Sergey Kubushin said:

And don't forget, Kotelnikov's theorem is not about the signal frequency,
^^^^^^^^^^^^

Is this something like Popov being the "inventor"of radio instead of
Marconi?
I always thought it was called Nyquist's Theorem ;-)


its about signal _spectrum_ . So it is possible to record a 20 KHz
squarewave with 44/16, but when played back it'll become a perfect sinus...


You forgot about aliasing.
All recorded signals are low pass filtered before processed onto CD,
so a 20 kHz squarewave won't be recorded as a squarewave in the first
place.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 14:01:19 -0800, "tubesforall"
wrote:

,
. I guess you're
all into horn speakers, too.............

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

You say this like it is a bad thing.

The main point is sound, not specs. I've listened to the most highly rated
$10K SS amps that do not sound as good as $300 DIY tube amps.

Listening is subjective--my ears are tuned to realism in the strings. Years
of performance violin will do that. A concert violinist trains their ears
to detect distortion and quality in the second, third, and fourth harmonics.

In that area, SS and CD's take second place.

"Ian Iveson" = another nut case pommy prick


"Phil Allison"
The theorem is true for any possible wave form, or combinations of
waveforms and varying in any possible way.

Only whilst remaining waveforms. I don't think music quite qualifies.
Waves are about sameness, music is about change.



** The Nyquist sampling theorem applies to ANY signal - not merely nice
steady waveforms as seen on a scope screen.

A signal is a *constantly changing* voltage that only has **one** value
at any instant in time. This **one** value can be regularly sampled as
accurately and as often as you like in order to create a precise record of
how the the signal varied over time.

The sampling theorem establishes that for an *exact* replication of ANY
signal the number of samples need not be infinite, as one might suppose,
but needs only to just exceed a number equal to twice the number of cycles
of the highest frequency component of the particular signal during the time
it is being sampled.

The phrase "any possible waveform" includes the unpredictable waveforms of
random noise and natural sounds.

Capice now - ****head ???





............. Phil

Just record vinyl to CD-R, run it through a de-clicker, and there you
have it! :-)


Sure, but what if my only source is CD (say the record company
never issued the song on vinyl)?

Behold, R scribed on tube chassis:

Gregg wrote in news:xDvXd.9448$ZO2.9020@edtnps84:

Behold, tubesforall scribed on tube chassis:

Here is a decent article that puts some science behind the claims of
vinyl superiority.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/christie/comparo/part4.html

There are lies, damn lies and specs ;-)


There is always the issue of fragility of LP, the cleaning ritual, the
expense not to mention the fact that I am clumsy and lazy. I will never
go back to vinyl for all of the above reasons. One oopsie and I'll have
just tossed a few hundred bucks out the window. I will get better
digital gear as time goes on. Besides, if I start a vinyl collection my
wife will likely shoot me.

No thanks. I'll stick with digital.
r

All valid reasons ;-)

--
Gregg "t3h g33k"
http://geek.scorpiorising.ca
*Ratings are for transistors, tubes have guidelines*

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 12:27:14 -0500, "cowboy"
cacheoverflow@yahooDOTcom wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote

I guess you're
all into horn speakers, too.............

of course, since every engineer or audiophile worth his salt knows all the
best sound is in the first watt, how else would we get to 110db?

No, only tubey idiots 'know' this, because the SET clowns have no
choice in the matter. Everyone else knows that all the watts are
important, and the more the merrier!

you are confusing the old Klipsch sound with the newer sound of the
exponential designs, find some horns that are shaped like the bell of a
trumpet and you will be on track

Some would say that the tractrix expansion is even better. Also, horn
shape is only one of the many problems which bedevil such designs.

Avantgarde makes some with a snob price, so even you should be happy with
them!
http://www.avantgarde-usa.com/trio.html

Indeed yes, they are excellent designs, and use SS subwoofers due to
the obvious problems of horns and low frequencies.

also: ever wonder why full-range speakers command such high prices on the
used market? perhaps you should listen & learn

Maybe you should grow a brain, then you wouldn't foillow stupid
comments like 'snob price' with ones like that above. BTW, there is no
such animal as a *full range* horn available for purchase. Note that
old and underperforming 'classic' cars also command high prices.

---------------------
civilians murdered by various right-wing war criminals:

Joseph Stalin ~ 30 million
Adolph Hitler ~ 7 million
George W. Bush ~ 1/4 million
Osama bin Laden ~ 3000
http://semiskimmed.net/bushhitler/bush-hitler1.mov
http://semiskimmed.net/bushhitler/bush-hitler2.mov

You missed George Bush senior, who hit about 1/2 million Iraqis first
time round, not including the 1 million children under 5 years old
who died as a direct result of US-inspired sanctions against Iraq.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 15:06:25 -0800, "tubesforall"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 14:01:19 -0800, "tubesforall"
wrote:

,
. I guess you're
all into horn speakers, too.............

You say this like it is a bad thing.

Mostly, it is.

The main point is sound, not specs. I've listened to the most highly rated
$10K SS amps that do not sound as good as $300 DIY tube amps.

In your humble opinion - mine differs. Of course, this *is* a tube
group, so such tiny minority views will have a skewed representation.

Listening is subjective--my ears are tuned to realism in the strings. Years
of performance violin will do that. A concert violinist trains their ears
to detect distortion and quality in the second, third, and fourth harmonics.

And tends to premature deafness in the left ear...............

In that area, SS and CD's take second place.

Utter rubbish. In those areas, CD and good SS are utterly blameless,
unlike valves and vinyl, which will give you all the *added* harmonics
you could ever want!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Ian Iveson" = another nut case pommy prick


"Phil Allison"
The theorem is true for any possible wave form, or combinations
of waveforms and varying in any possible way.

Only whilst remaining waveforms. I don't think music quite
qualifies. Waves are about sameness, music is about change.



** The Nyquist sampling theorem applies to ANY signal - not
merely nice steady waveforms as seen on a scope screen.

A signal is a *constantly changing* voltage that only has
**one** value at any instant in time. This **one** value can be
regularly sampled as accurately and as often as you like in order
to create a precise record of how the the signal varied over time.

The sampling theorem establishes that for an *exact* replication
of ANY signal the number of samples need not be infinite, as one
might suppose, but needs only to just exceed a number equal to
twice the number of cycles of the highest frequency component of
the particular signal during the time it is being sampled.

The phrase "any possible waveform" includes the unpredictable
waveforms of random noise and natural sounds.

Capice now - ****head ???

Dunno what capice is.

