Brian Cheney on Reality Check

_scotty_ · « **Reply #20 on:** 13 Dec 2005, 02:15 am »

Stereophile Test CD No.3 contains a 1kHz squarewave at -12dBFS,
see track no. 22.
Scotty

NealH · « **Reply #21 on:** 13 Dec 2005, 02:29 am »

The square wave would seem to be a good idea. Run a sweep of the signal before and after RC. I bet the algorithm merely injects a bit of even order distortion into the mix. I believe Pioneer did this on one of their early CD players in an attempt to soften/rich'in up the sound. It benefited some CDs but, hindered others in that it produced a slight shift to the tonailty which veered some instruments away from their natural timber.

ScottMayo · « **Reply #22 on:** 13 Dec 2005, 02:42 am »

Quote from: ctviggen

How would you write a square wave to a CD? I don't think a square wave fits into 44.1 kHz sampling. (Although I don't have my EE texts here at home, a single square is a sinc() [=sin x/x] function in the frequency domain, so it has infinite frequency cmponents; I'd assume a square wave would be similar.) You'd lose some information in order to put in onto the CD in Redbook format. If you knew what you wrote to the CD, then you compare.

All you need to do is write a series of 100000's followed by a series of 000000's. It's a square wave.

In point of fact the CD *player* won't like it, and no speaker on earth can reproduce it perfectly. Cones can't move instantly and transistors can't switch to on in zero time. The filtering will smooth off the edges a little. But good gear gets close enough.

If the disk copy is perfect, it sounds the same. If anything changes, it won't sound the same at all. Nothing's quite as irritating as a good square wave. Well, except Abba, maybe.

gongos · « **Reply #23 on:** 13 Dec 2005, 04:01 am »

Quote from: clarkjohnsen

Quote from: gongos
Then your computer audio experience is probably lacking. The sound a computer using a external USB converter and a high end DAC reproduces is pretty damn amazing.

Never said it wasn't amazing. But you, sir, are aparently unconversant with the Reality Check, so where does that leave your comparisons?

clark

I wasn't making a comparison. All I said was if you go with computer audio, you won't have to bother with the long/tedious discussions the intial links point towards.

clarkjohnsen · « **Reply #24 on:** 13 Dec 2005, 04:41 pm »

Quote from: gongos

Quote from: clarkjohnsen
Quote from: gongos
Then your computer audio experience is probably lacking. The sound a computer using a external USB converter and a high end DAC reproduces is pretty damn amazing.

Never said it wasn't amazing. But you, sir, are aparently unconversant with the Reality Check, so where does that leave your comparisons?

clark

I wasn't making a comparison. All I said was if you go with computer audio, you won't have to bother with the long/tedious discussions the intial links point towards.

Let's try again: And you know this, how?

clark

sts9fan · « **Reply #25 on:** 13 Dec 2005, 05:06 pm »

what kind of repectable tweek doesn't involve quatum thingys and magic chips?? I like mine the old fashion way no computers just lies.

CornellAlum · « **Reply #26 on:** 13 Dec 2005, 05:23 pm »

Your signature is disgusting

sts9fan · « **Reply #27 on:** 13 Dec 2005, 05:38 pm »

I understand that "Walker Texas Ranger" is a bad show but Chuck Norris is not "disgusting"!!

mr_bill · « **Reply #28 on:** 13 Dec 2005, 06:49 pm »

I don't think he's commenting on Chuck Norris but rather the remark about the 'tears of orphans' which is stupid.

sts9fan · « **Reply #29 on:** 13 Dec 2005, 07:04 pm »

Quote

I don't think he's commenting on Chuck Norris but rather the remark about the 'tears of orphans'

No you don't say? I must have been confused.

Quote

which is stupid.

Man you got me good

I am gonna have to change that!!

John Ryder · « **Reply #30 on:** 13 Dec 2005, 07:07 pm »

Quote from: CornellAlum

Your signature is disgusting

100% agree on that one.... two thumbs way down.

sts9fan · « **Reply #31 on:** 13 Dec 2005, 07:09 pm »

you people have no sense of humor. So because I am a "slave" to peer pressure I have changed my sig!!

CornellAlum · « **Reply #32 on:** 13 Dec 2005, 07:36 pm »

My sense of humor goes hand in hand with my proclivity towards good grammar too

ricmon · « **Reply #33 on:** 13 Dec 2005, 09:44 pm »

Have any of you guys seen tgis software? It certainly sounds intretresting. I wonder if behind the scenes if this software is doing simulare things CDRC software? If so one could produce simulare results with out the cost.

ctviggen · « **Reply #34 on:** 13 Dec 2005, 10:34 pm »

I have stereophile test CD 3; I didn't know it had a square wave on the CD. You could perform that test. although you'd then have to figure out what his result was.

ctviggen · « **Reply #35 on:** 13 Dec 2005, 10:40 pm »

You could write a program to compare the results, but how would you do that? It could take a while for not much benefit. Plus, wouldn't your DAC filter the high frequency effects? If so, then you couldn't compare analog to analog; you'd have to compare digital bits to digital bits.

ctviggen · « **Reply #36 on:** 13 Dec 2005, 10:51 pm »

A lot of these threads make me wish I was back in college and had time to do some of this stuff. Were I back in college, I'd code my own real time room analyzer and room correction program. That'd be fun, although I bet it would take a ton of time. Time is now what I lack. I barely have time to listen to my system, let alone program anything.

James Romeyn · « **Reply #37 on:** 16 Dec 2005, 04:50 am »

Quote from: sts9fan

what kind of repectable tweek doesn't involve quatum thingys and magic chips?? I like mine the old fashion way no computers just lies.

Just what every audiophile forum needs, another anti-tweek Nazi/Facist drive-by cheap-shot brigade member. Didja have your parents arrested yet? We all love the wisdom & joyful rays of light brought by your post above. I'm sure it will save us all a lot of money. I'm taking contributions for nice shiny new boots & Third Reich crosses for your khaki shirts. Do you prefer long sleeves up in MA this winter? Nothing quite like the "L" word to really increase & liven the debate, huh? Do you like the "R" word (racist) when the L word doesn't quite do the trick?