Without checking for mis-behavior of anything in the signal chain to the un-bandlimited input it is not a fair test.
I've done the test with music and have heard nothing, there was also a carefully conducted test reported in the AES journal that returned a null result (with music).
With music according to my experience each improvement adds clarity, and with fixing some errors other errors became dominant, and so on, until wife says, "What are you fixing? It is already perfect!" But later she hears ordinary hi-fi and understands the difference. So when you listen through ordinary hi-fi you may not hear the difference. It is not like better system highlights errors, no. It is more like appetite comes during the lunch. When it is ordinaty, you compare it with other systems. When it is real high-end, you compare with real sounds.
Scott,
AP's latest newsletter was a tutorial on square waves and DSP. Should be on their site for the curious.
Now what has been pointed out is that if you listen to electronic music that does use square wave tones, then there just might be an actual difference!
AP's latest newsletter was a tutorial on square waves and DSP. Should be on their site for the curious.
Now what has been pointed out is that if you listen to electronic music that does use square wave tones, then there just might be an actual difference!
At UCLA the budget-strapped electronic music studio purchased consumer Dolby B noise reduction boxes from, iirc, Teac.
The designers had saved a little BOM cost by doing the level detection with half-wave rectifiers. As a result the treatment of asymmetrical waveforms, found in profusion from the Moog and Buchla synthesizers, was decidedly pathological, with one polarity of sawtooth having almost no effect up to a rather high threshold, and the other working as anticipated 😱.
I worked with Chris Shelton, a physicist and amateur musician who had gotten studio access to devise a fix, one moreover that was merely adding on to the stock circuitry and requiring no surgery to the existing boards, in a feeble attempt to preserve warranties. It worked fine, but the very cheap interconnection system was good for about one cycle, and as a result of having boards in and out a few times the units became very unreliable, ruining mixdowns at crucial moments. A disaster.
I agree with you, Wavebourn. It would appear that only serious, 'full time' audio designers can truly appreciate the sonic changes that come with trying new approaches and finding what the 'improvements' actually do for audio reproduction.
That's about it.
Just when you think you got the hang of it, you chance upon some other device and realize there's still more work to do because it can be better.
Thankfully, I have a wife who understands and is resigned to:
1. The fact that audio is my life long love, well beyond the realm of reason,
2. Once I have made up my mind about something, there's no stopping me short of shooting me dead.
Fortunately for me, she can't afford to lose her most trustworthy and hard working assistant. 😀 😀 😀
So, by the time I get to the 10th version of something, she just keeps on smiling.
Drool didn't help my system. 😀 Then again, unlike John, I evaluate sonic things by ear alone, no excuses.
Who don't know you at all is better still.
Either way, it's a good decision. A man can't help being biased towards his own babies no matter how hard he tries.
This way, if say 20 unrelated people say it's great, then it very probably IS great,
Yes, I am biased. I always want to improve something, even when my guests say, "I want to own a house near the creek, I like frogs singing on your backyard"
...when frogs are singing on background of piano record. 😀
...when frogs are singing on background of piano record. 😀
- Status
- Not open for further replies.