After reading Carl's recent post in "What the heck is Resolution Audio" I reached the point (that I'm sure all of you have at one point or another) that I have to call a spade a spade so to speak. Carl is full of crap!! At least on the upsampling/oversampling topic he is. He may be even more than that! I noticed he took this topic over to the "What the heck is Resolution Audio" thread and started spouting about things (upsampling) he obviously does not understand. I tried to be gracious on this thread when his hero Jeff Kalt of Resolution audio confirmed to me by e-mail (posted above) that there is NO difference between upsampling and oversampling AND that mfg's were just using the new terminology to draw interest. However, I lost it a little on my recent post on "What the heck is Resolution Audio". Sorry guys (and girls) if you feel I'm polluting the thread with a little anger, but someone has to call him out on this one! Live the good life. Jordan |
Jordan, your need to "call me" anything seems to highlight anger issues on your part. It looks like I will be e-mailing Jeff Kalt, and perhaps someone else as well. |
And regarding "Deborah", I feel it is he who should apologize, for hiding behind his wife's name, because he's afraids we'll all know his real name. My observatiuons on women need no apology, because they are factual observations. I love them very much, but the two genders are different, and no one need apologize for that. |
Carl, what are you talking about? My name is Deborah, and my husbands name is Robert. We are both professional musicans who reside in NY. My husband and I share many of the same viewpoints, and sometimes we even share this audiogon accout, but I assure you, these thoughts are my own. My husband has enjoyed all this very much however, and he especially enjoyed the post from Skohli on 8/3. It had him laughing for days. Chow! |
Hi Deborah1; Perhaps you're just humorously playing with words when you end your , but perhaps not. And It's not my intent to be demeaning in this observation: "chow" = food, but "Ciao" (also pronounced "chow") is an Italian? word usually used to express a pleasant Good bye. for goo |
Yep Garfish, it's all in good fun. I'm glad someone finally caught on. I find allot of the stuff on these threads "chow" for thought. And I'm glad my humor was not totally lost. Ciao, for now. |
Deb; I didn't even mean for the above Garfish 8/5 post to be posted. And it is of course only a partially composed message in any event. I thought I hit "reset" and thus erased it. Sorry. Craig |
You are a petty human, Deborah. I'll pray for you. |
For anyone interested, please see my 8/6 post under "what the heck is resoluion audio"....I'm tired of writing the same thing over and over again with regards to Carl. |
I see that some posts were deleted from this thread as well as the "What the heck is Res Audio" thread. Did someone cry to mommy? |
Why does Carl dislike Wadia so much??? |
Someone deleted the whole Resolution Audio thread? That's a shame... |
It's not that I dislike Wadia, I like the company. They are superb in most respects, as many of you know. |
I have read many of the discussion boards here over the past year or so and I was especially interested in this particular discussion as well as the analog vs. digital discussion found in another emotionally-charged confluence of differing opinions. Below my preamble I have included a plagerized excerpt from a Soundstage review. I think it is very noticable that many people understand what they themselves have learned but have trouble conveying it to others with the same depth of understanding that they themselves enjoy. Whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant to them because they KNOW the gospel according to them. That being said I offer this thought for consideration: What sounds great to your ear might be mud to another's ear. It is the perception of the truth and not the truth that matters to us when listening. Do you hear some things for the first time when changing cables or do you just notice them for the first time because you have gone into a VERY active listening mode instead of a somewhat passive listening mode because you heard the source so many times before? I agree with Carl that digital is theoretically better at sound reproduction than vinyl, but keep in mind that CD technology is relatively new as music reproduction time lines go and it is really almost barbaric when compared to what will be heard from that technology within 10 years. Remember seeing the first Edison recordings that were made on the laquer tubes? Compare that to today's vinyl. Problem with vinyl is that, although it can still be optimized, it is a technology whose time has come and gone. It will be surpassed by the digital domain. I do disagree with Carl however in his observations about women, finding them overgeneralized and sophomoric (and yes I am a guy). There are differences between brain usage between women and men, to some degree, and women might be more attuned to certain areas of stimulation than men. However, I take exception with anyone who thinks that a man and woman can not be moved just as passionately by music or hear/appreciate the same dynamics. Just not true. Totally gender neutral. There are women who are just as