It is shipped so once it is here, will get scheduled for testing.24 pages and no timetable for the bench test? I want a plan!
It is shipped so once it is here, will get scheduled for testing.24 pages and no timetable for the bench test? I want a plan!
Because the brain should be able to identify it more easily.
The brain is more easily able to identify distortion/harmonics that are further away from the main tone (-40dB 6^th harmonics are more audible than -40dB 2^nd harmonics). Are you saying that for real-world use, jitter following say a guitar chord or piano key is going to hug the main tones?
It does not Steve. That is what people imagine because they think it is a timing issue as far as perception. It is not at all. Our peak detection in time domain is something like 1/4 second. Past that nothing about timing errors comes as such. It is for this reason the IEC curve for Wow and Flutter looks like this:Yes, this is my experience with most jitter. It creates halos around the instruments or echoes or widens the images, taking them out of focus if you will.
Couldn't you listen to them and grade them again? And yes, make them available by all means.I believe so. It's been many years. There were four digital files made available with different offsets. I was one of the few that could identify the differences and which track appeared to be most "normal". I can make the tracks available here. The problem is I never marked the tracks as to which ones were altered, so that info is lost. I suppose one can look at them with a DSP system, but that may not answer the question either....
One thing I have learned over the last 20-30 years or so that there is very poor correlation between expensive and good engineering in the hifi marketplace since before then.I wonder if a better DAC with lower noise floor will enable one to see lower levels of jitter and if using an inexpensive DAC will ultimately limit this.
Maybe it is virtual science. We have reality 1.0 and virtual reality 2.0 so surely we will need virtual science in that virtual reality. In the past it might have been labeled meta-science as part of meta-reality the metaphysics. So now we'll re-brand it as virtual physics.I'm loving this brand new science, I'm so enthused I think I might spend some time making schiit up as it just seems so much fun.
Back when I was working I was time poor and financially OK so when I upgraded my kit I went for a whole system approach, so having chosen Goldmund speakers after 2 years of listening to everything I could, and using a Goldmund reference turntable and Mimesis 36+ CD transport I changed my Spectral DAC/preamp/power amp for Goldmund too, with its own cables.I can't caution you enough to not defend this line of reasoning here and now.
I have offered thousands of dollars to high-end audiophiles if they can pass blind tests of cables. This is that sure of a thing.
I'm loving this brand new science, I'm so enthused I think I might spend some time making schiit up as it just seems so much fun.
One of my inflection points as an audiophile was retiring. I decided with more time to find out just why speaker cables and interconnects sound different. Quite funny. My ideas were to determine how they were different, figure out the broad outlines of what made better ones better, and make some designs that would be fantastic. Measuring, then listening critically, and then blind and so on and so forth prevented my success and personal enrichment. If it weren't for that morality thing I could be richer now. I know what it takes to make cables sound better.Back when I was working I was time poor and financially OK so when I upgraded my kit I went for a whole system approach, so having chosen Goldmund speakers after 2 years of listening to everything I could, and using a Goldmund reference turntable and Mimesis 36+ CD transport I changed my Spectral DAC/preamp/power amp for Goldmund too, with its own cables.
From an engineering standpoint I had always thought it strange that cables could make a difference other than the quality of thge connection at each end. When I retired and had much more time and much less income. The big thing about the Goldmund system is the huge superiority of the speaker connections they use, though they also have the ordinary type binding posts too.
I bought some ordinary speaker cable with 4mm connectors and compared to the huge Goldmund cables with their big screwed connectors and could hear no difference.
The Goldmund stuff is beautifully made and conceptually sound, it just isn't any better than a £30 ebay purchase, sound wise.
In my cable comparisons over the years the only ones sounding different are the ones with in line filters which are, of course, components not cables.
One of my inflection points as an audiophile was retiring. I decided with more time to find out just why speaker cables and interconnects sound different. Quite funny. My ideas were to determine how they were different, figure out the broad outlines of what made better ones better, and make some designs that would be fantastic. Measuring, then listening critically, and then blind and so on and so forth prevented my success and personal enrichment. If it weren't for that morality thing I could be richer now. I know what it takes to make cables sound better.
And that damned series connected amplifier experiment. Killed my vacuum tube dreams it did.
You guys are only feeding the troll by posting in this thread. OF course measurement won't show any imapct on analog audio outputs but he will anyhow keep trolling rejecting any technical facts you present to him.
I didn't get this..
It's a link to the aforementioned MQA vinyl.
Surely I need an analog scrubber to fix digitally sourced LPs.
No offset. What effect does it have?For these files, we are not talking about reading from a disk or any correction.
If I rip a file with out offset correction and the with offset correction what difference will I see?
You guys are only feeding the troll by posting in this thread. OF course measurement won't show any imapct on analog audio outputs but he will anyhow keep trolling rejecting any technical facts you present to him.