When they thought that digital could fully substitute for hi-fi makes me think of Sony's HD radio super-tuner, with its excellent reception and inherently nauseating clipped output.
So, digital isn't a substitute for hi-fi analog audio. Today, we need a fusion of both.
Somewhere, a textbook probably needs an update on that matter?
To me, Hi-Fi was coined back in the days when we all we had was our small screen TV's with a few channels plus our audio setup. Now days there is so much available to us in home entertainment thanks to digital technology that spending big on audio has passed. I certainly have no inclination to dust off my tube amps and record players, I'm too busy ripping my CD's to mp3's and transferring them to an SD card.
A bluetooth tablet, inexpensive Chinese amp board and a half decent pair of speakers - perfect.
A bluetooth tablet, inexpensive Chinese amp board and a half decent pair of speakers - perfect.
Thank you!
We have so much in common. I really don't disagree with you; but, these posts go out to a very wide audience and I have to be mindful of that.
Digital can do hi-fi--I have been impressed with the 24/96 specification. I have been ever so troubled with the manufacturer assumed that was enough effort and skimped on the AF, audio frequency, section of their product. Likewise it was possible to find pleasure in some old 16/44 spec digital if they had done a good job on the AF section (in such case it excelled despite the poor digital spec).
Up to about 11W per channel hi-fi analog audio doesn't cost much. We will be needing some of that, or at least I will, because of a lack for USB 3.0 or other digital jack in my skull. I just don't have that part. Oh, anyhow, when the price for hi-fi analog audio goes up and is justified to do so, happens when you wanted more than 11W. It sure does! Goodly power supplies cost to make them. However, we are in need of quality prior to amplifying it.
I get confused with the descriptions given to d-amps, some call them digital others analog. The d-amp boards I have purchased are analog in, analog out.
I must admit to a preference to class AB chipamps and my trick regarding power supplies is to rescue old 70's receivers, they are just about free, then rip out the transformers and dump the rest.
I must admit to a preference to class AB chipamps and my trick regarding power supplies is to rescue old 70's receivers, they are just about free, then rip out the transformers and dump the rest.
ClassD amplifiers are analogue input and analogue output.
The processing to controll the output is switching.
That makes ClassD analogue.
If one had digital signal input and digital signal processing feeding a DAC for an analogue output then that could be called digital amplifier.
Take a digital crossover, or DSP with a DAC for output. It would match that second paragraph and I doubt anyone would argue it is not digital, even though the final output is analogue.
The processing to controll the output is switching.
That makes ClassD analogue.
If one had digital signal input and digital signal processing feeding a DAC for an analogue output then that could be called digital amplifier.
Take a digital crossover, or DSP with a DAC for output. It would match that second paragraph and I doubt anyone would argue it is not digital, even though the final output is analogue.
Hi to u all,i would like to know how to
(1)calculate the gain bandwitdh product for and op amp with three break frequencies and
(2)calculate the crossover frequency for the same amplifier.i have seen the formulas of polar equations and arctan equation to solve the problem but my answer doesn't even come close to thebook's answer.
i don't know which is the right one.Most other text books i have consulted deal only with single break frequency opamp as 741 and do not explain about opamps having more than a single break frequency.
An example of the maths would be most welcome.Perhaps some data might help and are as follows:
Aol=80dB,0. 7Mhz,64dB=3Mhz,33dB=18Mhz.
Thank u
(1)calculate the gain bandwitdh product for and op amp with three break frequencies and
(2)calculate the crossover frequency for the same amplifier.i have seen the formulas of polar equations and arctan equation to solve the problem but my answer doesn't even come close to thebook's answer.
i don't know which is the right one.Most other text books i have consulted deal only with single break frequency opamp as 741 and do not explain about opamps having more than a single break frequency.
An example of the maths would be most welcome.Perhaps some data might help and are as follows:
Aol=80dB,0. 7Mhz,64dB=3Mhz,33dB=18Mhz.
Thank u
I'm wondering if the IRS2092 is considered - or are we looking for 1 chip and that's it.
How about those STK4050 types ?
Thanks.
Srinath.
How about those STK4050 types ?
Thanks.
Srinath.
for me hi-fi is high fidelity.
and what i consider high fidelity may be lo-fi for others.
so any list like this would be biased by personal opinion, its relative and not absolute.
and what i consider high fidelity may be lo-fi for others.
so any list like this would be biased by personal opinion, its relative and not absolute.
Things Sure Have Changed
Amen, Brother.. 😀
"Hi-Fi" back in the day was anything better than a speaker in a communications rig. (300-3K) Today folks expect audiophile quality from a box the size of a package of snack cakes..
Respectable mid/highs are fairly easy but the quest for quality bass in a small package is ongoing..
Back in the day, if someone wanted Hi-Fi, they had to accept an enclosure the size of a dresser. True laws of physics require an enclosure larger than one can hold in their hand comfortably..
I'll admit that some of the hand held gizmo's out there don't sound too bad but not to my liking. The sound is soo processed and fake!
