Edgar

There are places where nylon bolts really make a difference.

Apologies for resurrecting an ancient thread, but this just arrived in my email today.

Really good point, @babadono. I hadn't considered that.

Assuming that @Marvel was correct, that it was mastered at 44.1/16, then the 24 bits on DVD won't really help except to prevent numerical overflow in the mix. And non-integer upsampling (like 44.1 to 96) is never quite as clean as integer upsampling (like 48 to 96).

Maybe, but if it was digitally mastered at 44.1 kHz, then the CD should be a more faithful representation of the master.

It was used on Amused to Death.

Minimum wage in '68-'69 was $1.60, so 3.125 times. It's now $7.25, so tickets should be $22.66. Yeah, right.

I have it on both vinyl and CD. Amazingly, the vinyl sounds better.

QSound

https://stlouis.craigslist.org/ele/d/saint-charles-klipsch-heresy-speakers/7519005152.html No affiliation.

Is that like a jumbo shrimp? 😉

I do not understand the difference. I do know that, when a vocal or instrument seems to appear in my room, in a location where a speaker is not, and it raises the hair on the back of my neck, something special has just occurred.

Old guitar men never die ... they just get restrung.

I have to say that carbon has gotten much better over the years. I rode a steel Waterford Paramount OS from 1989 to 2016, when I bought a carbon fiber Fuji Altamira 1.1. The "feel" of the Fuji is almost identical to that of the Paramount. The most interesting thing is that the Fuji weighs exactly one pound less than the Paramount. Much of that difference can be attributed to 24/28-spoke wheels on the Fuji vs. 32/32-spoke wheels on the Paramount. So much for high-tech weight savings.

I don't know if anyone here has tried any of these. I have a pair to use in a PP EL84 amp that I haven't built, yet, so I cannot comment about sound quality.

The imaging may be the difference between "you are there" and "they are here". Absent the imaging, your brain might conclude that you are in the concert hall, where all of the sound seems to come from a "wall of sound" as @YK Thom described it. With the imaging, your brain might conclude that the performers are in your listening room, where you are so close that you can perceive the placement of individual instruments and vocalists.

My own experience has been that imaging only occurs with unamplified performances. Once loudspeakers are introduced, it seems that the signal is often monophonic and the image is centered.

Pretty much. With a compressor you generally only reduce gain above some threshold. With a noise gate you reduce (or eliminate) gain below some other threshold. With an expander, you generally increase gain above a threshold and decrease gain below that same threshold. In programming, this is easy.

If you can build a compressor, you can build an expander. A bit of oversimplification, but you just increase gain instead of decreasing it. The structure that determines input signal level, and the attack and release mechanisms, are nearly the same.

Interesting. Supports ADI SigmaStudio IDE, which I have never used but at least manufacturers are starting to realize that there are people out here who know how to program. I wish that the folks at MiniDSP would offer a SDK. Now that would be interesting.

I don't know of any. For my system, I use a NUC Windows PC connected to a Steinberg UR824 ADC/DAC, DSP functions programmed under ASIO.

Do you know of a general purpose DSP "engine" that is fully programmable? It might not be a difficult programming job to emulate the DBX functions.

Yes, entirely different problem. I misunderstood. EDIT: But I think that the answer comes up the same, depending upon how you state it. First roll: You roll a 4, what is the probability that your wife will roll a 4? 1/6 Second roll: You roll a 1, what is the probability that your wife will roll a 1? 1/6 Third roll: You roll a 6, what is the probability that your wife will roll a 6? 1/6 Fourth roll: You roll a 1, what is the probability that your wife will roll a 1? 1/6 Total probability: (1/6)^4 Looked at it another way ... First roll: What is the probability that you will both roll a 4? 1/6 * 1/6 Second roll: What is the probability that you will both roll a 1? 1/6 * 1/6 Third roll: What is the probability that you will both roll a 6? 1/6 * 1/6 Fourth roll: What is the probability that you will both roll a 1? 1/6 * 1/6 Total probability: (1/36)^4 And yet another way ... First roll: What is the probability that you will both roll the same number? 6 * 1/6 * 1/6 = 1/6 Second roll: What is the probability that you will both roll the same number? 6 * 1/6 * 1/6 = 1/6 Third roll: What is the probability that you will both roll the same number? 6 * 1/6 * 1/6 = 1/6 Fourth roll: What is the probability that you will both roll the same number? 6 * 1/6 * 1/6 = 1/6 Total probability: (1/6)^4 Computing probabilities always gave me fits.

That's a really good point that I missed. If you select the target number before any rolls, then the probability is as I indicated above. But if you count as a success any number coming up four times in a row, then the probability is increased 6x because there are six numbers. That is to say, "1,1,1,1" is a success, as is "2,2,2,2", "3,3,3,3", etc.

There is a 1/6 probability of any selected number coming up on any roll. If it's a fair die, then each roll is independent of the others. So the probability is (1/6)^4 = 1/1296. If it's a loaded die, then the probability is greater than that.