arnyk wrote:
> Can't be all that recent because the above is what I learned in First
> Year Thermodynamics about 50 years ago.
Sorry Arny, the media Science correspondents must have been a bit slow
(as in 48 years or so!) on the uptake then. Not really that
surprising...
Dave :)
darrenyeats wrote:
> Dave,
> I remember a documentary about famous mathematicians down the ages. It
> struck me that most of them finished in an asylum or committed suicide!
>
> When I have more time, I will improve my maths. But not TOO much.
Kurt Godel - there's another major one for you.
Golden Earring wrote:
> Given the increasingly apparent results of our recent terraforming of
> our planet as soon as our improving technology presented us with the
> opportunity, this would seem to be entirely reasonable revision to the
> original formulation & (unfortunately for us) entirely
I remember a documentary about famous mathematicians down the ages. It
struck me that most of them finished in an asylum or committed suicide!
When I have more time, I plan to improve my maths. But not TOO much.
Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/
SB Touch
Golden Earring wrote:
> To be more precise, I believe that the definition of entropy has
> recently been redefined to allow strictly -*local*- temporary
> reductions in entropy (i.e. increases in order) within the universe
> (caused by such strange phenomena as life, for example), but only if
Golden Earring wrote:
> The Second Law of Thermodynamics which gives us the concept of entropy
> (essentially a measure of disorder, which must stay constant or more
> usually increase with time) is the only bit of maths in Physics which is
> not reversible in time, & gives rise to the idea of
drmatt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Yes exactly it has nothing to do with recorded sound per se, and that is
> because there is a distinction between remembering the *sound*, and
> remembering the *music*. It's a different part of the brain and a
> different learned skill.
>
> So a conductor's brain
Golden Earring wrote:
> Hi Doc!
>
> I believe that Mozart transcribed an entire mass setting from memory
> after exiting the church where the music was performed (& jealously
> guarded) when he was about 12. But he was somewhat remarkable...
>
> My original question related to the rehearsal
drmatt wrote:
> A better analogy is perhaps to ask you what you remember of the font
> that was used in the last book you read. Nothing? Same thing. The medium
> (carrier) vs the content (signal). A musician is interested in the
> signal - the notes, the timing, the stressing of each portion of
Golden Earring wrote:
> Hi Doc!
>
> Not being a musician or an artist myself, I'm not really in a position
> to fully understand this.
>
> Can't really grasp how you can remember something you've forgotten.
> Don't musicians listen to themselves playing? If so, what exactly are
> they
darrenyeats wrote:
> It's all relative. A number of samples too large for me to stomach on my
> own!
>
It is all about how serious you are about obtaining reliable knowledge.
>
> The aforementioned fatigue seems to spiral as the size of the (audible)
> difference shrinks.
>
Not really.
drmatt wrote:
> This is a different skill to the one being invoked in an audio quality
> comparison. Like asking an artist to copy the brush strokes or blobs of
> paint used to make a picture instead of copying the picture.
>
> You perceive through the audio to the instruments and the
ralphpnj wrote:
> Now you are beginning to understand my overall uncertainty.
Hi Ralph!
I saw the last one in the lower reading room of the King's Arms next to
Blackwells.
The other one was better:
"To do is to be": Nietzsche
"To be is to do": Sartre
"Do be do be do": Sinatra
Dave :)
Golden Earring wrote:
> "Heisenburg probably rules OK"
Now you are beginning to understand my overall uncertainty.
Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign. &
sub
Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Linn sub
Computer Rm: Touch-Headroom Desktop
ralphpnj wrote:
> Only to the degree predictable when applying the uncertainty principle.
"Heisenburg probably rules OK"
Golden Earring's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66646
View this thread:
Golden Earring wrote:
> If we all forget what we've heard, why do conductors hold rehearsal
> sessions with their orchestras of professional musicians who are quite
> competent enough to play through a complex piece of orchestral music on
> their own without a conductor?
>
> What benefit can
Golden Earring wrote:
> Hi Ralph!
>
> You're welcome.
>
> Do you have any idea what we're talking about?
>
> Dave :)
Only to the degree predictable when applying the uncertainty principle.
Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign. &
sub
Home Theater:
Golden Earring wrote:
> Hi Darren!
