Jump to content

adamdea

Members
  • Content Count

    798
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About adamdea

  • Rank
    Freshman Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Aside from whether the strictly auditory system is likely similar, it should be borne in mind that the perceptual models of the outside world which which your mind uses are based on all of the senses (particularly sight) as well as cognitive inputs- so for example what you experience as an auditory perception of location may be generated to a large extent by what you see. It's much easier to pinpoint where sound is coming from when you can see where it's coming from.
  2. Dammit Mans, even this you take away from me.
  3. Any analogy between high resolution audio and high resolution video.
  4. Well chase my Aunt Fanny up a gum tree, Sandy, if we ignore the bit in square brackets you've just posted something that is not only not batshit crazy but actually correct. Truly these are the End Days
  5. leaving aside cables which cut off the ground and/or 5v, it is worth bearing in mind that most cables contain conductors which are generally made of metals chosen for their property of conducting electricity. So the only thing which any of these cables can do with noise is to conduct it. This will not get any better by making the conductors out of silver rather than copper, or having a fancy dieletric or giving the conductors a much bigger diameter. Compare eg various audioquest cables at different price points. Supposing that there is noise coming from the computer source and the dac is sufficiently badly designed to allow this to reach its analogue output, thus essentially negating its purpose as a digital audio device. How will a fancy cable help by conducting the noise slightly better? Just saying.
  6. and as mentioned above- there's always machina dynamica http://www.machinadynamica.com/
  7. There used to be a site Coconut Audio which I'm fairly sure was a spoof. Of course it can be difficult to tell.
  8. Taking this question at face value, the answer to your question is that noise in a digital infromation system does not (until it reaches a treshold level) interfere with the signal because it is a digital information system. There is a very easy way to understand it which is to forget what you think you know and just consider everyday numerical and symbolic information like numbers on a page. Write the number 1 on a piece of paper. with a pencil. Show it to someone and ask them what number is on the paper (from 0 to 10). Try making the line slightly wiggly and vary its length . How wiggly/ short/long does the line have to be before the reader is unable to identify the number as a 1. Repeat the experiment asking the reader to identify whether the shape you have drawn on the piece of paper is a 0 or a 1. How does this affect the threshold of wiggliness/length? The information content of a symbol (number/ digital signal) remains the same despite large amounts of distortion or variation in the carrier medium (pencil marking/signal voltage). There is no particualr reason why symbolically encoded information SHOULD be affected by variations in the carrier medium (wiggliness/noise) provided that the symbol can be read. Where there are only two possible values (o and 1) you can have one hell of a lot of noise without affecting the ability of the reader to identify the 0s and 1s. Provided that you have correctly read the data you have a complete record of the song. There is no further information required for reproduction of the song. How can changing usb cables make any difference provided that the data can be read? There are a number of ways of verifying that information is perfectly transmitted. It can be done by sending DTS encoded files, and some dacs have diagnostic files to check (eg an Mdac). The major purpose in the diagnositc files is to check for unexpected resampling /dsp in your computer, because the usb cables will transmit the data fine. If you get a sum wrong, it is probably not because of the pencil you use. This is very easy to understand as long as you forget all the audiophile bull. Interesting factoid: Shannon's proof of the sampling theorem is contained within a paper entitled "Communication in the Presence of Noise"
  9. Leaving aside the froth and noise rising on top of this exchange, there is a real issue in here, John., which merits sober reflection. Mansr and others have made a very valuable contribution by some painstaking research into MQA. There is careful and rigorous thought involved. That care and rigour has not gone unnoticed, and has drawn unfavourable comparison with that found in print media.. Had you been paying attention to what was going on you over here you may have taken his points on board. Mans is a very clear thinker, I'm sure that if you can identify a flaw in his reasoning I'm sure he will consider and reconsider as appropriate.
  10. Dear Kal

    I was reading your review of the Dutch and Dutch 8c in Stereophile. I 've been trying to work out how you managed to get the speakers and listener forming an equilateral triangle with the speakers toed in 45°? I note that you say that Dutch and Dutch recommend this; but surely a speaker requiring a non-Euclidean listening room is a very specialised product.

    1. Kal Rubinson

      Kal Rubinson

      Only possible if you can think beyond of the horizontal plane. 😊  Yes, that was a slip of the tongue/finger. 

       

      Of course, one can physically arrange the speakers+MLP in an equilateral triangle but then a speaker toe-in of 45° would have them aimed to have their axes cross in front of the MLP (Blumlein?).   So, yes, the toe-in for the recommended equilateral arrangement was more like 30°.  I generally preferred a more distant seat with commensurate toe-in adjustment.

       

      The D&Ds were surprisingly tolerant of these options.

       

    2. adamdea

      adamdea

      Apologies for the pedantry. They do look interesting. I suspect that  some on this forum would be put off by the 24khz brick wall filter.

    3. Kal Rubinson

      Kal Rubinson

      Can they hear it? 🙄

       

      I get similar objections to converting DSD to PCM @24/176.4 so that I can do convolutions/DSP. 

  11. Yes absolutely. I suppose I meant three things. The first is that whilst no real world device is perfectly linear, we can still treat them as being linear for certain purposes. Second, the fact that something isn't linear doesn't mean that you can say anything you like about it (some non linearities may be wholly irrelvant) . Third I suppose that even if there are specific non linearities which have the effect of generating spuriae in the audible range that does not mean that they will be audible (this may be closely related to the first point). So simply saying that there are cochlear nonlinearities is not good enough. In particular masking effects and limited JNDs may mean that tiny amounts of intermodulation distortion in the ear are irrelevant. Why would that be surprising- we don't assume that any amount of IMD in an amplifier would be audible?
  12. It is undeniable that intermodulation effects [somewhere] can create audible artefacts from inaudible sounds. The issue is whether intermodulation in the ear can do so. Consider the paper referenced here www.davidgriesinger.com/intermod.ppt inaudible harmonics were audible with a speaker which intermodulated but disappeared when the intermodulation was removed. I don't think that vaguely referring to nonlinearties in the ear is good enough. Where is the evidence that nonlinearities exsit in the ear which may make hypersonic material in music audible. We all know that teenagers can set ringtones which are inaudible to teachers. IIRC pitch discrimination in the top octave is not huge, plus the ampitude of hypersound in music is not great. Is it likely that minor nonlinearties inth ear would product audible artefacts? I'm not sure that tinnitus studies have much to do with this.
  13. No I not missing the point. You meretriciously referrered to your made up pulses as musical transients. Quite apart from this there remains the issue of whether they were properly band limited.
  14. Congratulations @STC on a bravura performance of would-be pedantry and actual foolishness. You might as well have entitled the post “ I have no idea about the difference between a longitudinal and a transverse wave.” Why is there no phase in sound waves? How do noise cancelling headphones work?
×
×
  • Create New...