Edgar
-
Posts
2589 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by Edgar
-
-
Apologies for resurrecting an ancient thread, but this just arrived in my email today.
-
1
-
-
Just now, babadono said:
Can you say"loudness wars".
Really good point, @babadono. I hadn't considered that.
-
2 minutes ago, Racer X said:
But DVD 24 / 96, even if the source just 44.1 or 48, the upsample shouldn't hurt, although some maintain 44.1 to 96 problematic.
For me, 320 kps mp3s almost same as 44.1 cds, just my quick conclusion when I tried to compare, your mileage may vary.
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).
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, Islander said:
In my experience, LPs often sound better than CDs, but DVDs sound better than both of them.
Maybe, but if it was digitally mastered at 44.1 kHz, then the CD should be a more faithful representation of the master.
-
31 minutes ago, Islander said:
Sounds interesting, but is QSound still in use? It looks like it disappeared before 2000.
It was used on Amused to Death.
-
1
-
-
Just now, ClaudeJ1 said:
about 4 times minimum wage back then Which means less than $40 today.
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.
-
36 minutes ago, Marvel said:
This is a side note... The best vinyl album I have is Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms. It was recorded on a Sony 24 track digital recorder ... The LP sounds terrific.
The recorder also only did 16 bit/ and 44.1 or 48Khz sampling.
I have it on both vinyl and CD. Amazingly, the vinyl sounds better.
-
2
-
-
Just now, ClaudeJ1 said:
Listen to "Amused to Death" by Pink Floyd's former bassist, Roger Waters. Voices come forward left sidewalls, making it sound as if it's 5 channels, but it's only 2. Spooky at best.
-
-
Just now, Chief bonehead said:
Flat curve…..
Is that like a jumbo shrimp? 😉
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Tarheel TJ said:
I have never been one to chase imaging. Sound stage... maybe, but not imaging.
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.
-
3
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, babadono said:
Stevie's been dead for over 30 years...just sayin'
Old guitar men never die ... they just get restrung.
-
1 hour ago, rplace said:
The old steel is real saying is very true. It rides like a dream.
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, ODS123 said:
Seems to me that imaging is mostly a mixing board trick for in-studio recordings that has little relevance to actual music, unless one is listening to a tiny, unamplified ensemble in the tiniest of settings.
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.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Just now, babadono said:
For sure? Then this would definitely be fun!
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.
-
Just now, babadono said:
Taking at slight glance at Sigma Studio...there are no expanders!? Compressors, limiters galore.
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.
-
38 minutes ago, babadono said:
@Edgar this might be kinda fun to try out:
Probably not super duper fidelity but proof of concept.
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.
-
5 minutes ago, babadono said:
But surely they are available, no?
Analog I/O, and ADC/DAC would have to be included in a "all in the box" solution.
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.
-
14 minutes ago, babadono said:
I do not understand why a DSP version of something similar is not made today.
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.
-
14 minutes ago, Mighty Favog said:
If this makes any difference, it went something like: first roll = 4 on both dice, second roll = 1 on both dice, third roll on = 6 on both dice, fourth roll = 1 on both dice.
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.
-
4 minutes ago, PrestonTom said:
Noticed that Edgar said "selected number".
So, yes the calculation is correct (if you said before the 1st roll) the probability of a "four", but you could have said (before any roll) any of the 5 other numbers. So the probability is a higher, ( that 4 rolls would be the same number, but not necessarily a specific number) but overall it is still quite small.
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.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Mighty Favog said:
Lorrie and I were rolling dice to see who gets the first roll/turn at a game of Yahtzee. We each rolled a single die and it came up with the same number 4X before we could start playing.
Now what's the chance of that happening??
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.
-
1
-
Little Sweetie Forum amplifier project
in Talkin' Tubes
Posted
There are places where nylon bolts really make a difference.