>
> I'll have to take issue with you here. The whole point of doing
> statistical analysis on data samples is that the samples do not need to
> be particularly large to yield statistically significant results
It's all relative. A number of samples too large
ralphpnj wrote:
> Okay gentlemen using "quantum mechanics" we have now managed to bring
> this usually objective sub-forum down to the level just about every
> other audio forum. Good job!
Hi Ralph!
You're welcome.
Do you have any idea what we're talking about?
Dave :)
I always curse Sir Isaac Newton when I knock something over or drop
things.
Apparently before he invented gravity, things stayed where you wanted
them to... :D
Dave :)
Golden Earring's Profile:
darrenyeats wrote:
> The problem with this statistical angle is that a large number of
> samples is needed.
Hi Darren!
I'll have to take issue with you here. The whole point of doing
statistical analysis on data samples is that the samples do not need to
be particularly large to yield
Okay gentlemen using "quantum mechanics" we have now managed to bring
this usually objective sub-forum down to the level just about every
other audio forum. Good job!
Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign. &
sub
Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas 2.1 &
Just thought I'd drop this in.
If we all forget what we've heard, why do conductors hold rehearsal
sessions with their orchestras of professional musicians who are quite
competent enough to play through a complex piece of orchestral music on
their own without a conductor?
What benefit can the
Arny,
I think you've mistaken the point I'm trying to make.
Dave was asking about doing his own listening test, and I was pointing
out serious problems with us punters doing this kind of thing and then
labelling the results as conclusive (generally, they're not).
Well organised tests are
arnyk wrote:
> Sorta. Since you contradict yourself as follows: "There are NO
> scientific facts[/I][/B]. There are facts..." its hard to form a
> coherent summary of what you said above.
>
> The science I know starts out "All findings of science are provisional,
> only valid until better
darrenyeats wrote:
> Dave,
> The "facts" in this case are the results of rounds picking A or B as the
> identity of X.
>
> A statistical analysis is needed on these results to generate a p-value
> - the outcome of the experiment is a probability.
>
Agreed\
>
> The problem with this
Dave,
The "facts" in this case are the results of rounds picking A or B as the
identity of X.
A statistical analysis is needed on these results to generate a p-value
- the outcome of the experiment is a probability.
The problem with this statistical angle is that a large number of
samples is
Golden Earring wrote:
> Morning Arny!
>
> Not trying to score points, or indeed particularly to take issue your
> position on the specific matter you were commenting on.
>
> However there is an important point of principle here. *-There are NO
> scientific facts-*. There are facts (for
Thankfully as far as I know nobody has seen the need to actually conduct
Schrodinger's "thought experiment", but on Niels Bohr's "Copenhagen
interpretation" of Quantum Mechanics (which appears to be essentially
"Chill out, Albert, this appears to be how it is... "), the cat is in a
probabilistic
The Young's slits/double slits series of experiments (which I summarised
in the other thread yesterday) is an interesting example of how an
experiment can appear to support one hypothesis (viz. light propagates
as a wave, not as a stream of particles) initially, but after refinement
& the
darrenyeats wrote:
> Dave,
> Actually facts have a role in science - observations are facts - but
> even these are things "that we all agree are true".
>
> I remember a prominent physicist explaining this, he then gave an
> example of a fact using this definition: that it's hard to get a date
Dave,
Actually facts have a role in science - observations are facts - but
even these are things "that we all agree are true".
I remember a prominent physicist explaining this, he then gave an
example of a fact using this definition: that it's hard to get a date in
NYC on Saturday night! Ha-ha.
It generally goes like this:
1. Audiophool is impressed by a claim along the lines of "our new
product will make your music system sound better". Such claims are often
"supported" by vague &/or selected evidence massaged by a marketing
department to entice the unwary. This proposition, however
arnyk wrote:
> It is not my position, it is a reasonably easy to observe scientific
> fact.
Morning Arny!
Not trying to score points, or indeed particularly to take issue your
position on the specific matter you were commenting on.
However there is an important point of principle here.
Arny,
I mentioned early on what you were writing implied there is no such
thing as euphonic distortion. But I missed this conclusion was exactly
what you were trying to explain, because it seemed absurd. Thinking it
absurd, I thought you were trying to get at something else then I
misinterpreted
darrenyeats wrote:
> Arny,
> The reason I referred to Linkwitz is to establish a point. That point
> being: the fact a complex signal will exhibit IM components greater than
> the HD components, does not mean the HD measurement is uninteresting. I
> wasn't implying more, but it's quite enough.
