WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions.
Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
What I like about Blue Coast Records is their ESE collection. Real acoustic environment, live takes, acoustic music. Not all of it is good though. I gotta sift through there and find some music I really like.
That can be good. Fancy name for letting everyone in the same room at the same time recording each closely miked and mix it later. No retakes, no dubbing in. Some groups sound much tighter this way, some it hardly matters. I've recorded this way as an amateur recordist. I just skip the inconvenient in between analog steps.
No, it creates the distortion when you push it through standard audio equipment in Analog after reconstruction.
That's why it has the big-*** chebychev filter at 50kHz that limits its bandwidth and response time anyhow.
Fact #1: Time resolution is a function of both bandwidth AND SNR.
Fact #2: DSD has a sharpish filter at 50kHz to keep all that horrid ultrasonic noise out of your analog sections.
Fact #3: That filter is barely sharp enough to keep that noise out.
Fact #4: DSD is NOTHING BUT 1 BIT NOISE SHAPED PCM. Fact #5: That's neither good nor bad, it just is. Fact #6: You MUST convert DSD to some kind of multibit PCM if you EVER want to change the level digitally. This is a massive pain in the behind. Fact #7: Even using DXD, the sampling rate is so high that typical filters require 64 to 128 bit mantissas.
Fact #8: Almost all modern ADC's and DAC's use something in the oversampling domain (usually 4 bit, not 1 bit, but same principle) that is processed inside the chip to PCM.
DSD is/was nothing but an attempt at security by obscurity.
@j_j would know better than I. I've read of a few methods for getting this number. Results were around the 10-13 microsecond level. Kunchur claims 5 microseconds, but his work is problematic imo.
Since 10 microseconds is far removed from what the technology is capable of I don't really see much reason to worry overly much about it. The time resolution of even redbook is just fine with lots of margin to spare.
Since 10 microseconds is far removed from what the technology is capable of I don't really see much reason to worry overly much about it. The time resolution of even redbook is just fine with lots of margin to spare.
I don't know your area of expertise but if it was in neurosciences/sensory you might well not think that a single order of magnitude was much of a cushion. Post # 149 is irrelevant.
However, there are other lines of evidence suggesting that there is little to be gained by going beyond Redbook.
The main issue is that if people want this to be a science based site, then they need to be much more cautious with their language, and not make sweeping, absolutist statements that are poorly supported by the data.
The main issue is that if people want this to be a science based site, then they need to be much more cautious with their language, and not make sweeping, absolutist statements that are poorly supported by the data.
What I like about Blue Coast Records is their ESE collection. Real acoustic environment, live takes, acoustic music. Not all of it is good though. I gotta sift through there and find some music I really like.
I don't know your area of expertise but if it was in neurosciences/sensory you might well not think that a single order of magnitude was much of a cushion. Post # 149 is irrelevant.
One of the marks of the troll: Misquoting for effect.
Another mark of the troll: Dismissing something without actual grounds for dismissal
Another mark of the troll: Dismissing expertise
I don't know your area of expertise but if it was in neurosciences/sensory you might well not think that a single order of magnitude was much of a cushion. Post # 149 is irrelevant.
However, there are other lines of evidence suggesting that there is little to be gained by going beyond Redbook.
The main issue is that if people want this to be a science based site, then they need to be much more cautious with their language, and not make sweeping, absolutist statements that are poorly supported by the data.
He said "several orders of magnitude", not "single order of magnitude". Time resolution of CD-rate and resolution converters is on the order of ns to ps, well below (by several orders of magnitude) the 10 us or so ITD threshold.
I don't understand the need to insult (with no research into their backgrounds) the very scientists we want to attract to this site.
I don't know your area of expertise but if it was in neurosciences/sensory you might well not think that a single order of magnitude was much of a cushion. Post # 149 is irrelevant.
However, there are other lines of evidence suggesting that there is little to be gained by going beyond Redbook.
The main issue is that if people want this to be a science based site, then they need to be much more cautious with their language, and not make sweeping, absolutist statements that are poorly supported by the data.
https://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.1121/1.5087566
A recent paper available for everyone. It has lots of good references to see how the numbers were obtained in the past. Investigates various ways to measure human ITD capabilities.
Is this the sort of thing you are looking for or are you just saying more work should be based upon what we can hear with music vs other stimuli?
I don't know your area of expertise but if it was in neurosciences/sensory you might well not think that a single order of magnitude was much of a cushion. Post # 149 is irrelevant.
However, there are other lines of evidence suggesting that there is little to be gained by going beyond Redbook.
The main issue is that if people want this to be a science based site, then they need to be much more cautious with their language, and not make sweeping, absolutist statements that are poorly supported by the data.
That can be good. Fancy name for letting everyone in the same room at the same time recording each closely miked and mix it later. No retakes, no dubbing in. Some groups sound much tighter this way, some it hardly matters. I've recorded this way as an amateur recordist. I just skip the inconvenient in between analog steps.
