On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 07:54:40 -0000, "Tim S Kemp"
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Why would you suppose that anyone *could* tell the difference?

The increased sample rate for one?

Irrelevant, since 44.1k samples/sec captures the entire audible range.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 12:03:59 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

"Iain M Churches" wrote

snip 'my knob is my subwoofer' bleed-through

One often hears of people changing from an SS to a
valve amp. I have never heard of anyone going the
other way.

Neither have I.......

Sure you have. Me, Arny, and every other sensible audiophile past 50
years old - we *all* started with valves, because there was no choice.
Heck, the first 'hi-fi' amp I ever built was a 'flea power'
single-ended valve design! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 12:13:58 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

"Iain M Churches" wrote

I have an old friend, a former colleague who has cut thousands of
sides. I am trying to persuade him to join this NG. You will learn
a lot from what he has to tell us, Stewart.

I would certainly hope so.

As will we all, I'm sure.

I look forward to it, as I suspect the very least benefit will be the sudden
and rapid reduction of bull**** in this group - commonly concomitant with
the arrival of genuine experience and expertise, as we are already starting
to see....

Bit early to say, on current showing. Were you planning to stop
posting bull****?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 07:47:55 -0000, "Tim S Kemp"
wrote:


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news

Now, consider an analog amplifier that in some sense can produce signal at
any of 65,536 different levels, but its output is noise with an amplitude
of 10% of full scale. Can you reliably distinguish between output level
32767 and 32768 with 3,276 parts of noise added to it? Not really!

Nope. Not at all. But if it's an analogue amplifier it can produce signal
at /any/ level (quantum mechanics allowing, due respect to those who mention
it) and therefore it may have (say) 10% noise and 90% signal, but it can
output anything between it's 10% and it's 100% figure, it can /resolve/ any
voltage so to speak.

And so can a digital device - it's called dither.

A digital device with 65536 levels could only output noise + 65535 different
levels at the most.

Wrong. When fed a properly dithered digital datastream, it can output
*any* value between its positive and negative limits, just like an
analogue amplifier.

Bottom line is that the resolution of an amplifier is not based on how
many different levels that it in some sense can produce, but rather how
much noise it produces as compared to the maximum undistorted signal that
it can produce. We call that dynamic range. Our hypothetical analog
amplifier with noise output of 10% of full scale has 20 dB dynamic range.

That's right, we call that dynamic range - I'd agree there. Not resolution.

In any linear system, they are inextricably tied together. Please
learn the basics of sampling theory and digital technology.

All proper digital systems are dithered to eliminate distortion and
spurious signals. Dither amounts to being a noise signal with an amplitude
equal to about one bit level. So, the dynamic range of CD audio with
65,536 different levels, is about 96 dB. Note that this is no different
from an analog circuit with a maximum undistorted output of 10 volts, and
a noise level is about 0.000153 volts.

Indeed it isn't. And the same dynamic range is available from a 16 or a 24
bit or a 32 bit device with the same noise floor (96db), but the sound will
be different. Some would say imperceptibly, others would argue not.

Absolutely not the case. Given good implementations of all three, the
sound will be *identical*. BTW, it's more like 93-94 dB for properly
implemented 16-bit digital, because of that essential dither.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 08:20:21 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Chris Isbell
writes
On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 00:04:28 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

You must hate NICAM then - it's only 11 bit.

Yes, it creates distortion that is clearly audible - even on
'analogue' Radio 3. This is especially noticeable on transients in
classical music, which is most irritating.



You must have either a poor tuner, or a dodgy multipath'ed signal, or a
duff transmitter.

Can't say I've noticed anything amiss..until the other day;(

You could well be right. However, I believe that NICAM uses
compression - dynamically changing the range covered by the 11 bits
according to the signal level. I had therefore tended to put down the
effects I can hear on transients to NICAM compression artifacts.

How could I determine if the effects I am hearing are down to the
receiver or miltipath?

(Receiver: Sony ST-S311 connected to a four-element loft aerial. The
signal level hovers around 75dBf.)


--
Chris Isbell
Southampton, UK

Have you tried running the output of your TV through an external amp and
speakers?. Most all TV speakers are quite useless..

I don't need to as I run the optical output of the digibox to my AV amp....

Most of my TV watching is freeview - that's even more scary in terms of
sound quality and consistency. As for the picture, it's different, but is
it
better????

Not in my opinion, against good analogue PAL...

I'm not convinced - slow moving high detail images are better but anything
with movement shows so many artefacts.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Freeview is probably the highest quality source of radio available,
though, assuming your receiver is ok.

One of the best things about the Pace Twin is its ability to store many
hours of radio broadcast... the entire new hitchikers series is on the HD at
the moment (waiting to be reeled off to the PC for safekeeping).

The DAB receiver is there for local radio and music listening choice -
although R3 is respectable on DAB Jazz FM etc are way better on freeview.
Although both being digital they'll sound the same eh arny?




--
"Get a paper bag"

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Right. As one with an 18dB pad on the aerial, I'm saying nothing. ;_)

I remember living in an Emley Moor sweetspot where a pin in the antenna
socket was all a portable TV needed. Where I live now (approx 35 miles
north of Belmont) needs a reasonable antenna. However we can get freeview on
an old ITV digital box upstairs on a set-top antenna...


--
"Get a paper bag"

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 07:54:40 -0000, "Tim S Kemp"
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Why would you suppose that anyone *could* tell the difference?

The increased sample rate for one?

Irrelevant, since 44.1k samples/sec captures the entire audible range.

hmmmm



--
"Get a paper bag"

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
Absolutely not the case. Given good implementations of all three, the
sound will be *identical*. BTW, it's more like 93-94 dB for properly
implemented 16-bit digital, because of that essential dither.

The problem with all this is you're saying 16, 24, 32 bit, 44, 48, 96, 192
khz will all sound the same.

So 8 bit 44khz is fine too? or 12 bit?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not after a "my bits are better than your bits"
assault here, and much of the stuff I listen to is compressed (in both
senses of the word) anyway. But it is just damned wrong to say that the
difference between a 24/96 and a 16/44 recording is none at all.

I'm sure a few moments with some test gear would show the output will not be
identical. Personally I'm not inclined to even bother trying.


--
"Get a paper bag"