john curl said:
I don't see much progress with amps or drivers in the past 30 years, small nudges here and there but nothing that's really moved things on. These days digital is where the interest is, I've no doubt this will eventually sweep away analogue. Sadly its lacking at the moment but given another 30 years I expect that to have changed. You only need to look at upcoming tech such as DRC and digital filtering to realise how far things have come.
Software is a fast moving field, hardware less so.
Software is a fast moving field?
Not so sure about that at all.
For software to be moving much would require new algorithms to be "discovered" and implemented. Is that happening?
Seems to me that the number of programmers is increasing, and the size of programs is increasing due to the increasing size of memory, the number of operations per clock tick possible today - bigger not newer??
_-_-bear
Not so sure about that at all.
For software to be moving much would require new algorithms to be "discovered" and implemented. Is that happening?
Seems to me that the number of programmers is increasing, and the size of programs is increasing due to the increasing size of memory, the number of operations per clock tick possible today - bigger not newer??
_-_-bear
bear said:
New algorithms are done everyday, an algorithm is just bunch of operators, evaluators, conditioners and flow control stringed together to perform a task. There's an awful lot of scope there. I think what your talking about is audio theory and physics.
Its not so much the theory but successfully implementing, optimising and making the most of that. Lots of room for improvement in the current state of affairs. When I say software I'm really talking about up and coming technology such as that afforded by digital and mainly things like DRC, digital filtering, auto correction, user interfaces etc. If you've heard and used these things you can see the potential but its a bit a limp and hit and miss. You need to know a lot to get the best out of them. Markets such as home theater and studio are driving advances in this field and its quite lucrative, in the past 3 years alone I've seen huge amounts of progress. Efforts such as the Dolby Lake processor and Acourate are testiment to this but there's still a long way to go.
I have to disagree with the assertion that amplifier technology has not improved over the last 30 years. Just take a look at the results published in Stereophile (I only use this as an example because John Atkinson does th electrical tests and therefore brings some consistency to the technical evaluation). Most amplifiers he reports on show exempliary technical performance whether with or without feedback. Designers have learnt, and are still learning, about how to design and bring to market beter products. Take a typical 'high end' design from 30 years ago - TID problems, slew rate limiting, massive amounts of OLG, un-degenerated LTP's, thermal tracking problems etc etc. On another thread a while back, John Curl passed a few comments about the original Ampzilla design and the compromises in that design vis-a-vis a modern approach. We have made progress folks!
I agree, it is not perfect, but its progress. As to the Vinyl vs CD discussion I think I know what the issue is. I played Jeff Buckley's Grace LP on a $240 Pproject turntable (you know, the one from the Check Republic) and the CD on my player and switched between the two. The LP blew the CD away and my 18 year old son who is a musician could not believe the difference. So why was CD such a success? Because Sony and Philips bamboozled the world? Partly. But I think most people went for CD because it it did not suffer from scratches and pops, and sounded 'clean' - i.e. it was convenient and did not require extraordinary care to maintain the original quality. Its as simple as that. Unfortunately, this is the reason for th esuccess of MP3 - its convenient and that is what most people go for.
I agree, it is not perfect, but its progress. As to the Vinyl vs CD discussion I think I know what the issue is. I played Jeff Buckley's Grace LP on a $240 Pproject turntable (you know, the one from the Check Republic) and the CD on my player and switched between the two. The LP blew the CD away and my 18 year old son who is a musician could not believe the difference. So why was CD such a success? Because Sony and Philips bamboozled the world? Partly. But I think most people went for CD because it it did not suffer from scratches and pops, and sounded 'clean' - i.e. it was convenient and did not require extraordinary care to maintain the original quality. Its as simple as that. Unfortunately, this is the reason for th esuccess of MP3 - its convenient and that is what most people go for.
It's not the technology, it's the low expectations.
Certainly we are far from "perfect" technology, but most modern audio applications don't even bother to implement a reasonable cost compromise.
My very expensive sports car has a "premium sound system", there are no tweeters. The sound system is priced high enough to do a creditable job, but falls far short. At speed the car is noisier than most, you'd think I could just crank in some more volume. Nope, the sound just becomes more unbearable.