>
Arny,
The reason I referred to Linkwitz is to establish a point. That point
being: the fact a complex signal will exhibit IM components greater than
the HD components, does not mean the HD measurement is uninteresting. I
wasn't implying more, but it's quite enough.
So, when someone posits that
darrenyeats wrote:
> Hi Anry,
> I now have some more free time, so I'm up for more chinwag. You're going
> to need some more eggs! Please make it a nourishing omelette, appetising
> if possible.
>
> Thanks for your exposition on the semantics of HD and IMD.
>
> It seems you agree nevertheless
arnyk wrote:
>
> You appear to be grasping at any straw to avoid the point of my
> comments. Let me throw a few more eggs at the problem: ;-)
>
Hi Anry,
I now have some more free time, so I'm up for more chinwag. You're going
to need some more eggs! Please make it a nourishing omelette,
Apologies, I used the wrong word, I was thinking of pivoted arms.
It has been rather a while since I indulged in the analogue thing.
AFAICR, the tangential systems available in my day were rather pricey. I
vaguely recall Bang & Olufson being heavily into the idea. But their
stuff wasn't cheap
cliveb wrote:
> Tangential arms are in principle not a problem, because they are
> supposed to *always* be perfectly aligned.
>
> It's pivoted arms that suffer from compromised geometry. But a properly
> aligned pivoted arm should have zero tracking error at two points on an
> LP side, with the
Golden Earring wrote:
> There is of course also the problem of trying to control the correct
> alignment of the stylus in the groove when using a tangential arm, the
> effect of which is magnified as the radius of the groove reduces.
Tangential arms are in principle not a problem, because they
Golden Earring wrote:
> Hi Arny!
> 2. Why do CD's, DVD's & Blu-Ray discs play from the inner available
> radius outwards
With certain niche consumer groups messing with the outer edge using
magic markers, lathes and whatnot it reduces the likelihood that they
would actually affect the output in
Golden Earring wrote:
> I have never encountered any discs cut from inside to out, although I
> agree that many orchestral composers could not resist a grand finale.
> And why not? They hadn't even dreamt of the possibility of recorded
> sound, they were writing for live concert audiences.
When
Hi Arny!
Hope you slept well.
Thank you for another very full & informative answer - I'm learning
something new everyday on this forum, which is something I value.
Dave :)
Golden Earring's Profile:
Golden Earring wrote:
> Hi Arny!
>
> I1. Is it your position that all reasonably well-implemented DAC's will
> be *-audibly-* indistinguishable from one another (& themselves from
> 16bit/44.1kHz PCM upwards), unless the unit has been specifically
> designed to modify the sound in some way
Golden Earring wrote:
> I have never encountered any discs cut from inside to out
Long ago the band of the student union at my university did one with the
groove going from inside out. If you started at the outer end, the
needle got stuck in the secret backwards-recorded message "you are
cliveb wrote:
> Analogue records: distortion is greater towards the centre of the disc,
> because the constant angular rotation speed means that there is less
> linear space to contain the cut waveform. So it makes sense to start the
> cut towards the outer edge, so the minimum amount of the cut
Golden Earring wrote:
>
> 2. Why do CD's, DVD's & Blu-Ray discs play from the inner available
> radius outwards, when LP's (& 78's) work from the outside available
> radius inwards? I presume that there is some engineering/practical
> benefit from this inversion?
While I don't know for sure,
Hi Arny!
I shall be delighted to follow up your recommended reading list, which
on the basis of my experience of your pearls of wisdom so far I expect
to be both apposite and educational, but also somewhat of a heavy read.
I would not wish to make any premature comments until I have had time to
Golden Earring wrote:
> Hi Wombat!
>
> We've actually hijacked this thread, but it had gone so spectacularly
> off-topic before I intervened that I didn't think anyone would notice...
>
> Just at this moment, I'm enjoying Ozawa's 1967 recording of Messiaen's
> Turangalila (here's a circumflex
cliveb wrote:
> Children tend to make a lot of noise when they are playing as well as
> wanting attention.
