[xnor]

Resistors were bigger back then...... I guess they're smaller and quieter now..... hmmm.... I'll keep trying....

Yeah, I also think it's the size that matters. A bigger passive component, unconnected, in a desk drawer definitely generates more noise, especially the black ones (they absorb more quantum energy and that energy has to go somewhere ... so it's being radiated into the room and therefore raises the noise floor ... Q.E.D.)!
 

  I use Magic Pebbles to combat my noise floor problem.

My floor is made entirely of magic pebbles. Somehow the product doesn't work as advertised though because each step makes a helluva lot of noise!

 

[Copperears]

Clearly you are not using quantum-noise-negating pebbles. They're blue and also resistant to black holes.

 

[dotrunghieu]

Excellent thread! 

 

[Copperears]

Something like this is probably what I was dimly thinking of:

http://www.analog.com/static/imported-files/rarely_asked_questions/moreInfo_raq_resistors.html

Applicable only to analogue circuits but hey, it could spawn a new round of hi-end hi-fi pseudo-scientific marketing frenzy!

Always happy to help.....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Copperears]

My fave line in that article:

"It is not possible to change Boltzmann's Constant because Professor Boltzmann is dead."



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Copperears]

The Imp of the Perverse strikes again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_constant

I Love Math.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Copperears]

Even better!

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/apl/100/20/10.1063/1.4717462




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Copperears]

.... And for those of you interested in nano wires:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanowire

They _are_ the future!



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Copperears]

Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanocircuitry

My bet is on quantum dot cellular automata, systems that will self-replicate in the quantic realm in response to input. But then there's the problem of what to do with automata overpopulation and death. Perhaps some sort of sub-quantum recycling process will be discovered that opens the doorway between known and dark matter, to solve that problem....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[krtzer]

Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanocircuitry

My bet is on quantum dot cellular automata, systems that will self-replicate in the quantic realm in response to input. But then there's the problem of what to do with automata overpopulation and death. Perhaps some sort of sub-quantum recycling process will be discovered that opens the doorway between known and dark matter, to solve that problem....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Quantum dots are the way of the future, guys,
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_dot
 
In all seriousness though, quantum dots are have some interesting properties. It seems like we don't exactly know what to do with them yet. 

 

[Copperears]

Yes, I was joking around but hopefully you humans will figure this out correctly in time......



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Lespectraal]

So I read the whole thread, all 96 pages of it. Boy have I never been so interested in digital signal processing. I'd like to thank gregorio, xnor, D. Lundberg, Skamp, Jaddie and possibly other members who have actively posted in this thread and inputting valuable insight and knowledge on this subject matter. I will use this information with good intention and make my life a better one starting from now on. I shall be more cautious with future marketing tricks and make sure my wallet is intact.
 
I used to think that higher sampling rate and bit depths equates to better sounds, but it is not the case. Well I actually had a feeling that it was so because before this I had many recording of different bit depths and sampling rates, all of them are capable of great sound. So I thought maybe this whole hi-rez 24/192 is just a bunch of hoohaa. But once I stumbled upon this thread, now I am better informed than I was. Now I know the real deal.

Again, thank you for this wonderful thread.

*listens to some John Mayer in 16bit/44.1kHz*

 

[CantScareMe]

  So I read the whole thread, all 96 pages of it. Boy have I never been so interested in digital signal processing. I'd like to thank gregorio, xnor, D. Lundberg, Skamp, Jaddie and possibly other members who have actively posted in this thread and inputting valuable insight and knowledge on this subject matter. I will use this information with good intention and make my life a better one starting from now on. I shall be more cautious with future marketing tricks and make sure my wallet is intact.
 
I used to think that higher sampling rate and bit depths equates to better sounds, but it is not the case. Well I actually had a feeling that it was so because before this I had many recording of different bit depths and sampling rates, all of them are capable of great sound. So I thought maybe this whole hi-rez 24/192 is just a bunch of hoohaa. But once I stumbled upon this thread, now I am better informed than I was. Now I know the real deal.

Again, thank you for this wonderful thread.

*listens to some John Mayer in 16bit/44.1kHz*

 
So I read the whole thread
Funny - I was about to do the same thing. I read the first post and skipped to the last. Bad habit nowadays 
 
I've come across this resolution stuff before and the math/validation here is solid in my opinion. With two files of the exact same recording/mastering, my ears have never been able to tell a difference. 

 

[bunner]

So after reading several pages of this thread it does strike me as interesting. While I agree most users, whether trained professional ears or not, could be fooled by an ABX of varied differences between bit-rates or 16/24 bit sample sizes.. But what is interesting to me is saying its pointless to achieve or use higher sample rates because we can't possibly hear anything above a certain frequency. The goal of sampling music or images in our surrounding life is to be able to recreate it the best we can; however, we haven't possibly understood how everything in this world works, the best we can do to capture it, is to sample it by recording it with our best means possible, but it still isn't the same as the moment you experienced it with your own eyes or ears. Then why wouldn't you want the highest possible bit-rate and depth to capture it?
 
Questions to consider:
 
1) Even if you can't hear a frequency by limitations of the ear, have we proved we can't feel it? 
2) A 4000 pixel video looks more lifelike (almost said to be 3D, seems near real) on a 4K monitor compared to a 1920x1080 pixel blu-ray; couldn't oversampling just be that much more closer to the real life event when it happened? 
3) Listening to the live music of the actual band sounds more lively/real than any recording sampled and recreated with any equipment I have ever heard... So the question begs, why haven't we been able to recreate that? Perhaps there is more work to be done on this audio capturing and recreation, in my opinion, rather than settling for 16-bit just because it sounds just like a 24-bit capture. 
 
Maybe this is more rhetorical but I just don't think we have mastered, or completely understood anything/everything as a human species.

 

[esldude]

  So after reading several pages of this thread it does strike me as interesting. While I agree most users, whether trained professional ears or not, could be fooled by an ABX of varied differences between bit-rates or 16/24 bit sample sizes.. But what is interesting to me is saying its pointless to achieve or use higher sample rates because we can't possibly hear anything above a certain frequency. The goal of sampling music or images in our surrounding life is to be able to recreate it the best we can; however, we haven't possibly understood how everything in this world works, the best we can do to capture it, is to sample it by recording it with our best means possible, but it still isn't the same as the moment you experienced it with your own eyes or ears. Then why wouldn't you want the highest possible bit-rate and depth to capture it?
 
Questions to consider:
 
1) Even if you can't hear a frequency by limitations of the ear, have we proved we can't feel it? 
2) A 4000 pixel video looks more lifelike (almost said to be 3D, seems near real) on a 4K monitor compared to a 1920x1080 pixel blu-ray; couldn't oversampling just be that much more closer to the real life event when it happened? 
3) Listening to the live music of the actual band sounds more lively/real than any recording sampled and recreated with any equipment I have ever heard... So the question begs, why haven't we been able to recreate that? Perhaps there is more work to be done on this audio capturing and recreation, in my opinion, rather than settling for 16-bit just because it sounds just like a 24-bit capture. 
 
Maybe this is more rhetorical but I just don't think we have mastered, or completely understood anything/everything as a human species.

Maybe this is rhetorical, but since we haven't understood everything we by definition don't understand anything?  Please not this tired old canard. 
 
You say listening to live music no recording matches that.  I agree.  Will it match it suddenly at 32 bit or 48 bit? You do realize it is near impossible to exceed a noise floor in the analog world beyond 20 bit don't you?
 
4K video does provide pixels of a size within the resolving power of our eyes at the correct distance.  192khz sampling rates aren't analogous to that.  And even 4k pictures from too far away look no better than 2k pictures.  This happens when they fall below the resolution of the eye in angular terms.  192 khz sampling is more analogous to saying video displays with ultraviolet light output beyond human vision look better even though we cannot see it.  More than 24 bit in audio would be analogous to having a range from total darkness to brighter than our eye can stand without being blinded (or ears deafened).
 
Now the reason live music is not fully re-created has to do with soundfields imposed upon a different room from the recording.  24 bit allows definition in terms of loudness from total quiet to louder than we could stand with enough fineness there is no issue.  48 khz or so sampling covers the frequencies we can hear.  The complete recreation of the soundfield at our ears is another matter and not limited by the basic resolution of digital audio at normal sample rates.  Any advance is in manipulating the signals we get to our hears, not in the basic fidelity of the digital audio medium.  That might mean more channels and/or different type miking and some more advanced DSP.  Those higher bits and sample rates get us no closer to a solution for those problems.  Stereo is a convincing illusion or trick anyway.