bigshot
Headphoneus Supremus
The threshold of perception for timing error (i.e.: group delay) is 1 to 3 ms in the core frequencies. All other things being good, that speaker you have the measurement on would still sound fast enough for human ears.
The threshold of perception for timing error (i.e.: group delay) is 1 to 3 ms in the core frequencies. All other things being good, that speaker you have the measurement on would still sound fast enough for human ears.
I was responding to analoguesurvivor's ridiculous statement that speakers/headphones were faster than the CD format.
Yes, and the same goes for audio illusions. Luckily we can take measures to eliminate human error.
Yes I'm getting into philosophical territory, and I'm flogging the horse more than a little bit, but only because I think this is where we might start to find common ground: that we are all subject to these tricks and sensory illusions, audio included.
I listen to redbook FLAC on my playback devices of choice, and believe (backed by all the science I have seen), in terms of the source data, I am getting the best possible audio that I am able to hear.
CD-ROM error correction is different from Redbook - Redbook (i.e. CD audio) will actually attempt to handle read errors by interpolating data and presenting an approximation of the expected bits; CD-ROM (i.e. what computers use for data reads/writes also provides error detection, via Reed-Solomon, but any failure is simply missing bits - i.e. catastrophic - and the reading software is so notified via the I/O stack).
ABX is a methodology not a specific piece of software or hardware. To ABX DSD and PCM would require more work and hardware.
Beauty of digital is that it's either all right or all wrong. Your CD mat might help with making it all right, but that's provided there's something wrong to begin with.
------------------------------------
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the burden of proof was necessary here? If you challenge what is established, get proof.
For some reason, it won't let me to comment on the first half. Since you are relatively new here - I AM the binaural guy here. It is the (commercial) presure of necessity to play music over loudspeakers that is keeping me from getting exclusively binaural - but it is my personal favourite. And I doubt I will ever use multimiking - two mike recordings and no mixing desk straight into the recorder. Post production limited to pasting together the best (bits of) takes. But if the producer wants his "mic minefield" or no recording at all ... - then it will be somebody else doing the recording. I meant these multimiked recordings are beyond salvation if realistic sound is to be obtained.
One can mix and master ad nuseaum - the result will sound artificial no matter what.
I, too, thought that the beauty of the digital it is either right or all wrong. Then, I started to worry what will happen to my CD-R masters in the long run - it never happened to you that CD or CD-R went bad and could no longer be read ? First, I tried gold CD-Rs - claimed to have longevity of 100 years +, meant for archiving.
The first time I was recording direct to this gold CD-R in a church, I cried LOUD some most unholly words - so MUCH better did this CD-R sound. As these CD-Rs were expensive and on their way out, alI I could get was the remaining stock of 20-30 CD-Rs - clearly not sufficient for any serious work. I went into search mode for archival CD-Rs, particularly those that do not cost an arm and a leg. It was a three months search on the internet - and I did stumble upon then emerging CD-Rs that perform even better than gold ones and cost the same as regular ones - AND guaranteed to be good for 100 years to boot. Adding CD mat was the final icing on the cake.
I asked my friends to participate in CD-R shootout listening - among original pressed CD and copies made to "regular" CD-R, gold CD-R and this "super regular priced" CD-R. And it was established the SQ is in the same, ascending order. NO ifs and buts. CD mat was used at every stage, from ripping to playback.
So much for the digital being either right or completely wrong. It obviously does have shades of grey. At least when disc is involved.
Recently, this subject has been brought up on this pages. As my stock of these "super regular priced" CD-Rs has dwindled to a single 100pcs box, I went into search mode - again. And was finally able to procure some more - by now, they have become so rare ( everything that is too good at too low price gets discontinued...) that search even on ebay worldwide produces - zero results. Now it is down to somebody who abandoned CD-Rs altogether is selling off his/hers leftover - totally sporadic - so it is understandable why I do not wish to share the brand and model of these discs. They will be used for direct to CD-R recording - exclusively. For copies, lesser CD-Rs will have to be used from now on.
You are correct in establishing the proof is my burden.
In short, it should normally be possible to read a good quality disk that is not damaged without bit errors, and it is not true that every microscopic scratch or dust particle will turn into an error that has to be interpolated.
Nice try but no cigar (and obviously I was talking about speakers not cartridges...) . Frequency response is NOT the only factor in determining how quickly a system can start and stop, and a fast tweeter is not enough if the other drivers are slower. Even a high-end speaker's (JMLab Utopia, $30K) step response looks like this:
A Stax headphone is faster but not faster than the CD format itself. Top-of-the-line SR-009:
Yes, it is now, today, the case. I was just making the point that CD-ROM will only go so far to recover from read errors and CD Audio will "wing it" with interpolation when it can't read all the pits.
One possible solution is to convert the DSD to PCM, and then back to DSD, and compare that to the original DSD. Although this may in theory be worse than listening to the PCM version directly, if no difference is detected in ABX testing, then that suggests that the lower sample rate of the PCM does not audibly degrade the sound quality.
There IS one use of PCM/DSP I will be (grundgingly...) perhaps forced to adopt - filters for loudspeakers. It has been demonstrated a really decently made PCM/DSP filter (running at least at 192/24, preferrably twice that speed ... > VERY powerful computer just for the crossover ! ) can produce an almost perfect SQUARE WAVE, not
only a pulse - measured by the microphone at the listening position. There are articles floating in the net.
Originally Posted by analogsurviver /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Simply because they are the smallest surface and least prone to get mechanically excited.
Originally Posted by analogsurviver /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Regarding speakers - you obviously have chosen (deliberately?) something poor in pulse response.