> Making a lot of noise is likely to attract the bloodthirsty predator of
> which we speak - which then sneaks up on you.
> By the time you see it and get scared (and stop making noise),
Julf wrote:
> Do children make a lot of noise when they get scared?
Children tend to make a lot of noise when they are playing as well as
wanting attention.
Making a lot of noise it likely to attract the bloodthirsty predator of
which we speak - which then sneaks up on you.
By the time you see
arnyk wrote:
> It appears that our dear friend R. *found* a list of subwoofer
> manufacturers ordered by inverse sales volume. He started with the
> smallest, weakest ones and sent them a Cease And Desist letter claiming
> that he invented the subwoofer and that they were infringing his
>
arnyk wrote:
> Of course the relevant Defendant spared very little in funding their
> defense including having what was alleged to me to be a highly
> attractive young lady lawyer who looked and dressed like a spokesmodel
> but knew Engineering stone cold and up one side and down the other. Only
Golden Earring wrote:
> Thanks for prompt response.
>
> I suppose the massive magnets affixed to the drivers in close proximity
> to the voice coil, plus the fact that there will usually be cone motion
> induced by simultaneous higher frequencies in actual programme material
> creating a bit of
Golden Earring wrote:
> Perhaps Mr Carver's pension fund is lacking after the disastrous
> economic events of the last 10 years?
>
> Dave :D
A friend has has received a decent number of checks resulting from
acting as expert witness defending against interesting lawsuits brought
by a certain
w3wilkes wrote:
> http://www.stereophile.com/content/carver-challenge#dCs2fXBtH44WZqYc.97
>
> Of course this is old, But I believe he could do it again. However, it
> appears he's succumbed to Audiophilia
>
>
w3wilkes wrote:
> http://www.stereophile.com/content/carver-challenge#dCs2fXBtH44WZqYc.97
>
> Of course this is old, But I believe he could do it again. However, it
> appears he's succumbed to Audiophilia
>
>
Wombat wrote:
> I try to avoid being to serious besides the times when i enjoy entering
> a**hole mode.
> With the reminder i wanted to bring back your original mission, the
> Brokkoly DAC. You spent much time in replies without mentioning it.
> Cheers!
Daily Mail today reporting that Brokkoly
http://www.stereophile.com/content/carver-challenge#dCs2fXBtH44WZqYc.97
Of course this is old, But I believe he could do it again. However, it
appears he's succumbed to Audiophilia
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/superioraudio/equipment/0512/bob_carver_cherry_180_tube_monoblock_amplifier.htm
arnyk wrote:
> I don't know how well the Logos amp was designed. I see that there is
> evidence on the web that it incorporates a false claim in its
> advertising claims, that its 8 ohm power doubles into 4 ohms;
>
>
Julf wrote:
> Unless the filter was very steep, it would not do much good - it would
> either affect frequencies well above 30 Hz, or mostly affect frequencies
> where there isn't much signal in your average recording. Making a very
> steep passive filter is very tricky, and you would probably
arnyk wrote:
> Passive speakers generally do not have any electrical high pass filters,
> but most active speakers do.
>
> The reason why is as given above - below their low frequency limit most
> speakers are quite willing to absorb power, but generally produce very
> little acoustical output
arnyk wrote:
> If you depart too far from the ideal in the direction of Class A you
> have a problem with what is called gm doubling. This is a fairly deep
> technical issue further elaborated on by Douglas Self in his various
> well-known publications related to power amp design and also
>
Golden Earring wrote:
>
>
> What interests me however is what happens from the power amplifier's
> perspective when a stand-mount receives signals at frequencies below its
> LF roll off point, where air resistance within the cabinet is
> mechanically reducing or preventing the motion of the LF
Golden Earring wrote:
> If this is true, why do stand-mount loudspeakers not include a steep
> high-pass filter at 30Hz or so, to divert this power from the drivers
> unable to turn it into sound, and presumably simultaneously reduce the
> load on the power amplifier by increasing the impedance
Hi all!
Since it's all gone slightly quiet, I thought that I would ask the forum
about an issue to which I do not know the answer.
I'm thinking here of the contrast between my current 2-way B 805S
speakers which are a ported design with a carefully shaped cabinet
(which in fact has no parallel
arnyk wrote:
> Knowing when to be loud and when to be quiet was a survival skill in
> those days. My children learned some things about that in modern times,
> if you catch my drift! ;-)
I hear you... :)
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art
Julf wrote:
> It is of course a gross simplification. Evolution has operated to ensure
> human survival and reproduction. Whatever specific forms it takes is
> harder to figure out.
>
>
>
> Do children make a lot of noise when they get scared? Perhaps they
> mostly make a lot of noise when
Golden Earring wrote:
> Hi Arny!
>
> Thank you for your clear response.
>
> I'm probably best off with my Class A/B Logos which at least sounds as
> if it's done well, and save money by avoiding the pure Class A Inpol 2.
>
> I suspect you've just saved me from falling for an expensive
>
cliveb wrote:
> People are always banging on about how evolution has operated to protect
> humans from predators, but it has always struck me as a somewhat lazy
> assumption.
It is of course a gross simplification. Evolution has operated to ensure
human survival and reproduction. Whatever
arnyk wrote:
> Our hearing systems have evolved to maximize sensitivity to potential
> existential threats such as large bloodthirsty predators...
People are always banging on about how evolution has operated to protect
humans from predators, but it has always struck me as a somewhat lazy
arnyk wrote:
> The lowest distortion way to build the output stage of a solid state
> power amp is a carefully biased class AB. The trick is to come up with
> the right bias as a function of current and temperature. Needless to say
> this is far from being an insurmountable problem as long as
Julf wrote:
> As one part of the monitoring chain, yes, but it is becoming less
> common. For near-field monitoring, studios use active monitors that have
> class D or A/B amps built in, and for listening room use class A amps
> don't have enough power for modern, power-hungry speakers.
>
> IM
darrenyeats wrote:
> Arny, that's one thing Siegfried states.
>
Please remember that you brought this document into this discussion to
apparently counter my comments about IM. That you seem to feel to do
such a thing tells me that you don't understand what I'm trying to say.
>
> Also, he
Golden Earring wrote:
> Hi Darren!
>
> I'm most interested to hear Arny's take on solid-state Class A with
> regard to IM. I know that most recording studios use Class A amplifiers
> in their monitoring chain.
>
>
The lowest distortion way to build the output stage of a solid state
power amp
Golden Earring wrote:
> I'm most interested to hear Arny's take on solid-state Class A with
> regard to IM. I know that most recording studios use Class A amplifiers
> in their monitoring chain.
As one part of the monitoring chain, yes, but it is becoming less
common. For near-field monitoring,
Golden Earring wrote:
> Still catching up here. I hear you about Bell Labs, they were a big
> outfit. I believe it was 2 of their engineers who inadvertently
> discovered the Cosmic Background Radiation that resulted in the general
> acceptance of the Big Bang hypothesis for the origin of the
darrenyeats wrote:
> Army, that's one thing Siegfried states.
>
> Also, he rates the drivers by HD and picks them on a combination of IM
> and HD performance. Implying HD is significant and not made moot by IM.
>
> I do see your point TBH, I just think you're over-egging the pudding.
Hi
arnyk wrote:
> That Linkwitz Lab page seems to support my claim: "The distortion
> spectrum of this test signal is very discriminating and robust. It
> contains not only harmonics, but also *the more serious intermodulation
> components, which are of higher amplitude*. "
Army, that's one thing
arnyk wrote:
> Bell Labs (who no longer exist) concerned themselves with far more than
> mere telephone conversations. Given your probable age you should
> remember when about half of all movies featured "Western Electric Sound
> System" in their credits. If you are familiar with large
arnyk wrote:
> That Linkwitz Lab page seems to support my claim: "The distortion
> spectrum of this test signal is very discriminating and robust. It
> contains not only harmonics, but also *the more serious intermodulation
> components, which are of higher amplitude*. "
>
> If you listen to
arnyk wrote:
> Our hearing systems have evolved to maximize sensitivity to potential
> existential threats such as large bloodthirsty predators given that our
> brains and nervous systems which have relatively slow (but in the case
> of the brain quite subtle) processing speeds and therefore are
darrenyeats wrote:
> Arny,
> You make your argument with characteristic gusto. I agree with some of
> the facts you provide, e.g. a lot IM is generated by music replay, but I
> don't see that I should infer from this that the HD profile is no factor
> for subjective quality. Your argument seems
Arny,
You make your argument with characteristic gusto. I agree with some of
the facts you provide, e.g. a lot IM is generated by music replay, but I
don't see that I should infer from this that the HD profile is no factor
for subjective quality. Your argument seems to imply there can be no
such
Golden Earring wrote:
> Accepting that mammalian ears have been around quite a while, although
> obviously certain species (bats, for example are very specifically
> adapted) have diverged, I would guess that the basic mechanism has had
> plenty of time for natural selection to do its bit,
Golden Earring wrote:
> Afternoon all!