scientifically curious as any man - ever hear of Madame Curie? I work with them every day and they are EE's and physicists. Depending on your system, you might not be able to tell the difference between those drums being played across the street for real or being played on a good recording through an optimized system. You know they are real because that kid is banging away, making msitakes, playing along to music he has playing, etc. You can tell from the acoustics right away. But if a really talented recording engineer went into that space, recorded that kid banging away with all the echo, attack, and decay - then you did an A/B listening test - I think you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference. The reason we know this is true is that it has been done before and more than not were fooled. But the music reproduction system would cost you upwards of $100k. As the digital technology advances, the breakthroughs in software and hardware will bring much of that front end cost down. The problem with digital vs. vinyl is that most people hear a pure "streaming" data set when listening to vinyl. It is infinite in its attack, transients, harmonics, etc. So vinyl picks up the harmonics and decay from transients better than digital - up till now. As you read through the information below, you will see why Carl is right in theory but the author teaches the lesson with great KNOWLEDGE and the ability to impart his knowledge to others. Here it is: Data-word length Some background. Heres what a random 16-bit data word looks like for CD audio: 0011011000101110 There are 65,536 different values represented by the 16 digital bits (2 raised to the 16th power). Each of these values represents a voltage in the analog output signal. If the DAC IC outputs two volts maximum, then each different value for the 16 bits represents .0000305 of a volt (this isnt a precise analysis, just a general conceptual overview). 0000000000000000 = zero volts 0000000000000001 = .0000305 volts 0000000000000010 = .0000610 volts 0000000000000011 = .0000915 volts 1111111111111111 = 2 volts If you increase the word length from 16 bits to 24 bits, the number of different voltages you can represent increases from 65,536 to 16,777,216 (2 raised to the 24th power). Each step in a 24-bit word would represent .00000006 volts, still using our 2-volt output model, compared to the .0000305 volts for each step in a 16-bit word (using the same 2-volt output example). You can see that the granularity in voltages representing the musical signal is incredibly fine when the data words are 24 bits long. Take an example where the audio signal wants to be .0000455 volts (still in our 2-volt example). With 16 bits available, software has to decide whether to make this voltage become .0000305 or .0000610 volts. There is no way with 16 bits to make a voltage that is .0000455 volts. But in the 24 bit world, you have an extra 256 different voltages available between .0000305 and .0000610 volts. One of them will be almost exactly .0000455 volts. Twenty-four bits is really higher in resolution than any consumer analog or digital audio products can achieve due to limitations in current electronic technology. Most digital products with claimed 24-bit performance lose probably three to four bits in the noise floor. But nevertheless, it is advantageous and comforting to have a digital standard that actually exceeds the capabilities of performance in consumer audio components. Im not sure you would want to listen to music that requires all 24 bits to reproduce anyway; the loudest sounds would be as loud or louder than the loudest noise you ever heard in your life, well beyond the threshold of pain. The quietest sounds would require the total silence of an anechoic chamber to be able to hear them. What 24 bits brings to the table is headroom and footroom, which make digital audio more forgiving and easier to work with and offers an improvement in resolution even if limited to 20 or 21 bits of effective resolution. The circuitry in the D2D-1 creates a higher resolution digital audio bitstream by analyzing sequential groups of 16-bit data words and generating interpolated (best guess) 24-bit data words to replace the original 16-bit words. The process does have some margin for error, but it is vanishingly low. Keep in mind that in converting 16-bit audio to 24-bit audio does not increase the resolution of the reproduced audio. You cant have more than 16 bits of resolution when you start with 16 bits of data, but the higher resolution digital bitstream can be more optimally transmitted and processed to make small improvements in sound quality. |
Gmkane, thanks very much for that info... Best answer yet to the question that drove me to start the thread. Thanks... |
