I am still never sure why, in 2019 we still have a view from some that subjectivist and objectivist are opposite camps in their entirety, hiding behind their cardboard box forts and hurling insults at each other. Surely we have come further than that in the last 30 years?
And for light relief Superb Sound at Definitive's Music Matters 14 | Stereophile.com . unsuprisingly the reviewer likes the sound of a million dollar system. Not a bybee in sight, but a $60,000 equipment rack. Boggle. Had to check the manufacturer out. Sure enough they state a military/space background! For that money you could put a minus-k under everything.
And for light relief Superb Sound at Definitive's Music Matters 14 | Stereophile.com . unsuprisingly the reviewer likes the sound of a million dollar system. Not a bybee in sight, but a $60,000 equipment rack. Boggle. Had to check the manufacturer out. Sure enough they state a military/space background! For that money you could put a minus-k under everything.
No, but I hope to be at least be able to get a better meausure of how bad it is
I had to count...All right but still no answer to the question
George
Including duplicates and freebies I might never use I have 7 MC and 14 MM. I have been fair and included ortofon OM, superOM, LM, concorde and S120 in that. I need to thin the herd a bit more...
+1
Many of the insults really obscure what is being said while adding more confusion to many. What is it that makes it difficult to be civil?
No, but I hope to be at least be able to get a better meausure of how bad it is
I had to count...
Including duplicates and freebies I might never use I have 7 MC and 14 MM. I have been fair and included ortofon OM, superOM, LM, concorde and S120 in that. I need to thin the herd a bit more...
I'll take them all off your hands and offer $25.00 to help cover the shipping. But a clever guy might just trade them for a couple of new releases they were mentioning a bit ago.
When it comes to the sound and measurements of speakers different rules seem to apply. Speakers can sound vastly different and yet it's said that their distortions can be much larger than those in the electrical chain without the same detriment to quality, where does this idea come from?
Inter-sample overs are not a Nyquist violation. You are welcome to provide examples of full scale transitions in one sample period on CD's of music or provide a link to a study of the matter. Articles that talk about musical "transients" and show Gibb's effect on impulses are intellectually dishonest IMO. A spark discharge recorded at 96kHz with a wideband 1/4" mic shows no Gibbs ringing.
I know, but i think it is a good example of an effect that should not have happen but did nevertheless because nobody checked the output for something like that.
Working with numbers and calculations allows for waveforms that aren´t possible if recorded in a traditional way.
Mhm, i think that misses the point.
Therefore i provided the measurement example; nobody prevents us to use a one-sample impulse on a audio cd for measurement purposes and it is not even a Red Book violation. Although it is done intentionally would you really bet that it does not happen unintentionally?
Last edited:
I cannot replace the pleasure of retiring to the sofa and listening to vinyl with the wife of an evening. No logical reason for it but as a shared experience it ends the day nicely.
The other 19 are for experimentation and fun. Just cos a technology was obsolete 35 years ago doesn't mean one can't still mess with optimisation of it as a hobby after all.
Sorry again well known outside of audio and like dither common engineering knowledge was ignored again. If you read the analog filter section of my AD713 datasheet (c. 1986) you will notice that I mention overload on internal stages of analog "brickwall" filters for anti-aliasing, this phenomena was well known.
Certainly with insignificant frequency, yes. Like a tape splice we are left arguing if 2 or 3 instances of something in 30min of music is a "sound".
Last edited:
Absolutely, but i fail to see the argument ?!
The numbers are just speculative too, aren´t they?
That is the exact same question I stated. Seems you need to in order to have accuracy to the original source.
THx-RNMarsh
Look at the (audible?) GDelay approaching the cut-off freq.
However, their IS insufficient atten of the filter output. Significant HF energy level is being sent to the amp/speaker. NOT a good idea. It is only -70dBv down and if sent to a preamp/PA with some total gain X ... a lot of HF PA energy is going thru amp and tweeter.
Conjecture --> It may be one reason a faster SR and lower distortion at HF of CFA or current-mode amp reduces some of the IM generated from the high levels of HF present.
Thx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Classic impasse, who is going to waste their time scanning several 100 commercial CD's to prove a point?
I should note that most of the extras are currently not entirely functional at the moment. Retips required on most of them. They were very cheap...
Rather than complaining about the actions of what you call "objectivists", all you have to do is show a proof of what they did ("when people have made claims to that effect in forums such as this, sometimes the claim was dismissed as imaginary because nobody offered a convincing theoretical explanation consistent with prior auditory research, or new measurements and new research proving audibility.") turned out to be incorrect. Can you cite an example or two of such event?
Money. Don't forget that there are those who post in the interest of business.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.