Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #242   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Steven Sullivan Steven Sullivan is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,268
Default Is flat frequency response desirable?

Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote:

You ever hear the effect of a PC on a good audio system when it is
operating nearby? Do you think that same low level noise does not invade
the analog circuitry in the PC itself, feeding the audio/headphones out
on the typlical cheap analog circuitry built into most pcs. Even if at a
very low, subliminal-like level, it still affects the audio signal. Not
exactly high-fidelity.


You REALLY need to get out more. The Lynx 2 is one of the quietest audio
interfaces that there is. A LOT more quiet than most so-called stuff
that's labeled "high-end" which is often pretty noisy in comparison. I
know - I've tested a lot of it and this is provable, both objectively and
empirically.

Funny (in the strange sense) that you don't mention the acoustic noise
from the fans, which IS a real problem, but solvable. I get around it by
using a fanless power supply, an efficient low speed fan for the CPU and
putting the machine in a nearby closet.


And how many audiophiles with very good main systems have a computer with a
Lynx sound card?


My PC twoer has an M-audio 2496, which ain't too shabby. However, I don't even
use that for most audio listening.

If they record live, maybe. Otherwise, probably not.
I'm talking about ordinary people with ordinary computers doing a
computerized ABX or ABC/hr test as per the POV expressed here that that is
somehow superior to listening on one's main high-end system.


I suggest if that bothers you, to run your computer output through your main 'high end'
system and asses the background noise levels.

And then test yourself with mp3s vs source ABX of increasing bitrate, starting down
near the bottom.

If you're *really* interested, that is.




--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

  #243   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected][_2_] nmsz@optonline.net[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default Is flat frequency response desirable?

On Jun 4, 4:50*am, Steven Sullivan wrote:

If you are a scientist. ?Which you are not.

IIRC, Dr. Sullivan has a Ph.D. in biochemistry.


Not quite....'just' biology. ;

--

A Ph.D. in "biology"? My Ph.D. is in microbiology. (Not that any of
this makes one iota of difference when it comes to high end audio.)
Norman


-S


  #244   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH [email protected] mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME@scs.uiuc.edu is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default Is flat frequency response desirable?

Steven Sullivan wrote:


Please explain what you mean about "bathed in digital noise from a
PC". How does such noise sound?


It sounds like a buzzing that varies as the programming changes.
I've heard it from older (8086) PCs. It could be picked up
on nearby unshielded electronics. It existed. It no longer does;
I've never heard it from, modern PCs, even ones with cheap
built-in audio. I have heard, however, serious ground loop problems
from such PCs, cured by the usual audio ground loop cures.

The real problem with my current setup is the Comcast cable
line that feeds my HDTV and computer Internet; all the audio,
video, and computer stuff is connected together. The cable
connection causes a terrible hum, really bad. This was cured only
by breaking the DC/audio connection between the cable and
the cable modem and cable HD recorder boxes by adding 0.001 microfarad
capacitors in both the center lead and shield to break the DC connection.

Doug McDonald
  #246   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected][_2_] nmsz@optonline.net[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default Is flat frequency response desirable?

On Jun 5, 11:39*pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
On Jun 4, 4:50?am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
If you are a scientist. ?Which you are not.
IIRC, Dr. Sullivan has a Ph.D. in biochemistry.


Not quite....'just' biology. ;


--

A Ph.D. in "biology"? My Ph.D. is in microbiology. (Not that any of
this makes one iota of difference when it comes to high end audio.)
Norman


Cell biology, if you want to be picky, though my training was really
more in molecular developmental neurobiology; where I was, they didn't have
a degree with that name at the time.


While were at it; Biochemistry, Biology, Cell Biology, "whatever", the
department's name was written on my diploma and it reads "Department
of Micriobiology". Not that anyone is required to work in an area
named on a diploma, which is just kind of a 'union card'. Since when
did precision become picky?

Norman M. Schwartz

Regards,
Norman

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why are mic made with non flat frequency response? peter Pro Audio 84 April 28th 08 11:56 AM
Frequency Response of XM Geluso High End Audio 9 December 8th 06 02:47 AM
Frequency response Sune T. B. Nielsen Pro Audio 4 October 3rd 04 12:01 PM
Frequency response Sune T. B. Nielsen Pro Audio 0 October 2nd 04 04:24 PM
Mic Frequency Response Bob Cain Pro Audio 82 June 2nd 04 07:32 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:54 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"