Gthirteen, you are more than welcome. Wonderful thing about this forum is that, with the collective knowledge and experience to draw upon, greater understanding will result in the truth. In my line of work, we use quite a bit of very sophisticated algorithm development. MUCH more sophisticated than that found in audio. But it is really hard to make digital theory easily digestible and therefore hard to bring it to a point where it makes sense to everybody. I think the author did a magnificent job in his explanation. Coming around full circle, you can see why Carl was right - digital has the infinite capability to produce more dynamic and "lifelike" quality of music than analog. But, as always, the science lags behind the enabling technology. Therefore, we will have to wait about 5 years, by my estimate, to begin to fully realize the promise of the CD. Biggest thing to remember is that the science of hearing and how the brain distinguishes sounds, transients, harmonics, etc. is really not well understood at all. Therefore, you and I hear (and "understand" music) differently. So it is catagorically incorrect to hold to one's opinion of perceived sound as an unassailable truth. It is THEIR truth but you and I might hear it much more differently than they did. Just take part in a speaker or interconnect cable double-blind study sometime. You will hear differences, sometimes, between various products. But can you really differentiate to the point whereby you say that "Number 1 is Nordost" and "Number 2 is Radio Shack"? Try it sometime. The results are going to amaze you and reveal new truths heretofor undiscovered. Therefor, you are the ultimate judge of the truth and you can only do that by comparing different equipment in your system. NEVER go by reputation. ONLY go by what pleases your ears. Music should just be equated with joy (not ego) whether you cry at an opera or bang your head with Kiss. I've done both and I am the better for it. |
Gthirteen, you are more than welcome. Wonderful thing about this forum is that, with the collective knowledge and experience to draw upon, greater understanding will result in the truth. In my line of work, we use quite a bit of very sophisticated algorithm development. MUCH more sophisticated than that found in audio. But it is really hard to make digital theory easily digestible and therefore hard to bring it to a point where it makes sense to everybody. I think the author did a magnificent job in his explanation. Coming around full circle, you can see why Carl was right - digital has the infinite capability to produce more dynamic and "lifelike" quality of music than analog. But, as always, the science lags behind the enabling technology. Therefore, we will have to wait about 5 years, by my estimate, to begin to fully realize the promise of the CD. Biggest thing to remember is that the science of hearing and how the brain distinguishes sounds, transients, harmonics, etc. is really not well understood at all. Therefore, you and I hear (and "understand" music) differently. So it is catagorically incorrect to hold to one's opinion of perceived sound as an unassailable truth. It is THEIR truth but you and I might hear it much more differently than they did. Just take part in a speaker or interconnect cable double-blind study sometime. You will hear differences, sometimes, between various products. But can you really differentiate to the point whereby you say that "Number 1 is Nordost" and "Number 2 is Radio Shack"? Try it sometime. The results are going to amaze you and reveal new truths heretofor undiscovered. Therefor, you are the ultimate judge of the truth and you can only do that by comparing different equipment in your system. NEVER go by reputation. ONLY go by what pleases your ears. Music should just be equated with joy (not ego) whether you cry at an opera or bang your head with Kiss. I've done both and I am the better for it. |
Gmkane, I have been reading this thread since it began, and made no comments, as I really cannot contribute. I do have a question though. In the CURRENT state of high end, home (two channel) audio, does the ULTIMATE digital transport, D to A, etc., have a better chance of reproduction of music than the ULTIMATE analog system, assuming best L.P.'s as a source (most of us cannot access master tape!) Mind you, I am including NO cost limit in the question. If you want to include a $30K digital, OK. Be sure to remember the $30K turntables (and above) and the phono stages required to complete their process. I would very much like to hear your opinion on this. I confess, in advance, that my prejudice is for L.P., as I have gone to the limit with both formats, and essentially agree with one part of your comment, where you say we are 5 years away from getting digital "fixed." If I am wrong in the way I read your comments, I apologize in advance. You seem to be very knowledgeable in the field, so I am eager to hear what you have to say. |
GM Kane, I appreciate your claimed support of my thoughts on digital audio. (I should point out that I am a fan of vinyl, and am not a total "digihead". My good friend Albert would be remiss if I didn't point this out. I admire his commitment to the single format, it shows his passion for fine music reproduction in the home)..................I have some questions for you, GM: Why is it that you think my observations about women are sophomoric? I'll grant that they aren't PC, but why must that make them sophomoric? Also, does your wife, or significant other, somehow cause you to forumlate the opposite notion (that most women actually DO enjoy highend audio systems)? We all know that is false, so why argue it? Those "activists" out there would have us believe it is solely "social conditioning" that causes the vast majority of women to "not be interested in sit-down-listening-with-concentration"...but to me, that is just illogical...flies in the face of reality. Nowadays, it seems to me that women are "conditioned" to believe that they can have it all in life, and most do a very good job of accomplishing just that (and are to be admired for it). So, why would they somehow not be able to enjoy listening to an audio system, IF THEY WANTED TO? I submit that it's that they do NOT want to, not that some man somewhere told them that they could not...that it "wasn't their place". Now, we all know that there are a handful of women that are audiophiles, and I celebrate and appreciate them very much. They are the minority, though. And as for enjoying listening to a live music performance (be it symphony, jazz, or rock) THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, HERE. We're talking about 2 CHANNEL AUDIO IN THE HOME (not "home theater", not "live" music at a venue, but RECORDED MUSIC at home)............I say this not to inflame, only to exercise my right to speak in a politically incorrect manner. No one in this forum has ever felt the least bit of pause, when they have sought to offend me in some way, so do I owe it to those same folks to show the same pause? To spout PC rhetoric that I don't believe?.................This is an "open" forum (for now) on the net, not a dinner party at the boss's mansion....ahem... |
Carl, for what is it worth, my wife and I have listened together to recorded music doing nothing else and in silence during the music for three to five hours at a stretch on most weekends for over 25 years. She used to joke that she married me for my stereo and record colllection. In addition we have two younger female friends who join us regularly and bring music for all of us to listen to. |
Albert (my name is George, BTW) there is a real problem with vinyl. In another discussion thread on vinyl versus digital, there is a lot of REAL information from recording engineers regarding the inherent limitations of vinyl (mostly) and why it sounds better to some, worse to others. Basically, if I recall correctly, there seemed to be a consensus of opinion that there is a very vocal minority out there in the real world that prefer analog. (You might find the same type of minority out there that prefer tube over transistor). I don't know how good your hearing is, but I was blessed with perfect pitch and great hearing. I can hear things that others can't who are sitting right beside me. Now, this begs the question - do I hear these things because of genetically superior hearing, does my brain just process the information better, or was I actively listening to the music and the other person passively listening? As a follow-up question: is this gender based? I don't believe that it is gender based at all and enough real science has gone into the quest for that answer. The first part of our hearing to USUALLY suffer degredation is reception of the high frequency pitches. If you've ever operated an air gun, etc. without ear protection you might notice a ringing in your ears afterwards. Not good. Repetition of the same stress to your hearing over time will result in your loss of the ability to pick up certain high frequencies. The one thing that vinyl does is truncate the high frequencies because of the way they were rolled off or limited in the recording process. I've picked this up since the first time I listened to vinyl, more years ago than I care to admit. I personally like the higher frequencies to shine through on my music (this is why I prefer digital and I have done enough A/B testing on my own equipment to validate my opinion). But I also want a balance throughout my hearing range and hopefully some impact caused by subsonic frequency air displacement. So vinyl does not recreate the high frequencies that I look for, but it does the rest fairly well and it still offers constant streaming information to my brain. But it does not offer the wide dynamic range necessary to recreate a true "lifelike" representation or recreation of the musical event. Neither does digital - yet. It is very close. Everybody's hearing is different. Digital can reproduce those high frequencies that I am listening for while vinyl cannot. I seriously suspect that this is why some people get what is referred to as "CD fatigue." The higher frequencies are reproduced (above what is reproduced by vinyl) causing an adverse impact on the most sensitive frequency reception range of hearing. Suppose you have the best audio gear that money can buy - either analog or digital. I think analog offers the best state of the art at this point in time. Why? Analog is in its old age and is a very mature technology. Digital is in its infancy. As algorithms mature and newer hardware generations turn over, digital will eventually reach an even keel with analog in two to three years at the high end of equipment. But very quickly digital will surpass the vinyl recreation of what your brain perceives as a constant or unimpeded and fluid stream of information that we call music. Then we will have the trickle down effect into the mainstream or affordable digital equipment lines or models. As we learn more about digital reproduction of music and upsampling or oversampling (and how the brain