Wombat wrote:
> Me suffers from sticky weather here also.
Morning Wombat!
I presume that you've abandoned any plans for a last-minute vacation in
Sicily... :D
Dave :cool: (Pleasantly sunny, but 21C max here today)
Wombat wrote:
> I stick to my Transporter also. I love it. When you think otherwise we
> must have misunderstood. I stopped fiddling with the DAC part because it
> doesn't come any better imho. Some tasty voicing in sound aside.
> I played with my speakers to optimize them for my room for some
Golden Earring wrote:
>
> Me, I'm old, & I like to stick to stuff I'm used to.
>
I stick to my Transporter also. I love it. When you think otherwise we
must have misunderstood. I stopped fiddling with the DAC part because it
doesn't come any better imho. Some tasty voicing in sound aside.
I
Wombat wrote:
> Debating S/PDIF in the times of USB is a bit of nostalgia. Get a
> rasberry pi and a good USB DAC. No need for 2000$ toys.
Hi again Wombat!
Again you are of course correct.
Don't really understand why you haven't unloaded your Transporter (that
you don't seem to like much) on
Debating S/PDIF in the times of USB is a bit of nostalgia. Get a
rasberry pi and a good USB DAC. No need for 2000$ toys.
Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA
monoblocks -> Sommer SPK240 -> self-made speakers
That post certainly woke this dormant thread up!
I've stuck this up before, but since it's a new enquiry, here again is
Sean Adam's take (& technical reference source):
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?39770-Setting-Transporter-to-Slave-for-World-Clock-Input/page3
&
Golden Earring wrote:
> Do you have any of the usual German obsessions, e.g. cars, beer
> festivals & a general distrust of American governments, which would
> resonate with me also or are you strictly an audio geek? ;)
>
High Dave,
i am pretty german, some DNA elements are from austria. I
Wombat wrote:
> I am long enough in other forums and people know i am from germany i
> guess. Crazy weather here these days.
> Cheers!
Hi Wombat!
With your surreal sense of humour I wouldn't have guessed that you were
German (unless you just happen to live there now... ). Congratulations
on
I am long enough in other forums and people know i am from germany i
guess. Crazy weather here these days.
Cheers!
Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA
monoblocks -> Sommer SPK240 -> self-made speakers
Wombat wrote:
> Me suffers from sticky weather here also.
Hi Wombat!
Other points noted.
Thanks for your kind wishes: it's a downward spiral sadly, but at least
I'll die of something else! I'm surely reminded that I'm still alive
every morning... ;)
However, my days improve with medication &
RayDunzl has only upsampled to 384kHz to get a better picture in the
Audacity waveform view. Software like Audition visualizes with applied
sync filter and Audacity can't.
Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA
monoblocks -> Sommer SPK240 -> self-made speakers
Wombat wrote:
> Since we both don't know how it was measured my guess is that the
> measured distortion is added by purpose with parts of the analog output
> stage. Maybe some audiophile voiced op amp to simulate pleasant sound.
> When clipping is a problem you might consider the digital volume
Since we both don't know how it was measured my guess is that the
measured distortion is added by purpose with parts of the analog output
stage. Maybe some audiophile voiced op amp to simulate pleasant sound.
When clipping is a problem you might consider the digital volume control
to prevent the
Wombat wrote:
> Some simple measurements for the Mytek Brooklyn fanboys.
> http://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/review-and-measurements-of-mytek-brooklyn-dac.1828/
Hi Wombat!
Since the nice night-nurse couldn't be bothered to read the clear manual
(or even make a phone
Some simple measurements for the Mytek Brooklyn fanboys.
http://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/review-and-measurements-of-mytek-brooklyn-dac.1828/#post-46134
It measures almost as good as a 70$ Behringer :)
Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA
Ok so if I understand correctly you're quoting the number of bits the 32
bit volume control can reduce by without truncation, and if a DAC chip
quotes a 64 bit volume control this quoted value would double to "20
bits" volume range, but would still represent the exact same amount of
DB volume
drmatt wrote:
> I was assuming the volume was operated similar to Squeezebox, i.e. by
> modifying the input stream to the DAC and using its output as-is. Is
> that not what you're referring to here? I believe that's how the
> transporter works.
