Learn some game, first read up some David De Angelo, Mystery, Swinggcat (all can be found on P2P), then find guys that are good at it and willing to be your wingmen, and put it into practice. If you work at it, it's like a skill most guys can learn. I used to be the biggest geek until I realized self-improvement is like any other thing you can learn, though takes more effort. But the results have been worth it, and I highly recommend it.
It's not that CDs have exact replication but vinyl sounds better, but rather that many CDs have poorly done recording and mastering. It has nothing to do with the medium.
Vinyl has a dismal dynamic range. Unless your digital system is really crappy, even jitter rejection in the average digital system today is good enough to cause far less damage than vinyl's lack of dynamic range.
Don't forget vinyl's dismal dynamic range. In all cases where a CD sounds worse, it's because of poor recording and mixing, not the nature of the medium (unless you're using one of the 80s or early 90s CD player with their terribly poor jitter rejection).
Though other species will continue pollination, I fail to see where I'm going to be getting my honey. I can't be going around seeking out wild bee nests to raid.
Dude, what are you smoking? That's average population density, a meaningless number. What matters is the local population density, which varies enormously over the US.
Fucking hell, forgot this is HTML and it wrecked the nice unicode characters. The 9.8-41 figure for graphite is supposed to be microOhm-meters, and the 26.50 for aluminum is nanoOhm-meters.
Aluminum: 26.50 nm and 2.70 gcm3
Graphite: 9.8 - 41 m and 2.09-2.23 g/cm
So at similar densities, graphite's an order of magnitude more resistant. A cable without metal conductor is not practical here. The aluminum component is a must.
The true goal of the environmentallists is restricting human progress. They're nothing but Luddites, go-back-to-nature types, fanatical misanthropists. This is clearly obvious from their lobbying to divert research money from sources that can supply virtually unlimited energy for continued progress (breeder reactors and, potentially, fusion), into their pet projects like wind and solar, that have no chance unless you cover the planet with them to produce enough energy to sustain growth including the multiplying per capita usage of developing and third-world nations as they get industrialized.
The Bekenstein bound is a limit on the number of information in a finite space. That is equivalent to discreteness, and Turing applies only to discrete systems. If you could have infinite information density, then you could build a neural network with weights that are infinite-precision real numbers, which is super-Turing (Google it). I've yet to see any other way to build a non-computational physical device. Don't forget that QM is a computational theory; Penrose tried to argue from a logician point of view that physics going beyond QM must non-computational but was rigorously refuted. The only way out of Turin's limits I've seen is the argument that a system interacting with the world is not TM-limited because a TM receives input only in the beginning, not during operation. The flaw in that argument is that you can simply include said interacting environment as part of the system you're considering, specifically the system's light-cone, where the boundary conditions are the input, and then you still have something that falls within the TM (and actually LBA) limitations. I remember a paper from maybe ten years ago (I can't remember the title, but I think was from university of Alberta or something) that pointed out that if one takes a block-time perspective, any system is even more restricted to a mere FSM, not even an LBA.
I especially hate how lots of high end manufacturers use toroidal power transformers. These are convenient for they have smaller size, but they also have larger bandwidth, letting in all the noise from the house wiring get right through. EI cores = win!
There truly are, however, lots of problems with PC audio, though there are easy solutions. The PC is an extremely RF noisy environment. Though you can't hear high frequencies from interference getting into the audio circuitry, such frequency is often modulated, multiple frequencies form beat frequencies which can fall in the audio band, and most importantly, affect the electronics in two specific ways: they modulate device parameters and thus intermodulate with the audio signal, and by exceeding slew limits of the gain devices, they create effects akin to the well studied transient intermodulation.
The most common solution is to just use the digital out and an external DAC/receiver, but that has the problem of jitter added by the interface and poor jitter rejection in most modern DACs. If you check jitter specs in the datasheets from TI and Analog Devices, which produce the most commonly used DAC chips, this is immediately obvious. Even using an asynchronous resampling with say a CS8421, you only get some jitter attenuation. The real problem here is S/PDIF, because it is a synchronous interface and thus you're not just sending data but timing information which is analog in nature. Hawksford's paper years ago in the journal of the audio engineering society has more details on the severe problems with S/PDIF: http://www.essex.ac.uk/ese/research/audio_lab/malc olmspubdocs/C41%20SPDIF%20interface%20flawed.pdf
Why do you keep mentioning THD? The GedLee papers in the journal of the audio engineering society several years back demonstrated that perception of distortion in blind testing does not correlate with THD. THD is a bad metric of how much distortion is actually audible; far more important is the specific nature of the distortion. THD numbers truly are meaningless. Things like crossover distortion in AB and B amps can be audible in the parts per million, whereas low order even harmonics are inaudible until several percent. Just one example.
