billion. so ? Just ones point of view from my experience.
Actually, it is flattering so many people seem to jump on every word and parce its meaning (s). And expand in great detail what they read and play it back here. Its sort of impressing really. 🙄
Its just my considered opinion which matches at least one other... maybe more. Who knows? According to PM's I get, many more.
Is that important to you? To anyone?
I read the books, did the test, made the measurements and did the listening. You get the bottom line in as short and few words as possible.
Whose next in line?
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Ok. so it was overly broad and missing all the details... dither etal. Big deal. It wasnt my intent to be so precise as you need to make a simple point. Choose a better number... doesnt matter... the room still limits the dynamic range. and pick a fight over what those numbers are. point remains the same and i made it.
THx-RNMarsh
But I'm not the Project Manager claiming to be an absolute authority....
also reading and understanding are generally two different things. Your unwillingness to show workings or quotes suggests the only a few key words sank in. Happy to be proved wrong of course...
also reading and understanding are generally two different things. Your unwillingness to show workings or quotes suggests the only a few key words sank in. Happy to be proved wrong of course...
As usual. Limited capacity of demonstration, that your exceptional capacity to unsupported utter insults , that are just as ill-founded, does not fill.
A rather strange behavior on the part of someone so imbued with his mastery of the scientific aspect of things, which does not lead your interlocutors to have any respect for you.
But I should invite you to try to understand why, 99% of your posts are in the same mood. A psychological disease ?
An why do-you always paint in black the pure fantasmagoric images you make yourself of people you never met ?
I said about you "Experienced", not "read in a book". (to play in the same tune than you).
You have obviously not the slightest experience of audio.
That, in a second of honesty you confessed here:
Last edited:
Is that what project managers are - authorities? Hmmm. Learn something new every day.
I guess some of you are in need of details. schematics. T&M data... like I would keep all that for 55 years. Most is from memory unless I happen to be working on it now. Fortunately i do have some data. But, thats not what I want to do here.
THx-RNMarsh
- Status
- Not open for further replies.