| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
oliverstoned 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
 Posted: September 13 2005 at 07:14 |
 cobb wrote:
This will probably lose any shred of credibility I may have with you
guys, but I am happy to convert any MP3 I have back into audio CD and
play them back through the computer- how's that for audiophile savy....
|
That's normal.
You can't hear nothing on a computer.
But play your cd on a real good system...
|
 |
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: September 13 2005 at 07:15 |
maidenrulez wrote:
The original NATULIS speakers...WOW  Apparetnly you need 4 high-end 225 amps to get this two up and working |
They go out when the weather is rainy...
|
|
Lindsay Lohan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 25 2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 3254
|
Posted: September 13 2005 at 07:17 |
say cobb have you ever heard a full blown high end hi-fi system?
it just amazing to listen to classical music with big sympony orchestras on some proper hi-fi systems it is almost as the symphony orchestra is right there in the room
|
|
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: September 13 2005 at 07:19 |
maidenrulez wrote:
say cobb have you ever heard a full blown high end hi-fi system?
it just amazing to listen to classical music with big sympony orchestras on some proper hi-fi systems it is almost as the symphony orchestra is right there in the room |
I was having my kick yesterday on Ravel...
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: September 13 2005 at 07:20 |
maidenrulez wrote:
say cobb have you ever heard a full blown high end hi-fi system?
it just amazing to listen to classical music with big sympony orchestras on some proper hi-fi systems it is almost as the symphony orchestra is right there in the room |
All genres are great!! prog too!!
|
|
cobb
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 10 2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1149
|
Posted: September 13 2005 at 07:21 |
|
Maidenrulez- No, who can afford one- not me. I can only imagine and be happy with what I have.
[edit] besides it would have to go in the lounge room- the wife and
kids won't let me in there to play music- you have to turn the TV off
Edited by cobb
|
|
Lindsay Lohan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 25 2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 3254
|
Posted: September 13 2005 at 07:22 |
oliverstoned wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
say cobb have you ever heard a full blown high end hi-fi system?
it just amazing to listen to classical music with big sympony orchestras on some proper hi-fi systems it is almost as the symphony orchestra is right there in the room
|
I was having my kick yesterday on Ravel... |
Ah cool i find that classical music is the best way to test a decent speaker system...although most youths seem to test them with dance or trance to see how much bass and how loud they can get it...blah i remember someone testing a trance song on my speakers saying that they where crap compared to his Cervin Vega 
|
|
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: September 13 2005 at 07:23 |
|
Yes, if one time you come to France, you can come home to listen.
But you can have your kick with a Nad player, a good amp, little musical speakers, good accesories, including cables, the whole for 1000 dollars!!
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: September 13 2005 at 07:25 |
maidenrulez wrote:
say cobb have you ever heard a full blown high end hi-fi system?
it just amazing to listen to classical music with big sympony orchestras on some proper hi-fi systems it is almost as the symphony orchestra is right there in the room |
Although it's true that classical and jazz CD are better sounding than rock ones.
A good system reveals it.
|
|
Lindsay Lohan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 25 2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 3254
|
Posted: September 13 2005 at 07:30 |
Yup i use a cheap Nad amp and cd player and some high end headphones to listen to normally. I barely listen to music on the stereo as it has some tendences to get a bit loud
|
|
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21116
|
Posted: September 13 2005 at 07:43 |
maidenrulez wrote:
Now lets take on the battle between cd's and vinyls
Now a standard cd is sampled in 16bits and 44,1khz normally a human would just hear sound in the spectre of 18hz to 22,05khz wich means that esentially the sampling frequency has been doubled to ensure that the sound signal sampled would be more accurate to the original singal.
|
That's not true: When sampling something you need at least the double frequency ... so 44.1 khz sampling frequency means that signals up to half of it (22.05 khz) are recorded.
maidenrulez wrote:
Now for the analog singals to be converted to digital signals a number of spaces to make the sample now for 16bits there would be 65535 spaces to place and then there will be lines aligned between them. Now if you tried to made a normal sinus signal this way you would nearly get the round form wich appears on the bottom and peak values of its amplitude. HOWEVER it will never be as good as the original analog signal because it would not be completly round and therebefore sound a bit sharp yet.
|
True. But the digital sampling CAN be as good as the analog signal, because the analog signal is not infinitely accurate. There are many limitations caused by the analog signal path, and the only question is just how accurate it is ... I guess it's somewhere between 16bit (65535) and 24bit (16.7 million) ...
|
|
|
|
Lindsay Lohan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 25 2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 3254
|
Posted: September 13 2005 at 07:47 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
[QUOTE=maidenrulez]
Now lets take on the battle between cd's and vinyls
Now a standard cd is sampled in 16bits and 44,1khz normally a human would just hear sound in the spectre of 18hz to 22,05khz wich means that esentially the sampling frequency has been doubled to ensure that the sound signal sampled would be more accurate to the original singal.
|
That's not true: When sampling something you need at least the double frequency ... so 44.1 khz sampling frequency means that signals up to half of it (22.05 khz) are recorded.