Wrong. Jitter has a huge effect, and it's something I've been researching and actually doing blind testing about. Even with an asynchronous resampling IC in front of the DAC, you get limited jitter attenuation. In a 24 bit, 92 kHz DAC, the effects of as little as 5 picoseconds of jitter are audible with a good system. It is impossible to get such performance if your DAC is lying on the other side of an S/PDIF line, be it coax or optical. The only way to achieve that with an external DAC is to have a local FIFO queue and a fully asynchronous, bidirectional packet-based connection to the source. In S/PDIF, you're transmitting not only the digital data but also the analog timing information.
Toslink is not as good as a good coax (assuming you avoid ground loops) because the optical transmitter and receiver devices (they're all variations of the good old TORX/TOTX pair) have really high intrinsic jitter. The problem with coax is that, while the cable has characteristic impedance of 75 ohm and the source has 75 ohm output impedance and the receiver has 75 ohm output impedance, the RCA connectors do not (it's physically impossible for an RCA connector to have that). Since S/PDIF is serial, you're transmitting a bit at a time, and the total frequency is about a dozen or so MHz. So you get reflections at the RCA, and increased jitter. Jitter remains a problem even if your receiver has an asynchronous resampler before the DAC, sine those only have limited jitter attenuation. I've just scratched the surface about the problems of S/PDIF. Hawksford had a great paper way back in the journal of the AES about how flawed it is. http://www.essex.ac.uk/ese/research/audio_lab/malc olmspubdocs/C41%20SPDIF%20interface%20flawed.pdf
I noticed my PC is so bad that the ground, despite the chassis and PSU being earthed, was quite noisy... I ended up having to put pulse transformers for ground isolation on both the DAC and PC side to prevent some external DACs from losing lock on occasion.
I don't know about A/D, but in a DAC the problem is that garbage and images gets into the analog stages, and (though high frequency), modulates gain device parameters and intermodulates with the signal. Beyond that, high enough frequency noise exceeds slew limitations of the analog amplifier and causes transient intermodulation related effects. This is why you want to have a steep anti-imaging filter after a DAC. Another point worth mentioning is that the higher your sampling frequency is, the higher the sensitivity to jitter. The best approach is to have minimum upsampling and a very steep analog filter. Most DAC chips do 8x. Something like 4-6x with a 6-7 pole filter is the best way, and is used in for example some of Lavry's pro-audio DACs.
Slashdot Mirror
Learn some game, first read up some David De Angelo, Mystery, Swinggcat (all can be found on P2P), then find guys that are good at it and willing to be your wingmen, and put it into practice. If you work at it, it's like a skill most guys can learn. I used to be the biggest geek until I realized self-improvement is like any other thing you can learn, though takes more effort. But the results have been worth it, and I highly recommend it.
It's not that CDs have exact replication but vinyl sounds better, but rather that many CDs have poorly done recording and mastering. It has nothing to do with the medium.
Vinyl has a dismal dynamic range. Unless your digital system is really crappy, even jitter rejection in the average digital system today is good enough to cause far less damage than vinyl's lack of dynamic range.
Don't forget vinyl's dismal dynamic range. In all cases where a CD sounds worse, it's because of poor recording and mixing, not the nature of the medium (unless you're using one of the 80s or early 90s CD player with their terribly poor jitter rejection).
Vinyl has a dismal dynamic range.
Though other species will continue pollination, I fail to see where I'm going to be getting my honey. I can't be going around seeking out wild bee nests to raid.
Too bad wasps don't make honey, one of my favorite foods (and I'm sure I'm not alone).
Dude, what are you smoking? That's average population density, a meaningless number. What matters is the local population density, which varies enormously over the US.
Moreover, it's a three orders of magnitude difference, not one.
Fucking hell, forgot this is HTML and it wrecked the nice unicode characters. The 9.8-41 figure for graphite is supposed to be microOhm-meters, and the 26.50 for aluminum is nanoOhm-meters.
Aluminum: 26.50 nm and 2.70 gcm3 Graphite: 9.8 - 41 m and 2.09-2.23 g/cm So at similar densities, graphite's an order of magnitude more resistant. A cable without metal conductor is not practical here. The aluminum component is a must.
What's sometwo?
Synonyms are not identical words. There are nuances of meaning, and in general it is not good English to thoughtlessly substitute one for another.
The true goal of the environmentallists is restricting human progress. They're nothing but Luddites, go-back-to-nature types, fanatical misanthropists. This is clearly obvious from their lobbying to divert research money from sources that can supply virtually unlimited energy for continued progress (breeder reactors and, potentially, fusion), into their pet projects like wind and solar, that have no chance unless you cover the planet with them to produce enough energy to sustain growth including the multiplying per capita usage of developing and third-world nations as they get industrialized.
You can weave aluminum threads into a rope of a different material that provides the needed tensile strength and flexibility.