My cell phone at 32Kbits/second is just plain awful. I occasionally wonder at the relationship between driver cell phone distraction and the sheer processing power the brain needs to apply to make a cell phone conversation intelligible. No one seems nearly as distracted by talking to passengers.
The latest big screen HDTV have modern all digital video processing and a beautiful picture, yet 2"x 3" stereo speakers. What the h**l? Why bother? Do it right or let the surround receiver handle the audio. Pretending that 2"x 3" speakers will work is crazy.
Certainly we are far from "perfect" technology, but most modern audio applications don't even bother to implement a reasonable cost compromise.
My very expensive sports car has a "premium sound system", there are no tweeters. The sound system is priced high enough to do a creditable job, but falls far short. At speed the car is noisier than most, you'd think I could just crank in some more volume. Nope, the sound just becomes more unbearable.
My cell phone at 32Kbits/second is just plain awful. I occasionally wonder at the relationship between driver cell phone distraction and the sheer processing power the brain needs to apply to make a cell phone conversation intelligible. No one seems nearly as distracted by talking to passengers.
The latest big screen HDTV have modern all digital video processing and a beautiful picture, yet 2"x 3" stereo speakers. What the h**l? Why bother? Do it right or let the surround receiver handle the audio. Pretending that 2"x 3" speakers will work is crazy.
AndrewT said:
Yes the PC is the source with APE, FLAC and WAV(uncompressed) formats.
WinXP offers bit perfect playback with ASIO drivers. Any half decent pro sound card offers this nowadays and the better ones with AES hookup to external converters are about as good as it gets in consumer digital right now.
I just finished installing a Logitech Squeezebox duet system. My audio now lives on a NAS drive in the cellar, connected to the wifi network. The squeezebox receiver connects to the digital input of the DEQX DAC/xover at the sound system. The squeezebox handheld works much like an iPOD: you scroll through your collection, by artist, genre, album title, what have you. It even shows album art while you peruse your collection. Then press play and the audio rides the wifi to the receiver into the DEQX bit-perfect. The only thing to worry about is the DEQX jitter performance, and that's prettty good. Did I mention all CD's were ripped to the NAS drive in FLAC lossless?
I'm with Ant on this.
Jan Didden
I'm with Ant on this.
Jan Didden
I have been using bit transparent output with a proper (semi-pro) 8-Ch. soundcard since the days of WIN98. I'm completely with Shin, there is a lot of unjustified bad rap with PCs as a source.
Lossless format are available (though not that necessary given storage space and price), and you can do things like proper(!) resampling to 192/24 before playback to avoid the many pitfalls of 44.1 CD playback, like intersample overs, ringing/aliasing filters. Plus any XOVER/linearization stuff is perfectly convenient in use. Shin is a precursor here, with his incredible (hell yeah) LGT "bones" active speakers, driver/room-corrected/xovered with the excellent Acourate s/w package. As for outboard DACs, the reference project here at DIYA is the ESS Sabre, IMHO (or you just buy something like a big Lavry DAC)
That's the future, IMHO. And not because it's just another tech gimmick, rather it gives true performance gain.
- Klaus
Lossless format are available (though not that necessary given storage space and price), and you can do things like proper(!) resampling to 192/24 before playback to avoid the many pitfalls of 44.1 CD playback, like intersample overs, ringing/aliasing filters. Plus any XOVER/linearization stuff is perfectly convenient in use. Shin is a precursor here, with his incredible (hell yeah) LGT "bones" active speakers, driver/room-corrected/xovered with the excellent Acourate s/w package. As for outboard DACs, the reference project here at DIYA is the ESS Sabre, IMHO (or you just buy something like a big Lavry DAC)
That's the future, IMHO. And not because it's just another tech gimmick, rather it gives true performance gain.
- Klaus
ShinOBIWAN said:
The problem is usually that the people who make the CD's have
dynamically compressed the material in an effort to make it "sound
better" on crappy equipment. Often the recording engineer and the
artist have no control over this, and if they do, apparently it is not
a major issue with many of them.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.