Vinyl Conversion

[kumakuma]

And i thought your flock thought i was entertaining....liars...liars!

 

You are entertaining but only in small doses. BTW, is it your standard policy to waltz into a forum, suck it dry, piss off the members, and then move on? Probably is based on the fact you keep bragging about buying products from various companies with no intention of keeping them.

 

Good luck ever getting any help again from anyone here again.

[sandyk]

Mike

I would suggest that you hang around and observe for a while before departing. You will soon get the feel of the place and be

able to make up your own mind about those who are quick to judge or criticise ,or are just plain rude, and those who are more willing to assist . A little less directness in initial posts doesn't go astray either.

 

Regards

Alex

[Mike Mcsweeney]

You are entertaining but only in small doses. BTW, is it your standard policy to waltz into a forum, suck it dry, piss off the members, and then move on? Probably is based on the fact you keep bragging about buying products from various companies with no intention of keeping them.

 

Good luck ever getting any help again from anyone here again.

i sucked it dry? Wow you think so little of this place? ...i think you will continue on just fine in your sarcastic ways....

 

I "keep bragging" about buying products from various companies? Really? How many companies are we talking about here? You must be mixing your story up with your latest fiction book.

 

I have only bought one item from one company. I am returning the SONY UDA-1/B. It's a great product, (although it has a driver problem that i found a workaround for in case anyone decides to buy it...but it has an amplifier that i don't need, and I think the Korg will provide similar results.

 

If you would like me to stay, i will, but i don't think that is the case...it's quite clear I am not wanted here, so I am not sure what your complaint is there.

 

As far as getting help, i don't think i got anything but sarcasm from you, and I am sure that I would get help here any time i asked, with or without your permission.

[crisnee]

I have to say you guys (most of those of you not name Mike) have been a bit hard on Mr. Mcsweeney. He's abrasive at times and his forum personality isn't exactly my cup of tea, but, what he's saying isn't wrong, at least for the most part (I may have missed some egregious error).

 

And Mike you might want to try to come off a little less "know it all" even when you happen to know it all. I could try to temper my comments with a IMO. But this happens to be my exwife's opinion so.... That's a joke. Always disliked IMO, and IMHO even more. After all to whom else should I ascribe it.

 

Apologies all around? Love to all. Or will it be, Klingon puppies.

 

Chris

 

Oops I almost forgot my most salient point.

 

Much of the time ya'll seem to be talking past each other.

[Mike Mcsweeney]

Mike

I would suggest that you hang around and observe for a while before departing. You will soon get the feel of the place and be

able to make up your own mind about those who are quick to judge or criticise ,or are just plain rude, and those who are more willing to assist . A little less directness in initial posts doesn't go astray either.

 

Regards

Alex

I will be honest. I am not the most charismatic, and have a strong personality. I usually either get along great with some people, but not so well with others (grin). I usually come off harsh at first...I am blunt, and i don't usually do well with sarcastic people. I say i will be gone, but that may not be so true..as i am already addicted (evil grin) i will probably still visit the music forums...and probably listen to future technology...plus I may have to stick around to keep reminding myself to sell my $50K record collection while it still has value...as there are still a lot of people who love vinyl that don't live here.

[Mike Mcsweeney]

He's abrasive at times and his forum personality isn't exactly my cup of tea, but, what he's saying isn't wrong, at least for the most part (I may have missed some egregious error).

 

 

What do you expect from a guy that grew up a skinny kid with freckles, a last name like weenie-head, and couldn't pronounce his words, was always bullied, and had a near genius iq....i mean really, how would you expect the world to shape such an individual....don't worry, i take medication.

[PopPop]

It all goes south, for anyone, when they start espousing the world as they know it, as truth. Give folks a little more room and let go of the need to be right, it will go better for you. If you can't do that you will just burn out.

 

And in the end, the love you get is equal to the love you give. Paul McCartney.

[Don Hills]

Also, if it's a perfect science, then why does one of the MAJOR manufacturers "PROCLAIM" there multi-thousand dollar DAC is superior by virtue of their patented algorithm that is x amount more accurate and is the reason for increased fidelity? Look at the "Antelope" ad.

 

Marketing speak. There's a lot of it in high-end audio.

