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.

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

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:49b9af3e.963105140@localhost...
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.

He also omitted 5x for Dolby Digital.

And his method of defining Fidelity Potential index (what this is really
all about) is actually
laughable.

Or very sad.

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.

Yet another example of the blind trying to mislead the blind. He's not
going to impress anybody with his technical abilities with this sort of
monumental dust up.

In article , Arny
Krueger
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:49b9af3e.963105140@localhost...
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.

He also omitted 5x for Dolby Digital.

if nothing else, Andy kindly posting this has reminded me that I've been
meaning to do a decent analysis of this topic. Hopefully to:

A) Actually present the methods and the measurements upon which any such
'index' sic is based. Not just to pluck some values out of the air.

B) Then produce somewhat more meaningful results. :-)

As has already been said, some of this results do seem to not make sense on
the ostensible 'like for like' basis. The implication is that some of the
methods for some figures is quite different than for others in the same
column...

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

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