Anyway, you have missed my point, as usual. Perhaps if you read it a
few more times

"Unpredictable waveform" is an oxymoron, surely? And are you sure
about the "*exact* replication" of "random noise"? In the transient
domain?

cheers, Ian

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote

Fourier demonstrates that *any* waveform, including music, can be
represented as a series of superimposed sinewaves. Hence, Nyquist
and
Shannon are correct in their postulations. While music may not
*appear* to be sinewaves, it can be so treated for the purposes of
reproduction. Bottom line of course is that digital audio works,
and
reproduces music more accurately than any other system.

Not including music actually, quite. Do you have a reference in
which Fourier demonstrated that *music* can be *fully* represented
as series of superimposed sinewaves?

I fear audiophools have made up their own meaning of "transient" but
I'll ask anyway: what about transients?

cheers, Ian

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 18:06:59 GMT, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:

"Phil Allison" wrote

The theorem is true for any possible wave form, or combinations of
waveforms and varying in any possible way.

Only whilst remaining waveforms. I don't think music quite
qualifies. Waves are about sameness, music is about change.

So is progress................

The bottom line is of course that CD produces *vastly* fewer audible
artifacts than does vinyl. That's why the first mass acceptance of CD
was in the *classical* arena, where listeners tend to be more
critical, and also know what the instruments *should* sound like.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 18:34:32 GMT, Sergey Kubushin
wrote:

Ian Iveson wrote:
"Phil Allison" wrote

The theorem is true for any possible wave form, or combinations of
waveforms and varying in any possible way.

Only whilst remaining waveforms. I don't think music quite
qualifies. Waves are about sameness, music is about change.

There is another problem - the spectrum width... Even 1 Hz square wave has
an extremely wide spectrum, infinite for an ideal square wave. So the sound
might be right but all the attacks are distorted in some way.

Only in theory. In reality, it doesn't matter if you can't hear the
relevant harmonics. Humans cannot tell the difference among 10kHz
triangle, sine and square waves of the same fundamental amplitude.

And don't forget, Kotelnikov's theorem

You mean Nyquist, Kotelnikov followed much later...........

is not about the signal frequency,
its about signal _spectrum_ . So it is possible to record a 20 KHz
squarewave with 44/16, but when played back it'll become a perfect sinus...

As it will through *any* system with less than 60kHz bandwidth.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 01:25:13 GMT, robert casey
wrote:

Just record vinyl to CD-R, run it through a de-clicker, and there you
have it! :-)

Sure, but what if my only source is CD (say the record company
never issued the song on vinyl)?

Then you have a better source!

If you're *really* serious about this, just run it through a soft
limiter (such as a SET amplifier), put in some midband phasiness, add
some clicks, pops and scratches sampled from the inter-track grooves,
sum the bass to mono and roll it off below 80Hz.

Basically, the vinyl bigots are out to lunch, as proven by all the
bleating about how SACD and 24/192 are 'closer to analogue', which is
utter ********, as most pros have great difficulty telling them from
CD, but no difficulty at all in telling them from LP!

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 07:13:48 GMT, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote

Fourier demonstrates that *any* waveform, including music, can be
represented as a series of superimposed sinewaves. Hence, Nyquist
and
Shannon are correct in their postulations. While music may not
*appear* to be sinewaves, it can be so treated for the purposes of
reproduction. Bottom line of course is that digital audio works,
and
reproduces music more accurately than any other system.

Not including music actually, quite. Do you have a reference in
which Fourier demonstrated that *music* can be *fully* represented
as series of superimposed sinewaves?

Which part of '*any* waveform' did you fail to understand?

I fear audiophools have made up their own meaning of "transient" but
I'll ask anyway: what about transients?

If contained within the required fs/2 bandwidth, they will be
correctly captured, as will all other waveforms. Bottom line of course
is that digital audio works, and reproduces music more accurately
than any other system.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 07:13:48 GMT, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Ian Iveson" = another nut case pommy prick


"Phil Allison"
The theorem is true for any possible wave form, or combinations
of waveforms and varying in any possible way.

Only whilst remaining waveforms. I don't think music quite
qualifies. Waves are about sameness, music is about change.



** The Nyquist sampling theorem applies to ANY signal - not
merely nice steady waveforms as seen on a scope screen.

A signal is a *constantly changing* voltage that only has
**one** value at any instant in time. This **one** value can be
regularly sampled as accurately and as often as you like in order
to create a precise record of how the the signal varied over time.

The sampling theorem establishes that for an *exact* replication
of ANY signal the number of samples need not be infinite, as one
might suppose, but needs only to just exceed a number equal to
twice the number of cycles of the highest frequency component of
the particular signal during the time it is being sampled.

The phrase "any possible waveform" includes the unpredictable
waveforms of random noise and natural sounds.

Capice now - ****head ???

Dunno what capice is.

Italian for 'do you understand'.

Anyway, you have missed my point, as usual. Perhaps if you read it a
few more times

No, he got it, it's simply not relevant.

"Unpredictable waveform" is an oxymoron, surely?

No, but he means aperiodic. The whole point of *random* noise is that
it's not predictable.

And are you sure
about the "*exact* replication" of "random noise"? In the transient
domain?

WTF is 'the transient domain'?

Yes, random noise contained within the fs/2 bandwidth will be
correctly captured, as for any other waveform.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Ian Iveson" = another nut case pommy prick

"Phil Allison"

The theorem is true for any possible wave form, or combinations of
waveforms and varying in any possible way.

Only whilst remaining waveforms. I don't think music quite qualifies.
Waves are about sameness, music is about change.


** The Nyquist sampling theorem applies to ANY signal - not merely nice
steady waveforms as seen on a scope screen.

A signal is a *constantly changing* voltage that only has **one** value
at any instant in time. This **one** value can be regularly sampled as
accurately and as often as you like in order to create a precise record
of how the signal varied over time.

The sampling theorem establishes that for an *exact* replication of ANY
signal the number of samples need not be infinite, as one might suppose,
but needs only to just exceed a number equal to twice the number of
cycles of the highest frequency component of the particular signal during
the time it is being sampled.

The phrase "any possible waveform" includes the unpredictable waveforms
of random noise and natural sounds.

Capice now - ****head ???

Dunno what capice is.


** Go look it up - you lazy ****ing, pommy ****.


Anyway, you have missed my point,


** You failed to post one - as bloody usual.


"Unpredictable waveform" is an oxymoron, surely?


** Nope - it means the signal is not following a predictable pattern .


And are you sure about the "*exact* replication" of "random noise"?
In the transient domain?


** Any point to your question ???

Some insane piece of utter pedantry I bet.




............ Phil

Lord Valve wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

It is indeed a tube group, but surely just for nostalgic anacrophiles?
After all, no one *seriously* thinks that tubes are *better* in any
real-world way than SS, do they?

Well, yeah.

In fact, I *know* they are. When the goal is non-linear operation,
tubes kick the **** out of SS, even mosfets. There are still
no SS amps, including the modelers, which will outperform
tube guitar amps. And when the coloration of a tube is
desirable, SS emulations don't do the trick.

Christy Moses, fetch the heart pills, LV said something I fully
agree with.....



When it comes to playback equipment, though - make mine SS.
And you can have vinyl - ugh. Why anyone would want their
music presented to them on a bed of ticks, pops, hiss, and
rumble is beyond my understanding. And let's not forget
that wow, folks. You have no idea how disconcerting it is
to a musician (like me) who can hear the the cyclic pitch
variations induced by a slightly mislocated center hole.

Er, gee, have yee not heard a decent TT and bunch of records well cared for,

so that noise is rarely a bother, and all you get is sublime music which
so often sounds better than any digital source?

This happens so often, it has prevented so many folks from throwing out
their
vinyl in the same way ppl threw out their 78s when vinyl came in
all those years ago.
And don't forget pre-recorded tapes on reel to reelers. They were better
than vinyl......




I may be a tube salesman, but I know where they belong.

Not just in geetah amps man, they also belong in hi-fi amps.



On the stage with the pickers, not in the living room with
the grinners.

You must never have owned a decent hi-fi tube amp.....

Patrick Turner.



Lord Valve
Expert

Ian Iveson wrote:

"Phil Allison" wrote

The theorem is true for any possible wave form, or combinations of
waveforms and varying in any possible way.

Only whilst remaining waveforms. I don't think music quite
qualifies. Waves are about sameness, music is about change.

Waves are never the same when you are sailing.....

Sme for electronics. waves are signals going up and down in level
relative to some
usually fixed voltage.

But one could look at a pink noise source and yea, waves are seen, but
each
wave is different from the one that preceeded it, and to the one after
it.
Musical waves ain't much different to noise waves, the only difference
is that there
are more clumps of what seem to be repetitive waves with a smaller
spectrum
or F content than for noise.

One can purchase a CD with pink noise recorded on it.
There won't be too much content above 21 kHz though.

Patrick Turner.





cheers, Ian

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 01:25:13 GMT, robert casey
wrote:

Just record vinyl to CD-R, run it through a de-clicker, and there you
have it! :-)

Sure, but what if my only source is CD (say the record company
never issued the song on vinyl)?

Then you have a better source!

If you're *really* serious about this, just run it through a soft
limiter (such as a SET amplifier), put in some midband phasiness, add
some clicks, pops and scratches sampled from the inter-track grooves,
sum the bass to mono and roll it off below 80Hz.

Basically, the vinyl bigots are out to lunch, as proven by all the
bleating about how SACD and 24/192 are 'closer to analogue', which is
utter ********, as most pros have great difficulty telling them from
CD, but no difficulty at all in telling them from LP!

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

When CDs were first invented, the recording companies
didn't like CD at first and the inventors had to alter a few things and
finally
tests showed a a majority of critical listeners couldn't discern what they
were listening to, either CD or vinyl.
But once that occurred, the fate of vinyl was sealed.
The convenience and ease of CD, with an hour of noiseless music,
( and sometimes without any soul, or air, ) made CD a sure winner.
Mass production of players and of disks soon had the CD price below what
a vinyl disc cost.

Everyone jumped on the bandwagon, and anyone anywhere
could record anything easily, so we now have a plethera of the crappiest
artistes.
Its quantity before quality.

Just because we have digital recording doesn't mean we'll get more fidelity
unless the signal is left alone so that the mic heard is placed onto disc.
Seldom this is the case, and digital allows such a lot of easy "processing"
and the sound is rarely au-natural when placed onto a disc.
I know a local recording studio that trys to use ancient analog tape gear
transistor based, with maybe a tube compressor added, to get the recorded
tracks
of artists anywhere near listenable, maybe even saleable.
The artistes often HATE themselves when they hear themselves played back
as they were recorded, and so the BS goes on......and digital editing is
also added....
This BS is rife in the world of pop music, which is the vast majority
of recorded sound.
So one hardly ever knows exactly what's been done to a signal before the
numbers are finally
put down on a CD.

So its not unusual to buy a CD and find its not all that wonderful,
even if the music was supposedly taken from an old master tape,
but "re-mastered", and that its common to find that there are more dynamics
and panache
from a 1970 vinyl of the same music.

Lots of folks cant get the same piece of music that thay have on vinyl
as modern releases on CD, so they stick with their vinyl.

But very often I have played vinyl on my system, and ppl have been very
surprised when i say
"..and its only a vinyl recording...."


Sorry Pinky, but there are thousands of folks out there who KNOW
you are BS with regards to valve and vinyl.

But look, keep up the anti valve and anti vinyl campaign, at least we know
you are crapping on and on and getting knowhere.

Do you really expect ppl here to rush out and buy a Krell, or a Mark
Levinson
just because you spout your bigotry?

You waste bandwidth to tell us what you think you know is true,
but its only your wacky wobbly opinion.

Patrick Turner.

"Don Pearce" wrote


I still don't think think they are 'scratchy' as such, though!

Anyway, 'nuff said - carry on as you were....!!

:-)


Yeah I heard the sizzling, but I was ignoring that - I presumed
something was wrong somewhere. But the crackly background is something
else - very noticeably there.


OK, this has become interesting.

I have two 'His Name Is Alive' albums - 'Livonia' on LP and 'Always Stay
Sweet' on CD. (Note that's an LP *and* a CD.... ;-)

Purely by chance (checking/playing stuff this morning) I find that Track 1
on the LP is the same as Track 7 on the LP. So, here they are for a direct
comparison (no editing whatsoever except the 'spitchy bit' has been
shortened *only* to match the CD version):

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...Track%20CD.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...Track%20LP.mp3

I would be interested to know how they compare on your headphones which, I
have to say, do vinyl no favours at all IMO - for obvious reasons.
Personally, I'm never closer to my speakers than about 2m except on this
computer (which was a bit of a revelation yesterday)...!!

Anyway, no contest, no competition - the (giveaway) clue is in the
filenames.

I find them quite hard to split but can do it using my 'Manic Ctrl+Tab/Click
Play Flurry' method in Sound Forge, having selected random (but identical)
start points at various places on the tracks. (Explanation: Ctrl/Tabbing
between the two tracks and clicking play from identical start points a few
times in very quick succession pretty soon gives me a 'near as dammit' blind
A/B self-test, IYSWIM...!!)

Furthermo I have an 'ukra visitor' coming here this evening (valvehead,
so what TF does he know....???), so I'm about to burn a CDRW of the tracks
and will put him to the test of picking a 'preferred track' and to see if he
considers either one to be particularly 'scratchy'!??

:-)

My point here is no more than I don't think the vinyl track is particularly
(or even 'at all') scratchy, once the rather revealing lead-in has been
passed...???

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:39:06 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote


I still don't think think they are 'scratchy' as such, though!

Anyway, 'nuff said - carry on as you were....!!

:-)


Yeah I heard the sizzling, but I was ignoring that - I presumed
something was wrong somewhere. But the crackly background is something
else - very noticeably there.


OK, this has become interesting.

I have two 'His Name Is Alive' albums - 'Livonia' on LP and 'Always Stay
Sweet' on CD. (Note that's an LP *and* a CD.... ;-)

Purely by chance (checking/playing stuff this morning) I find that Track 1
on the LP is the same as Track 7 on the LP. So, here they are for a direct
comparison (no editing whatsoever except the 'spitchy bit' has been
shortened *only* to match the CD version):

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...Track%20CD.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...Track%20LP.mp3

I would be interested to know how they compare on your headphones which, I
have to say, do vinyl no favours at all IMO - for obvious reasons.
Personally, I'm never closer to my speakers than about 2m except on this
computer (which was a bit of a revelation yesterday)...!!

Anyway, no contest, no competition - the (giveaway) clue is in the
filenames.

I find them quite hard to split but can do it using my 'Manic Ctrl+Tab/Click
Play Flurry' method in Sound Forge, having selected random (but identical)
start points at various places on the tracks. (Explanation: Ctrl/Tabbing
between the two tracks and clicking play from identical start points a few
times in very quick succession pretty soon gives me a 'near as dammit' blind
A/B self-test, IYSWIM...!!)

Furthermo I have an 'ukra visitor' coming here this evening (valvehead,
so what TF does he know....???), so I'm about to burn a CDRW of the tracks
and will put him to the test of picking a 'preferred track' and to see if he
considers either one to be particularly 'scratchy'!??

:-)

My point here is no more than I don't think the vinyl track is particularly
(or even 'at all') scratchy, once the rather revealing lead-in has been
passed...???




Kind of hard to compare fairly because they have been mastered so
differently - and it is the vinyl which has been done better. Is the
CD a much later "remastered" release? The sizzle was still there very
audibly on the vinyl, but because of the denseness of the music, it
was quite hard to hear the tell-tale sound of the background. So in
this case (bar the sizzle) the vinyl wins it.

Incidentally, I listened to the other files on speakers last night
when it was quiet at home, and the crackling was still, to my mind,
quite intrusive.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Don Pearce" wrote


My point here is no more than I don't think the vinyl track is
particularly
(or even 'at all') scratchy, once the rather revealing lead-in has been
passed...???




Kind of hard to compare fairly because they have been mastered so
differently - and it is the vinyl which has been done better. Is the
CD a much later "remastered" release? The sizzle was still there very
audibly on the vinyl, but because of the denseness of the music, it
was quite hard to hear the tell-tale sound of the background. So in
this case (bar the sizzle) the vinyl wins it.



OK, that was nice and quick.

The sizzle is there because it's the same track as before - I just trimmed
the front end to match the CD track. I've no idea about the CD as it's a
'loaner' copy - which prompted me to go an buy the LP! (That's how it works,
in case the usual clowns are going to start the usual BS about who's ripping
who off - the fact it only cost me a quid off eBay is neither here nor
there - I gotta be allowed a 'score' occasionally, don't I?? :-)

I'm not bothered about a vinyl *win* as such - it's not many people (in the
real world) got that bug up *that firmly* up their arse. (I *know* where my
own preferences lie!! ;-)


Incidentally, I listened to the other files on speakers last night
when it was quiet at home, and the crackling was still, to my mind,
quite intrusive.


Sure and that'll bother some more than others. I hadn't noticed it much when
playing the actual LP. Again, we'll do that tonight when my visitor's
here....

Ignoring the 'sizzle' - deck and/or cart I think - I hope it ain't my new
phonos....

See the 'Testimonials' link on the World Audio Design webpage:

http://www.worldaudiodesign.com/testimonials.html *

smug mode

:-)

/smug mode

....I still say the vinyl version isn't too (at all) 'scratchy'!! (???)



* I may know bugger-all about electronics but I'm a little daemon wiv me
soldering iron!! :-))

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:45:34 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


Ignoring the 'sizzle' - deck and/or cart I think - I hope it ain't my new
phonos....

The sizzle shouldn't be too hard to track down - it's only on the left
channel.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Don Pearce" wrote


My point here is no more than I don't think the vinyl track is
particularly
(or even 'at all') scratchy, once the rather revealing lead-in has been
passed...???




Kind of hard to compare fairly because they have been mastered so
differently - and it is the vinyl which has been done better. Is the
CD a much later "remastered" release? The sizzle was still there very
audibly on the vinyl, but because of the denseness of the music, it
was quite hard to hear the tell-tale sound of the background. So in
this case (bar the sizzle) the vinyl wins it.



OK, that was nice and quick.

The sizzle is there because it's the same track as before - I just trimmed
the front end to match the CD track. I've no idea about the CD as it's a
'loaner' copy - which prompted me to go an buy the LP! (That's how it
works, in case the usual clowns are going to start the usual BS about
who's ripping who off - the fact it only cost me a quid off eBay is
neither here nor there - I gotta be allowed a 'score' occasionally, don't
I?? :-)

I'm not bothered about a vinyl *win* as such - it's not many people (in
the real world) got that bug up *that firmly* up their arse. (I *know*
where my own preferences lie!! ;-)


Incidentally, I listened to the other files on speakers last night
when it was quiet at home, and the crackling was still, to my mind,
quite intrusive.


Sure and that'll bother some more than others. I hadn't noticed it much
when playing the actual LP. Again, we'll do that tonight when my visitor's
here....

Ignoring the 'sizzle' - deck and/or cart I think - I hope it ain't my new
phonos....

See the 'Testimonials' link on the World Audio Design webpage:

http://www.worldaudiodesign.com/testimonials.html *

smug mode

:-)

/smug mode

...I still say the vinyl version isn't too (at all) 'scratchy'!! (???)



* I may know bugger-all about electronics but I'm a little daemon wiv me
soldering iron!! :-))

"Keith G" wrote


Incidentally, I listened to the other files on speakers last night
when it was quiet at home, and the crackling was still, to my mind,
quite intrusive.


