Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About PeterSt

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Take off / put on that jumper you see at the mouse pointer. PS: AI at work ?
  2. Or it is a best dither. FYI, over at 2L they are the most keen on the dither subject. I could show emails about that again ...
  3. I am glad you did. It is one of the best posts I read in this forum. Too bad that only a relative few will be able to relate. And I am not even saying that I can. I am of the stance that when the reproduction is starting to be really good (which is a process of decades IME) you sort of explicitly start to have the feeling and idea "yeah, that is how it will sound for real". This combines with the clear envisioning how e.g. a singer behaves and moves on stage. This is still illusion of course, but without the realism this doesn't happen (at all). Most instruments are very "touchy" (I hope you get what I mean with this). A piano is one - possibly a violin and the like (up to upright double bass) could even be better. When the playback system represents these instruments very well, you can 100% see through the mood of the player of the time. Btw, that mood is a theatrical happening to begin with, which is fine and belongs. To my belief the "seeing through" happens for the better and best because of consistency. Thus, the less the recording is mangled with (like adding HF would be mangling) the more realistic it comes across, *if* of course the playback system doesn't mangle either. And there's the thing of course - it usually will. Occasionally I run into situations which tempt me thinking "yea, this is how Mark Knopfler's voice really will be" (and this is not when Roberta Flack is singing). This happens (can happen) while I never met Knopfler in person so in my view it is not even related to experience or "knowledge" or something. However, I suspect that having the experience with an image (preferably moving) is required. Most probably having experience with people "performing" is also very relevant (like you yourself). Regarding this, putting your blues thoughts in a blues (guitar) instruments could be a great example. I mean, only if the performer really has the blues, he will be best at it, and how genuine it is during the performance, can be heard (no need to explain to you). And this is the beauty of playing music (and being part of the band etc.) - this can be genuine every new day again. And if the playback system is top notch, you can perceive that through it. The best blues I heard from a single man and his bass guitar on the corner of a street in Washington. All fitted. All belonged. A playback system can not represent that. But since that experience I try to see through it. Without the experience nothing is to be seen through. You talking about worn keyboards, made me think of boogie woogie - way underestimated these days. Nothing for a grand if you ask me and to be played on worn pianos. I could be wrong. But it could be a typical example. A grand is too sluggish for that. Doesn't fit in that smoky cafe's corner either. Etc.
  4. Ah ... I didn't read the thread. So this was in the context of the sampling rate being 44.1Khz, right ?
  5. You are correct. But I didn't make the combination with 40KHz, On/Off and that. It is still hard to digest. So you have 40KHz on/off which comes down to ~3KHz and then we shouldn't hear anything of it ? How does that work ? I just don't get it, that's all. Not smart enough. And of course ignorant.
  6. Ignorance eh. Ach so.
  7. udial.wav ... (this worked on IMD distortion IIRC) So point is: the 40KHz you may not hear. Turn up the volume, and your tweeters may start to smoke. Hearing distortion (like IMD again because of the distortion itself (the IMD folding down in the audio band) and you might think "nice sound". Meanwhile the real HF tone is XX dB higher.. But you can't hear it ... With proper analogue filtering nothing should happen.
  8. I did not look into it, but this could imply a tad more than 40KHz. Thus if these indeed are dirac like "bursts" (as in on/off each other 1ms (??)) then I wouldn't trust my tweeters with it. Remember the telephone dial ? (I forgot the name of the file) - that fried a lot of tweeters. NOS/Filterless and such ...
  9. Wouldn't it be better if you read what the thread is about ?
  10. Indeed, according to the photo that would be pin 4&5. Although I never tried it, I am afraid kurb is right; this can electrically make a difference. I already knew that but thought it would be too far out. So what happens with this is that the connector is extended somewhat, like for the width if of a jumper (6mm or so - see picture). Because this actually extends the shields - read: antenna area, this small piece more could now capture present radiation. You could even remove the now sideways sitting jumper (leave the one on 4-5 be !) and connect a crocodile wire to pin 6; thus, if the extension of this 6mm makes a difference, then now you'll extend it with a foot or so of antenna wire and it should be way more audible. Btw, this would be such odd stuff that I'd like to stay away from this for a while, just like I stayed away from it in the first place.
  11. Not aligned sampling during the recording, or something like that. It is now the second time that you show something like this (I forgot what the other was about, but 3-4 days back) but I see the same thing happening. Think like this for understanding: You have two playbacks of the very same. You record it via a microphone in e.g. 16/44.1. After this you try to align this, but you can't. This is because of the infinite resolution which exists in analogue regarding the time you start capturing and how the ADC coincidentally "samples". Mind you, this ADC is just running loose in both cases. It can't go otherwise. Now not only the sampling starts a a different moment in time (related to the playback), thus a small shift (compare with your plots for the idea of it) but also the samples fall at different moment of the peaks (etc.) in the playback. See at the very beginning of the plots, but also at just before 24.7497 and especially just before 24.7503; with this latter you can see two samples falling in the blue, while one sample just in between those falls in the orange. The peak (dip) will extend as far in the playbacks with the both, but in the blue the sample didn't fall at the (sort of exact) peak. Thus looks very different, but will be the same. That was the example to make it clear. Without microphone the same will happen. Remember, with two takes of the very same file. The ADC is still running loose against the two playbacks. They will always start at a slightly different point in time and the same thing happens. To prove this, Mani should (if he feels like it) try to take these two takes of exactly the same. It could happen that, now knowing this, he is able to make the "sensitivity" of the start of the recording such that there's hardly a time difference and that this will result in only a couple of difference like the two plots show, throughout, but I suppose that the difference in noise (which is random) at some degree of sensitivity (of recording start) will mangle with this. Point is of course, that the differences you see here by now are really in the recordings, thus they may be audible just the same. Obviously there will be numerous "observations" that this can't be audible because of the so slight differences (in dB) but for a start the both *are* not the same ... Watch out please: I am not saying or suggesting that this explains the differences mansr pointed out. Actually I'd better "claim" that this is unrelated for sure. What I do say - and this is not the first time - is that trying to make two recordings comparable for this means (looking at the wave forms in detail like you did, Frank) is not legal.
  12. Dear people, These are both A sides, so please envision that one is the B side (take the right-hand one for that). This is the: Shipped (for Digital) with : A:[W]B-R, B:[W]B-R The Black is always connected to the output. This is so with each ^2 cable. Normally if you want to connect the Inner shield to the output, B(lack) must connect to W(hite). In the ^2-D case, this has been done internally. Thus actually B-W. We could denote this as B-[W] and in practice we do this as [W]B. Connect the Red to it as well and we have [W]B-R. Stop reading here because you just understood. The unfortunate "necessity" to also use the [W] springs from the fact that we also have the analogue application which allows for more "loose" shielding (does not work for the M Scaler) and which re-introduces the White optional connection (Inner Shield) as per the Lush^2: In my view, not mentioning the [W] for the ^2-D version would make less clear what actually happens, once you have both versions (or a Blaxius ^2-D and Lush^2). With this, it is also to be kept in mind that we may use a same Chain from head to tail. This means that for example for a feeding Lush^2 you'd need to make it B-W-R (no difference with [W]B-R or B-[W]-R for clarity of understanding). If only the W shield was not there ... but it just is. I told you to stop reading ! Shall we then now proceed with the ET^2 and HDMI^2 ? More perceived dimensions. Still the same yet still a tad different again for understandings. I again hope that this post is without mistakes ...
  13. Larry, which configuration are you now talking about ? And btw, is this with an original Lush^2 ? Thanks, Peter
  14. Because it is hard for myself to follow, here the configuration for the Blaxius^2-D, shipped from of November 7, 2018 and as printed on the withgoing paper: Shipped (for Digital) with : A:[W]B-R, B:[W]B-R Then from of February, 1 2019, it became this: Shipped (for Digital) with : A:[W]B-Y-R, B:[W]Y-R ... and something has to be wrong with the latter one. Or with all of them. I mean with the notation, not with the cables. B is the output and for the digital cable this is always ground as well. B is also the input, or else there can't exist a ground connection. What connected in fixed fashion is B to W and this is done at both ends. W is invisible, but internally it is thus there. This is why the [W] notation. Without further shields, it would be : A:[W]B, B:[W]B. This is thus the minimum. Back to the config shipped per November 2018: Shipped (for Digital) with : A:[W]B-R, B:[W]B-R Nothing wrong here because the minimum is in here. But at both ends the R shield (outer most) is also connected. Now the one from February 2019: Shipped (for Digital) with : A:[W]B-Y-R, B:[W]Y-R Wrong, because the minimum is not in there. It should be: Shipped (for Digital) with : A:[W]B-Y-R, B:[W]B-Y-R (all shields connected at both ends) Next pair goes out Monday; anyone receiving them after today can be assured that the withgoing paper reflects this properly now. Now, on to the next mistake ...
  • Create New...