processes these digital bit streams), the one thing that vinyl can NOT do is offer the incredible dynamic transients that digital can. And this will eventually make digital more "lifelike" or offer a more realistic recreation of a live musical event. But this is a double edged sword. Your amps and preamps may not be able to keep pace with the dynamics that the digital signal will bring forth. Speed will be the essence. In the end, right now, both methods of musical recreation can offer satisfaction to the listener. Depends on how your brain processes the input. The key is to find balance between the individual components that make up your system so that it is optimized for your listening preference. Right now vinyl is ahead by one run in the bottom of the ninth but digital's clean-up hitter is coming to the plate with nobody out and the bases loaded. |
Plsl, how nice for you, that's almost like bragging. Really, if you're married, must you hog single young ladies who are interested in audio? I'd like to meet one sometime. Anyway, it doesn't prove that these represent the majority of the women in the lives of the rest of us male audiophiles, though. Just makes us wish we were you. let me guess, your last name is Heffner?................George, my brain missed the part where you answered my questions about your criticisms of my oversampled views on women and audio. Regarding vinyl, you are wrong on basic points about the treble bandwidth capability of vinyl, and also abot the portrayal of the dynamic contrast (both micro and macro) of vinyl, over the best of CD. I'll leave it to Albert to lay into you about that (I really wouldn't want to be you right about now, that's for sure...heh heh).....................Regarding your hearing, I have pretty decent hearing, myself. How far away from, say a 32 inch crt TV, can you hear it's 15.6 kHz sweep noise? I bet I can hear it farther away than you can (and around corners, down hallways, and on many pop recordings and movie soundtracks), and I'm not in the habit of using air guns, and I always wear earplugs for any activity even remotely noisy. |
Gmkane. I appreciate your answer, I have copied and pasted the part of your statement that I ABSOLUTELY agree with: Suppose you have the best audio gear that money can buy - either analog or digital. I think analog offers the best state of the art at this point in time. Why? Analog is in its old age and is a very mature technology. Digital is in its infancy. As algorithms mature and newer hardware generations turn over, digital will eventually reach an even keel with analog in two to three years at the high end of equipment. But very quickly digital will surpass the vinyl recreation of what your brain perceives as a constant or unimpeded and fluid stream of information that we call music. I (as posted on other threads) would love to have CD offer what it has as strengths, and have what L.P. has as well. Since we cannot have both, we must each decide if it is worth the effort to obtain what either format (at it's limit) has over the other, and then press our system out to the limit of that technology. As I already stated, I have been to the limit with both formats, and made my choice. I am pleased to read your comments, and believe your opinions to be factual and informative. Thanks! |
Oh well, he isn't in the mood. Maybe next time... |
Carl, first of all if you're right about something you're right. Just because you were wrong on an issue (that Resolution Audio gentleman's explanation seems to bear that out) doesn't mean that you were wrong on everything. Secondly I was remiss in calling your remarks sophomoric. They were sophomoric and neanderthal. I haven't run into a total throwback like you for quite a while. And it has nothing to do with PC. It has to do with real world experience working with women physicists, educators, engineers, physicians, secretaries, medical personnel, research and tech "weenies", and many of them stereo lovers. From all economic strata. Having two grown girls that love listening to music on a high end stereo. Reading remarks like those from Plsl and his wife, above. Selling some equipment to a woman who "has it all" and just happens to listen to a high end stereo. You cannot make crass generalizations and expect to have them received as gospel when they are just pure prejudicial rubbish. Ever visit a private and predominately women's college or university? Ever look into dorm room after dorm room and see the stereo equipment in the private rooms? I'm not talking about boom boxes here. I'm talking about fine equipment. (BTW - my answer to that question is yes. About a hundred times). But as not all men are stereo lovers not all women are not stereo lovers. And YOU MISS THE POINT in the discussion. I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE REPRODUCTION OF THE LIVE MUSICAL EVENT OR AT LEAST THE CLOSEST REPRESENTATION OF THAT LIVE EVENT IN TWO CHANNEL STEREO; AND WHY DIGITAL WILL EVENTUALLY SURPASS ANALOG IN THE ABILITY TO RECREATE THE WIDE DYNAMIC TRANSIENTS NECESSARY TO MAKE THE BRAIN RECOGNIZE A MORE REALISTIC INTERPRETATION OF A RECORDED MUSICAL EVENT. Something that you were unable to do. Now tell me, you've forgotten how to read too, right? Where did I mention HT? To offer your jaundiced view of the world according to Carl and to espouse the notion that your bigotry is the truth is not just nonsense - it is lunacy. But I respect your right to be a bigot. You do it better than most. |
I don't know how my automatic transmission works, but I can drive my truck. I am enjoying my Bel Canto DAC1 in the DVD-toslink-DAC set up. If someone would kindly send me some of the other DACs for a comparison, I would be glad to share my thoughts. My address is...... |
|
Carl - look for the thread about vinyl and live music. A lot of recording-types and musicians in on that one. There is a great explanation by a recording engineer or two about high reequency roll off in the vinyl recording process. Maybe something to do with RIAA? Anyway, read through the thirty or so posts and try to learn something for a change instead of letting your not insignificant bruised ego stand in the way of reaching an understanding of how the brain processes sound and how the process of recording sound onto vinyl is compromised. As to your juvenile comments regarding hearing - only true way to accurately compare or measure hearing is in a total anechoic chamber using standardized methods. Best place I know of is at an Eye and Ear Hospital. Yours better that mine? Doubt it. I don't really care. What's it going to be next? Dualing triodes at 10 paces? Grow up. Time to go play with my stereo. |
Carl - look for the thread about vinyl and live music. A lot of recording-types and musicians in on that one. There is a great explanation by a recording engineer or two about high reequency roll off in the vinyl recording process. Maybe something to do with RIAA? Anyway, read through the thirty or so posts and try to learn something for a change instead of letting your not insignificant bruised ego stand in the way of reaching an understanding of how the brain processes sound and how the process of recording sound onto vinyl is compromised. As to your juvenile comments regarding hearing - only true way to accurately compare or measure hearing is in a total anechoic chamber using standardized methods. Best place I know of is at an Eye and Ear Hospital. Yours better that mine? Doubt it. I don't really care. What's it going to be next? Dualing triodes at 10 paces? Grow up. Time to go play with my stereo. |
I am not Carl, and I do not disagree with your comments about LP. having a high frequency roll off. Perhaps it is the RIAA, or perhaps a flaw in the original design of the LP format (it is quite old). However, the roll off in the extreme highs is less of a problem to my ear than the brick wall filter in digital, and the additional problems with the digital format's phase response. There is no perfect format for the ultimate in home reproduction right now, and in the years to follow, perhaps digital will finally accomplish what was originally promised it would do (20 years ago). However, I have been listening to recorded music for all of those 20 years, and I pride myself in extracting all the performance from my system that can be had. And, as you said yourself, LP. is the superior format right now, so until things change, I am happy to enjoy my rather large collection of music and know that considering the state of things, I cannot do better. |
I am not Carl, and I do not disagree with your comments about LP. having a high frequency roll off. Perhaps it is the RIAA, or perhaps a flaw in the original design of the LP format (it is quite old). However, the roll off in the extreme highs is less of a problem to my ear than the brick wall filter in digital, and the additional problems with the digital format's phase response. There is no perfect format for the ultimate in home reproduction right now, and in the years to follow, perhaps digital will finally accomplish what was originally promised it would do (20 years ago). However, I have been listening to recorded music for all of those 20 years, and I pride myself in extracting all the performance from my system that can be had. And, as you said yourself, LP. is the superior format right now, so until things change, I am happy to enjoy my rather large collection of music and know that considering the state of things, I cannot do better. |
First of all, let me get one thing srtaight about Resolution Audio. I admire Jeff Kalt very much, and respect his work on an exalted level (I love his CD player, and will likely never part with it). I think that far too much is being made of some minor misconceptions on my part(it's not as if I write for a mag that you are all paying for, so why do any of you hold my being "wrong" to such a high level of scrutiny? I mean, somebody freaking asked me to describe my view of that subject the best I could, so I did...I was partially in error perhaps...get over it...I have, and then some. Why can't the rest of you?). Here's where the GRAY AREA on that subject still is for me: According to another's post on here, Kevin Halverson of Muse has said that upsampling CAN be distinguished from oversamplng in the following manner (and this was also how I understood it to be all along, so if you say I'm wrong on this, it would seem you are saying Kevin is wrong also): THAT UP-SAMPLING is upstream of the DAC, AND employs processing that "interpolates"...and OVER-SAMPLING occurs within the DAC. Now, it all depends on what you describe as being "inside" or "outside" the DAC. The only thing I will concede on this, and Jeff has made it clear to me personally, is that with oversampling, the DAC does get a datastream which is already "not redbook", it's higher rez than that already. I did NOT realize that. If it makes all of you happy that this somehow has disproved how I conceived it before, so be it. Doesn't make me a retard, though. I have no plans to design DACS or CD players, a good thing, I guess. I am convinced not to even try any of the affordable "upsampling" dacs, though, even for kicks............I'm no bigot, and you are in need of a hine end correction from my foot. You are the one who is crass, and also judgemental, and are likely too old to realize it. |