Sure and that'll bother some more than others. I hadn't noticed it much
when playing the actual LP. Again, we'll do that tonight when my visitor's
here....

Ignoring the 'sizzle' - deck and/or cart I think - I hope it ain't my new
phonos....

See the 'Testimonials' link on the World Audio Design webpage:

http://www.worldaudiodesign.com/testimonials.html *

smug mode

:-)

/smug mode


Oops! - Too damn smug!! :-)

Ya gotta click the 'PhonoII (or two)' link!!

:-)

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:45:34 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


Ignoring the 'sizzle' - deck and/or cart I think - I hope it ain't my new
phonos....

The sizzle shouldn't be too hard to track down - it's only on the left
channel.



OK, thanks for that - I haven't had a chance to look at it yet! (Might be
one of they little glass thingies...!!! ;-)

(Apologies for the multiple posting mess - I've got too much on the go atm
and too many windows open!)

Patrick Turner wrote:

Lord Valve wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

It is indeed a tube group, but surely just for nostalgic anacrophiles?
After all, no one *seriously* thinks that tubes are *better* in any
real-world way than SS, do they?

Well, yeah.

In fact, I *know* they are. When the goal is non-linear operation,
tubes kick the **** out of SS, even mosfets. There are still
no SS amps, including the modelers, which will outperform
tube guitar amps. And when the coloration of a tube is
desirable, SS emulations don't do the trick.

Christy Moses, fetch the heart pills, LV said something I fully
agree with.....



When it comes to playback equipment, though - make mine SS.
And you can have vinyl - ugh. Why anyone would want their
music presented to them on a bed of ticks, pops, hiss, and
rumble is beyond my understanding. And let's not forget
that wow, folks. You have no idea how disconcerting it is
to a musician (like me) who can hear the the cyclic pitch
variations induced by a slightly mislocated center hole.

Er, gee, have yee not heard a decent TT and bunch of records well cared for,

Not only have I, I still own 'em.

Not that I bother with the antique crap any more, unless I need to
listen to something on vinyl for a specific reason, like the fact
that I can't find it on CD or that the CD has been "remixed" by
some clueless fader-jockey with no clue to the original engineer's
intent for the recording.

so that noise is rarely a bother,

Nonsense.

"Ye canna violate the laws of Physics, cap'n." No matter
how "well cared for" the discs, no matter how "high end"
the anachronistic playback apparatus, regardless of the
money spent on the cartridge, the entire concept is
inherently noisy, as it *must* be in order to work the way
it does. Vinyl *cannot* attain the SNR of digital, regardless
of your beliefs. And beliefs are just what they are, because
science doesn't support you on this one. Records are
noisy. I put up with them when they were all that was
available because I had no choice, other than the rare
and expensive reel-to-reel recordings one could sometimes
obtain, which I also own a few of. I, too, devloped a selective
deafness when dealing with the flaws inherent in such a
playback system - because I *had* to in order to enjoy
the recordings. I don't have to any more. Of course, the
audiophool's answer is that my hearing is somehow "flawed"
if I can't "hear" all the wonderful superiority he will claim
for his chosen antique reproduction system. Fine, let him.
I'm a jazz musician with more than 50 years' experience
in listening to recorded music, and I *know* what I hear.
The best argument that you can make for the use of
vinyl is that *you* prefer it. There is no scientific support
for your claim, and, like religion, you must take it on
faith that you are right. I have no argument with your
choice; if you like your music on a bed of rumble, static,
and hiss, you're welcome to have it that way. You can
put ketchup on your ****in' ice cream, too. No skin off
my admittedly ample fundament either way.

and all you get is sublime music which
so often sounds better than any digital source?

If you ignore the noise, you may have a case.

The "better" comes from the dude who mixed it and the gear
it was mixed on, not from the (claimed) superiority of the playback
medium. And I don't care if the engineer used a digital console
or a whole roomful of tube stuff, it's the end result I'm concerned
with. Recording is an arcane science/art, and there are many paths
to the same end. "Reissued" CDs often sound crappy compared
to the original vinyl because the people who remixed the original
tracks for digital were assholes who thought the needed to
put their own "stamp" on a piece of art that didn't have anything
wrong with it in the first place. A moustache on the Mona Lisa
and whatnot.

This happens so often, it has prevented so many folks from throwing out
their
vinyl in the same way ppl threw out their 78s when vinyl came in
all those years ago.
And don't forget pre-recorded tapes on reel to reelers. They were better
than vinyl......

Indeed they were, although tape has its own problems.

I've always preferred it to vinyl. I still do. Unfortunately,
it's a dead medium now - no-one is making it any more.

I may be a tube salesman, but I know where they belong.

Not just in geetah amps man, they also belong in hi-fi amps.

I don't argue with people who like tubes for hi-fi.

Ultimately, it is personal preference which determines one's
choice of a playback system, not science. Tubes certainly
have unique properties that are (so far) not obtainable
with SS techniques, whether digital or analog. Who am I
to tell you that you don't hear what you hear? (Of course,
who are *you* to tell *me* the same thing? Yet, you will
do so at the drop of a hat...)

On the stage with the pickers, not in the living room with
the grinners.

You must never have owned a decent hi-fi tube amp.....

And you must be the arrogant and assumptive prick you appear to be.

I've owned plenty of tube gear, and plenty of SS. I've heard
SS systems that were excellent in my opinion, and I can
say the same about tube systems. I don't play that snob
**** routine all you audiophools seem to have a hard-on
for, I just listen - and I like what I hear or I don't; my
preference isn't based on whether the trons are jumping
through vacuum of silicon on their way to the voice coil.

There are many paths to audio nirvana. Feel free to
choose your own, but don't lecture me on the superiority
of yours, because I don't give a ****.

Lord Valve
Ivory Smasher

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:10:49 +1100, Patrick Turner
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 01:25:13 GMT, robert casey
wrote:

Just record vinyl to CD-R, run it through a de-clicker, and there you
have it! :-)

Sure, but what if my only source is CD (say the record company
never issued the song on vinyl)?

Then you have a better source!

If you're *really* serious about this, just run it through a soft
limiter (such as a SET amplifier), put in some midband phasiness, add
some clicks, pops and scratches sampled from the inter-track grooves,
sum the bass to mono and roll it off below 80Hz.

Basically, the vinyl bigots are out to lunch, as proven by all the
bleating about how SACD and 24/192 are 'closer to analogue', which is
utter ********, as most pros have great difficulty telling them from
CD, but no difficulty at all in telling them from LP!