[QUOTE=maidenrulez]
i might have been a bit bad explaining it but yes the samplingfrequency should be double the frequency of the original signal as goes for the forumla:
Samplingfrequncy: fs=1/Ts
|
|
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21116
|
Posted: September 13 2005 at 07:50 |
maidenrulez wrote:
i might have been a bit bad explaining it but yes the samplingfrequency should be double the frequency of the original signal as goes for the forumla:
Samplingfrequncy: fs=1/Ts
|
 I didn't want to get too technical ... in German it's called "Abtasttheorem".
|
|
|
|
Lindsay Lohan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 25 2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 3254
|
Posted: September 13 2005 at 07:51 |
|
Wich basically means that if we record speech wich got a bandwith of about 3khz then you would need a samplingfrequency of 6khz
|
|
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21116
|
Posted: September 13 2005 at 07:52 |
oliverstoned wrote:
cobb wrote:
This will probably lose any shred of credibility I may have with you
guys, but I am happy to convert any MP3 I have back into audio CD and
play them back through the computer- how's that for audiophile savy....
|
That's normal.
You can't hear nothing on a computer.
But play your cd on a real good system... |
You're so pathetic, oliver ... it's not funny anymore.
Of course I can hear the difference on my computer ... don't call me a liar, will you?
|
|
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21116
|
Posted: September 13 2005 at 07:54 |
maidenrulez wrote:
Wich basically means that if we record speech wich got a bandwith of about 3khz then you would need a samplingfrequency of 6khz |
Exactly. The reason why modern soundcards (and SACD) use sampling frequencies up to 192khz is that when you process digital sound (add reverb, eq ... anything) the rasterisation used during A/D conversion can cause artefacts ... nasty enharmonic overtones. So you need a large safety margin, although twice the frequency is enough if the signal is just played back.
|
|
|
|
goose
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 20 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 4097
|
Posted: September 13 2005 at 07:54 |
oliverstoned wrote:
You can't prove it "scientifically".
It's just like proving that your favourite prog band is better than the last Britney spear record.
But when you hear a good tube amp versus a transistor, there's no need to explain. There's only music and emotion. |
You've said before it doesn't matter if people prefer digital to analogue because analogue is better. But all you can prove by listening is that you prefer the sound of analogue, not that it's any more accurate than digital.
Re the "cutting off" of sounds. There are only two losses that occur during processing from analogue to CD-audio (PCM)
Firstly the cutting off of any frequencies above 22.05kHz. This is basically irrelevant from a musical point of view - although these frequencies can affect people, they're inaudible.
Secondly the rounding up or down of every sample to one of 65,536 values. I can't prove that that isn't audible (quite possibly it is, I'll work on test files within the next couple of days) but consider that DVD-A is capable of 16,777,216 values and up to 48kHz. If any other medium sounds particularly different to this, then it must be less accurate. Maybe that sounds nicer to some peoples' tastes, but science really is real.
|
|
Lindsay Lohan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 25 2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 3254
|
Posted: September 13 2005 at 07:56 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
Wich basically means that if we record speech wich got a bandwith of about 3khz then you would need a samplingfrequency of 6khz |
Exactly. The reason why modern soundcards (and SACD) use sampling frequencies up to 192khz is that when you process digital sound (add reverb, eq ... anything) the rasterisation used during A/D conversion can cause artefacts ... nasty enharmonic overtones. So you need a large safety margin, although twice the frequency is enough if the signal is just played back.
|
Yup NOMATTER how good your sound cards there is really a huge limitation in using the PCI-bus because it has great limitiations when it comes to sound.
|
|
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21116
|
Posted: September 13 2005 at 08:00 |
maidenrulez wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
Wich basically means that if we record speech wich got a bandwith of about 3khz then you would need a samplingfrequency of 6khz |
Exactly. The reason why modern soundcards (and SACD) use sampling frequencies up to 192khz is that when you process digital sound (add reverb, eq ... anything) the rasterisation used during A/D conversion can cause artefacts ... nasty enharmonic overtones. So you need a large safety margin, although twice the frequency is enough if the signal is just played back.
|
Yup NOMATTER how good your sound cards there is really a huge limitation in using the PCI-bus because it has great limitiations when it comes to sound.
|
 What does the bus have to do with it?
|
|
|
|
Lindsay Lohan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 25 2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 3254
|
Posted: September 13 2005 at 08:01 |
goose wrote:
oliverstoned wrote:
You can't prove it "scientifically".
It's just like proving that your favourite prog band is better than the last Britney spear record.
But when you hear a good tube amp versus a transistor, there's no need to explain. There's only music and emotion. |
You've said before it doesn't matter if people prefer digital to analogue because analogue is better. But all you can prove by listening is that you prefer the sound of analogue, not that it's any more accurate than digital.
Re the "cutting off" of sounds. There are only two losses that occur during processing from analogue to CD-audio (PCM)
Firstly the cutting off of any frequencies above 22.05kHz. This is basically irrelevant from a musical point of view - although these frequencies can affect people, they're inaudible.
Secondly the rounding up or down of every sample to one of 65,536 values. I can't prove that that isn't audible (quite possibly it is, I'll work on test files within the next couple of days) but consider that DVD-A is capable of 16,777,216 values and up to 48kHz. If any other medium sounds particularly different to this, then it must be less accurate. Maybe that sounds nicer to some peoples' tastes, but science really is real.
|
Now if you look at schematics over the amplitude of transistors when they distort you will see that the amplitude turns alot sharper than the amplitude over the tubes. Just like in digital signals the signals can only be either 1 or 0 there is not a smooth transition between these two so you can say really about the transistors they are either not distorted or distorted it is no smooth transiton between these two
|
|
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Digital Audio Myths - Listening on a PC
