gavman
pj slumpy
nope, not a techical argument, just the opinion of someone who used to have the run of a shop and played all day long at system building.
and when i wanted to sell speakers i made sure the source was vinyl
Do you consider yourself an audiophile?
- Thread starter Doctor Carrot
- Start date
nope, not a techical argument, just the opinion of someone who used to have the run of a shop and played all day long at system building.
and when i wanted to sell speakers i made sure the source was vinyl
basically, i want to show him up as a fool. would i be best doing the blind test with bell wire just to be on the safe side?
19sixtysix
Life as viewed from a Gay Gorbals Garret
I'm coming late to this thread but why are people still compressing to mp3s or whatever when we're talking hi fi at home.
A 1TB disc will hold 1200 CDs easy in glorious uncompressed wav or AIFF.
Oh as to cables I did enjoy a few years back debunking an audiophile going on about radio 3 quality sound and his very (stupidly) expensive cables when i pointed out that the studios (all analogue then) of R3 were joined together by single strand telephone quality cable. Its how you use cable mostly not the type of cable. For speakers use some chunky 13A mains flex and if you can link your systems together with balanced wiring or at very least decently shielded cables. Spend the money on your speakers and amp. The amp should have a power rating a bit bigger than the speaker rating because if you turn the amp up you do not want it to distort which at high power levels can be the thing that blows your speakers due to horrible overtones.
That all said I use my old valve radio for an amp some of the time as its 7 inch speaker and single stage valve amp sound great for normal pottering about listening at home. It is mono.
A 1TB disc will hold 1200 CDs easy in glorious uncompressed wav or AIFF.
Oh as to cables I did enjoy a few years back debunking an audiophile going on about radio 3 quality sound and his very (stupidly) expensive cables when i pointed out that the studios (all analogue then) of R3 were joined together by single strand telephone quality cable. Its how you use cable mostly not the type of cable. For speakers use some chunky 13A mains flex and if you can link your systems together with balanced wiring or at very least decently shielded cables. Spend the money on your speakers and amp. The amp should have a power rating a bit bigger than the speaker rating because if you turn the amp up you do not want it to distort which at high power levels can be the thing that blows your speakers due to horrible overtones.
That all said I use my old valve radio for an amp some of the time as its 7 inch speaker and single stage valve amp sound great for normal pottering about listening at home. It is mono.
gavman
pj slumpy
do it with all three. i won't tell you what the usual findings are because i don't want to prejudice you. but i'm eager to hear your results
gavman
pj slumpy
i bet speech sounds lovely on it?
19sixtysix
Life as viewed from a Gay Gorbals Garret
Music is good as well. Valve driven by solid state is good because the the curves of the amplification are inverse in nature and tend to cancel out making the amp overall very linear.
The valve amp is very soon to have a apple express attached to it meaning its becomes a set of remote speakers for my iTunes.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Vinyl sounds 'nicer' because of the filtering imposed on the original sound by the limitations of the technology. A recording of vinyl made on digital equipment should sound identical. Indeed (and correct me if I'm wrong, bees) it should be posible to apply a vinyl FX filter to a digital source and replicate that "warm" sound.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
There is a big difference between lossless digital files and mp3 files. It's not exactly "splitting hairs".
ATOMIC SUPLEX
Member Since: 1985 Post Count: 3
Mission accomplished. A couple more pages, good work fella.
wemakeyousoundb
hopefully not gimboid
very nicely done indeed
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Correct.
I think a lot of the misunderstanding of digital sound comes from the myth that "it's just an approximation" or that "the smooth analogue waveform is reduced to a series of steps". Anyone saying stuff like this (and to be fair an awful lot of magazines/articles/"experts" have helped push this myth) simply doesn't understand what they're talking about. Sampling theory is solid, the maths works. Providing the sampling frequency is more than twice that of the highest frequency you wish to capture, what goes in comes out again exactly the same.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
teuchter
je suis teuchter
How does this work? How do you get back from the result of the sampling to the original signal?
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
How does this work? How do you get back from the result of the sampling to the original signal?