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

When CDs were first invented, the recording companies
didn't like CD at first and the inventors had to alter a few things and
finally
tests showed a a majority of critical listeners couldn't discern what they
were listening to, either CD or vinyl.
But once that occurred, the fate of vinyl was sealed.
The convenience and ease of CD, with an hour of noiseless music,
( and sometimes without any soul, or air, ) made CD a sure winner.
Mass production of players and of disks soon had the CD price below what
a vinyl disc cost.

Everyone jumped on the bandwagon, and anyone anywhere
could record anything easily, so we now have a plethera of the crappiest
artistes.
Its quantity before quality.

Just because we have digital recording doesn't mean we'll get more fidelity
unless the signal is left alone so that the mic heard is placed onto disc.
Seldom this is the case, and digital allows such a lot of easy "processing"
and the sound is rarely au-natural when placed onto a disc.
I know a local recording studio that trys to use ancient analog tape gear
transistor based, with maybe a tube compressor added, to get the recorded
tracks
of artists anywhere near listenable, maybe even saleable.
The artistes often HATE themselves when they hear themselves played back
as they were recorded, and so the BS goes on......and digital editing is
also added....
This BS is rife in the world of pop music, which is the vast majority
of recorded sound.
So one hardly ever knows exactly what's been done to a signal before the
numbers are finally
put down on a CD.

Note that none of the above has *anyhting* to do with the intrinsic
transparency of CD, except in so far as it concedes that excellent
technical quality is easy to obtain with digital. I've never argued
that *artistic* ability is an entirely separate matter.

So its not unusual to buy a CD and find its not all that wonderful,
even if the music was supposedly taken from an old master tape,
but "re-mastered", and that its common to find that there are more dynamics
and panache
from a 1970 vinyl of the same music.

I wouldn't say it's at all common, but it certainly happens. OTOH,
with some technically aware bands such as Dire Straits, it *never*
happens.

Lots of folks cant get the same piece of music that thay have on vinyl
as modern releases on CD, so they stick with their vinyl.

That's why I have mine, certainly.

But very often I have played vinyl on my system, and ppl have been very
surprised when i say
"..and its only a vinyl recording...."

Good vinyl can produce very musical results, never argued.

Sorry Pinky, but there are thousands of folks out there who KNOW
you are BS with regards to valve and vinyl.

Actually, in the *real* world as opposed to RAT, there are thousands
who agree with me, and only a few benighted souls like you who do
not.................

But look, keep up the anti valve and anti vinyl campaign, at least we know
you are crapping on and on and getting knowhere.

The usual defensive ******** from you. I'm not anti-vinyl, I simply
**** on idiots who claim that it has any *technical* comparison to the
transparency of CD. Same with valves.

Do you really expect ppl here to rush out and buy a Krell, or a Mark
Levinson just because you spout your bigotry?

No, I hope they'll buy one of the relaunched Audiolabs - much better
value, and adequate for most speakers. BTW, I would *never* recommend
that overpriced Mark Levinson crap.

You waste bandwidth to tell us what you think you know is true,
but its only your wacky wobbly opinion.

Back at ya, ya ancient Ozzy anachrophile. BTW, only someone totally
out of touch with technology would complain about wasted bandwidth on
Usenet. If you want to see *real* wasted bandwidth, go to a Web-based
forum!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news : On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 15:06:25 -0800, "tubesforall"
: wrote:
:
:
: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
: .. .
: On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 14:01:19 -0800, "tubesforall"
: wrote:
: ,
: . I guess you're
: all into horn speakers, too.............
:
: You say this like it is a bad thing.
:
: Mostly, it is.
:
: The main point is sound, not specs. I've listened to the most highly rated
: $10K SS amps that do not sound as good as $300 DIY tube amps.
:
: In your humble opinion - mine differs. Of course, this *is* a tube
: group, so such tiny minority views will have a skewed representation.
:
: Listening is subjective--my ears are tuned to realism in the strings. Years
: of performance violin will do that. A concert violinist trains their ears
: to detect distortion and quality in the second, third, and fourth harmonics.
:
: And tends to premature deafness in the left ear...............
:
: In that area, SS and CD's take second place.
:
: Utter rubbish. In those areas, CD and good SS are utterly blameless,
: unlike valves and vinyl, which will give you all the *added* harmonics
: you could ever want!
: --

Hmm, wasn't it a certain mr. Pinkerton who remarked: the testbed is the listening
?
another P,
probably,
Rudy


: Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Sure, but what if my only source is CD (say the record company
never issued the song on vinyl)?


Then you have a better source!

If you're *really* serious about this, just run it through a soft
limiter (such as a SET amplifier), put in some midband phasiness, add
some clicks, pops and scratches sampled from the inter-track grooves,
sum the bass to mono and roll it off below 80Hz.


Well, if I wanted "vinyl flavor" I'd do the above except
without the clicks, pops and scratches.

Maybe I could create a vinyl sounding CD player using say
a single ended tube analog audio amp (directly connected to the
DAC chip). And then connect a low pass filter that passes
the bass back and forth between the two channels (makes mono bass)
and roll off the low end at 80Hz. Not sure how to do the mid
band phasies, but that shouldn't be that hard. No pops and
clicks and scratchies, those don't add anything good to the sound.

"Patrick Turner" wrote

Waves are never the same when you are sailing.....

Lots of harbours have brickwall filters. If it gets rough when
you're out it can be very hard to get back in because of the turmoil
in the gap. Unwary occupants can fall victim to suck-out.

River estuaries are much safer. They are transmission lines I
suppose.

Sme for electronics. waves are signals going up and down in level
relative to some
usually fixed voltage.

To my mind, a transient is that part of a stimulus or a response
that is not repetitive, and which therefore has no frequency. No
frequency, no wave; at least in the sense that "wave" is being used
in this thread, to mean something that can be expressed as a sum of
frequencies. How can it be a sum of frequencies if there is no
repetition?

So not all of a signal is waves. Further, nothing with a straight
line in it is a wave, because there would be discontinuities, so
triangles and squares and pulses are not included, no matter how
repetitious.

cheers, Ian

"To my mind, a transient is that part of a stimulus or a response
that is not repetitive, and which therefore has no frequency. "

That conclusion is incorrect. If you sum up a bunch of sine waves of
different frequencies all starting at zero phase you will get a big
spike. And, incidently, if their phases are random you will get a
waveform that looks very much like noise.

"No frequency, no wave; at least in the sense that "wave" is being used

in this thread, to mean something that can be expressed as a sum of
frequencies. How can it be a sum of frequencies if there is no
repetition?"

You need to study the Fourier Transform which says that _any_ signal,
whether periodic or not, can be represented by a set of sinusoids of
specific amplitudes and phases.

