http://www.newformresearch.com/fidel...tial-index.htm

Something for you to play with!

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
...
http://www.newformresearch.com/fidel...tial-index.htm

Something for you to play with!

Many, many flaws.

A great deal of undeserved fidelity is ascribed to analog formats. For
example, 20-20 KHz frequency response for almost all analog formats is
actually vastly inferior to 20-20 KHz for digital formats.

This relates to an old audio axiom that seems to have slipped many
analog-oriented audiophiles minds: A frequency response spec is meaningless
without a +/- dB tolerance.

For example, the chart claims that vinyl has response from "30 - 25kHz".
Over that range there can easily be +/- 6 dB frequency response variations
in a vinyl record/playback system. A competitive digital format has +/- 0.1
or better frequency response variations. It's the difference between
readily audible colorations in vinyl, and inaudible colorations in good
digital.

Another old audio axiom that seems to have slipped many analog-oriented
audiophiles minds is that a freqency response spec is meaningless without a
distortion spec. Again, the chart claims that vinyl has response from
"30 - 25kHz". Over that range there is easily 3-10% nonlinear distortion
or worse. A competitive digital format has 0.01% or less nonlinear
distortion.

Yet, another audio axiom that seems to have slipped many analog-oriented
audiophiles minds is that a noise spec is meaningless without a bandwidth
spec. The chart claims that vinyl can have up to 75 dB dynamic range. In
fact a far narrower bandwidth than the usual 20-20 KHz band must be used to
obtain such an optimistic figure. In contrast, 16/44 digital (CD format)
has an unweighted 96 dB dynamic range. IOW, not only can the full 20-20 Khz
range be used to obtain that performance, but in fact there's no need to
roll off the bass at 20 Hz or roll off the treble at 20 KHz. Just run the
whole system wide open, and there's your 96 dB dynamic range! If you weight
the CD format, its dynamic range can be up to 120 dB.

There's a similar omission that relates to FM distortion, AKA jitter. The LP
format generally has huge amounts of built-in jitter that is highly audible,
as compared to good digital which is totally free of audible jitter.

There's a similar omission that relates to FM distortion, AKA jitter. The LP
format generally has huge amounts of built-in jitter that is highly audible,
as compared to good digital which is totally free of audible jitter.


Good digital eh?, not that one they use for the DABble radio and the
Freeview telly then;?...

--
Tony Sayer

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
There's a similar omission that relates to FM distortion, AKA jitter. The
LP
format generally has huge amounts of built-in jitter that is highly
audible,
as compared to good digital which is totally free of audible jitter.


Good digital eh?, not that one they use for the DABble radio and the
Freeview telly then;?...

Since I'm out of the coverage area of those services, you'd know better than
I.

In article , Arny Krueger
scribeth thus

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
There's a similar omission that relates to FM distortion, AKA jitter. The
LP
format generally has huge amounts of built-in jitter that is highly
audible,
as compared to good digital which is totally free of audible jitter.


Good digital eh?, not that one they use for the DABble radio and the
Freeview telly then;?...

Since I'm out of the coverage area of those services, you'd know better than
I.



Well there're nothing to write home about .. course thats the curse of
digital these days, see how many bits you can throw away to get costs
down;(...
--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
There's a similar omission that relates to FM distortion, AKA jitter.
The LP format generally has huge amounts of built-in jitter that is
highly audible, as compared to good digital which is totally free of
audible jitter.


Good digital eh?, not that one they use for the DABble radio and the
Freeview telly then;?...

That statement suggests you think all analogue is perfect? Otherwise why
comment that all digital is not necessarily the same? Or have you been in
Currys recently? ;-)

--
*If horrific means to make horrible, does terrific mean to make terrible?

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

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
There's a similar omission that relates to FM distortion, AKA jitter.
The LP format generally has huge amounts of built-in jitter that is
highly audible, as compared to good digital which is totally free of
audible jitter.


Good digital eh?, not that one they use for the DABble radio and the
Freeview telly then;?...

That statement suggests you think all analogue is perfect? Otherwise why
comment that all digital is not necessarily the same? Or have you been in
Currys recently? ;-)


Dave an I go back a long way debating this sort of thing. In my ever so
humble opinion I think that digital broadcasting could have been done
better.

Its now a screwed up outdated system for radio thats bloody useless for
most all applications, and the TV system thats gone for all Quantity and
sod the quality.

And yes I've been in Curry's and Vomit as well .. and no I wouldn't by
anything from either of those cesspits...
--
Tony Sayer

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

Dave an I go back a long way debating this sort of thing. In my ever so
humble opinion I think that digital broadcasting could have been done
better.


Most things in life "could have been done better", but digital broadcasting
could have been done a lot worse, as well.

Its now a screwed up outdated system for radio thats bloody useless for
most all applications,

"Most all" really??

and the TV system thats gone for all Quantity and

I claim no great experience of DAB, but I have been watching digital TV (and
listening to radio via the digital satellite platform) since 1995, and I
have to say that, IME, it's a fair bit better than analogue TV, both in
terms of picture and sound quality. It's interesting to see archive material
from the 1970s to see just how bad (by current standards) the technical
quality of so much TV of that period was. This, of course, is in terms of
production, rather than transmission, but it does show just how much
standards have improved.

David.

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Good digital eh?, not that one they use for the DABble radio and the
Freeview telly then;?...

That statement suggests you think all analogue is perfect? Otherwise why
comment that all digital is not necessarily the same? Or have you been in
Currys recently? ;-)


Dave an I go back a long way debating this sort of thing. In my ever so
humble opinion I think that digital broadcasting could have been done
better.

Every system ever could be bettered. AM radio had its quality halved at a
stroke in the '70s.

Its now a screwed up outdated system for radio thats bloody useless for
most all applications, and the TV system thats gone for all Quantity and
sod the quality.

TV has always had variable quality. Depends on the source material. And
radio too. Or perhaps you don't remember just how bad some pop 45s sounded?

And yes I've been in Curry's and Vomit as well .. and no I wouldn't by
anything from either of those cesspits...

I just wondered since you imply that all digital should by nature be good.
Does your mobile phone give you good audio quality? Mine doesn't.
--

--
*You can't have everything, where would you put it?*

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

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 04:16:46 -0700 (PDT), Andy Evans
wrote:

http://www.newformresearch.com/fidel...tial-index.htm

Something for you to play with!

Very silly. In his calculation method he has got the bits per second
sum wrong - he has omitted x2 for stereo. And his method of defining
Fidelity Potential index (what this is really all about) is actually
laughable.

An analogy using his method. I need to measure something 11 inches
long. A yard rule will measure it three times as accurately as a foot
rule.

d