| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
MikeEnRegalia 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21469
|
 Posted: September 12 2005 at 15:18 |
^ nice try oliver ... but I'm talking about connecting the PC to a good hifi amp and speakers. 
|
|
|
 |
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: September 12 2005 at 15:13 |
Listening on a PC:
These nice plastic boxes
 
Versus
These modest french loudspeakers:
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: September 11 2005 at 06:25 |
GOLDMUND turntable
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: September 11 2005 at 06:21 |
Kora galaxy (french amp)
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: September 11 2005 at 06:17 |
You want some top notch and nice looking gear?
Here are Tenor Audio products, acanadian brand.
Their amps are a little better than the Conrad Johson, so it's incredible stuff, and even more expensive.
Conrad jonhson
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: September 11 2005 at 06:09 |
 MikeEnRegalia wrote:
^  We still are, and the situation hasn't changed much since the first post. But this debate is quite entertaining.
BTW: oliver, I have to say that these components look quite cool. I'll see if I can find some case-modded PCs to post ... PCs don't have to look ugly, like the ones you keep posting. There are some nice wooden PC case mods ... |
Yes, this discussion has became quite pleasant, as we agree on most points and each of us adds his own knowledge.
I didn't know there are wood case computers, at least the Mc Intosh computers are less ugly than the PC.
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21469
|
Posted: September 10 2005 at 07:09 |
^ We still are, and the situation hasn't changed much since the first post. But this debate is quite entertaining.
BTW: oliver, I have to say that these components look quite cool. I'll see if I can find some case-modded PCs to post ... PCs don't have to look ugly, like the ones you keep posting. There are some nice wooden PC case mods ...
|
|
|
|
cobb
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 10 2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1149
|
Posted: September 10 2005 at 06:04 |
Good to see you two still at it 
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21469
|
Posted: September 10 2005 at 05:35 |
oliverstoned wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
oliverstoned wrote:
And 24 bits doesn't solve the digital pb !(only in theory)as the pb is inherent to digital. |
Yes, a higher resolution than your ear can cope with solves the problem in theory AND real life. The only question is how high the resolution of the human ear really is.
Why are you always saying these things like they were approved scientific concepts?
|
I explained you that the pb is that with digital, infos are missing.
The higher the resolution, the less infos missing.
Unfortunatly, there are still infos missing with 24 bits.
And the human ear/brain hears it. |
That's what YOU think. In listening tests (on good HiFi systems) most people aren't able to tell the sources apart.
BTW: Who said that vinyl captures more details than 24bit does? Sorry to break this to you, but I don't think that the groove of the vinyl disc has more than 16.7 million steps in resolution ...
|
|
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: September 10 2005 at 03:03 |
...That's why i said the problem is inherent to digital, whatever the technology (24 bits) used.
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: September 10 2005 at 03:01 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
oliverstoned wrote:
And 24 bits doesn't solve the digital pb !(only in theory)as the pb is inherent to digital. |
Yes, a higher resolution than your ear can cope with solves the problem in theory AND real life. The only question is how high the resolution of the human ear really is.
Why are you always saying these things like they were approved scientific concepts? |
I explained you that the pb is that with digital, infos are missing.
The higher the resolution, the less infos missing.
Unfortunatly, there are still infos missing with 24 bits.
And the human ear/brain hears it.
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21469
|
Posted: September 09 2005 at 13:26 |
oliverstoned wrote:
And 24 bits doesn't solve the digital pb !(only in theory)as the pb is inherent to digital.
|
Yes, a higher resolution than your ear can cope with solves the problem in theory AND real life. The only question is how high the resolution of the human ear really is.
Why are you always saying these things like they were approved scientific concepts?
|
|
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: September 09 2005 at 13:02 |
REGA PLANAR 3
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: September 09 2005 at 13:00 |
And 24 bits doesn't solve the digital pb !(only in theory)as the pb is inherent to digital.
Reag planar 3
A very cheap turntable, which can beat big digital, if you put a good moving coil on it:
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: September 09 2005 at 09:02 |
Of course, 22 khz is largely enough.
My new tape deck goes only at 16khz and it goes already very far in the highs, even on old tapes in Dolby mode. (if it's recorded on Dolby as well).
The pb is not to go to 22 khz, but to do it well.
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
oliverstoned wrote:
Yes! but unfortunatly this is not the only problem of digital. The big problem is that when you numerize the signal, you simplifies it (the higher the resolution, the less you simplify)but there will be always info missing. The ear and the human brain are too sensitive and have to "reconstitute" the missing info. What's make digital to involve fatigue. When you switch from digital to analog on a big system, you say "ahhhh..." (relief whisper) |
I think that when using 24bit resolution there's a huge safety margin ... I'm sure that the resolution of the human ear is significantly lower. Why? Well, listen for yourself.
As far as the frequency is concerned, there can be no doubt that 22khz is enough by any definition.
|
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21469
|
Posted: September 09 2005 at 08:51 |
oliverstoned wrote:
Yes! but unfortunatly this is not the only problem of digital.
The big problem is that when you numerize the signal, you simplifies it (the higher the resolution, the less you simplify)but there will be always info missing.
The ear and the human brain are too sensitive and have to "reconstitute" the missing info. What's make digital to involve fatigue.
When you switch from digital to analog on a big system, you say "ahhhh..." (relief whisper) |
I think that when using 24bit resolution there's a huge safety margin ... I'm sure that the resolution of the human ear is significantly lower. Why? Well, listen for yourself.
As far as the frequency is concerned, there can be no doubt that 22khz is enough by any definition.
|
|
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: September 09 2005 at 08:43 |
I've listen to my new tape deck yesterday evening and it was fantastic. I listen to some vintage tapes: the Kraftwerk compilation "excellor8" (1976 tape!!)and TD "Stratosfer" among others...it smokes every CD as it has the warm and soft analog sound!
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: September 08 2005 at 10:10 |
|
Yes! but unfortunatly this is not the only problem of digital.
The big problem is that when you numerize the signal, you simplifies it (the higher the resolution, the less you simplify)but there will be always info missing.
The ear and the human brain are too sensitive and have to "reconstitute" the missing info. What's make digital to involve fatigue.
When you switch from digital to analog on a big system, you say "ahhhh..." (relief whisper)
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21469
|
Posted: September 08 2005 at 10:01 |
oliverstoned wrote:
OK, but anyway, it goes far but there's still the supersonic noise which ruins the sound. (and the problem stays with SACD/24 bits resolution).
It will always be under analog... |
You can always use a low pass filter which cuts off the high frequencies.
|
|
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: September 08 2005 at 09:55 |
|
OK, but anyway, it goes far but there's still the supersonic noise which ruins the sound. (and the problem stays with SACD/24 bits resolution).
It will always be under analog...
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Digital Audio Myths - Listening on a PC