IMO.. most all amplifier chips on the market today has the bandwidth that can be considered Hi-Fi compared to the old school, especially connected to drivers that are available today. Some may preform better than others but the differences are small. (Speaking in general terms) 20-20K is high fidelity to me..
I'm happy with my PAM8403 connected to an 8" coax creating ripples in my beverage glass @ 5' away.. 😉
Amen, Brother.. 😀
"Hi-Fi" back in the day was anything better than a speaker in a communications rig. (300-3K) Today folks expect audiophile quality from a box the size of a package of snack cakes..
Respectable mid/highs are fairly easy but the quest for quality bass in a small package is ongoing..
Back in the day, if someone wanted Hi-Fi, they had to accept an enclosure the size of a dresser. True laws of physics require an enclosure larger than one can hold in their hand comfortably..
I'll admit that some of the hand held gizmo's out there don't sound too bad but not to my liking. The sound is soo processed and fake!
IMO.. most all amplifier chips on the market today has the bandwidth that can be considered Hi-Fi compared to the old school, especially connected to drivers that are available today. Some may preform better than others but the differences are small. (Speaking in general terms) 20-20K is high fidelity to me..
I'm happy with my PAM8403 connected to an 8" coax creating ripples in my beverage glass @ 5' away.. 😉
I commonly run into the issue where people have Loud *** &uck low fi and they call it Hi-fi.
I still have friends who are after reducing distortion in their amps and have stuff bi-amped and tri-amped and improving sound stage and this and that, completely oblivious to the fact that their CD player essentially never produces the definition that their speakers cant pick up anyway and call it Hi-fi. Sorry, its Loud-Fi, not Hi-fi in 2016.
They think CD quality is the best. And have never heard of FLAC, of course they also listen to nothing produced after 1965, so I guess CD is the ultimate. I mean its a shiny little disk that makes music. What could possibly be better.
Cool.
Srinath.
I still have friends who are after reducing distortion in their amps and have stuff bi-amped and tri-amped and improving sound stage and this and that, completely oblivious to the fact that their CD player essentially never produces the definition that their speakers cant pick up anyway and call it Hi-fi. Sorry, its Loud-Fi, not Hi-fi in 2016.
They think CD quality is the best. And have never heard of FLAC, of course they also listen to nothing produced after 1965, so I guess CD is the ultimate. I mean its a shiny little disk that makes music. What could possibly be better.
Cool.
Srinath.
Compared to the golden age of Hi-Fi, there is just too much on offer to expend the time and money that we once spent. We now play on computers and video game consoles, watch HD TV with unlimited channels. Spend hours texting, tweeting and posting nonsense on Facebook and Youtube and dare I say DiyAudio?
Besides being very convenient, CD's sound just great to me, I'll never dust off my 4 highly sought after record decks, all the rigmarole just wastes good music listening time.
It is interesting how vinyl is being regurgitated, it's all about making a buck and trying to put the Genie back in the bottle, LP's cannot be easily copied.
I cannot keep my head still long enough to be and Audiophile.
Besides being very convenient, CD's sound just great to me, I'll never dust off my 4 highly sought after record decks, all the rigmarole just wastes good music listening time.
It is interesting how vinyl is being regurgitated, it's all about making a buck and trying to put the Genie back in the bottle, LP's cannot be easily copied.
I cannot keep my head still long enough to be and Audiophile.
I see vinyl is making a comeback. Isn't it digitally mastered anyway? So what's the gimmick?
Some CDs are truly awful. My system is to the point that I can clearly hear the limitations of CDs.
I quit trying to explain to people the limitations of CDs, because almost everybody is adamant that CDs are "perfect." And that's the word everybody uses - "perfect." "CDs sound PERFECT and will never be improved on."
How marketers convinced people of this I don't know, but if I wasn't an honest person I think I could make a whole lot of money off people like that. My neighbor is in advertising; he boasts that he makes $400K/yr, a tenth of a cent at a time. He really respects me because he sees I'm not bamboozled by the kind of trash he peddles for a living. Imagine that.
Some CDs are truly awful. My system is to the point that I can clearly hear the limitations of CDs.
I quit trying to explain to people the limitations of CDs, because almost everybody is adamant that CDs are "perfect." And that's the word everybody uses - "perfect." "CDs sound PERFECT and will never be improved on."
How marketers convinced people of this I don't know, but if I wasn't an honest person I think I could make a whole lot of money off people like that. My neighbor is in advertising; he boasts that he makes $400K/yr, a tenth of a cent at a time. He really respects me because he sees I'm not bamboozled by the kind of trash he peddles for a living. Imagine that.
How is flac inherently better than CD quality? I mean, yes, streaming from a computer is easier IMO than using a CD player, but there's no difference in the bits hitting the DAC.
I also don't blame the recording media for the mix's faults. 16/44 does more than enough right for playback.
Last edited:
the point about pre-reading and correcting errors and then storing the pre-corrected bits in a flac file is that the processing required to convert that to a true digitally recorded analogue signal is very much easier than using the 1970's computer technology that tries to correct the CD stored errors, in real time, to feed into the DAC and come out as an analogue signal.
If some of the CD data is not corrected, the DAC will produce rubbish, i.e. the output is not what was intended to be stored on the CD.
The computer stored flac file is as correct as any digitally stored datafile can be. The computer will send a correct datafile without needing any further processing, to the DAC.
16/44was chosen because they wanted to rush out a "new technology" that was the best that could be achieved with 1970's computer technology.
Had they waited just a very few years and seen the computer developments that had been made since the early CD research they could have released CD's for the first time in a far more appropriate sampling and bit depth, maybe 20/64 or 20/94
As it was they introduced 24/192and 24/96 a few years later because they now knew that computer technology allowed these more accurate files to be recorded and stored.
They were greedy and rushed out a money grabbing technology before it had reached a sufficient standard.
If some of the CD data is not corrected, the DAC will produce rubbish, i.e. the output is not what was intended to be stored on the CD.
The computer stored flac file is as correct as any digitally stored datafile can be. The computer will send a correct datafile without needing any further processing, to the DAC.
16/44was chosen because they wanted to rush out a "new technology" that was the best that could be achieved with 1970's computer technology.
Had they waited just a very few years and seen the computer developments that had been made since the early CD research they could have released CD's for the first time in a far more appropriate sampling and bit depth, maybe 20/64 or 20/94
As it was they introduced 24/192and 24/96 a few years later because they now knew that computer technology allowed these more accurate files to be recorded and stored.
They were greedy and rushed out a money grabbing technology before it had reached a sufficient standard.
Last edited:
Sampling and bit rate does not worry most music lovers.
I'm happy with mp3 files ripped from my favourite cd's @ 192 bitrate, and I'm also very happy with Bluetooth and saving my images with Jpeg compression.
I'm happy with mp3 files ripped from my favourite cd's @ 192 bitrate, and I'm also very happy with Bluetooth and saving my images with Jpeg compression.
I can easily tell the differences between Mp3 and CD in my sleep.
Now the difference to Flac from CD can be harder, but I can tell in my friends system quite well. The reason being, I have not set up a flac server yet, and I wont be doing it for a while cos I am building a new house and I'm going to devote some thought and resources for audio in that place. My current house is impossible to get decent bass, or much of anything due to its complete assymetric layout.
But set up a good system and MP3 to CD will jump at you.
Past CD, you need to really set up the system for definition and sound quality and not just spl.
I agree though, cleaning a record and putting it on just wastes listening time, not to mention in a good system, you hear the hisses and clicks and pops and it simply gets old fast.
Thanks.
Srinath.
Now the difference to Flac from CD can be harder, but I can tell in my friends system quite well. The reason being, I have not set up a flac server yet, and I wont be doing it for a while cos I am building a new house and I'm going to devote some thought and resources for audio in that place. My current house is impossible to get decent bass, or much of anything due to its complete assymetric layout.
But set up a good system and MP3 to CD will jump at you.
Past CD, you need to really set up the system for definition and sound quality and not just spl.
I agree though, cleaning a record and putting it on just wastes listening time, not to mention in a good system, you hear the hisses and clicks and pops and it simply gets old fast.
Thanks.
Srinath.
Srinath, in the case of telling flacs from CDs, you're trying to tell is you can hear the difference between identical bit stream (after decoding). Either that or the signal chain is different. Either way, this is suspicious.
Andrew: given today's DACs and ADCs, what audible advantage are those standards giving you over 16/44? I can make a case for 24/44 (and 48 if you like that number better), but higher sample rates is lost on the listener. Except bats and your poor dog.
Andrew: given today's DACs and ADCs, what audible advantage are those standards giving you over 16/44? I can make a case for 24/44 (and 48 if you like that number better), but higher sample rates is lost on the listener. Except bats and your poor dog.
The Immediately obvious thing on FLAC's on a high end system is that the noise floor is a lot lower.
Past that, I hear some unintended artifacts, like breathing and maybe an un intended shuffle of feet. Otherwise the difference is all positive, instruments are separated and even the much fainter notes are more obvious.
Anyway This was on my friends system. Basically - Flac from laptop or CD source -> Perfectwave dac -> Denon 4806 -> B&W 801 S3.
I've also tried it with a few other amps and pre amp's. Essentially the result is that you hear more of it on FLAC, but each component has a little effect on the sound.
Cool.
Srinath.
On that system, you change the speaker cable and you hear a difference.
Past that, I hear some unintended artifacts, like breathing and maybe an un intended shuffle of feet. Otherwise the difference is all positive, instruments are separated and even the much fainter notes are more obvious.
Anyway This was on my friends system. Basically - Flac from laptop or CD source -> Perfectwave dac -> Denon 4806 -> B&W 801 S3.
I've also tried it with a few other amps and pre amp's. Essentially the result is that you hear more of it on FLAC, but each component has a little effect on the sound.
Cool.
Srinath.
On that system, you change the speaker cable and you hear a difference.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.