+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41

Thread: Audiophile urban myths and legends

  1. #21
    Join Date: Feb 2013

    Location: W Lothian

    Posts: 47,351
    I'm Grant.

    Default

    Might be dealing with the subconscious and not audio qualities
    Regards,
    Grant ....

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply-doesn't-work
    .... ..... ...... ...... ................... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
    OPPO BDP-103D DARBEE - JBE SERIES 3/B&O SP1/EMOTIVA XPS1/12V BATTERY - TWIN PRO MONOBLOCK AMPLIFIERS - XIANG SHENG DAC\PRE\HEADPHONE AMP\WE TUBED - TWIN AVANTREE OASIS CLASS 1 BLUETOOTHS - AUDIO TECHNICA ATH-MSR7 & OPPO PM-3 PLANAR HEADPHONES - WIN10, AUDIRVANA 3 PLUS, TIDAL - SMSL M6 MINIDAC - RPI/AUDIOPHONICS/VOLUMIO/5V BATTERY - FULL RANGE TWIN TELEFUNKEN/Q ACOUSTIC BT3/CANTON SUB - P.INSPIRED MAINS REGENERATED.

  2. #22
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 21,983
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nickbaba View Post

    On a related point, I read an interview with Tim de Paravicini recently where he said he had calculated that if we wish digital playback to equal analog reproduction we would have to use a resolution of 24 bit/400kHz.
    Here's what he says:

    I did my own summation—and this is from 20 years ago—that if we did 384kHz at 24-bit, we'll have a system that will resolve on a par with the best analog. That's the holy grail. And the problem, for the computer people, is having the balls to go that whole hog.
    Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/...cyFmhCsUJqk.99


    But he is making two false assumptions. 1) That we can hear sounds up to 45Khz which we can't and 2) that analogue can record and replay sounds at those frequencies which it can't.


    No wonder there are so many urban myths when you've got respected designers propagating them.
    Martin



    Current Lash Up:

    Technics SLP1200 CD Player * NVA P90SA passive pre / Krell KSA50S Power amp * JM Lab Electra 926 loudspeakers *


    'This is the sort of music I'd be listening to if I was going shopping for a training bra.'

  3. #23
    Join Date: Jan 2008

    Location: Norwich

    Posts: 788
    I'm Mike.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry View Post
    CD players have moved on considerably since the '80s. I heard the early ones and they were dire in comparison to LPs. These days I think that both are equally good in their own ways; different in presentation, but just as good. (And just as amazing, in that a satisfying and emotionally involving sound is wrought from two seemingly clumsy replay technologies.)
    Never a total convert to CD (did't start until 2001), having valved CDPs has changed my aural perception somewhat. T de P's CDPs are valved, so there was probably a very good reason why he designed them thus. I don't have one, but they are well thought of, as is the relatively recent Rega one. There is something 'organic' in valved stuff which seems to benefit CD playback as far as analogue ears are concerned, at least.

  4. #24
    Join Date: May 2016

    Location: Milton Keynes

    Posts: 1,532
    I'm Andrew.

    Default

    I had a buyer for my ( 1970’s )meridian M2’s whom I was talking to over a period of several days and I’d sent him all the reviews etc , photos of the the rear connections.
    Then he calls about an hour from collecting them saying “ Andy” “ where is the USB port “ ffs.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #25
    Join Date: Feb 2013

    Location: W Lothian

    Posts: 47,351
    I'm Grant.

    Default

    Had a lot of usb ports in the 70's so a fair question
    Regards,
    Grant ....

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply-doesn't-work
    .... ..... ...... ...... ................... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
    OPPO BDP-103D DARBEE - JBE SERIES 3/B&O SP1/EMOTIVA XPS1/12V BATTERY - TWIN PRO MONOBLOCK AMPLIFIERS - XIANG SHENG DAC\PRE\HEADPHONE AMP\WE TUBED - TWIN AVANTREE OASIS CLASS 1 BLUETOOTHS - AUDIO TECHNICA ATH-MSR7 & OPPO PM-3 PLANAR HEADPHONES - WIN10, AUDIRVANA 3 PLUS, TIDAL - SMSL M6 MINIDAC - RPI/AUDIOPHONICS/VOLUMIO/5V BATTERY - FULL RANGE TWIN TELEFUNKEN/Q ACOUSTIC BT3/CANTON SUB - P.INSPIRED MAINS REGENERATED.

  6. #26
    Join Date: Jun 2014

    Location: Chorley Lancs

    Posts: 1,590
    I'm Steve.

