Jump to content

crenca

Premium
  • Content Count

    3623
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About crenca

  • Rank
    Junior Objectivist

Recent Profile Visitors

6909 profile views
  1. I have not seen a physics/scientific reading either. Anyone have a link? What he says is correct from the perspective of my limited understanding of (the physics behind) sound. There is only one waveform, as sound is a single composite, "one waveform to rule them all". If you applied a theoretically perfect brick wall low pass filter to say 1khz to a recording of an instrument with a lot HF (yet still in the audible band) overtones (say, a trumpet), the < 1khz sound would still be "correct" or fidelitous because the < 1khz waveform would already have the intermodulation effects "baked in" so to speak. So recordings (and the playback thereof) of real instruments in real space at least don't need anything other than the audible band - you don't need "super tweeters" and the like to properly reproduce the audible band. Studio concoctions I believe would also be correct (i.e the intermodulation effects of ultrasonic overtones are already in the audible band) when they are "mixed" - perhaps @esldudeor someone with firsthand knowledge can confirm or deny this.
  2. I think they are assuming that the Audiophile Confidence Game will continue on for the rest of their careers and well beyond. I think they are right.
  3. I don't know if you guys fully groked what @Kal Rubinsonwas saying a few pages back (perhaps you did but reject it): there is no reason to capture or playback ultrasonics because whatever the effect audiably/musically is (i.e. in the audible band), this intermodulation effect is capture by the mics themselves because this effect has already occured by the time the waveform reaches the microphone and is recorded. In other words, the effect (rather positive, negative, or indifferent) of ultrasonic overtones or anything else is already in the recording.
  4. By "radical subjective" I mean the idea (really, a set of ideas) that value is subjectively determined. So the pensioner of limited means would say a $1500 HP is not a value because he or she could never afford it. The Oligarch would say the $1500 HP is a value because any good or service to him or her below some amount (let's say a $1,000,000) is a rounding error on his bank account. In other words value lies outside of the subjective, the individual, and their particular (economic or otherwise) circumstances.
  5. For the non EE, what your talking about is an opamp between the input and the gain stage of the amplifer correct? So input (typical 2v RMS single ended for example), then opamp with gain to 9.6v RMS, then the Purifi Class D gain stage, then speaker terminal outs...?
  6. Not sure I am following you but: Simply reasonable, understandable, relatable, logical, and communicable. To disconnect value from high fidelity, or to reduce it to the radical subjective, is to be unreasonable and unreal...that is to be in error... I must not be following you... 😉
  7. That's what I and others (and not just nobody's - Aristotle as @christopher3393notes above) are saying, that to be rational, it has to have the real character of value. To be anti-value in any way is to be be non-rational to some extent at least...
  8. It is, or your sense is not "normative", and perhaps more not valuable...
  9. The evidence for value being at least partially determined (not a good word, but let's use it for now) by an "inherent property" is everywhere. No matter what the economic station in life, most folks have an intuitive sense of value, when they are not being philosophers and trying to justify it (and when they come up short, they say things like "value is purely determined by the means/whims of the individual"). Sure, the poor pensioner and the oligarch might not be affected by this inherent character/property of value in the same way, but they both know value vs. cheap or trash when they see/hear/touch/smell it. As with most things important to being human, one can not measure a "value" directly, only obliquely (studying humanity with statistics for example). So it depends upon what sort of evidence you're expecting. If you are looking for a "law of value" in the same way you might look for a "law" in the physical sciences, your not going to find it because humanity is not the same thing as a physical property. All this is probably too esoteric however - It might be useful to listen to what our guts tell us. What does our guts say about the value of a $1500 HP, and does this instinct really change fundamentally (or only relatively, or in some other manner) when our bank account gets larger or smaller?
  10. What I was attempting to point out (not so successfully granted), is that there is something real called value (economic, but obviously dependent up other things like SQ), and that it is not so radically subjective as to be totally dependant upon means, perception, etc. To put it another way, there is something objective in the value of a $300 HP and a $1500 HP, and rather you are a pensioner who can afford very little but otherwise likes music, or an oligarch (for whom in all truth $1500 is a rounding error on what he makes/spends every hour), the value of these HPs is objective and does not change (relative to the pensioner or the oligarch). The "fill_in_the_blank is in eye of the beholder" is shorthand for radical subjectivism. Unfortunately, the effort to try to get to some basic understanding of what value is in relationship to high fidelity requires that a mountain to be climbed and overcome, and that mountain is radical subjectivism. Hopefully that helps...
  11. So as those measurements indicate, Schiit fixed/updated the Yggy soon after it came out and Stereophile and others made something (rightly? wrongly? I suspect wrongly but who knows) of the crossover glitch? Today, in May of 2019 a competitor/manufacturer such as @PeterStis still making something of this now fixed issue?? Or is he making something of the current THD and the like?
  12. While such music is "real", it is also hard to judge in terms of fidelity, because what is the reference? Fidelity implies a "real reference". Studio creations are creations whose reference is the recording, without a reference to live acoustic playing in space. Also, coming back to the OP, how does one judges soundstage and stereo with studio creations since this music was never part of a soundstage in the first place? Obviously, we have had around a 100 years of studio/synthesised/computer based music and not only is it real, it is more popular as a whole than music that has a real acoustic/soundstage analog. Still, the question of "high fidelity" in relation to it is a legitimate and difficult one.
  13. I do perceive soundstage in the sense of depth, small assembly placement too and fro, etc. on some recordings, occasionally. That is, I perceive it a bit. I also am able to squash the illusion with a bit of analytical attention. Also, I think it is way overrated. It's nice, but boy, some folks make so much of it and I have never gotten this. In personal audio the "headstage" is much talked about. It's always "between the ears" too me and again I get it a bit, I just don't rate it. What I really don't get is when folks who mostly listen to modern pop/rock/studio creations and who focus on soundstage. It's one thing to talk seek a soundstage for real acoustic music played in real acoustic space, but music that is the creation of studio mix boards and computers ???
  14. As I understand it, Schiit's multibit design is the same basic design as the Chord - that is, I closed form, high tap, linear reconstruction. This is different than the more common SigmaDelta process found in ESS, AKM, TI, etc. chips. The low level detail retrieval of these multi bit designs really does seem to be something that even the good SD chips can't quite match. All that said as usual the "it's all in the implementation" caveat applies. Lately I am usually listening to a Gungnir MB, but when I switch back to my iFi IDAC2 (Burr Brown SD) it's not like the delta between them is any more than a few percentage points, and the iFi has the advantage of a warmth/body to the "insides" of notes that the Gungnir does not. This is probably coloration, but it sounds nice and "natural"...
  15. This. On the other hand, as near as I can tell (could be wrong) Bruno does not pretend to be a strict objectivist. Comes back to a corollary to my question - what is it about the subjective SQ is Bruno after with these new designs as opposed to his previous efforts? Certainly the answer is not "yet lower THD" or some such...that would be a side step of an answer 😉
×
×
  • Create New...