>
> Thought I'd chuck these opinions in to generate a bit of controversy
> (just for fun, but... )
>
> I would certainly expect a well designed piece of audio gear to exhibit
> good laboratory-type measurements.
>
> However I remain sceptical that such
arnyk wrote:
> That would have to be a joke, because you can't be serious. Friendly
> advice - add an appropriate emoticon.
>
>
>
> That's appears to be yet another audiophile myth.
>
> Hearing: An Introduction to Psychological and Physiological Acoustics
>
> 5th Edition (2003)
>
>
Golden Earring wrote:
> :)
> Hi Bill.
>
> All that you say is indeed borne out by the heavy Wikipaedia article I
> referenced: in fact Nyquist himself wasn't concerned with sampling
> theory at all, and it's somewhat odd that his name has stuck to
> something Shannon actually developed although
doctor_big wrote:
> @Golden Earring
>
> Your writing style is a breath of fresh air. Good work.
>
> Could you please post some rationalization regarding the Julius caesar
> atoms /breath in & out scenario?
>
> 50% seems rather high.
Hi doc.
Just to make the result seem even more
Golden Earring wrote:
> Hi Wombat!
>
> My (obviously subjective) problem with square waves is "heard one,
> you've heard 'em all". Hell, they don't even list the composers or
> artists on these test discs anymore.
>
That would have to be a joke, because you can't be serious. Friendly
advice -
darrenyeats wrote:
> Yeah, I generally seek kit with 2HD higher than 3HD. Yes even DACs (if
> only down to OCD). I preferred the Sennheiser HD800S to HD800 -
> including the bass which I later found to have the same distortion
> levels as the HD800 except with added 2HD! "Exposed" 3HD (and the
ftlight wrote:
> It's interesting to note that Nyquist's original paper, Certain Topics
> in Telegraph Transmission Theory (which Claude Shannon relied heavily
> upon while developing information theory in 1949), was first published
> in 1924, when "high fidelity" in audio depended largely on
Golden Earring wrote:
> When dealing with the merits of PCM sampling rates much stress is placed
> on the implied upper high frequency limit in accordance with "Nyquist
> theory" (which was fully in place by the 1950's, long before its
> subsequent application to digital audio - the Wikipaedia
Golden Earring wrote:
>
> Low Total Harmonic Distortion measurements are reassuring to a degree,
> but most people find odd harmonic artifacts much more objectionable than
> even harmonic ones (tube amplifier lovers seem to actually like a bit of
> even harmonic intrusion to give a euphoric
doctor_big wrote:
> @Golden Earring
>
> Your writing style is a breath of fresh air. Good work.
>
> Could you please post some rationalization regarding the Julius caesar
> atoms /breath in & out scenario?
>
> 50% seems rather high.
Hi doc!
I agree that it's counter-intuitive, but what it
Afternoon all!
Thought I'd chuck these opinions in to generate a bit of controversy
(just for fun, but... )
I would certainly expect a well designed piece of audio gear to exhibit
good laboratory-type measurements.
However I remain sceptical that such measurements always reflect the
real world
Wombat wrote:
> Now this one i didn't know :)
>
> You may be right that piano is hard to capture right but it is not a
> problem at all for digital playback. Not even the fear of ringing counts
> because at 20kHz there is virtualy no loud enough content that can ring.
Morning Wombat!
Had
Golden Earring wrote:
>
> My (obviously subjective) problem with square waves is "heard one,
> you've heard 'em all".
>
Now this one i didn't know :)
You may be right that piano is hard to capture right but it is not a
problem at all for digital playback. Not even the fear of ringing counts
1 - 100 of 185 matches
Mail list logo