>
That is what I am referring to. There are two
Julf wrote:
> Yes. No. Maybe. But mostly No. Digital volume control, by definition, is
> never "bit perfect" - any attenuation in the digital domain changes the
> bits. But likewise any volume change in the analog domain changes the
> signal voltage, and normally decreases signal-to-noise ratio.
I was assuming the volume was operated similar to Squeezebox, i.e. by
modifying the input stream to the DAC and using its output as-is. Is
that not what you're referring to here? I believe that's how the
transporter works.
-Transcoded from Matt's brain by Tapatalk-
--
Hardware: 3x Touch, 1x
drmatt wrote:
> Further, noting that the SNR of even a top end 24 or 32 bit DAC is
> rarely much greater than about 20 bits (making the high bit count
> designation totally pointless), it seems likely that you really only get
> about 6-8 bits digital attenuation before you lose something into
True enough. Further, noting that the SNR of even a top end 24 or 32 bit
DAC is rarely much greater than about 20 bits (making the high bit count
designation totally pointless), it seems likely that you really only get
about 6-8 bits digital attenuation before you lose something into noise.
drmatt wrote:
> More comments when I have more time, but iirc the digital volume control
> is only "bit perfect" when volume is reduced by less than 8 bits. If you
> lower it further it truncates even 16 bit sources. (I forget what this
> translates to in dB.)
Yes. No. Maybe. But mostly No.
drmatt wrote:
> More comments when I have more time, but iirc the digital volume control
> is only "bit perfect" when volume is reduced by less than 8 bits. If you
> lower it further it truncates even 16 bit sources. (I forget what this
> translates to in dB.)
>
> Documentation suggests both
More comments when I have more time, but iirc the digital volume control
is only "bit perfect" when volume is reduced by less than 8 bits, or
approx 32db. If you lower it further it truncates even 16 bit sources.
Documentation suggests both the transporter and the mytek achieve >20
bit accuracy,
arnyk wrote:
> I'm searching for a reason why this anecdote should be given much
> weight.
Hi Arny!
I'd categorise it as a rant rather than an anecdote - I can get
cantankerous when my back is screaming...
Feeling more comfortable now, hope you're having a good weekend.
Dave (:)er now)
drmatt wrote:
> FWIW I don't doubt you can hear a difference between two DACs in a
> scenario like this. You may also actually have a faulty transporter (or
> power unit), which would colour the analogue output much more. A "DAC",
> to the consumer, is the combination of its immeasurably perfect
Golden Earring wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> I've recently been assembling some first-time music systems for my 2
> daughters & their hubbies (well unless fiancé or my #1 daughter get the
> collywobbles in the next 4 weeks... ), & got hold of some active studio
> near-field monitor derived active
FWIW I don't doubt you can hear a difference between two DACs in a
scenario like this. You may also actually have a faulty transporter (or
power unit), which would colour the analogue output much more.
You are also talking about two bits of kit designed with different aims,
fifteen or so years
Wombat wrote:
> No reason to become huffy only because some of us don't take others
> daydreaming to serious. The internet is just to full of it already.
Hi Wombat!
I realised long ago that you & I would never see eye to eye.
AFAIR, the only time I called you on something, you got very huffy.
Julf wrote:
> So clearly there is a reason for the audible difference. Did you make
> sure the levels were matched?
Hi Julf!
Not to 0.1 dB, but close enough. It's not a small difference - I'm 62,
although my HF hearing appears to be holding up surprisingly well
judging from a sweep test. But
Golden Earring wrote:
>
> If you can't hear it, you can't hear it. There is no point in arguing
> against a fact. If other people did hear it, they would be dismissed as
> frauds or else some flaw in the test would be alleged - you can't be an
> audiophile with poor hearing, after all, it would
So clearly there is a reason for the audible difference. Did you make
sure the levels were matched?
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch,
Hi all!
I've recently been assembling some first-time music systems for my 2
daughters & their hubbies (well unless fiancé or my #1 daughter get the
collywobbles in the next 4 weeks... ), & got hold of some active studio
near-field monitor derived active bookshelf 2-way units off eBay brand
new
arnyk wrote:
> Surface Mount Device - a newer way to solder parts to circuit cards
> while avoiding soldering and bending wires and drilling holes in the
> circuit cards for those wires. The parts are glued to the board with
> high temperature epoxy and soldered in an oven that melts solder on
Golden Earring wrote:
> I'm all for a bit of fun.
>
> What does "SMD" stand for, please? I'm having trouble understanding your
> banter, old chap!
