Themis;347520 Wrote:
> Well, I would have preferred "half wrong" or "half right". Because you
> know that D/A converters introduce sinc approximations.
No, Pat was correct, and you were wrong. ADC's attempt to measure the
instantaneous voltage level at an exact time. They do not measure a
"tang
DeVerm;347561 Wrote:
>
> Again you misread my post. I was comparing the digital recording to an
> analog soundwave or may be converted to an analog electrical signal,
> but not to vinyl.
So when you said "analog is closer to the original", "analog" referred
to the sound wave? Then what was the
Wow this thread got active... most of you must be in a different
time-zone than me ;-)
opaqueice;347403 Wrote:
> Sorry if I implied you said something you didn't, but the claim quoted
> above is incorrect. It is not true that "analog is closer to the
> original" - that's just wrong. Again, rea
Themis;347520 Wrote:
>
> So, is there something that I forgot ?
Yes - that applies to analogue media as well.
I sometimes like to point out at this point that -we don't know- if the
world is "analog" or "digital". Everyone here is assuming sounds are
analog - but that is an -assumption- and t
A digitally-encoded square wave doesn't look identical to the one from
your function generator. If all that you are puzzled about is the
wiggly lines on the leading and trailing edges, then there is nothing
wrong. It has to do with anti-aliasing filters and stuff like that, all
predicted from samp
pfarrell;347465 Wrote:
> You are wrong. a ADC quantifies the amplitude of the signal at the
> processing time. They do not record the tangent or any derivitave.Well, I
> would have preferred "half wrong" or "half right". Because you
know that D/A converters introduce sinc approximations.
Moreo
I've been looking at getting a pair of headphones for my SB3, and the
MS1's look pretty good from what I've read. My only concern is that
when you go to order these, my IE7 browser goes mad, saying the
certificate of the website has problems and the site may be a scam.
Anyone had the same problem?
pfarrell;347465 Wrote:
> But this thread seems to be more theology than reality.No Pat, the distorted
> halo around the voice of Clare Torry, in the Great
Gig in the Sky has nothing to do with theology. And it's still ther even
at the SACD remastering. Please take an analogue source and verify t
Themis wrote:
> The first is that both the A/D and D/A parts use approximation
> algorithms. What they store (and try to reproduce) is an tangential
> value of the signal, not the instant signal value itself (correct me if
> I'm wrong).
You are wrong. a ADC quantifies the amplitude of the signal
pfarrell;347456 Wrote:
>
> I'm not following any of this recent section of the thread.
> Analogue microphones (1) transform the signal and (2) are lossy.I was
> comparing the two processes. I didn't include microphones (nor
amplifiers, nor speakers) because they are common in both.
--
Themis
Phil Leigh;347453 Wrote:
> Computers are my job too! :o)Cool ! A colleague ! <3
Phil Leigh;347453 Wrote:
> When you say it stores lossy information, do you mean that the ADC has
> lost information?
>
> What I am saying is that a good ADC or DAC will not lose any
> significant information. Ther
pfarrell;347456 Wrote:
> Themis wrote:
>
> > I was talking about the METHOD which is lossless. Is there
> > any theory saying that a non-transforming METHOD is lossy ? Can you
> > please enlighten me ?
>
> Analogue microphones (1) transform the signal and (2) are lossy.
>
> They are the first
Themis wrote:
> I was talking about the METHOD which is lossless. Is there
> any theory saying that a non-transforming METHOD is lossy ? Can you
> please enlighten me ?
Can you enlighten me on what you mean by "METHOD" here?
Do you mean method acting? or something else.
I'm not following any of
Themis;347449 Wrote:
> Sorry I edited my post before your answer. Anyway : no, digital only
> stores perfectly. No more no less. Computers are my job, I know that.
> Problem is that it stores lossy information.
> I apologize again about my editing.
Computers are my job too! :o)
When you say it
Themis;347442 Wrote:
> Dear Phil, I was talking about the METHOD which is lossless. Is there
> any theory saying that a non-transforming METHOD is lossy ? Can you
> please enlighten me ?
Dear Themis,
Ironically, the only non-transforming method is digital! - this is
basically why computers work
Phil Leigh;347448 Wrote:
> Dear Themis,
>
> Ironically, the only non-transforming method is digital! - this is
> basically why computers work perfectly... bits in = bits on storage.
>
> All analogue methods are: sound in - convert sound to electrical
> signals using a transducer (eg microphone)
Phil Leigh;347440 Wrote:
> Except that as Mr. O has tried patiently to explain with his references
> to information theory, analogue is just as lossy - actually more lossy
> - than digital.
>
> As analogue mastering is pretty nearly dead (who is still making
> analogue 2-inch tape machines these
Except that as Mr. O has tried patiently to explain with his references
to information theory, analogue is just as lossy - actually more lossy
- than digital.
As analogue mastering is pretty nearly dead (who is still making
analogue 2-inch tape machines these days? - never mind multitracks!)
the
Well, what I can say is the following:
Analog recording/reproduction is : A perfect (lossless) method, that
uses perfectible (lossy) recording gear, stores music on a perfectible
(lossy) media (tapes, vinyl,...), and uses perfectible (lossy) gear to
reproduce it (up to the amplifier).
Digital rec
GuyDebord;347290 Wrote:
> Most sound engineers?
>
> Besides, recording studios have hundreds of thousand, if not, millions
> of euros invested in digital equipment. Since the early 80's almost
> everyone trusted digital blindly. Its a matter of market (capitalism)
> over format, economy over for
One would have to conclude that the transfer process to vinyl was more
deleterious (or perhaps I should say "has a more noticeable impact"?)
to the sound than digitising the signal on the way... :o)
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what yo
DeVerm;347294 Wrote:
> I was writing a reply to your post but deleted it again because you
> didn't quote me, implying that I wrote stuff like "vinyl is better"
> etc. which I didn't. I challenge you to quote from my post and prove
> the quote(s) wrong.
I was responding to this:
DeVerm;347251 W
Can anyone confirm whether or not this feature is now working?
Thanks
Phil
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...SB3+Stontronics PSU - Altmann
JISCO/UPCI - TACT RCS 2.2X + Good Vibrations S/W - MF
Triplethreat(Audiocom
Drekracer;347356 Wrote:
> Hi
>
> My Transporter does not give me any sound out the AES EBU digital out.
> SPDIF is fine
> Anyone kwows what to do?
>
> Further, the ripped albums (Ripserver 1Tb) with front pictures are
> playing well.
> But the albums with no picture are not playing at all or so
Hi
My Transporter does not give me any sound out the AES EBU digital out.
SPDIF is fine
Anyone kwows what to do?
Further, the ripped albums (Ripserver 1Tb) with front pictures are
playing well.
But the albums with no picture are not playing at all or sometimes very
slow. As if the unit is very v
thanks for the informative reply Phil.
mabye you could "borrow" your friend's black box for a quick demo!.
i bought the Transporter last year and in doing so i simplified things
system-wise here.
Sold my SB3 and two Linn Akurate C4200's/Linn Ikemi/Pekin/Aktiv xover
box and still have my KABERS sa
dennis55;347309 Wrote:
> Phil, looking at your sig and gearhave you heard/tried a
> Transporter and if not WHY?!.
>
> DENNIS
Dennis:
1) one of my colleagues has a transporter - it sounds very good.
2) I was waiting until the issue of the digital loopback was resolved
so I can use my
Phil, looking at your sig and gearhave you heard/tried a
Transporter and if not WHY?!.
DENNIS
Phil Leigh;347306 Wrote:
> A more interesting test would be to compare analogue 2-track 2 inch tape
> running at 30ips with the digital recording.
>
> ...an even more interesting tes
A more interesting test would be to compare analogue 2-track 2 inch tape
running at 30ips with the digital recording.
...an even more interesting test is to interpose a high quality adc/dac
into the recording chain onto tape and see if anyone can identify its
presence!.
The fact is that vinyl s
DeVerm;347254 Wrote:
> If you use the SBC better check if your choice of artwork resolution
> will actually show up on it's display, before your do a lot of work and
> get problems later on. I also saw display problems on SC if resolution
> was too high but I wouldn't know what the best resolutio
opaqueice;347264 Wrote:
> Look - you're probably not going to believe me if I just keep saying
> you're wrong :-), so all I can say is to go read some information
> theory. I recommend Shannon's paper from 1948 - it's beautiful, it's
> on the interwebs for free, and I think you'll learn somethin
opaqueice;347132 Wrote:
>
> What most audiophiles believe is as far from a reliable guide to
> reality as you can get. I'd trust what most sound engineers believe,
> or most consumers, or most researchers in acoustics - and that's that
> digital is far superior to vinyl as a format.
Most sound
32 matches
Mail list logo