That diagram is wrong for starters, pics like that are why people don't understand it. Read the .pdf article I liked to (if you're feeling up to a lot of maths and techie geekery
)
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Oh yes you do, providing the sample frequency is more than twice that of the highest frequency in the original waveform.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
I understand that bit, it's the whole "well, if we sample it at 192khz, we retain more of the original wave" that I meant. Doesn't matter if you're encoding 96khz sounds, the ear just can't hear them, and a CD can't encode them, so although the sound coming out of the speakers has a missing component, it's not one you'd notice anyway.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Anyhoo, lets have some more bonkers audiofool products:
BEDINI - QUADRI-BEAM ULTRA CLARIFIER
Claims to "lower the noise floor" of a CD or DVD, thus "allowing more information to be retrieved from the disk". It also "significantly reduces high frequency glare and increases the overall retrieval of information, enhancing dynamic range. Detail and resolution are improved dramatically. When used on video, the Quadri-Beam creates a picture that is brighter, sharper, crisper and cleaner"
Hmmmmmm
BEDINI - QUADRI-BEAM ULTRA CLARIFIER
Claims to "lower the noise floor" of a CD or DVD, thus "allowing more information to be retrieved from the disk". It also "significantly reduces high frequency glare and increases the overall retrieval of information, enhancing dynamic range. Detail and resolution are improved dramatically. When used on video, the Quadri-Beam creates a picture that is brighter, sharper, crisper and cleaner"
Hmmmmmm
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
The interesting thing is that recording at higher sample rate can actually make things worse, not better...
teuchter
je suis teuchter
That diagram is wrong for starters, pics like that are why people don't understand it. Read the .pdf article I liked to (if you're feeling up to a lot of maths and techie geekery
But that diagram does show what the digital signal is before it goes into a digital-analogue converter, no?
I started reading that pdf but it assumes knowledge that I don't have.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Anyhoo, lets have some more bonkers audiofool products:
BEDINI - QUADRI-BEAM ULTRA CLARIFIER
Claims to "lower the noise floor" of a CD or DVD, thus "allowing more information to be retrieved from the disk". It also "significantly reduces high frequency glare and increases the overall retrieval of information, enhancing dynamic range. Detail and resolution are improved dramatically. When used on video, the Quadri-Beam creates a picture that is brighter, sharper, crisper and cleaner"
Hmmmmmm
What the fuck
digital is digital you morons! do you see the image and hear the audio? then your disc is working as well as it possibly can
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Got problems with your (plastic and aluminium) CD's being magnetised?
Your problems are solved.
If you doubt their word don't worry, they've got some science for you
Your problems are solved.
If you doubt their word don't worry, they've got some science for you
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
The short answer is that Digital->Analogue reconstruction is not a matter of "joining the dots" between sample values.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Yes, I got that much from that PDF but I still didn't really know what it was on about.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
My all time favourite audiophile product:
The Hallograph
Soundfield Optimizer
"the result of over 10 years of research that studied the effects of the speaker/room interface. We learned how to reduce the audibility of the chaotic reflections from the walls of the listening room so they won’t overpower and interfere with the direct sound from the speakers. The Hallograph contours the frequency, amplitude and time coefficients of the first reflections you hear, which produces a stunning increase in realism"
Sounds great, until you see it's just a bit of wiggly shaped wood
Utterly bonkers.
The Hallograph
Soundfield Optimizer
"the result of over 10 years of research that studied the effects of the speaker/room interface. We learned how to reduce the audibility of the chaotic reflections from the walls of the listening room so they won’t overpower and interfere with the direct sound from the speakers. The Hallograph contours the frequency, amplitude and time coefficients of the first reflections you hear, which produces a stunning increase in realism"
Sounds great, until you see it's just a bit of wiggly shaped wood
Utterly bonkers.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
teuchter said:
In short - you don't join the dots and what you actually do recreates the original signal perfectly. All hail the power of mathematics
teuchter
je suis teuchter
In short - you don't join the dots and what you actually do recreates the original signal perfectly. All hail the power of mathematics
This can't be true, because you've already said that the sampling frequency needs to be twice the highest frequency you need to capture. Therefore frequencies higher than that aren't properly captured so there is something missing from the signal.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Except almost all the kit involved in the recording process will have captured bugger all above 20K. Even most microphones have long since given up by 25K.
