Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    United Kingdom

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. I'm very late hearing this sad news. Rest in peace, Alex.
  2. The ADC itself should not be any different if you are using the same device. It is possible that it's making a mess of the conversion from the ADC itelf to 16/44 (possibly by not dithering?) but it seems odd. Have you tried converting one of your 24/44 files to 16/44 using the HQ settings in audacity or dbpoweramp using triangular pdf dither? if so do they sound very different? Either way I guess it doesn't really matter provided that your 24/44 recordings sound good to you.
  3. ADCs are not the limitation. The limitation is in the mics, ambient noise floor and your ears. But there is no point recording editing etc at 16 bits. The ADC will almost certainly be sigma delta so there is nothing native about the 16 bits or even 24: any form of PCM will be the result of a conversion, and you might as well make that 24 or 32 bits in the first instance. 16 bits is not enough for editing. To take a trival example, you will want to have some headroom in the recording, which you will then reduce to make the peak at or near full scale: if you started out at 16 bits you woul
  4. 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.
  5. Dammit Mans, even this you take away from me.
  6. Any analogy between high resolution audio and high resolution video.
  7. 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
  8. 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 suffi
  9. and as mentioned above- there's always machina dynamica http://www.machinadynamica.com/
  10. There used to be a site Coconut Audio which I'm fairly sure was a spoof. Of course it can be difficult to tell.
  11. 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 le
  12. 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 hi
  13. 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


      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. 

  14. 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 no
  • Create New...