    Default

    Dunno about USB, there were a lot of hairy ports in the 70's
    'I'm not crazy, my mother had me tested'

  7. #27
    Join Date: May 2016

    Location: Milton Keynes

    Posts: 1,532
    I'm Andrew.

    Default

    Yuk


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #28
    Join Date: Sep 2012

    Location: London

    Posts: 349
    I'm Nick.

    Default

    But he is making two false assumptions. 1) That we can hear sounds up to 45Khz which we can't and 2) that analogue can record and replay sounds at those frequencies which it can't.
    Well, he doesn't exactly claim people can 'hear' up to 45k, his exact words are "people can discern and detect sound up to 45kHz", which may or may not relate to hearing, in the sense that we can't hear below 20Hz but you sure can feel it in your body as a physical sensation on a big sound system.

    "First of all, the frequency response should extend from 3 Hz to 50 kHz, because we experience those frequency limits. We are able to detect audio up to 50 kHz. We don't hear it, but we experience it in other ways. I can give you tinnitus very quickly if I run an ultrasonic cleaner at 45 kHz. You are aware that it's on, and your ears ring when it's shut off. On the low end, we detect mechanical vibrations down to 3 Hz. When a marching band walks past you, you feel the drums in your stomach and bones. And that's all part of the sound...Digital should use a 400 kHz sampling rate and 24-bit words. Then it will satisfy the hearing mechanism and won't have a digital sound. Digital has a "sound" purely because it is based on lousy mathematics. The manufacturers presuppose too simplistic a view of our hearing mechanism."
    Tim de Paravicini, the Audio Interview: In Pursuit of Excellence
    by Bruce Bartlett
    http://www.ear-usa.com/tim-de-paravicini/

    Regarding the 2nd point, it's true that analog playback doesn't necessarily deal particularly well with high freqs, but I think the point he's making is that digital ignores everything above 20kHz (and below 20Hz) and supposes that's the limit of our hearing, whereas in the natural world there are overtones and resonances well above 20kHz that contribute to the perceived richness and complexity of a sound, and with well executed analog recording, at least, there's no artificial cut-off to the frequencies that are being captured.

  9. #29
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 21,983
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    I agree that we can 'hear' through our skin and such but I reject the idea that the 20Hz cut off is what gives digital its sound since we can and do make digital recordings that cover up to twice that frequency bandwidth and no-one can distinguish between them and the same recording cut off at 22khz.

    I think he is starting from a false assumption, which is that analogue is what it really sounds like and digital is wrong whereas all the facts point to it being the other way around. Although I'd agree you can get products which sound 'digital', a sort of 'synthesised' character to the sound that is not entirely natural, this is not the case with all digital sources, indicating that the cause of it is not the fundamental nature of digital but some other factor of the design.
    Martin



    Current Lash Up:

    Technics SLP1200 CD Player * NVA P90SA passive pre / Krell KSA50S Power amp * JM Lab Electra 926 loudspeakers *


    'This is the sort of music I'd be listening to if I was going shopping for a training bra.'

  10. #30
    Join Date: Apr 2008

    Location: Warrington

    Posts: 3,072
    I'm Neil.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    Here's what he says:

    I did my own summation—and this is from 20 years ago—that if we did 384kHz at 24-bit, we'll have a system that will resolve on a par with the best analog. That's the holy grail. And the problem, for the computer people, is having the balls to go that whole hog.
    Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/...cyFmhCsUJqk.99


    But he is making two false assumptions. 1) That we can hear sounds up to 45Khz which we can't and 2) that analogue can record and replay sounds at those frequencies which it can't.


    No wonder there are so many urban myths when you've got respected designers propagating them.
    Well done Tim, not. He might be an amazing analogue designer, but has no idea about digital.

    When you break it down, vinyl has a maximum bit depth of around 12 bits (assuming best-case scenario of 70db dynamic range from vinyl). 16/44.1kHz is what is required to *perfectly reconstruct* a signal of 96db dynamic range, and from 20Hz to 20kHz.
    Mana Acoustics Racks / Bright Star IsoNodes Decoupling >> Custom Silent Media Server >> Halide Bridge USB (with AQVOX USB power) >> Pedja Rogic's Audial Model S DAC + Pioneer PL-71 turntable / Vista Audio phono-1 mk II / Denon PCL-5 headshell / Reson Reca >> LFD DLS >> LFD PA2M (SE) >> Royd RR3s.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast



 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •