Originally Posted by Morbius
Verry good!!! There IS an "uncertainty principle" here.
Likewise, just as terry states; if you attempt to be "perfect" in the frequency domain;
you are being inaccurate in the temporal domain.
well thanks for the very good
, but I only got the idea from your description, I'm sure that was what you had in the back of your mind anyways. So I feel it is inaccurate to say it's 'terry's' idea, nahh I'm a dummy.
Originally Posted by Morbius
They may allow a degree of non-flatness in the frequency
response curve in order to get a better temporal response. Dave and his staff are being
I must say I feel that is stretching it just a tad...I simply can't imagine Dave saying to his crossover guys 'we need a few more db inaccuracy around 2k cause the temporal is going'. (I imagine the voice of scotty from startrek.."capn, we canna go any flatter, the temporal is overheating"
In any case, when discussing 'accuracy in one domain leading to inaccuracy in another', were we not talking digital
filters? Do you mean it can occur with 48 db (for example) passive networks?
I doubt it??
Whenever you bring this up (and I'm not doubting the fact of ringing with too steep a digital slope, it has been reported in many places) you seem to use it as a criticism of the deqx. As the deqx can do as small as 6db slopes (and they themselves caution against steep slopes), I'm a little confused about the absolute importance of the point.
I also ask as I use a deqx, and so naturally would like to learn more about it.
Would not the Tact also use digital x-overs? If so, what is it about the Tact approach that makes it immune from this criticism? (or any of the computer based solutions for example, dolby lake and whoever else makes units like these)
Originally Posted by Alimentall
It just comes down to experimentation.
the point I tried to make earlier with dave wilson. I bet he does some experimentation too.
Re this ringing everyone talks about, I mean if I ask 'what is this digital ringing', does that mean I am not getting it? Not sure how to phrase it, but is it so obvious that 'you will know it when you have it' type thing?
But I will admit to the feeling that so much of this (well, most things in audio really!
) is so much 'angels dancing on the head of a pin'.
We just did a little blind test on the w/end, whereby we had a twenty thousand dollar front end combo (cdp, 'good' interconnects and cables, class A mono blocks etc) vs a twenty year old denon cdp and amp, house electrical wiring for speaker cables and those crappy little interconnects for hooking it up.
We did it blind (hung a blanket to hide the view) and level matched.
the difference?? To me, totally inconsequential. (to be true, most picked the better as being preferrable, but all agreed that they were surprised at how close it was)
Is worrying about ringing also falling into the negligible category? (esp if we 'ignore' the good digital x-overs and dsp can bring)