While this remark seems full of common sense, i asked myself a question. I we want to use some program to remove them after digitalisation, an analog limitation of these peaks is it not likely to make the process less effective ?
Thinking, in the same time, that the remaining margin of dynamic with a peak of original modulation is probably large enough.
Last edited:
I do not see the need for less than 0402 for our audio diy work. I did up a few Rf designs using some 0402's, sure the ic stuff we are stuck with what they make and what we can get.
With SFR16s TH resistors you can pack stuff in pretty tight as well. The TO-92 does not take up much room either but with smt you can pack it in pretty tight.
With SFR16s TH resistors you can pack stuff in pretty tight as well. The TO-92 does not take up much room either but with smt you can pack it in pretty tight.
I realize that many of you do not design phono stages on a regular basis, but I have found that ignoring clicks and pops is not a good thing. You need both dynamic range and fast recovery from potential clipping to get the ticks and pops aurally manageable.
Scott's approach is OK because it is open loop, (soft clipping) and gain limited (this is important), Higher 1KHz gain would cause problems, but this is not commercially practical. The reason is that Scott's design has no gain on the second gain block. We usually add 20-30dB here.
Scott's approach is OK because it is open loop, (soft clipping) and gain limited (this is important), Higher 1KHz gain would cause problems, but this is not commercially practical. The reason is that Scott's design has no gain on the second gain block. We usually add 20-30dB here.
Most of us do not listen to vinyls on a regular basis either. It's a bit like horse riding ;-)
I'm afraid I agree with syn08. No, I didn't respond to your answer, you didn't miss anythingMy general point here is that when large amounts of money are involved the customer's satisfaction can not be relied on as a measure of expert's skill, IMHO
Obviously two different topics, so i´m at a loss why you bring these together.
I´ve mentioned some of the well known recording studio design companies like WSDG, Philip Newell and Northwardacoustics, just to name a few. Don Davies introduced/realized the LEDE concept and the range is a broad one beginning at he pre-LEDE designs and not ending with the quite impressive/outstanding Massenburg room at the Blackbird Studios.
If you communicate with these people you´ll note that they are mostly down-to-earth, all are members of one or several of the various audio engineering and acoustic societies and did publish some articles in the according journals.
So work is base on scientific foundation but nevertheless all are relying on personal experience and skills.
Could you point to large scale controllel listening tests that preceded the LEDE concept introduction? Or any of the other subsequently concept realizations?
There is always real money at stake but who knows, so please tell me which way these people can get their expert status if not by predictable results and customer´s satisfaction?
Otoh as RPG´s Peter D´Antonio ones said in a presentation about the history of control room concepts/realization :
"Despite all our efforts (to realize these different rooms) music survived it all" (words to that effect)
There isn't a connection between a customer's proclaimed satisfaction of an expensive piece of equipment or service and the subjective opinion of a supposedly relevantly skilled person who advocates said product or service?
First topic is your agreement with syn08, the second topic is your question which way "expertness" is measured.
Last edited:
Not usually. The better packages work on a statistical basis and can recognise a truncated pop as well as the full pop. Bear in mind that a lot of these end up as a single or small number of samples it often is a surgical removal of a couple of points. Scott has posted an example off a test record where you can see the single sample anomaly.
Gotcha, I didn't connect them, you did
Could be, but this was your original post that triggered my response:
"I'm afraid so. I was interested by his response when I asked if there was a measure of the ability of those who were believed to be adequately skilled in critical listening"
No connection?
It didn't seem to be a problem for the Jasmine remastering of the Benny Goodman 1932 Carnegie Hall concert
A claim without proof?
Actually, you guys can gang up on Jakob2 if your goal is to shut him up or make him leave. Things like that happen in forums that become too tribal.
Generally, I find that there is much truth to what he says, but some of it comes from other scientific disciplines than engineering. To engineers, some of it may therefore seem without foundation. Maybe better to ask for clarification before jumping to conclusions. Friends can teach each other and carry on friendly discussions, hopefully no need for adversarial debates as occur in law where both sides argue extremes in the hope that a jury can find truth somewhere in the middle. Not the best way to get to scientific truth, although its how we find legal 'facts.'
An impulse already has "all" frequencies. Spreading here only makes sense in the time domain. The mix and match approach to looking at a problem in the time vs frequency domain gets sloppy.
I'm willing to defend my assertions with real data from LP's rather than just speculation. I spent an inordinate amount of time on my digital RIAA article (I estimate Jan comped me about 50 cents an hour) and found that the reality is far from the usual accepted hegemony. Like digital RIAA loses 40dB of dynamic range, in practice nonsense because one is simply thinking full scale sine waves at each frequency which is never the reality. There are a lot of Pure Vinyl users that are happy, I just wanted to put the basic process into an open source framework.
Might be the reason for your ample agreement to syn08´s really ...um...err...interesting post.Yes and no
But that´s fine as it gives the opportunity to list the dubious points you´d agreed to:
-) syn08 obviously didn´t realize it, but an ABX test is not a test for preference and that´s the reason why i put down "any attempt" to use it as such.
You bravely agreed to a correct statement
-) you agree to the allegation that i never gave a practical suggestions how to improve tests.
Which means that the suggestion to train under the specific test conditions is in a miracle way not a "practical suggestion".
Also, the advice to use positive controls (and negative controls as well) is somehow not a practical suggestion to improve the typical test protocols.
You even agree to the statement although you did participate in threads where i mentioned specific examples what to use as a positive control.
Btw the same specific examples i´d already mentioned to syn0ß for the first time in august 2009 in this forum:
"Given the measured differences i´d strongly recommend that positive controls should be for example one of the cited points out of P. Frindle´s catalog.
Of course it´s not possible to include something like a positive control in the same run if you´re using an ABX protocol.
That could raise the question if an ABX-test is appropriate for the task, but you could do different runs.
One for example testing the positive control, and another one for testing the real hypothesis."
Usually what he is doing is considered as lying but as i know that strong believers are prone to cognitive distortions i give him the benefit of doubt in assuming that he is not doing it intentionally. As humans we are all prone to these distortions - that´s why Mark4 for example has mentioned Kahneman´s book, but we should be able to admit when having erred.
But you agreed to his statements.
-) i cited relevant evidence about the impact that different test protocols do have on the results when presenting the same sensory difference to the same group of test participants. Which means that the proportion of correct responses is different in dependence on the test protocol used.
Further i pointed out why that can be misleading when using the number of correct responses as a test statistic.
And of course i cited the publications.
That might have been without merit for you, but do you really agree that it is just "theoretical word salad" and of _absolutely_ _no_ _value_ for someone like syn0ß who is - according to his self description - a distinguished scientist (but obviously didn´t know anything about it before)?
Last edited:
Please don't put me in that group, Jacob2 knows that one of my goals is oriented toward extraordinary claims involving violations of basic physical principles. On listening evaluation I simply want some uniform set of standards that everyone can agree on. I'm still at the point where, for instance, your "reverb tails" are a phenomena that some people can hear maybe repeatably, but no evidence has been presented from any controlled listening test. I have no reason to believe your claims over the folks that say there is no difference (for them) between a $300 DAC board and a Benchmark.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.