>
> Dave :)
Surface Mount Device - a newer way to solder parts to circuit cards
while avoiding soldering and bending wires and drilling holes in
Wombat wrote:
> There is no need and i don't start threads about imaginary things i
> daydream to be heard just because i wasted 2000$ on something that adds
> no improvement.
> I sometimes mod things for fun because i can. How was your latest SMD
> soldering going?
I'm all for a bit of fun.
Golden Earring wrote:
>
> I notice that you haven't explained your modded Transporter yet for our
> edification...
>
There is no need and i don't start threads about imaginary things i
daydream to be heard just because i wasted 2000$ on something that adds
no improvement.
I sometimes mod
Julf wrote:
> The ENOB (effective number of bits) of the sabre is 22 bits.
That's more SNR than I'm going to get out of my room.
Your point about available recordings is accepted.
Dave :)
P.S. Sorry for delay, I hammerited my nose! How I laffed...
Wombat wrote:
> You surely were already from the start of your promotional trip. So many
> posts, so many brainfu** but no time to do even a small valid test...
Hi again Wombat!
I notice that you haven't explained your modded Transporter yet for our
edification...
Dave :)
darrenyeats wrote:
> FWIW, SoX uses 32 bit integer internally when passing data between each
> process step you specify.
Sure, and most DSP chips also use 32 bit (or more) *internally*.
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity'
FWIW, SoX uses 32 bit integer internally when passing data between each
process step you specify.
Each process step can internally use a higher resolution, some
calculations use 64 bit float.
SoX can also finally output 32 bit PCM as WAV, if you want.
Check it, add to it!
Golden Earring wrote:
>
> I'm now starting to feel justified in my assertion that I'm getting
> superior audible output...
>
You surely were already from the start of your promotional trip. So many
posts, so many brainfuck but no time to do even a small valid test...
Transporter (modded) ->
Golden Earring wrote:
> P.S. As I understand it, it's got 4 Sabre DAC chips in it
The ENOB (effective number of bits) of the sabre is 22 bits.
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge
Golden Earring wrote:
> Since the DAC will accept up to 32 bit 384kHz PCM (via USB input), I
> think the latter...
Or not. "32 bit PCM" most often means 32-bit floating point (that has a
resolution of 23 bits), not 32-bit fixed point.
Anyway, 32-bit fixed point would not make any sense, as
Julf wrote:
> Are we talking about 32-bit floating point (that has 24 bit resolution)
> or something with a resolution that is higher than 24 bits?
Hi Julf!
Since the DAC will accept up to 32 bit 384kHz PCM (via USB input), I
think the latter...
Dave :)
Golden Earring wrote:
> Of course back in 2008 Sean was still singing the praises of the fixed
> point 24 bit DAC chips inside the Transporter (which were famously
> marketed as "magic") & its 20ps jitter internal clock - but then there
> weren't any 32 bit DAC chips back then.
Are we talking
Hi all!
I've finally stumbled across Mr Adams himself discussing using an
external DAC to a Transporter, & his theoretical justification for the
best way to do it...
The discussion comes in a Slim Devices forum thread where Mr Adams is
(very patiently!) trying to explain to someone who has
arnyk wrote:
> More substance?
>
> http://www.aes.org/journal/online/JAES_V65/5/#paper1
>
> Modeling Perceptual Characteristics of Loudspeaker Reproduction in a
> Stereo Setup
>
> http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/JAES/20170602/JAES_V65_5_PG356hirez.pdf
Hi Arny!
Sorry to be late responding but
Golden Earring wrote:
> Since it's too hot today in my concrete box of a lounge for me to ingest
> anything technical I thought I'd chuck out a couple of links I've had up
> my sleeve for other people to peruse (& doubtless have a pop at, we
> could do with a bit of controversy it's all gone a
Golden Earring wrote:
> Would I be right in guessing you have a Mytek Stereo192?
>
> I don't know how the display works on the earlier models, but the
> Brokkly has a summary display (which you can set to extinguish after a
> delay if you wish) which shows the sampling frequency in reasonably
>
Since it's too hot today in my concrete box of a lounge for me to ingest
anything technical I thought I'd chuck out a couple of links I've had up
my sleeve for other people to peruse (& doubtless have a pop at, we
could do with a bit of controversy it's all gone a bit flat).
The first one is the
I wouldn't down-sample a high rate file. It's not always a good idea,
I'd leave it alone.
Under some circumstances, you might up-sample before sending the file to
the DAC, but this would only make sense if you knew you could up-sample
at higher quality than the DAC's internal up-sampling.
drmatt wrote:
> Mine only has fast and slow filter settings. I don't remember seeing
> documentation about the cut-off points for pcm either.
Would I be right in guessing you have a Mytek Stereo192?
I don't know how the display works on the earlier models, but the
Brokkly has a summary display
Golden Earring wrote:
> Having dug through all the stuff about the dimensions of King Solomon's
> Temple in the user manual, I can't find a definite answer to this. For
> PCM playback there are 3 filter *-shapes-* selectable by the user, viz:
> 1. Minimum Phase; 2. Slow Roll-Off; & 3. Fast
arnyk wrote:
> A proper job of upsampling avoids this problem. Anti-aliasing is part
> of a good implementation of upsampling. This results in a 24/96 file
> that lacks any meaningful content above 22 KHz.
Morning Arny!
It must be seriously early in Michigan, so don't rush to reply to this
Morning Doc!
drmatt wrote:
> Are you sure the Brooklyn doesn't still use a 22khz-ish filter even when
> upsampling? I don't remember reading about that.
Having dug through all the stuff about the dimensions of King Solomon's
Temple in the user manual, I can't find a definite answer to this.
Golden Earring wrote:
>
>
> However the question arises as to whether a 24/96 format recording might
> actually sound -*worse*- than 16/44.1 on account of the anti-aliasing
> filtering not being applied until a much higher frequency, which
> potentially would permit the onward transmission of
Are you sure the Brooklyn doesn't still use a 22khz-ish filter even when
upsampling? I don't remember reading about that.
Do you always manually set your sample rate in the Brooklyn? I have one
of its predecessors and leave it to sync to input and I can't say I've
ever really noticed any
Morning peeps!
Having been (fairly) reprimanded for being frivolous on this august
forum I thought I'd make a concerted effort to be serious.
It has been mentioned to me more than once on this forum that I would
obtain as much audible satisfaction from the (relatively small
proportion, in the
iPhone wrote:
> I thought this was the Audiophile Section on a Digital Forum :confused:
>
There are a few good bits in this tangled thread!
I think we're just catching our breath & being nostalgic now the days
are getting long.
If you can hold on I'm sure we'll we hard at it again soon...
.
I thought this was the Audiophile Section on a Digital Forum
:confused:
HiFi VCRs were notorious for losing there head alignment and if they
were used often needed annual or serving every two years minimum to stay
in spec. People treated them like push lawnmowers. They would bring them
into
kidstypike wrote:
> Compact cassettes :mad:
>
> Head cleaning cassettes
> Head demagnetizers
> Splicing kits
> Breaking out the tab so you couldn't accidentally record over
> Taping up the hole so you *could* record over
> Rewinding with a Bic biro
>
> Any more?
Pre-recorded cassettes that:
1.
Be warned that Jack Daniels WILL stick to your tubes.
That's exactly what I like about it...
Dave :cool:
Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646
View this thread:
Golden Earring wrote:
> Vodka worked just as well & took some of the irritation away afterwards,
> AFAICR...
>
> And you always knew where you'd left your pen - it was next to your
> cassette tapes!
>
> Dave :cool:
Ha-ha!
Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/
SB Touch
drmatt wrote:
> Q-tips and isopropyl alcohol
> Adjusting head alignment ..
Vodka worked just as well & took some of the irritation away afterwards,
AFAICR...
Dave :cool:
Golden Earring's Profile:
Q-tips and isopropyl alcohol
Adjusting head alignment ..
Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk
--
Hardware: 3x Touch, 1x Radio, 2x Receivers, 1 HP Microserver NAS with
Debian+LMS 7.9.0
Music: ~1300 CDs, as 450 GB of 16/44k FLACs. No less than 3x 24/44k
albums..
Compact cassettes :mad:
Head cleaning cassettes
Head demagnetizers
Splicing kits
Breaking out the tab so you couldn't accidentally record over
Taping up the hole so you *could* record over
Rewinding with a Bic biro
Any more?
LMS 7.9 on a Raspberry Pi 3/piCorePlayer 3.20, playlists and LMS
Golden Earring wrote:
> Morning Doc!
>
> The inclusion of linear stereo on VHS tapes was actually a backward step
> from mono in terms of sound quality because the two tracks (plus a
> separation gap) had to be fitted into the fairly narrow portion of the
> tape not scanned by the spinning
drmatt wrote:
> The "hifi" track was placed alongside the video with an extra set of
> heads, and obviously the non-hifi linear track had to remain where it
> always was and contain a replica of the audio for compatibility with
> other decks. There were i think a few decks that offered linear
arnyk wrote:
> That makes no sense, since *vinyl has no technical advantages at all
> over the CD*.
Morning Arny!
You have misinterpreted my meaning here - perhaps I should have made my
point more explicitly.
What I meant was simply that there was no way to "clone" or "rip" an LP
back in the
arnyk wrote:
> Wrong and wrong.
Chill, actually I didn't disagree with what you wrote...
Alongside also means "at the same time as or in coexistence with".
>
> So, the audio track was not along side the video track, it was under it
> as I previously suggested.
>
> So the sound quality was
drmatt wrote:
> Personally I would never have declared it as an alternative to CD, but
> it was a convenient alternative to compact cassette if you needed long
> running times.
>
> The "hifi" track was placed alongside the video with an extra set of
> heads, and obviously the non-hifi linear
arnyk wrote:
> Careful pro workers rewound the tape which often made the echo weaker or
> even lost it in the hiss.
At the BBC we always stored tapes (1/4" full-track mono or two-track
stereo) end out, so the pre-echo became a post-echo and thus less
obtrusive. Of course they then had to be
arnyk wrote:
> VHS HiFi added a track that was buried under the video track, using a
> different carrier frequency than the video. If memory serves, both the
> video and the audio were recorded with FM. The audio data was recorded
> via FM which with the parameters chosen hardly gave even just
darrenyeats wrote:
> Bit of a tangent now Arny, but this reminds of print-through, a problem
> on the recording side with tape. This can manifest as a pre-echo as the
> magnetic pattern on the tape transfers slightly to the adjacent layer.
> It becomes noticeable when a very quiet passage
arnyk wrote:
>
> Tape always picks up problems when used heavily, and also big exposures
> to suboptimal storage and handling. It also has problems with rapid
> access to different parts of the media. CD media has no known relevant
> usage or storage limits if treated reasonably.
>
Bit of a
drmatt wrote:
> NICAM was an interesting technology, but it was only used on the
> broadcast side. A VCR recorded analogue audio. Maybe you knew that, I
> wasn't clear from your post so just clarifying.
>
VHS HiFi added a track that was buried under the video track, using a
different carrier
Golden Earring wrote:
> Hi Stephen!
>
> Interestingly, I came across a source that claimed that Sony chose
> 44.1kHz as the CD sampling frequency in response to Herbert von
> Karajan's insistence that a CD should accommodate a performance of
> Beethoven's 9th, although other sources claim that
ftlight wrote:
> Yes, it's Alex's turntable on which he plays the music of Ludwig van:
> http://www.filmandfurniture.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/record-player-1024x576.jpg
>
> There's also one in the Design Collection of the Museum of Modern Art in
> New York:
>
Golden Earring wrote:
> Hi Bill!
>
> It sure is a pretty deck (if you can find room for it, lol): you do have
> to change the damping fluid periodically since it tends to get clogged
> up with detritus.
>
> I'm afraid I stand my earlier comment that the LP12/Ittok with a low
> compliance
drmatt wrote:
> Yep, NICAM receiver only. Hifi stereo vhs was pretty good. Very reliant
> on tracking stability though. Handy for recording stuff longer than 45
> minutes too..
The only (rather serious) drawback to VHS tapes & their containers was
that they were flammable & emitted a
Yep, NICAM receiver only. Hifi stereo vhs was pretty good, agreed. Very
reliant on tracking stability though.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk
--
Hardware: 3x Touch, 1x Radio, 2x Receivers, 1 HP Microserver NAS with
Debian+LMS 7.9.0
Music: ~1300 CDs, as 450 GB of 16/44k FLACs. No
drmatt wrote:
> NICAM was an interesting technology, but it was only used on the
> broadcast side. A VCR recorded analogue audio. Maybe you knew that, I
> wasn't clear from your post so just clarifying.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk
Agreed, analogue audio recorded
NICAM was an interesting technology, but it was only used on the
broadcast side. A VCR recorded analogue audio. Maybe you knew that, I
wasn't clear from your post so just clarifying.