 

If nothing is lost, and it is a perfect science, why not buy the least expensive one if nothing is lost in the algorithm or one algorithm isn't better than another?

 

You're conflating two things that don't necessarily go together. It is a perfect science in that we know exactly what is needed to make it perfect. We also know we can't achieve perfection in a practical implementation - something is lost. It's like putting a large balloon in a small box. Every time you push one part in, another part bulges out. It's the same with reconstruction filters. Different implementations have different strengths and weaknesses.

[Allan F]

Mike:

 

We all know that. Bringing it up again as an arguing point could be taken as trolling. There's been some debate about how long it would be before you got around to it.

 

There comes a point in every discussion where I realize that I have more to gain by listening than I do by talking, and I behave accordingly. Based on your responses I believe that it's time for you to consider this.

 

Don't listen to me, Mike, listen to yourself, it's quite entertaining.

 

A little less directness in initial posts doesn't go astray either.

 

I have to say you guys (most of those of you not name Mike) have been a bit hard on Mr. Mcsweeney. He's abrasive at times and his forum personality isn't exactly my cup of tea...And Mike you might want to try to come off a little less "know it all" even when you happen to know it all.

 

It all goes south, for anyone, when they start espousing the world as they know it, as truth. Give folks a little more room and let go of the need to be right, it will go better for you.

 

Translation: You have only been here a week. You are welcome to stay. But, please, just try not to be an a$$hole.

[Mike Mcsweeney]

Give folks a little more room and let go of the need to be right, it will go better for you..

 

And I could state the same to you right? Or only you can have an opinion if it agrees with popular opinion?

....let go of the need to be right...and it will go better for you.

I am not guessing at the things I am saying as fact.

 

 

An algorithm can predict the sine wave based on it's input.

if you look at the top diagram, their could be fluctuations between each mark, and the algorithm would not catch it.

If you increase the sampling you increase the accuracy.

One could say that it is sampled so much that it is impossible for inaccuracies to exist.

We may as well clone robots that sing in 1s and 0s.

The voice is a beautiful instrument, and I give God more credit for the beauty of natural music, than what 1s and 0s can conjure up.

If the technology is so perfect, then why is it that every time the technology is improved we hear things we haven't heard before. Why is that millions of dollars is being spent on DSD today. Do you really think there won't be a tomorrow that will provide something better.

when we have an infinite sampling (i love that word, and i am happy the OP provided that suggestion), then we will have beauty.

 

If you can think for a moment, that I used to work on a piece of equipment that was state of the art, it was the size of a refrigerator, and it's sole purpose was to store 64K of core memory, it is amazing to know that we can now store the equivalent of 67 million of those refrigerators worth of data in a palm sized device.

 

The point is, don't think we are there yet.....i have much higher hopes for the future.

[PopPop]

And I could state the same to you right? Or only you can have an opinion if it agrees with popular opinion?

....let go of the need to be right...and it will go better for you.

I am not guessing at the things I am saying as fact.

 

 

 

. . . . . . . .

 

Mike, please reread posts #40, 57, and 59, in that order.

 

Carry on.

[Mike Mcsweeney]

Marketing speak. There's a lot of it in high-end audio.

 

That is your opinion, but not that of the company, and to be honest, i agree with it. So there are 2 opinions anyway that differ from yours.

 

something is lost. .

 

Thank you, thank you!!

You have probably said 2 things that i most appreciate in this thread.

1. that it would take an infinite amount of sampling to create a perfect reproduction.

2. Something is lost

 

That's all I was saying, and my only points.

There is no reason to debate which is better or if it is audible or not. Those are subjective and a waste of time to debate. So on the things that matter (to me anyway), we agree. [ATTACH=CONFIG]10908[/ATTACH]

[Mike Mcsweeney]

Mike, please reread posts #40, 57, and 59, in that order.

 

Carry on.

 

no thank you.

I don't recall anything worth re-reading...but feel free to re-read all of my posts....

 

Let's change the subject to religion, it's less controversial.

 

On second thought, i am going to have another beer and listen to Diana Krall...upsampled to 5.6mhz through my sony uda-1/b.

[PopPop]

no thank you.

 

Well OK, then read post #18, I think I was agreeing with you there. Yes, something is always lost in the pursuit of a perfect conversion, the trick is finding a point where you can define what can be heard with the ear (on one end) and what can be produced for a marketable price on the other end. I'm not going to continue with the piss taking, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, just let everyone else have their own.

[PopPop]

We can both agree that Diana Krall can rock it. Good to know.

[Mike Mcsweeney]

Well OK, then read post #18, I think I was agreeing with you there. Yes, something is always lost in the pursuit of a perfect conversion, the trick is finding a point where you can define what can be heard with the ear (on one end) and what can be produced for a marketable price on the other end. I'm not going to continue with the piss taking, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, just let everyone else have their own.

 

I already said i wasn't going to debate what is audible or not...just that something is lost.

imo (notice, not fact), DSD 5.6mhz is awesome if done right...but still something is lost...but i am not missing it (wink)

[PopPop]

I'm done with the pedantry. Have it any way you like.

[Don Hills]

...

You have probably said 2 things that i most appreciate in this thread.

...

 

... except that I didn't say what you attributed to me. You have screwed up your quoting of my post.

[crisnee]

... except that I didn't say what you attributed to me. You have screwed up your quoting of my post.

The son of a bitch!

 

Chris

[Allan F]

I'm done with the pedantry. Have it any way you like.

 

Alas, you tried! You obviously have more patience than I do. But that's what happens when you try to reason with someone who has the mentality of a three year old. I think he's lying about taking his medication. Guess who just got added to my Ignore List.

[Don Hills]

...

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]10905[/ATTACH]

 

An algorithm can predict the sine wave based on it's input.

if you look at the top diagram, their could be fluctuations between each mark, and the algorithm would not catch it.

 

That would only be true if there were fluctuations. In a properly implemented system there would be no fluctuations, because frequencies capable of causing those fluctuations (frequencies higher than the Nyquist frequency for the system) would not have been A/D converted in the first place. Did you watch Monty's video that you were pointed to back in post #9? It explains this rather well.

[firedog]

That would only be true if there were fluctuations. In a properly implemented system there would be no fluctuations, because frequencies capable of causing those fluctuations (frequencies higher than the Nyquist frequency for the system) would not have been A/D converted in the first place. Did you watch Monty's video that you were pointed to back in post #9? It explains this rather well.

 

Mike-

The algorithms do reproduce the sine wave perfectly. Yes, because of the need for filtering etc, there is some extremely minor variations. Very debatable if that is at all audible, at least when a bit of hi-res is engaged.

 

What you don't seem to get is that analog reproduction is continuous, but analog recording is inherently limited compared to digital and simply leaves out a lot of the information that is there to be recorded. Analog recording equipment can't even react quickly enough to fully record some aspects of played music that digital recording is perfectly capable of capturing. This is without getting involved in the importance of dynamic range, etc. So analog is continous, and also gets there by leaving out a lot of info.

[Mike Mcsweeney]

Alas, you tried! You obviously have more patience than I do. But that's what happens when you try to reason with someone who has the mentality of a three year old. I think he's lying about taking his medication. Guess who just got added to my Ignore List.

YAY! There's one down...hope others can join him, so we can have some intelligent conversations.

[Mike Mcsweeney]

Mike-

The algorithms do reproduce the sine wave perfectly. Yes, because of the need for filtering etc, there is some extremely minor variations. Very debatable if that is at all audible, at least when a bit of hi-res is engaged.

.

reporduce a sine wave perfectly, yes, just not "the sinewave"...if it is debatable at all, whether it is audible or not, shows that it does not reproduce the source sinewave perfectly. the fact that when technology improves and even the audiophiles say they hear things they haven't heard before, speaks for itselves. The fact that some of the most respected engineering companies proclaim they have made it more accurate (note not perfect, but more accurate), tells the story. You can go on believing whatever you want, and the flocks and masses can follow like blind sheep as well. We are getting closer and closer, but it's far from perfect.

[Mike Mcsweeney]

... except that I didn't say what you attributed to me. You have screwed up your quoting of my post.

 

Ok, here is your quote, and the best thing said in this thread that wasn't of my own writing.

 

QUOTE: "The problem is that for perfect accuracy you need an infinite series. (inferred infinite series of samplings).: END QUOTE

 

and it is so true, that i think i will adopt it as my tagline.