Joe

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 22:20:33 -0600, (John Byrns) wrote:

In article , Mister
wrote:

i say quality of reproduction as in the fidelity of the signal. some people
equate the added noise of vinyl as a change in this fidelity, which is not
true. ie a sine wave would look the same, it is not distorted, there is merely
noise added. this is different then a distortion of the waveform. you need to
think in more then one dimension.

I think you are the one that is neglecting "to think in more then one
dimension"! An audio signal passing "through a set of D/A and A/D
converters" will not be suffer any wave form distortion, assuming the D/A
and A/D converters, and sampler are linear, and that the signal feed into
the A/D converter is properly dithered. There is no distortion produced
by a properly dithered A/D - D/A process, the only change to the signal is
the added dithering noise.

my only point was that a system with an a/d d/a system could not be better then
one without one... and could certainly be worse.

but in real world terms of sound, there is not any improvement in the sound by
using digital storage, there can be degradation in any kind of storage. point
is, digital doesn't improve sound. i have very nice sounding and quiet vinyl
here, easily comparable to CD. of course, the vinyl is limited, it will
eventually die, and analog copies will suffer, yes yes yes I know all that.

i didn't say digital was bad, i use it all the time, i even transcribe my old
vinyl to it, i just wanted to clear up the notion some people have that todays
superior sound is digital, it is not. sound is analog. speakers are analog. ears
are analog. the only thing digital is the storage.

perhaps i didn't make myself clear while responding to that Phil fellow. i
didn't want to leave the impression that i don't like digital CD storage or
prefer vinyl sound or anything like that.

It sounds like you didn't graduate college either.

you are correct, only the college of hard knocks! 40 years of various field and
shop work.


Regards,

John Byrns


Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/

You say this like it is a bad thing.

..The main point is sound, not specs. I've listened to the most highly
rated
$10K SS amps that do not sound as good as $300 DIY tube amps.

Listening is subjective--my ears are tuned to realism in the strings.
Years of performance violin will do that. A concert violinist trains their
ears .to detect distortion and quality in the second, third, and fourth
harmonics.

why are you even bothering to debate some BOZO who doesn't even know enough
about great sound to realize that the harsh SS sound will never even be in
the same league as the glorious sound of tubes and the feeling you get from
tube audio of actually having the performers in your listening room?

obviously he lost his hearing by over using a skilsaw in his youth, now he
is just an old deaf relic who can't understand what sounds best, and wants
to act like the millions of people around the world who insist on tubes are
all crazy.

I actually feel sorry for anyone who has lost so much hearing and can no
longer hear the wonderful sound of tubes that the rest of us are so excited
about

poor tone-deaf schmuck!

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 15:06:41 +1100, "Phil Allison"
wrote:


so you say taking an audio signal on one hand, and on the other hand
passing it
through a set of D/A and A/D converters, there is no difference between
them? no
digitization errors? you didn't graduate college, did you?


** Hey Mister ****wit - all analogue storage methods have far greater
errors than 16 bit PCM.

maybe you should learn how to read. now go back up and read what i said. i
mentioned no 'analog storage method ', did i? i said an a/d d/a chain can't be
better then no a/d d/a chain.


don't mistake added noise with quality of reproduction, as in the case
of
scratchy vinyl!


** Audible noise is bad reproduction per se.

i say quality of reproduction as in the fidelity of the signal. some
people
equate the added noise of vinyl as a change in this fidelity, which is not
true.


** Of course it is - you colossal ASS !!

your lack of comprehension is still showing. i said the fidelity of the waveform
is not affected by the added noise. i have vinyl records with a s/n ratio such
that the noise is inaudible during playback. if i turn the system up loud enough
to hear the noise, the waveform of the music isn't suddenly distorted.


the last studio reel to reel machines that were made had a S/N of up to
120db, far better than CD.


** Massive, stupid lie.

i had the spec sheet for that particular tape machine a while back, it was
running at 30ips. i'd look for it, but you aren't worth the trouble.


** Hey, Mister Asshole - you are a DAMN LIAR !!!

it's possible i meant to say 112db, but that isn't so important as it is better
then cd. when i find the sheet and publish it to the net, what will you say
then?

as for other systems, high freq. FM modulation tape systems also beat
out
CD.


** Second massive, stupid lie.

it's not my fault you are so limited in your knowledge of technical
devices. you
could try looking up video tape sound for a start.


** 16 bit PCM is far better - Mister Massive LIAR .

specs look the same to me for standard vhs!. s/n 96db. hi8 is supposed to be
better.

Another demented vinyl bigot for sure.

another person who revels in labelling people in a pitiful attempt to
elevate
their status.


** Labelling you as a nut case and a colossal liar is the best I can do via
usenet.

yes, you are like a small pomeranian yapping at my heals. yip yip yip

How about I email the instructions for committing suicide ??

go right ahead, that would be enough to have you arrested! aiding and abetting a
suicide is a criminal offence! you are now a proven criminal.



............. Phil

awaiting arrest and confinement

"Mister"


so you say taking an audio signal on one hand, and on the other hand
passing it
through a set of D/A and A/D converters, there is no difference between
them? no
digitization errors? you didn't graduate college, did you?


** Hey Mister ****wit - all analogue storage methods have far greater
errors than 16 bit PCM.

maybe you should learn how to read.


** **** off - wog idiot.


now go back up and read what i said. i
mentioned no 'analog storage method ', did i?


** Liar.


i say quality of reproduction as in the fidelity of the signal. some
people equate the added noise of vinyl as a change in this fidelity,
which is not true.


** Of course it is - you colossal ASS !!

your lack of comprehension is still showing.


** **** off - wog idiot.


i said the fidelity of the waveform
is not affected by the added noise.


** How totally asinine .... hee-haw, hee-haw....



the last studio reel to reel machines that were made had a S/N of up
to
120db, far better than CD.


** Massive, stupid lie.

i had the spec sheet for that particular tape machine a while back, it
was
running at 30ips. i'd look for it, but you aren't worth the trouble.


** Hey, Mister Asshole - you are a DAMN LIAR !!!

it's possible i meant to say 112db,


** Anything is possible with a fool like you.

**** off - wog idiot.




** 16 bit PCM is far better - Mister Massive LIAR .

specs look the same to me for standard vhs!. s/n 96db. hi8 is supposed to
be
better.


** VHS hi-fi uses companding and has high THD compared to CD.

Just looking at one spec proves nothing.



** Labelling you as a nut case and a colossal liar is the best I can do
via
usenet.

yes, you are like a small pomeranian yapping at my heals. yip yip yip

How about I email the instructions for committing suicide ??

go right ahead, that would be enough to have you arrested!


