MOTM

[[time for a CAD break: finishing up the design of the MIDI-CV converter, harassing Mouser]]

Rambling thoughts:

a) As (hopefully) I've shown with MOTM, you can increase the sound quality of audio gear. But,
it's fairly easy to go from bland/blah to "pretty damn good". What's a challenge is from "pretty
good" to "mind-blowing".

b) I've always found it ironic as a Stereophile reader that AFAIK, there has been little
discussion of the audio SOURCE MATERIAL electronics. I mean, if you have a $40,000 system, does
it make Miles Davis in 1958 sound that much better? All we hear about is 1/2 of the equation:
playback. The fact that it was recorded on a total piece of junk is glossed over.

On the other hand, Al diMeola's last CD (it's in the car) is still the best overall sounding
recording I have ever heard. Music ain't shabby, either.

c) I am always amused to see a "24-bit/96Khz" audio system that uses 4558 op amps in the output.
Or worse, the horrid little LM833 National part that has like 4% THD at 4500Hz (when I first
plotted one, I thought the AP was broken).

d) There is a definite audio difference in what I call "Best Buy-fi" and the lower end of hi-fi
(NAD, Adcom, etc). There is a definite difference between mid-fi and hi-end (Krell, Levinson,
etc). When you start splitting up the high end into finer layers, you are nuts.

e) Obligatory Tandy story: I was part of the original MPC spec (ducking). I set up a demo of the
different sample rates/word lengths (22Khz at 8 and 16, 11Khz at 8 and 16, etc). The VP of Engr.
wanted to "hear the difference". I dragged in my NAD amp and decent speakers. The original source
was a 8 second Pat Methney snippet (off of 'American Garage'). After I played all of them, he sat
there and said "Hell, I can't hear much difference!". I then plugged in a sine test oscillator,
and said "turn this frequency knob until you think the sound level drops about 1/2". He did, and
I showed him that his hearing rolled off at about 5Khz (he was about 50yrs old). All he did was s
nort and leave.

f) I see many emails (from non-customers) that MOTM is "digital-sounding". I take that as a
*complement*. MOTM is fresh-squeezed, all others are Tang. It's sounds "digital" because of the
larger dynamic range and lower noise floor. This associated with "digital". But then again, if
your 'reputation' is based on 30 year old electronics that SOUND 30 years old, are you fairly
judging? Or, is it just a matter of preference/being familiar with the "sound"?

Paul S.

> b) I've always found it ironic as a Stereophile reader that AFAIK, 
there has been little
> discussion of the audio SOURCE MATERIAL electronics. I mean, if you 
have a $40,000 system, does
> it make Miles Davis in 1958 sound that much better? All we hear 
about is 1/2 of the equation:
> playback. The fact that it was recorded on a total piece of junk is 
glossed over.

Hear, hear (I think that's a pun).

> c) I am always amused to see a "24-bit/96Khz" audio system that 
uses 4558 op amps in the output.
> Or worse, the horrid little LM833 National part that has like 4% 
THD at 4500Hz (when I first
> plotted one, I thought the AP was broken).
> 

This is another very good point. Also don't forget those noise little 
78XX/79XX regulators they use :(.

After working on soundcards a couple of things became clear. (Keep in 
mind I'm talking about most commercial chips Crystal, AKM, AD, can't 
comment on BB haven't heard em and not discreet converters.) There is 
a big difference going from 16 bits to 24 bits. Even though the chip 
makers call their chips 24 bits they are only really good 20 or 21 
bit chips. Going from 44.1 kHz to 96 kHz you can hear a difference, 
but it's not as significant as 16 to 24 bits. One big problem is if 
you are using 96 kHz in a studio and you want to mix down to 44.1 kHz 
the software will probably destroy the sound. All but the best 
software doesn't do a good job of sample rate conversion.

Another thing with converters as Paul mentioned is the jitter. Most 
of the stuff out there uses the old single bit converters. The new 
multi-bit converters sound much better. Instead of integrating a 
single bit they do multiple bits. This gives less error and makes the 
effect of jitter much less and the sound quality better. So when 
you're looking for a good set of converters ask if they are mutli-bit.

Good listening to one and all.
Jay

-----Original Message-----
From: emmaker [mailto:emmaker@...]
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 4:49 PM
To: motm@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [motm] Re: Improving Audio

> b) I've always found it ironic as a Stereophile reader that AFAIK,
there has been little
> discussion of the audio SOURCE MATERIAL electronics. I mean, if you
have a $40,000 system, does
> it make Miles Davis in 1958 sound that much better? All we hear
about is 1/2 of the equation:
> playback. The fact that it was recorded on a total piece of junk is
glossed over.

Hear, hear (I think that's a pun).

> c) I am always amused to see a "24-bit/96Khz" audio system that
uses 4558 op amps in the output.
> Or worse, the horrid little LM833 National part that has like 4%
THD at 4500Hz (when I first
> plotted one, I thought the AP was broken).
>

This is another very good point. Also don't forget those noise little
78XX/79XX regulators they use :(.

After working on soundcards a couple of things became clear. (Keep in
mind I'm talking about most commercial chips Crystal, AKM, AD, can't
comment on BB haven't heard em and not discreet converters.) There is
a big difference going from 16 bits to 24 bits. Even though the chip
makers call their chips 24 bits they are only really good 20 or 21
bit chips. Going from 44.1 kHz to 96 kHz you can hear a difference,
but it's not as significant as 16 to 24 bits. One big problem is if
you are using 96 kHz in a studio and you want to mix down to 44.1 kHz
the software will probably destroy the sound. All but the best
software doesn't do a good job of sample rate conversion.

Another thing with converters as Paul mentioned is the jitter. Most
of the stuff out there uses the old single bit converters. The new
multi-bit converters sound much better. Instead of integrating a
single bit they do multiple bits. This gives less error and makes the
effect of jitter much less and the sound quality better. So when
you're looking for a good set of converters ask if they are mutli-bit.

Good listening to one and all.
Jay







Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Huh?
Larry and his almost 46 years old ears.

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Schreiber <synth1@...>
e) Obligatory Tandy story: I was part of the original MPC spec (ducking). I
set up a demo of the
different sample rates/word lengths (22Khz at 8 and 16, 11Khz at 8 and 16,
etc). The VP of Engr.
wanted to "hear the difference". I dragged in my NAD amp and decent
speakers. The original source
was a 8 second Pat Methney snippet (off of 'American Garage'). After I
played all of them, he sat
there and said "Hell, I can't hear much difference!". I then plugged in a
sine test oscillator,
and said "turn this frequency knob until you think the sound level drops
about 1/2". He did, and
I showed him that his hearing rolled off at about 5Khz (he was about 50yrs
old). All he did was s
nort and leave.

f) I see many emails (from non-customers) that MOTM is "digital-sounding". I
take that as a
*complement*. MOTM is fresh-squeezed, all others are Tang. It's sounds
"digital" because of the
larger dynamic range and lower noise floor. This associated with "digital".
But then again, if
your 'reputation' is based on 30 year old electronics that SOUND 30 years
old, are you fairly
judging? Or, is it just a matter of preference/being familiar with the
"sound"?

Paul S.








Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/