I'm fully aware of RIAA pre-equalizaation, and the reason for it. And for your information, I already am a recording engineer (I make my own, which is more than you can do), so there goes that little smug blather-theory of yours. YOU STILL DIDN'T ASNWER THE QUESTION, AND CERTAINLY NO CANECHOIC CHAMEBER IS REQUIRED. You can't hear squat, old man, get a hearing aid, already!!! |
Please don't tell me that the phono stage doesn't have the equalization that re-boosts the treble response, because that is basic, and everybody should know it. Why don't either of you (Albert or George0? There is no "inherent" roll off. There is only pre_equalized roll off, that is "decoded" by the treble BOOST (like 40 dB) in the phono stage. All of you need to better eduacate yourselves about that. LP's produce harmonics well beyond 25 kHz, didn't you know that? CD's produce nothing at all above 20 kHz, that is fact. I can hear 20 kHz sinewaves on a test CD with Maggies, and the intermodualtion and squared off-ness that goes with them. Can you? You don't need an anechoic chamber, just a damped lisening room (I doubt George even has that, though). And for your info, I've been in a few dorm rooms myself, and saw no decent stereos, just stale pizza (and a few other nice things). Your comments are anectdotal, and prove ABSOLUTELY ZERO POINT. Take a break, and organize your thoughts in your brain first next time, George... |
And also, don't tell me about hearing tests with headphones. They're flawed from the get go, no matter how "calibrated" they are. My HD-600's are infinitely better and more extended in the treble than the phones they use in hearing tests, and THESE SENNEHISERS ARE NOT FLAT IN THE TOP OCTAVE. My Maggies are much more flat in the top octave. I think it has to do with the fact that the trasducer is right on your ear, and phase anomalies occur, with sound wavelengths that are, what, half an inch long? Anyway, speakers in a correctly treated room, a good test CD, a mic referencing a 1 kHz sinewave to the mid 80's decibels range, is all you need. My Maggies stay focused DEAD CENTER in every band of uncorrelated third octave pink noise. They make a ball about 2 feet diameter in the upper bass, and a golfball size "ball of noise" in the top ocatves............................DOES ANYONE ELSE'S SPEAKER SETUP/HEARING YIELD THIS? Me want to know........I CHALLENGE YOU TO DO THIS TEST RIGHT NOW (the Sheffield "my Disc" will do the trick. Otherwise, don't go telling me what I can, and can't hear, through my system, old man. Go pipe your pompousity up your own keester for a while, George.... |
Carl you are a horse's behind, a point that you continue to prove. Oh, and BTW - come back when you get a real system. Maggies compared to Soundlab Ultimate 1's. Hardly. What a joke. You are boring. I'm out of here. Nothing to learn from you, that's for sure. How did those Barney tapes you are so famous for recording work out? Did those on 8 track tape, didn't you? |
Carl, a couple of points for your "gray area": 1.) oversampling/upsampling without "interpolation" is meaningless!!! Interpolation is simply selecting the best bit value to assign to an oversampled data point. You could linearly "interpolate" between (real/original) data points or you could fit some base curve between those data points. If you increase the sample rate, you MUST interpolate! 2.) The ONLY difference Kevin Halverson mentioned was semantic (and I'm sure he meant it as such)!! "Upsampling" units started as stand alone oversampling digital filters to improve the performance of lesser processors. There is NO difference!! The term "upsampling" caught on, in part, due to ignorant journalists, and now everybody is using the word to claim some magic improvement. Also, both external oversampling digital filters ("Upsamplers") and internal oversampling digital filters are upstream of the "DAC". A digital processor and the DAC(s) are quite different. A digital processor has 4 main sections: Input receiver (reclocking), oversampling digital filter, DAC (digital-to-analog convertor), and analog output. So, we have once again come full circle: upsampling and oversampling are the SAME THING!! SYNONYMS!! Ask Gmkane for further details. Jordan |
Merriam-Webster: "brag: engage in self-glorification" There is no point in competeing with a master so I restrain my posts to the simple facts of my direct experience. |
There is an article being written on this very subject that should go a long way towards clearing up the confusion. Contributors include many of the individuals mentioned here and the author has assured me that it will be as free of marketing hype as possible. I am uncertain of its intended completion date, but should be within the next month. |
Kevin, I'm glad to see your post here............Jordan, I only meant that Kevin's description was semantic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Get over yourself!!!!!!!!!!!!! George, you can go to hell, and I'll be happy to send you there...name the time and place, old man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Hi Kevin; Can you tell us where the article re: upsampling/oversampling you refer to will be posted or published? Thanks. Craig. |
And Jordan, how many CD players or DACs have YOU designed? I want to know, because it seems to me that you are pretending that you have. How about letting those who design them speak for themselves? Also, onon of you have answered how your systems perform on my little test. I submit that you are afraid to perform it. |
|
Regarding "taking the Pepsi Challenge", I logged on to the Pepsi web site, and cannot find where they actually market a Upsampling DAC of any kind. Thinking Gthirteen confused Pepsi with Coca Cola, I visited Coke's site too....still no DAC's. Are you guys sure that these fine soft drink companies are into digital, or perhaps their "fizz" is all "0's" and no "1's". |
As soon as the author gives me permission, I will post a note on this thread and will likely also build a link from our web site. Kevin Halverson |
Carl, I did let "those who design them speak for themselves" by seeking out an answer on this topic from one of the leaders in digital design and then posting Jeff Kalt's e-mail reply here. Did you search for answers OR did you already know it all?!! I humbly entered this thread looking for answers to my questions regarding upsampling/oversampling. You, however, replied with your usual collection of technical terms (organized in nonsensical ways) AND got hostile to boot! Carl, nobody likes a hostile blowhard. From my limited understanding of how a digital processor works, I suspected that upsampling was the same, or nearly the same, as oversampling. After seriously considering your nonsense, I asked Jeff Kalt for an answer. I chose to ask Resolution Audio for two reasons: 1.) Resolution Audio now markets an "Upsampling" processor. 2.) I could kick myself for it now, but I actually thought that MAYBE you knew what you were talking about and just couldn't express it in a way I understood. Since you spoke so highly of Jeff Kalt's talents as a digital designer, I thought, perhaps, he could express what you could not. As we all know now, you didn't have a clue what you were talking about and upsampling and oversampling are the same thing! Oh, I performed your test. Heard a little golf ball in the top octaves and about a 2 footer in the upper bass. I don't know, I prefer listening to music (Miles Davis sounds good today), but to each his own. Jordan |
Jordan, you are quite right, I'm full of nonsense, have never known what I'm talking about, and never listen to anything but pink noise on my system. I'm glad that you are so humble as to proclaim that you know so little, yet are perfectly open minded, and have found the truth of truths. Yes, indeed, nobody likes a blowhard. We all make mistakes, and it is you who is the blowhard now. Shut up already! At least I have a real man's name, and not an ambiguous-gender one.... |
Hi Jordan and Carl; Last night I read (twice) J. Scull's Stereophile review of Accupase's newest CD player. On the opening page, JS refers to the process Accuphase uses as oversampling, then throughout the rest of the review he refers to it as up-sampling. BTW, JS marginally preferred the Accuphase to dCS gear. Of course some question J. Sculls judgement. It was definitely confusing. And I know in previous posts on this subject, Carl has pointed this out-- that at least some of Stereophile's reviewers-- including J. Atkinson, have really extolled the virtues of high quality "up-sampling" devices. And that's why I also originally believed that up & over sampling were different. It was only after hearing from some of the leading industry people such as Jeff Kalt and Kevin Halverson that I changed my mind. In short, Stereophile led me and many others down a "screwy amd misleading path". I see no point in trying to contact Stereophile about this as I've tried emailing them in the past with no results. Cheers. Craig. |
Off the subject. Carl.... I've been curious for a long time why you seem to have such a preoccupation with people's Audiogon User Name(s), and for that matter their real names. Afterall, this is cyberspace and anyone can use whatever name they want (in good taste). For all we know, your real name could be Carla, I could be Geraldine, and Jordan could be Janie. But really, I think we're all genuine, ie what we appear to be. Chow. Craig. |
Craig, I feel the same way. Some of the journalists (it seems) either did not know enough to be speaking on the subject or were intentionally misleading. It's a shame. Carl, most of us will readily admit when we make a mistake; however, some find their personal egos are more important than truth and understanding. How about you? |