** **** off - wog idiot.


aiding and abetting a
suicide is a criminal offence!


** So you were planning to suicide right now ???


you are now a proven criminal.


** **** off - wog idiot.

ROTFL



................ Phil

"Joseph Meditz" wrote

"To my mind, a transient is that part of a stimulus or a response
that is not repetitive, and which therefore has no frequency. "

That conclusion is incorrect.

Not a conclusion, a matter of definition, mostly. Actually, by the
definition I see in two books here, transient response is that part
of a system's response that dies away over time. Considering that
any such response cannot be repetitive, I believe what I said
follows logically from the definition.

If you sum up a bunch of sine waves of
different frequencies all starting at zero phase you will get a
big
spike. And, incidently, if their phases are random you will get a
waveform that looks very much like noise.

So?

"No frequency, no wave; at least in the sense that "wave" is being
used

in this thread, to mean something that can be expressed as a sum
of
frequencies. How can it be a sum of frequencies if there is no
repetition?"

You need to study the Fourier Transform which says that _any_
signal,
whether periodic or not, can be represented by a set of sinusoids
of
specific amplitudes and phases.

No, Joe, you are so clearly and obviously wrong. I don't need anyone
to tell me that frequency is meaningless without repetition. Throw
that book out, it's rubbish. Think with your head, just for a
moment. Then if you can't see the dark perhaps *you* could check out
the conditions for correct application of the fourier transform.
While you are there you might also check that any periodic function
containing discontinuities requires an infinite number of terms in
its fourier series, so in the real world fourier cannot be "exactly"
applied to such functions, as has been claimed in this thread.

Neither of these textbooks on control systems contain much Fourier,
incidentally. Most engineers are more acquainted with Laplace, whose
transform *does* handle non-periodic functions. Apparently Fourier
and Laplace were contemporaries, and argued about whose transform
would be most useful. I don't know why audio folk are so exclusively
attached to Fourier...wishful thinking in many cases perhaps.

The fourier transform doesn't "say" anything, BTW. It is a
transform: an analytical convenience that can be used sensibly or
stupidly, just like any other tool. OTOH, some mathematicians would
argue that the world as we perceive it actually *is* an analytical
convenience...

cheers, Ian

"Ian Iveson"
"Joseph Meditz"

"To my mind, a transient is that part of a stimulus or a response
that is not repetitive, and which therefore has no frequency. "

That conclusion is incorrect.

If you sum up a bunch of sine waves of
different frequencies all starting at zero phase you will get a big
spike. And, incidently, if their phases are random you will get a
waveform that looks very much like noise.

So?


** Shows that a non repeating "spike" is equivalent to the sum of many sine
waves of different frequencies.

IOW - it has a wide spectrum.



You need to study the Fourier Transform which says that _any_ signal,
whether periodic or not, can be represented by a set of sinusoids of
specific amplitudes and phases.


No, Joe, you are so clearly and obviously wrong. I don't need anyone to
tell me that frequency is meaningless without repetition.


** The word "frequency" has several meanings - which that congenital
****wit Iveson has got all mixed up.

The common meaning is that of repetition rate - but that is not the one we
are interested in here.

In the context of the "frequency spectrum" or " frequency domain" the term
"frequency" refers to a pure sine wave - ie a point frequency somewhere
in the continuous spectrum of all possible frequencies.



While you are there you might also check that any periodic function
containing discontinuities requires an infinite number of terms in its
fourier series, so in the real world fourier cannot be "exactly" applied
to such functions, as has been claimed in this thread.


** A simple, mathematical discontinuity has ** infinite** bandwidth.

However, real world discontinuities have limited bandwidth and hence a non
infinite series expansion - so they CAN be exactly represented by a
series of sine waves.


BTW

Allison's Theorem says:

" Iveson is as ass. "

Iveson himself keeps proving the rightness of this theorem.




............. Phil

You need to study the Fourier Transform which says that _any_
signal,
whether periodic or not, can be represented by a set of sinusoids
of
specific amplitudes and phases.

"No, Joe, you are so clearly and obviously wrong."

I am? Please tell me why.

"...any periodic function
containing discontinuities requires an infinite number of terms in
its fourier series, so in the real world fourier cannot be "exactly"
applied to such functions, as has been claimed in this thread. "

But you can get as close as you want by using as many terms as you feel
necessary for all practical purposes. Look, you need an infinite
number of decimal places to represent the number pi. So, when someone
gives you the diameter of a circle and asks you to provide a numerical
value for its circumference, will you throw your hands up and say, "I
can't do it because it can't be done exactly."?

Joe

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 20:36:34 GMT, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:

To my mind, a transient is that part of a stimulus or a response
that is not repetitive, and which therefore has no frequency. No
frequency, no wave; at least in the sense that "wave" is being used
in this thread, to mean something that can be expressed as a sum of
frequencies. How can it be a sum of frequencies if there is no
repetition?

So not all of a signal is waves. Further, nothing with a straight
line in it is a wave, because there would be discontinuities, so
triangles and squares and pulses are not included, no matter how
repetitious.

What's really strange about things is that, yes, even an impulse
is still composed of waves.

One common practical application of this is in acoustical testing,
where both actual impulses, and mathematically generated noise
designed to simulate real impulses, are used to measure time and
amplitude responses.

Old fashioned example: I fire a starter's pistol in the presence
of a microphone. A computer observes the microphone and can tell
me the frequency response and delayed amplitude response of the
path between pistol and microphone.

Modern example: The computer generates an MLS noise signal with the
spectral distribution characteristic of an impulse. I feed it to a
speaker in the presence of a microphone. A computer observes the
microphone ..... etc. Same-same.


This discussion of digital storage imperfections is way off base.
We need to start with a differentiation between the limitations of
a perfect conversion-storage-conversion, and the practical current
state of the art, and forget about these 1985 misperceptions. IMO,
anyway.

It just looks like it's not thought through. Real contributions
require solid homework first. I don't mean to sound like I picking
on you, 'cause I'm not. The whole thread is weak-assed.

Chris Hornbeck

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 20:36:34 GMT, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:

To my mind, a transient is that part of a stimulus or a response
that is not repetitive, and which therefore has no frequency. No
frequency, no wave; at least in the sense that "wave" is being used
in this thread, to mean something that can be expressed as a sum of
frequencies. How can it be a sum of frequencies if there is no
repetition?

A single sinusoidal curve has a frequency - how could it not?

So not all of a signal is waves. Further, nothing with a straight
line in it is a wave, because there would be discontinuities, so
triangles and squares and pulses are not included, no matter how
repetitious.

Which part of 'fs/2 band limited' did you fail to understand?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering