pfarrell;542969 Wrote:
Phil Leigh wrote:
Don't disagree with any of this... my Beatles point was that the
multi-tracks are inherently pre-eq'd by the nature of the
equipment
in use at the time
Cute phrase. That is what all the knobs on studio consoles are for,
many
of them are a
pfarrell;542969 Wrote:
Phil Leigh wrote:
Don't disagree with any of this... my Beatles point was that the
multi-tracks are inherently pre-eq'd by the nature of the
equipment
in use at the time
Cute phrase. That is what all the knobs on studio consoles are for,
many
of them are a
mswlogo;542665 Wrote:
A good mixer will see if he let's a *FEW* (not ONE but a few) NARROW
(beyond human hearing) fringe peaks clip a little then he can get more
dynamic range
Working within the context of a defined word length, allowing clipping
does NOT give you more dynamic range. If
Phil Leigh wrote:
Ah - the happy days when I traded my 32-channel analogue desk and twin
8-track machines for a 32-channel digital desk with full automation and
unlimited channels of 24/48 DAW...
In hindsight it wasn't progress - it was a VERY expensive mistake.
Would it still be a mistake
darrenyeats;542897 Wrote:
No, it is 0.5db reduction per step downwards from 100 (0db) to 1
(-49.5db) then at 0 silence.
Your calculations are wrong. 75 volume is -12.5db (not -24db) and so 80
volume is -10db. Do all your calculations again and (not that I have to
tell you this) get back
mswlogo;543002 Wrote:
Sorry but I think you're reading it all wrong.
If you were right that would be even WORSE !!
Because at 75% they said they get 75dB Dynamic Range (instead of
ideally 96dB).
So for 2-bits of attenuation (12.5dB as you say) they lose 24dB of
dynamic range
darrenyeats;543041 Wrote:
Hi mswlogo,
If I look at the original link
(http://mysite.verizon.net/forumwebspace/RightMark/Test%20Reports/Volume.htm)
I can't see where 75db is mentioned (except 75.8db, under volume 20 or
what they call 50%).
The point is that at 80 volume on Squeezebox
mswlogo;542402 Wrote:
I was listening to some mp3's on our common server at work and really
liked one I had listened to a lot. So I bought the CD and ripped it to
FLAC. It sounded aweful. Then I asked my coworker to bring in his CD.
The one I bought was remastered as HDCD. Then I found out
On 01/05/10 05:16, mswlogo wrote:
I work with analog and digital signals at data rates that would make
your head spin.
Replies like yours are priceless.
I'm sorry that the clipping I'm referring to is beyond your grasp.
Ah, here we go, the my dick is bigger than your dick reply.
Final post on this thread for me:
take a 16/44.1 file into Audacity
make a copy, reduced by 6dB using Audacity's 24-bit level function
(this mirrors an SB acting on redbook audio)
diff the two
result: 6dB of white noise - exactly what theory predicts due to
reduction of SNR
keep going,
Here is an example of a well Mixed Recording. It is one of my standards
I always use when evaluating systems.
http://softronix.com/pictures/levelperfect/Kenny_Neal_What_You_Got_Full.jpg
But if you look close it's CLIPPED. Will you hear this tiny bit of
clipping never. The more I look at good
Phil Leigh;542594 Wrote:
Final post on this thread for me:
take a 16/44.1 file into Audacity
make a copy, reduced by 6dB using Audacity's 24-bit level function
(this mirrors an SB acting on redbook audio)
diff the two
result: 6dB of white noise - exactly what theory predicts due to
mswlogo;542627 Wrote:
Here is an example of a well Mixed Recording. It is one of my standards
I always use when evaluating systems.
http://softronix.com/pictures/levelperfect/Kenny_Neal_What_You_Got_Full.jpg
But if you look close it's CLIPPED. Will you hear this tiny bit of
clipping,
mswlogo;542627 Wrote:
Here is an example of a poor mix. Way too much headroom over 6dB.
