On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 08:13:16 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 06:42:56 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
to say...

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:16:34 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 19:59:30 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
to say...

They don't, which was my entire point regarding my CV, which mostly
concerns precision electronics *vastly* more demanding than domestic
audio. Know any domestic gear that can detect a submarine's distinct
sonic signature at 2,000 miles?

I would be more impressed with its relevance if it could reproduce a
submarine's distinct sonic signature at 2,000 miles?.

Of course it can, you ****. You amplify and store the incoming sound,
then compare it to the database of known signatures. As ever, you are
indulging in ignorant ranting on a subject about which you know
nothing.

Must have a hell of a good pair of speakers to reproduce exactly eh?

Was it a set of Magneplanars driven by a Krell?

Just a pair of headphones, but the comparison ain't done aurally.
Instruments are *way* better than ears.

Basically you're full of ****. You think because you can do one thing it
automatically gives you the ability to do another.

In so far as I've designed and built more than a dozen high-quality
audio amplifiers, it certainly does give me that ability. You clearly
don't understand much about electronics. I was *designing* audio range
ADCs in the '70s, before the music industry started *using* them.

There we go with the unverifiable claims again.

If you can find a 'Graduate' Marconi ATE, with a Mk 24 Tigerfish
adapter on the front of it, you can verify it easily enough........

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 08:13:16 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 06:42:56 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
to say...

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:16:34 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 19:59:30 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
to say...

They don't, which was my entire point regarding my CV, which mostly
concerns precision electronics *vastly* more demanding than domestic
audio. Know any domestic gear that can detect a submarine's distinct
sonic signature at 2,000 miles?

I would be more impressed with its relevance if it could reproduce a
submarine's distinct sonic signature at 2,000 miles?.

Of course it can, you ****. You amplify and store the incoming sound,
then compare it to the database of known signatures. As ever, you are
indulging in ignorant ranting on a subject about which you know
nothing.

Must have a hell of a good pair of speakers to reproduce exactly eh?

Was it a set of Magneplanars driven by a Krell?

Just a pair of headphones, but the comparison ain't done aurally.
Instruments are *way* better than ears.

Basically you're full of ****. You think because you can do one thing it
automatically gives you the ability to do another.

In so far as I've designed and built more than a dozen high-quality
audio amplifiers, it certainly does give me that ability. You clearly
don't understand much about electronics. I was *designing* audio range
ADCs in the '70s, before the music industry started *using* them.

There we go with the unverifiable claims again.

If you can find a 'Graduate' Marconi ATE, with a Mk 24 Tigerfish
adapter on the front of it, you can verify it easily enough........

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Is this not Classified? Maybe they'll have to shoot you!
(please) :-)

In article ,
Mike Gilmour wrote:
Back in those olden days of quadraphonic you needed a cartridge with
an upper range of around 40-45kHz.

All together now.

OH NO YOU DIDN'T

OH YES YOU DID.. take CD-4 if you wish, much the same....The difference
signals are first modulated onto a 30kHz carrier then added to the
cutter L&R inputs respectively. This upper modulation is tailored to
fit the bandwidth from approx 20-45 kHz. Bog standard pickups don't
respond to these signals and will just reproduce L&R signals. For Quad
reproduction to happen you need cartridges with a consistent response
around 40-54 even to 50 kHz - only when this range is passed from the
cartridge to the demodulator will you recover your 4 channels.

CD-4 was one of the less popular quadraphonic setups - for the very reason
it needed a new and expensive pickup.
The other matixed setups were more popular - if that's the word, because
none of them worked well.

--
*You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Tat Chan" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message



**16/44 digital can't even reproduce a decent 5kHz square wave.

Well, it would have the fundamental and third harmonic so the resulting
wave would have plenty of ripple.

**I'll give you a hint: It looks nothing like a square wave.



Such a
feat is a doddle for a good vinyl system. Do you think you can hear the
difference between a 5kHz square wave and a 5kHz sine wave? Hint: You
probably can.

Probably can, but what sort of musical instrument produces square waves?

**None. But that is not the point. Many instruments can produce fast leading
edges. Cymbals, for instance.

And ... what sort of loudspeakers can reproduce a square wave? I think the
Quad ESLs can.

**The old Duntech range was designed to reproduce step waveforms with
startling accuracy.




**Nope. In fact, a good vinyl recording can go well past 50kHz.

surely you mean "a good analogue recording transcribed to vinyl"?
I mentioned before that I was under the impression that vinyl cutters have
trouble etching high frequencies onto the vinyl.

**Then you'd be wrong. There is no reason why *any* waveform cannot be
coaxed onto a vinyl disk. It is just a matter of how much trouble one is
willing to go to. Don't forget: A square wave, on a vinyl recording
(physically) looks like a triangle wave. BTW: I have a CBS test disk with
square waves recorded on it. They appear on a 'scope with far higher
fidelity (provided I use a high quality turntable) than any 16/44 digital
system.


The mighty Dynavector 10D-II can operate to 60kHz.
The square wave
performance of this very fine cartridge is exemplary.

that is the performance of the cartridge, not the LP

**It is the thereorectical performance of the SYSTEM. Rarely, if ever,
achieved in practice.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message

"Tat Chan" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message



**16/44 digital can't even reproduce a decent 5kHz square wave.

Well, it would have the fundamental and third harmonic so the
resulting wave would have plenty of ripple.

**I'll give you a hint: It looks nothing like a square wave.

Kinda-sorta. It not like most cartridges put out perfect square waves,
either. MC cardtridges often ring quite a bit.

Such a
feat is a doddle for a good vinyl system. Do you think you can hear
the difference between a 5kHz square wave and a 5kHz sine wave?
Hint: You probably can.

Probably can, but what sort of musical instrument produces square
waves?

**None. But that is not the point. Many instruments can produce fast
leading edges. Cymbals, for instance.

However, sounds produced by those instruments can't be distinguished when
downsampled from say 24/96 (better square waves than any vinyl!) to 44/16.

And ... what sort of loudspeakers can reproduce a square wave? I
think the Quad ESLs can.

**The old Duntech range was designed to reproduce step waveforms with
startling accuracy.

As shown by test equipment.

**Nope. In fact, a good vinyl recording can go well past 50kHz.

surely you mean "a good analogue recording transcribed to vinyl"?
I mentioned before that I was under the impression that vinyl
cutters have trouble etching high frequencies onto the vinyl.

**Then you'd be wrong. There is no reason why *any* waveform cannot be
coaxed onto a vinyl disk.

Sure there is: the problem of tracking it, once cut. Cartridges have styli
with finite radii.

It is just a matter of how much trouble one
is willing to go to.

And how irrelevant you think write-only memory is.

Don't forget: A square wave, on a vinyl recording
(physically) looks like a triangle wave.

Except for the effects of RIAA equalization.

BTW: I have a CBS test disk
with square waves recorded on it. They appear on a 'scope with far
higher fidelity (provided I use a high quality turntable) than any
16/44 digital system.

But not as good as 24/96 which sounds no different when downsampled to
16/44.

The mighty Dynavector 10D-II can operate to 60kHz.
The square wave
performance of this very fine cartridge is exemplary.

that is the performance of the cartridge, not the LP

**It is the thereorectical performance of the SYSTEM. Rarely, if ever,
achieved in practice.

And due to the properties of ears, rooms, and speakers, its all irrelevant
to sound quality.

"Trevor Wilson" wrote

**16/44 digital can't even reproduce a decent 5kHz square wave.

Well, it would have the fundamental and third harmonic so the resulting wave would have plenty of ripple.

**I'll give you a hint: It looks nothing like a square wave.

Chan is right; and the missing bits are all at or above 25kHz, which
you can't hear anyway.


Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.fleetie.demon.co.uk

"Fleetie" wrote in message

"Trevor Wilson" wrote

**16/44 digital can't even reproduce a decent 5kHz square wave.

Well, it would have the fundamental and third harmonic so the
resulting wave would have plenty of ripple.

**I'll give you a hint: It looks nothing like a square wave.

Chan is right; and the missing bits are all at or above 25kHz, which
you can't hear anyway.

Trevor has better ears than the rest of us - he professes to hear the
*negative effects* of loop inverse feedback in even the finest amplifiers
that have it.

In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
surely you mean "a good analogue recording transcribed to vinyl"? I
mentioned before that I was under the impression that vinyl cutters
have trouble etching high frequencies onto the vinyl.

**Then you'd be wrong. There is no reason why *any* waveform cannot be
coaxed onto a vinyl disk.

This depends very much at the level you attempt to record it at.

It is just a matter of how much trouble one is willing to go to. Don't
forget: A square wave, on a vinyl recording (physically) looks like a
triangle wave. BTW: I have a CBS test disk with square waves recorded
on it. They appear on a 'scope with far higher fidelity (provided I use
a high quality turntable) than any 16/44 digital system.

I'll bet much of that square wave consists of distortion added at playback.

Be interesting to see the actual cut on the record via a microscope.

--
*Bigamy is having one wife too many - monogamy is the same

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Nick Gorham wrote:
Tat Chan wrote:


Ah, but if you look down to the atomic level, isn't a sound wave
composed of the presence of discrete atoms? So the atom is either
there or it isn't ...

sounds binary to me!


Look a bit further down, and you find it all changes again, becomes
colapsing state vectors and uncertainty, nothing like binary.



which is why I stopped at the "discrete atomic" level ...

Kurt Hamster wrote:

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 06:42:56 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
to say...



Of course it can, you ****. You amplify and store the incoming sound,
then compare it to the database of known signatures. As ever, you are
indulging in ignorant ranting on a subject about which you know
nothing.


Must have a hell of a good pair of speakers to reproduce exactly eh?

Was it a set of Magneplanars driven by a Krell?


jumping in

depending on how the signature matching was done, you wouldn't necessarily have
to play it back through speakers/phones to do the matching.

Not sure how it would have been done in the "good old analogue days" (through
hardware?), but it would be fairly straightfoward to punch out some code to do
it via software nowadays (or using DSP hardware).

Taking a simplistic (naive?) view here, a Fourier Transform of the incoming
signal is one way of determining the signature of a sub.

Or maybe even a Wavelet transform, since it gives the frequency content of the
signal and the point in time at which the frequency content appears (though
wavelet transforms weren't officially defined until the late 80s)