No --- only that one might suppose that FT had initiated the thing based on the name of it. In fact he told me he expressed some reticence when he found out about it, but agreed to participate. Despite having retired from Harman, he's busier than ever.
Need help?
I just found some good stuff related to being rude: There is the socially acceptable way as often express here (sarcasm, inuendo etc) and there is the direct way - not socially acceptable. Feel free to use any of these:
I'd like to apologize in advance for my behavior later.
Enough talk about you. Let's talk about me!
The last thing I want to do is disappoint you. BUT it's still on my list!
Two wrongs dont make a right But three rights make a left.
Scientists say the universe is made up of protons, neutrons & electrons.... They forgot to mention morons.
If it moves, its Biology.
If it stinks, its Chemistry.
If it doesn't work, its Physics.
But some here do pretty good without my help. Got more?
I just found some good stuff related to being rude: There is the socially acceptable way as often express here (sarcasm, inuendo etc) and there is the direct way - not socially acceptable. Feel free to use any of these:
I'd like to apologize in advance for my behavior later.
Enough talk about you. Let's talk about me!
The last thing I want to do is disappoint you. BUT it's still on my list!
Two wrongs dont make a right But three rights make a left.
Scientists say the universe is made up of protons, neutrons & electrons.... They forgot to mention morons.
If it moves, its Biology.
If it stinks, its Chemistry.
If it doesn't work, its Physics.
But some here do pretty good without my help. Got more?
Last edited:
What is he up to these days that keeps him so busy? ? Going to write a book, perhaps?
"Audio Test & Measurement Engineering Group"
The last couple dozen emails are pretty interesting --
Go to LINKEDIN and sign up, first, then find the forum inside
I would like to ask if there is a way to derive the Gedlee Metric of the DUT from the FFT (amplitude and phase of the harmonics) of the output (OK at some different signal levels too)?
http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/THD_.pdf
George
This is where the big breakthrough in achieving highest quality audio replay can come about ... when a system truly comes together in every aspect, then all, I repeat, all, pop rock mixes have "great space and realism". In fact, many such recordings become absolutely "huge", the level of detail and the intricate nature of their composition is fully revealed, and they are a marvel to behold ...
Frank
Hmm...
Sorry, there are no group results matching your search criteria
Audio Test & Measurement Engineering Group:
Looking for people, jobs or companies?
Also try:
Check your spelling
Use more general keywords
Create a Group
The publisher is pushing for a second edition of Sound Reproduction. He's active on various standards committees including SMPTE (who have now embraced AES involvment) and also lectures a lot.
My understanding is that the ear adds a significant amount of non-linear distortion to the sound before it reaches the "filter-bank". In that case sensitivity to waveform would be expected.
In any event, I thought it was well established that some people, under certain conditions, can hear a change in absolute polarity?
Glad you said that and not me. Whenever I say that really great systems reveal great stuff in what many consider "bad" recordings I get slammed for it.
You know, "Rubbish! Better systems just make bad recordings sound worse." Or words to that effect.
While I wouldn't go so far as to say that all recordings can be revealed to contain hidden sonic gems, many do. Part of my fascination with really great systems is their ability to let you hear past the recording flaws and into the music. Not a lot of folks agree with that, it seems.
I recognize this. But, you need a good recording and unfortunately, most of them now days are compressed to hell. My son trained as a RE so he has some really interesting stories to tell on this subject (he's also a fine musician, so a good combo of art and technical expertise)
2 to 1 dynamic range of MP3
It appears that the compressed sound from MP3 is on the order of yielding up a dynamic range of only 2 to 1. Anyone know fer sure?
It appears that the compressed sound from MP3 is on the order of yielding up a dynamic range of only 2 to 1. Anyone know fer sure?
Whenever I say that really great systems reveal great stuff in what many consider "bad" recordings I get slammed for it.
No slamming from me either
Totally agree - having improved my DAC quite recently its funny how many more of my old CDs which had been gathering dust are back in service again. But there are some that show up the flaws in the recording technology - particularly ones which are DSD down conversions - they noticeably lack dynamics compared with most others. So those will be going back on the shelf!Yes - on this I concur with you Pano and disagree with Frank. His claim that 'all recordings do' is actually only 'all recordings Frank has heard'.
Thank you for putting it here at this time. It certainly needs to be done asap. Its been way, way too long in coming. The data on many FFT can be found in a list of the actual measured values that are plotted. If this data was in a spread sheet, it would be just as easy to add the weighting and replot the data. Then we will have something better to correlate and make refinements to it and we are on our way to more meaningful tests/measurements.
Any takers to work on this project?? maybe Audio Precision? -RNM
Last edited:
Glad you said that and not me. Whenever I say that really great systems reveal great stuff in what many consider "bad" recordings I get slammed for it.
You know, "Rubbish! Better systems just make bad recordings sound worse." Or words to that effect.
While I wouldn't go so far as to say that all recordings can be revealed to contain hidden sonic gems, many do. Part of my fascination with really great systems is their ability to let you hear past the recording flaws and into the music. Not a lot of folks agree with that, it seems.
It is true. Except some rare cases when highs and lows were boosted in order to overcome limitations of speakers used during mastering. But the original question was about whether better system can make artificial records to sound as real, or not.
Last time I looked at one of his papers, Earl had confined himself to static distortions only. Has he extended that in the past couple of years? If not I suggest its probably only of marginal utility.
What do you define as "artificial" records? Is it the recording technique or the sources themselves?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.