The guy that wrote that article also came up with this: http://musicthing.blogspot.com/2005/11/paint-your-chips-with-gunk-for-that.html

Oh, man, that is priceless!

Also check this out (more or less on topic): Ultra Tweeter

This is a tweeter that "produces no audible frequencies". Too bad I already blew my monitor budget on those useless ADAMs...

ORIGINAL: Roflcopter

Seriously, cannot say - just went over his other material, and the man sure knows his stuff, however crazy the above may sound:

maybe read this review as well:

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0904/aachapter60.htm

An audiphool review with effectively 10 days between listening to the original sound and the new and improved "tube like" sound? Bollocks. Anyone that has any clue about this would do a double blind listening test.

and to stay on-topic:

http://www.mother-of-tone.com/cd.htm

scroll to the bottom, the last bit is interesting.

Sorry but that is just more bollocks. He mentions the reconstruction filter but keeps showing graphs of the digital data before reconstruction. In my opinion, the guy doesn't really understand what he is talking about.

He seems to be a snake oil merchant catering to the audiophool market.

UnderTow

I would like to meet the poor soul who actually bought the pair for $800.
Cj

Well one concept that might help to understand this idea a tiny little bit better: You only need two points to perfectly define a circle. Adding any more points to the circle won't tell you anything extra about the circle. Now if you know that a sine wave is just a circle drawn out over time... you are half way there. :) Maybe this animation will help to visualize this:http://www.rkm.com.au/ANIMATIONS/animation-sine-wave.html

As far as summing is concerned, remember that in a DAW that is sample accurate (and has proper automatic plugin delay compensation) all the samples on all the channels that you are summing are at exactly the same spot in time so when you add two sample values, timing (aka the number of sample per second aka sample rate) is irrelevant. What is important is the accuracy of each sample value. The accuracy is increased by increasing the bit depth.

More bits gives more accuracy. Higher sampling rates gives more bandwidth.

So why don't we use 256 bits and 384Khz? Because we only need to cater to what humans can actually hear. 24 bits gives us arround 144 dB of dynamic range and 44.1Khz gives us arround 20Khz bandwdith. That is enough to cover what human ears can perceive.

UnderTow

In my opinion, the guy doesn't really understand what he is talking about.

"Nyquist seems to have been more interested in data transmission than in high-fidelity".

So much for heroes. I'll have to change my sig now.

EDIT:
This guy is very entertaining. He explains why CD-R sounds different than pressed CDs: it's due to "clock jitter due to power supply noise". Oh.
Link: What is Jitter?

ORIGINAL: bitflipper

Also check this out (more or less on topic): Ultra Tweeter

This is a tweeter that "produces no audible frequencies". Too bad I already blew my monitor budget on those useless ADAMs...

Lol! I wonder if there is actually anything inside those wooden boxes. That would really be quite a joke if they were just empty (or had some bogus piece of crap inside).

UnderTow

Oh here is a nicer sine wave animation: http://www.rkm.com.au/ANIMATIONS/animation-sine-wave.html

UnderTow

ORIGINAL: UnderTow

Oh here is a nicer sine wave animation: http://www.rkm.com.au/ANIMATIONS/animation-sine-wave.html

UnderTow

I could stare at that for hours. Well, several minutes, at least.


Oh, and your explanation that "You only need two points to perfectly define a circle. Adding any more points to the circle won't tell you anything extra about the circle." is brilliant. No math required. Did you come up with that one yourself, or steal it from a book?

ORIGINAL: bitflipper

Oh, and your explanation that "You only need two points to perfectly define a circle. Adding any more points to the circle won't tell you anything extra about the circle." is brilliant. No math required. Did you come up with that one yourself, or steal it from a book?

Thanks. :) I used to say that you only need two points to define a line then at some point (no pun intended) realised that a circle was much more approriate considering the subject. :) So yes, I came up with it myself when I was trying to understand the subject. I'm not very good at high end maths unless I translate things into visual images.

UnderTow

Well I intend to use it in the future, and when I do I will give you credit.