http://softronix.com/pictures/levelperfect/Beach_Boys_Lonely_Sea.jpg
A far far better looking waveform than your reference recording. The
only problem is that it peaks too low. If it peaked at 0db that
On 02/05/10 16:35, mswlogo wrote:
Here is an example of a well Mixed Recording. It is one of my standards
I always use when evaluating systems.
http://softronix.com/pictures/levelperfect/Kenny_Neal_What_You_Got_Full.jpg
Hmm, we obviously have different ideas of well-mixed; it's certainly
On 02/05/10 17:47, darrenyeats wrote:
mswlogo;542627 Wrote:
Here is an example of a poor mix. Way too much headroom over 6dB.
http://softronix.com/pictures/levelperfect/Beach_Boys_Lonely_Sea.jpg
A far far better looking waveform than your reference recording. The
only problem is that it
Robin Bowes;542657 Wrote:
- Hurt from American IV by Johnny Cash
Um...that one is compressed to the point of distortion near the end.
It's so obvious I'm guessing it was intentional. Maybe you like that
but that ending is not a good example for dynamic range IMO.
Darren
--
darrenyeats
On 02/05/10 18:37, darrenyeats wrote:
Robin Bowes;542657 Wrote:
- Hurt from American IV by Johnny Cash
Um...that one is compressed to the point of distortion near the end.
It's so obvious I'm guessing it was intentional. Maybe you like that
but that ending is not a good example for
darrenyeats;542645 Wrote:
We have very different ideas about what looks like a good recording in
Audacity. A good recording has very very few peaks at 0db, sometimes
just one peak. That is because in real life music doesn't have a
zillion peaks at exactly the same level. Neither does the
On 02/05/10 18:57, mswlogo wrote:
There is probably a few dozen of those clips in that EXCELLENT
recording. You can disagree on taste but it is an excellent recording.
I disagree - to my mind, it is most certainly *not* an excellent
recording. Nothing to do with taste - I actually like that
Robin Bowes wrote:
You understand what happens when you simply clip a peak, don't you? You
know about the high frequency content in square waves?
Robin, stop pulling you punches. The frequency bandwidth of a square
wave is infinite.
Even if one used a stupid high frequency sample rate, you are
On 02/05/10 19:25, Pat Farrell wrote:
Robin Bowes wrote:
You understand what happens when you simply clip a peak, don't you? You
know about the high frequency content in square waves?
Robin, stop pulling you punches. The frequency bandwidth of a square
wave is infinite.
Even if one used
Robin Bowes;542669 Wrote:
On 02/05/10 18:57, mswlogo wrote:
There is probably a few dozen of those clips in that EXCELLENT
recording. You can disagree on taste but it is an excellent
recording.
I disagree - to my mind, it is most certainly *not* an excellent
recording. Nothing to do
Robin Bowes;542660 Wrote:
On 02/05/10 17:47, darrenyeats wrote:
mswlogo;542627 Wrote:
Here is an example of a poor mix. Way too much headroom over 6dB.
http://softronix.com/pictures/levelperfect/Beach_Boys_Lonely_Sea.jpg
A far far better looking waveform than your reference
mswlogo wrote:
You guys are clueless.
Now you resort to personal insults. That lowers your SeanTrollScale to
0/10
You are still a troll
Do not feed the trolls.
--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/
___
audiophiles mailing list
Curiously he appears to be having the same conversation elsewhere...
http://www.meridianunplugged.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflatNumber=117190#Post117190
--
andynormancx
Yes, it will. Yes, all of them. Yes, SoftSqueeze as well. What ?
I SAID ALL OF THEM !
On 02/05/10 20:00, mswlogo wrote:
Ok, here is 30secs of this terrible recording.
I didn't say it was a terrible recording, I said it was not a good
recording.
Let me know which samples you hear that clipped.
http://softronix.com/pictures/levelperfect/a%20terrible%20recording.zip
No need
On 02/05/10 20:20, mswlogo wrote:
Yeah modern studio's like Telarc compress the crap out of everything.
http://www.amazon.com/What-You-Kenny-Neal-Noel/dp/B4SGR7
I can't speak about other Telarc recordings that I have not heard, and I
know that some of their classical recordings that I
Robin Bowes;542702 Wrote:
On 02/05/10 20:20, mswlogo wrote:
Yeah modern studio's like Telarc compress the crap out of
everything.
http://www.amazon.com/What-You-Kenny-Neal-Noel/dp/B4SGR7
I can't speak about other Telarc recordings that I have not heard, and
I
know that some
mswlogo;542703 Wrote:
But it's not over compressed and the clipping is essentially non
existent.
By which you mean the clipping exists.
--
andynormancx
Yes, it will. Yes, all of them. Yes, SoftSqueeze as well. What ?
I SAID ALL OF THEM !
mswlogo;542703 Wrote:
But it's not over compressed and the clipping is essentially non
existent.
By which you mean the clipping exists.
--
andynormancx
Yes, it will. Yes, all of them. Yes, SoftSqueeze as well. What ?
I SAID ALL OF THEM !
andynormancx;542696 Wrote:
Curiously he appears to be having the same conversation elsewhere...
http://www.meridianunplugged.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflatNumber=117190#Post117190
You found my signature !!
I run that site and you can see the tone of the replies as well.
You
andynormancx;542704 Wrote:
By which you mean the clipping exists.
Yes that track has clipping. It's too small to even consider
attenuating or compressing to get rid of it. You'd do more harm than
good if you got rid of it. There are other ways to get rid of too. But
it's total nonsense to
On 02/05/10 21:10, mswlogo wrote:
That album is not over compressed.
Again, I didn't say it was over-compressed - I said it had a lot of
compression, which it does.
It's a bold track no doubt and it may not be your cup o tea.
I'm not commenting on the musical content, merely the sound. As
mswlogo;542705 Wrote:
This is on $10K to $300K systems.
I'm afraid I am naturally suspicious of the judgement of anyone who has
spent $300K on a hifi setup.
--
andynormancx
Yes, it will. Yes, all of them. Yes, SoftSqueeze as well. What ?
I SAID ALL OF THEM !
mswlogo;542681 Wrote:
Ok, here is 30secs of this terrible recording.
Let me know which samples you hear that clipped.
http://softronix.com/pictures/levelperfect/a%20terrible%20recording.zip
I hope the performer does not shoot me but I suspect after some folks
hear even this short
On 02/05/10 22:29, mlsstl wrote:
Tell me again what's getting lost in the mud at -80 and -90 dB?
You mean you can't hear the marching band at 0:19 - 0:25 ?? ;)
R.
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
mlsstl;542726 Wrote:
I downloaded the clip and took a look at it in Adobe Audition. The track
I looked at showed no clipping at all. The highest peak was -0.19 dB. Of
course that could have been dynamically limited during the recording,
mixing or mastering process, but there is more than one
Robin Bowes;542731 Wrote:
On 02/05/10 22:29, mlsstl wrote:
Tell me again what's getting lost in the mud at -80 and -90 dB?
You mean you can't hear the marching band at 0:19 - 0:25 ?? ;)
R.
When you don't have a good technical explanation this what people
resort to.
Brahms and
mswlogo;542736 Wrote:
You spent too much, so you must be idiot?
That isn't what I said at all. There are plenty of very bright people
who lose all sense of judgement when it comes to expensive hi-fi.
--
andynormancx
Yes, it will. Yes, all of them. Yes, SoftSqueeze as well. What ?
I SAID
On 02/05/10 23:08, mswlogo wrote:
When you don't have a good technical explanation this what people
resort to.
Brahms and Marching bands in the same cut.
What do you do for work?
You're not a musician are you?
You spent too much, so you must be idiot?
I'm waiting for the spelling
Robin Bowes;542749 Wrote:
On 02/05/10 23:08, mswlogo wrote:
When you don't have a good technical explanation this what people
resort to.
Brahms and Marching bands in the same cut.
What do you do for work?
You're not a musician are you?
You spent too much, so you must
On 02/05/10 23:53, mswlogo wrote:
As I have defended myself the insults go up.
So now you're saying the example I gave isn't clipping?
You will recall that I have said previously:
... or you're possibly using the term incorrectly.
I believe you are using the term incorrectly. There is a
Here is another famous tune. This is the remastered version.
I know, I know, it's Hardlimited, Overcompressed crap.
Red lines show clipping. I could find 100 tunes easily of good
recordings that are not over compressed (which actually has nothing to
do with clipping).
On 03/05/10 00:32, mswlogo wrote:
Here is another famous tune. This is the remastered version.
I know, I know, it's Hardlimited, Overcompressed crap.
Red lines show clipping. I could find 100 tunes easily of good
recordings that are not over compressed (which actually has nothing to
do
Robin Bowes;542757 Wrote:
On 02/05/10 23:53, mswlogo wrote:
As I have defended myself the insults go up.
So now you're saying the example I gave isn't clipping?
You will recall that I have said previously:
... or you're possibly using the term incorrectly.
I believe you are
mswlogo;542665 Wrote:
So you're saying you'd sacrifice some dynamic range for 1 peak, one
sample wide.
If you believe your reference track has been limited in respect of just
one sample then fine but if you want to know what I'm saying read my
earlier posts.
--
darrenyeats
On 03/05/10 00:39, mswlogo wrote:
In the correction I said your not actually getting more dynamic range
but your better fitting the data to the window of dynamic range you
have by letting it clip a little.
Yes, so you're actually *reducing* dynamic range.
If folks are using The Knob I
Replying through the forum to catch your edits...
mswlogo;542762 Wrote:
Now your playing games with calling it compression to cover your back
side. That is total B.S. It's not compressed, it's not hard limited it
has inaudible minor clipping and it sounds great on my system.
You really
robinbowes;542771 Wrote:
Replying through the forum to catch your edits...
You really believe that track is not compressed? Yes, it may sound
great, but it is most definitely compressed.
And I, in common with pretty much every one else who has replied on
here, believe you're wrong
mswlogo;542735 Wrote:
I just verified it with two well respected tools and that clip is
clipped.
Whatever.
I always thought Adobe Audition was a pretty respectable program, but
I'm really not the one who's in the middle of the clipping debate.
My question was about the quiet end of the
mlsstl;542775 Wrote:
Why does material need to be clipped (or run close to clipping) for a
track that, for practical purposes, has 20 or 30 dB worth of dynamic
range?
That's the subject of a whole different discussion! The insane
loudness war's that seem to prevail the mixing studio's these
Robin Bowes;542768 Wrote:
On 03/05/10 00:39, mswlogo wrote:
In the correction I said your not actually getting more dynamic
range
but your better fitting the data to the window of dynamic range you
have by letting it clip a little.
Yes, so you're actually *reducing* dynamic range.
I looked at that first test one more time.
It is 50% of the dB scale.
They end up with 72dB dynamic range at Volume of 20.
Take a 16bit word inside 20bits and shift it 8 bits to the right
(that's 48dB - 1/2 the log scale).
Now you have 12bits (you lost 4 bits because it's not really a 24bit
I didn't want to edit my post since some are using RSS etc.
I'm referring to this test. Good test by the way.
http://mysite.verizon.net/forumwebspace/RightMark/Test%20Reports/Volume.htm
Look at Volume 30. That is the same as Volume 75 today.
That's about 24dB attenuation (they mark as 75%).
I didn't want to edit my post since some are using RSS etc.
I'm referring to this test. Good test by the way.
http://mysite.verizon.net/forumwebspace/RightMark/Test%20Reports/Volume.htm
Look at Volume 30. That is the same as Volume 75 today.
That's about 24dB attenuation (they mark as 75%).
DCtoDaylight;542776 Wrote:
There's no excuse for, or need of, digital clipping with the resolution
of today's gear, yet sadly, it's not uncommon. I've got DVD-Audio
disks with clipping, even with their 24 bit capability. Sad, sad,
sad...Please could you share the titles so that I can avoid
I follow this with interest, as I know little on the subject.
I hope you folks will stop being rude to each other and won't let your
passion spoil the debate... :(
--
Themis
SBT - North Star dac 192 - Croft 25Pre and Series 7 power - Sonus Faber
Grand Piano Domus
I've studied the Meridian papers and the 518 manual.
In 1995, the 518 was addressing certain very real problems that to some
extent have now been addressed in other ways.
Specifically, their major concern is optimising the transfer function
across boundaries where bit-depth changes and
Phil Leigh;542199 Wrote:
For the last time... if you can't hear a marching band mixed into
Brahms Lullaby in the bottom 3-bits of a 16-bit full-scale peak
recording, you can't hear the bottom 3-bits of the Lullaby either
I'm not sure about that, Phil.
The marching band is
Themis;542213 Wrote:
I'm not sure about that, Phil.
The marching band is uncorrelated to the Brahms, so it is treated as
background noise.
The fact that you can't hear it, doesn't necessarily mean that if you
had 3 bits of correlated signal it wouldn't be noticeable.
Does it ?
Themis -
guys
maybe you stop talking about bits in audiophile section?
do not tell me that I do not hear when I do :-)
--
michael123
michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745
View this thread:
Phil Leigh;542240 Wrote:
Themis - Try it for yourself and see what you think. In one version the
bottom 3 bits are the bottom 3 (100% correlated) bits of the lullaby,
in the other they have been replaced by something else (in this case a
marching band mixed with the lullaby, could have been
Phil Leigh;542199 Wrote:
That's your homework... now play nicely.
Very nice post Phil.
I agree with a lot of it except a couple things.
People keep using Brahms and Marching bands simultaneously as an
example.
Well I for one dont listen to Smashing pumpkins and harp in the same
digital
michael123;542242 Wrote:
maybe you stop talking about bits in audiophile section?
do not tell me that I do not hear when I do :-)
What you're saying now is I hear this which is a different kind of
statement. I don't question what you hear.
I do question ...and Don't EVER use Digital Volume
darrenyeats;542301 Wrote:
What you're saying now is I hear this which is a different kind of
statement. I don't question what you hear.
I do question ...and Don't EVER use Digital Volume Control and
Digital Attenuation is BAD BAD BAD BAD even just a little is BAD.
There are many
michael123;542304 Wrote:
Why do you think BTW that both John Atkinson from Stereophile, and
Steven Stone from Absolute Sound recommend putting Transporter on 100?
BTW, both are excellent sound engineers..
I'd put more store in what Ethan Weiner says than either of those guys,
mswlogo;542277 Wrote:
Very nice post Phil.
I agree with a lot of it except a couple things.
People keep using Brahms and Marching bands simultaneously as an
example.
Well I for one dont listen to Smashing pumpkins and harp in the same
digital sample.
Music swings from high to
Just looking at your gig, nice TV!
In my ear mind, I would think it's better if you can switch your
listening position to achieve a more LEDE, Live End Dead End setup,
putting your stereo on the flat wall side and your chair on the open
side. As it is, you will get lots of early echo from the
Phil Leigh;542321 Wrote:
You can't keep (blindly) shifting the level up ONLY when things get
quieter...
Well, you -can- do that, but then what's the point of dynamic range if
one simply wants to turn the soft parts up (which makes the loud parts
too loud)?
There is a school of thought that
Phil Leigh;542321 Wrote:
However, the crucial thing with HDCD is that it doesn't sound in any
way bad on a non-HDCD DAC...
I was listening to some mp3's on our common server at work and really
liked one I had listened to a lot. So I bought the CD and ripped it to
FLAC. It sounded aweful.
empty99;542386 Wrote:
Just looking at your gig, nice TV!
In my ear mind, I would think it's better if you can switch your
listening position to achieve a more LEDE, Live End Dead End setup,
putting your stereo on the flat wall side and your chair on the open
side. As it is, you will get
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_masking
Phil Leigh;541860 Wrote:
Your last test has already been done, as I posted earlier.
The fact is that people cant hear a brass marching band stuffed into
the bottom bits of a 16-bit file playing Brahms Lullaby!
Ironically, if they could,
Phil Leigh;541860 Wrote:
I'm still not clear exactly what effect you think digital attenuation
has on the sound?
For my (usually low) listening levels, analog preamp sound enjoyable,
while digital lacks bass, imaging... Sounds nonsense?
--
michael123
Imagine sitting a comfortable distance from your 50 1080HD TV screen.
Imagine someone reduces the size of a picture from fullscreen to
1/128th the size - a 7 bit reduction of digital volume to a dithered
15x8 pixel image. Is the image noticeably more pixellated than with a
fullscreen image?
If
Imagine sitting a comfortable distance from your 50 1080HD TV screen.
Imagine someone reduces the size of a picture from fullscreen to
1/128th the size - a 7 bit reduction of digital volume to a dithered
15x8 pixel image. Is the image noticeably more pixellated than with a
fullscreen image?
If
Phil Leigh;541860 Wrote:
You are also missing the point about human hearing vs what systems can
actually do in terms of dynamic range. There are very few hi-fi systems
that can generate 120dB of clean sound. Even so, the human ear cannot
actually hear 0dB and 120dB AT THE SAME TIME
mswlogo;541941 Wrote:
Who says I have to listen to 0 and 120dB at the same time to enjoy 120dB
of dynamic range?
Doesn't your music get loud and soft. Mine certainly does. Even in the
same song. Or movie for that matter.
So yeah when it's loud and busy I won't hear missing low bits. But
cliveb;541971 Wrote:
Darren: you, Phil I are flogging a dead horse. mswlogo is either a
troll or his mistaken beliefs are so deep rooted as to be unshiftable.
All we can do is present the facts here in the hope that others will
understand.
It seems most in this thread do understand and do
darrenyeats;541951 Wrote:
You're discussing the limits of digital reproduction, not digital volume
control. As I showed with my analogy if CD's 96db of dynamic range is
not enough for you then it isn't enough - digital volume control isn't
the actual problem.
Limits of digital reproduction
mswlogo;541993 Wrote:
Limits of digital reproduction and digital volume ARE related !!!
I like your using the TV for an analogy but unfortunately it's
completely wrong.
It's interesting to watch the back and forth in discussions like this.
However, the reality is that digital volume
mlsstl;542006 Wrote:
It's interesting to watch the back and forth in discussions like this.
However, the reality is that digital volume control is probably already
permanently embedded in the vast majority of all recordings of the past
20 years, including classical.
At some point, an
mlsstl;542006 Wrote:
It's interesting to watch the back and forth in discussions like this.
However, the reality is that digital volume control is probably already
permanently embedded in the vast majority of all recordings of the past
20 years, including classical.
At some point, an
It's true that the studio productions are so pristine for the vast
majority of the records produced... :D
--
Themis
SBT - North Star dac 192 - Croft 25Pre and Series 7 power - Sonus Faber
Grand Piano Domus
Themis's
Phil Leigh;542026 Wrote:
This is so true. Does anyone really think engineers/producers sit there
in studios, staring at banks of digital faders (real or virtual or
both) and think hmmm, better not touch any of those in case the sound
falls apart..
No they don't. They mix/master the
mswlogo;541993 Wrote:
Limits of digital reproduction and digital volume ARE related !!!
What I meant was that the discussion of 16 bits versus 20 bits is one
thing but it's separate to digital volume control. Once you've settled
on a number of bits you're happy with (let's say for you 20 bits,
On 30/04/10 20:28, mswlogo wrote:
... the pristine ones always take full advantage of all the
dynamic range and have just an itty bit of clipping.
