Themis;339356 Wrote: > That's exactly the point in which you're wrong : what makes YOU think > that the figures mean the NAD is closer to the original signal than the > Kora ?
Centuries of research in mathematics, physics, and psychoacoustics. > These are only three figures. Do you _seriously_ believe a signal is > objectively closer to the studio when [EMAIL PROTECTED], S/N ratio and > frequency > response are flat ? Are you _so_sure_ that there are no other figures > involved ? > I really wonder how you can assure yourself that these figures are > enough. :) Well, as Sean said we can't be 100% certain of everything. However, the following is true: any signal can be completely characterized by its frequency domain counterpart, period. Moreover, any linear transform acting on a signal can be completely characterized by its action on pure tones. So if amplifiers were linear, their complex frequency response (complex means including phase) would completely characterize what they do to the signal. Now, obviously amplifiers are not exactly linear - that's why THD+N isn't zero. But it is very small (for a decent amplifier), and we know very well how to handle small deviations from linearity. In fact just about all physics is precisely about that. So we know all that very well from our knowledge of physics and electronics independently of audio. But we also know it well from at least a century of psychoacoustic research (that is, we know quite well under what circumstances people can distinguish two similar sounds). That research dovetails quite nicely with the physics - there are few if any real surprises. -- opaqueice ------------------------------------------------------------------------ opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=45323 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