The Bekenstein bound is a limit on the number of information in a finite space. That is equivalent to discreteness, and Turing applies only to discrete systems. If you could have infinite information density, then you could build a neural network with weights that are infinite-precision real numbers, which is super-Turing (Google it). I've yet to see any other way to build a non-computational physical device. Don't forget that QM is a computational theory; Penrose tried to argue from a logician point of view that physics going beyond QM must non-computational but was rigorously refuted. The only way out of Turin's limits I've seen is the argument that a system interacting with the world is not TM-limited because a TM receives input only in the beginning, not during operation. The flaw in that argument is that you can simply include said interacting environment as part of the system you're considering, specifically the system's light-cone, where the boundary conditions are the input, and then you still have something that falls within the TM (and actually LBA) limitations. I remember a paper from maybe ten years ago (I can't remember the title, but I think was from university of Alberta or something) that pointed out that if one takes a block-time perspective, any system is even more restricted to a mere FSM, not even an LBA.
Moreover, a higher sampling rate means increased sensitivity to jitter. But hey, who cares about technical design, when it's all about the marketing!
That can't be right. CAT-5 has high capacitance and low inductance, and is thus appropriate for speaker cables, not interconnects.
I've actually seen audio cables that cost $10,000/meter.
I especially hate how lots of high end manufacturers use toroidal power transformers. These are convenient for they have smaller size, but they also have larger bandwidth, letting in all the noise from the house wiring get right through. EI cores = win!
c olmspubdocs/C41%20SPDIF%20interface%20flawed.pdf
There truly are, however, lots of problems with PC audio, though there are easy solutions. The PC is an extremely RF noisy environment. Though you can't hear high frequencies from interference getting into the audio circuitry, such frequency is often modulated, multiple frequencies form beat frequencies which can fall in the audio band, and most importantly, affect the electronics in two specific ways: they modulate device parameters and thus intermodulate with the audio signal, and by exceeding slew limits of the gain devices, they create effects akin to the well studied transient intermodulation.
The most common solution is to just use the digital out and an external DAC/receiver, but that has the problem of jitter added by the interface and poor jitter rejection in most modern DACs. If you check jitter specs in the datasheets from TI and Analog Devices, which produce the most commonly used DAC chips, this is immediately obvious. Even using an asynchronous resampling with say a CS8421, you only get some jitter attenuation. The real problem here is S/PDIF, because it is a synchronous interface and thus you're not just sending data but timing information which is analog in nature. Hawksford's paper years ago in the journal of the audio engineering society has more details on the severe problems with S/PDIF: http://www.essex.ac.uk/ese/research/audio_lab/mal
Why do you keep mentioning THD? The GedLee papers in the journal of the audio engineering society several years back demonstrated that perception of distortion in blind testing does not correlate with THD. THD is a bad metric of how much distortion is actually audible; far more important is the specific nature of the distortion. THD numbers truly are meaningless. Things like crossover distortion in AB and B amps can be audible in the parts per million, whereas low order even harmonics are inaudible until several percent. Just one example.
Wrong. Jitter has a huge effect, and it's something I've been researching and actually doing blind testing about. Even with an asynchronous resampling IC in front of the DAC, you get limited jitter attenuation. In a 24 bit, 92 kHz DAC, the effects of as little as 5 picoseconds of jitter are audible with a good system. It is impossible to get such performance if your DAC is lying on the other side of an S/PDIF line, be it coax or optical. The only way to achieve that with an external DAC is to have a local FIFO queue and a fully asynchronous, bidirectional packet-based connection to the source. In S/PDIF, you're transmitting not only the digital data but also the analog timing information.
Toslink is not as good as a good coax (assuming you avoid ground loops) because the optical transmitter and receiver devices (they're all variations of the good old TORX/TOTX pair) have really high intrinsic jitter. The problem with coax is that, while the cable has characteristic impedance of 75 ohm and the source has 75 ohm output impedance and the receiver has 75 ohm output impedance, the RCA connectors do not (it's physically impossible for an RCA connector to have that). Since S/PDIF is serial, you're transmitting a bit at a time, and the total frequency is about a dozen or so MHz. So you get reflections at the RCA, and increased jitter. Jitter remains a problem even if your receiver has an asynchronous resampler before the DAC, sine those only have limited jitter attenuation. I've just scratched the surface about the problems of S/PDIF. Hawksford had a great paper way back in the journal of the AES about how flawed it is. http://www.essex.ac.uk/ese/research/audio_lab/malc olmspubdocs/C41%20SPDIF%20interface%20flawed.pdf
I noticed my PC is so bad that the ground, despite the chassis and PSU being earthed, was quite noisy... I ended up having to put pulse transformers for ground isolation on both the DAC and PC side to prevent some external DACs from losing lock on occasion.
I don't know about A/D, but in a DAC the problem is that garbage and images gets into the analog stages, and (though high frequency), modulates gain device parameters and intermodulates with the signal. Beyond that, high enough frequency noise exceeds slew limitations of the analog amplifier and causes transient intermodulation related effects. This is why you want to have a steep anti-imaging filter after a DAC. Another point worth mentioning is that the higher your sampling frequency is, the higher the sensitivity to jitter. The best approach is to have minimum upsampling and a very steep analog filter. Most DAC chips do 8x. Something like 4-6x with a 6-7 pole filter is the best way, and is used in for example some of Lavry's pro-audio DACs.