Cheers!
Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk
--
Hardware: 3x Touch, 1x Radio, 2x Receivers, 1 HP
drmatt wrote:
> Undoubtedly this. Nicam produced a companded 14 bit digital signal,
> iirc, but it was rarely used outside of the UK.
>
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk
It didn't sound that shabby though.
I was highly amused that the most impressive effect came from a Domestos
Julf wrote:
> "This stop goes to 11. "
While we're about it why not turn *-everything-* up to 11?
Dave :D
Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646
View this thread:
cliveb wrote:
> We know that the LP system is a complete dog's dinner compared to CD,
> and yet it can give just as much enjoyment. I think this probably says
> more about the limitations of the human auditory system than it does
> about the engineering achievement.
Hi Clive!
I am in agreement
I think that the musical performance is indeed paramount: I like the
mono recordings of the incomparable Kathleen Ferrier (some of her most
spell-binding efforts didn't even have the undoubted recording mastery
of Walter Legge, since she disliked the bloke & escaped from Columbia as
soon as she
I actually think it says more about the /capability/ of the human
auditory system than its limitations. It can pick the essence of great
music from anything, more or less; be it pristine ultra-high bitrate
digital, pristine but wow/fluttery/scratchy noisy compressed Vinyl,
crappy Vinyl, wow and
cliveb wrote:
> We know that the LP system is a complete dog's dinner compared to CD,
> and yet it can give just as much enjoyment. I think this probably says
> more about the limitations of the human auditory system than it does
> about the engineering achievement.
Indeed. Under the right
Golden Earring wrote:
> I happily accept all the above criticisms of LP's
>
> Mahler [] I don't think that he would have been impressed by the
> quality of recorded music on LP, but I should imagine that he would have
> been astonished that it was possible to do it at all.
On the
Golden Earring wrote:
> I hear that. I took it to imply that there *-might-* be an advantage
> going further than 16/44.1, although Nyquist-Shannon would still apply.
And if Nyquist-Shannon does apply, there is no advantage of going
further than 16/44.1 from a *timing* point of view.
"To
Golden Earring wrote:
> your hearing would also suffer if you did this regularly as well - a lot
> of bass players get tinnitus from standing too close to their speaker
> stacks (you'd think they'd stand somewhere else, but bass players do
> seem to be a breed apart ;) ).
>
> Dave :)
Hey,
Julf wrote:
> Might also simply be because of the easier processing of word lengths
> that are a multiple of 8.
Undoubtedly this. Nicam produced a companded 14 bit digital signal,
iirc, but it was rarely used outside of the UK.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk
--
Hardware: 3x
Julf wrote:
> Yes, that is a possibility. But my point is that there is nothing really
> mysterious (or anything that breaks current scientific understanding)
> about it.
>
>
>
> Absolutely. The problem is that audiophiles have used that paper to
> argue that Nyquist-Shannon doesn't apply -
Golden Earring wrote:
> True, but I thought the Sony engineers enjoyed a challenge! You could
> say that 44.1kHz is an odd choice of sampling frequency, but they stuck
> with that one...
Well, yes... The 44.1 kHz stems from video technology, especially
Betamax. 44.1 kHz happens to be a
Golden Earring wrote:
> I thought that there was an implication that human hearing might have
> more discriminatory ability than previously suspected.
Yes, that is a possibility. But my point is that there is nothing really
mysterious (or anything that breaks current scientific understanding)
Julf wrote:
> Morning, Dave,
>
>
>
> Might also simply be because of the easier processing of word lengths
> that are a multiple of 8.
True, but I thought the Sony engineers enjoyed a challenge! You could
say that 44.1kHz is an odd choice of sampling frequency, but they stuck
with that
Julf wrote:
> I think all that that paper shows is that the human ear doesn't perform
> a fourier transform, but uses discrete, parallel sensors (hair cells).
I thought that there was an implication that human hearing might have
more discriminatory ability than previously suspected.
I
Morning, Dave,
Golden Earring wrote:
> This is presumably why Sony increased the projected resolution of its
> new CD format from the originally proposed 14 bits to 16 bits during the
> development phase...
Might also simply be because of the easier processing of word lengths
that are a
1 - 100 of 659 matches
Mail list logo