So, you think that the best sounding CDs have digital clipping???
I think that speaks volumes.
R.
___
Robin Bowes;542127 Wrote:
On 30/04/10 20:28, mswlogo wrote:
... the pristine ones always take full advantage of all the
dynamic range and have just an itty bit of clipping.
So, you think that the best sounding CDs have digital clipping???
I think that speaks volumes.
R.
On 01/05/10 02:11, mswlogo wrote:
Robin Bowes;542127 Wrote:
On 30/04/10 20:28, mswlogo wrote:
... the pristine ones always take full advantage of all the
dynamic range and have just an itty bit of clipping.
So, you think that the best sounding CDs have digital clipping???
I think that
Robin Bowes;542141 Wrote:
On 01/05/10 02:11, mswlogo wrote:
Robin Bowes;542127 Wrote:
On 30/04/10 20:28, mswlogo wrote:
... the pristine ones always take full advantage of all the
dynamic range and have just an itty bit of clipping.
So, you think that the best sounding CDs have
On 01/05/10 03:02, mswlogo wrote:
Robin Bowes;542141 Wrote:
On 01/05/10 02:11, mswlogo wrote:
Robin Bowes;542127 Wrote:
On 30/04/10 20:28, mswlogo wrote:
... the pristine ones always take full advantage of all the
dynamic range and have just an itty bit of clipping.
So, you think that
Robin Bowes;542150 Wrote:
On 01/05/10 03:02, mswlogo wrote:
Robin Bowes;542141 Wrote:
On 01/05/10 02:11, mswlogo wrote:
Robin Bowes;542127 Wrote:
On 30/04/10 20:28, mswlogo wrote:
... the pristine ones always take full advantage of all the
dynamic range and have just an itty
mswlogo wrote:
I work with analog and digital signals at data rates that would make
your head spin.
Specifics please?
Replies like yours are priceless.
I'm sorry that the clipping I'm referring to is beyond your grasp.
1/10
--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/
pfarrell;542158 Wrote:
mswlogo wrote:
I work with analog and digital signals at data rates that would make
your head spin.
Specifics please?
Replies like yours are priceless.
I'm sorry that the clipping I'm referring to is beyond your grasp.
1/10
--
Pat Farrell
mswlogo wrote:
We determine the speed at which IONS fly through a vaccum in order to
determine their Mass.
I did that in high school physics class, over 40 years ago.
You are still a troll, and your score is no higher than
1/10
on the SeanTrollScale
--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/
pfarrell;542164 Wrote:
mswlogo wrote:
We determine the speed at which IONS fly through a vaccum in order
to
determine their Mass.
I did that in high school physics class, over 40 years ago.
You are still a troll, and your score is no higher than
1/10
on the SeanTrollScale
--
pfarrell;542164 Wrote:
mswlogo wrote:
We determine the speed at which IONS fly through a vaccum in order
to
determine their Mass.
I did that in high school physics class, over 40 years ago.
You are still a troll, and your score is no higher than
1/10
on the SeanTrollScale
--
Thanks for all your help chaps, much appreciated.
I'll go and have another play with the setup over the weekend. I like
the idea of using the 518 as a preamp and keeping things 'digital' as
long as possible but the 502 is such a lovely piece of kit that it
seems a shame not to use it!
Many
Wow lot posts since I last checked this thread.
Folks I'm well aware of Practice vs Theory.
The point of the test is to check *ROUGHLY* what your limit is.
I was actually surprised I could easily hear 18bits or more (GRANTED at
full analog volume).
Also keep in mind when you use digital
mswlogo;541844 Wrote:
Wow lot posts since I last checked this thread.
Folks I'm well aware of Practice vs Theory.
The point of the test is to check *ROUGHLY* what your limit is.
I was actually surprised I could easily hear 18bits or more from sweet
spot (GRANTED at full analog
101 - 200 of 282 matches
Mail list logo
