W A R N I N G !

W A R N I N G !

This page is full of non-facts and bullsh!t, (just like the internet and especially forums and other blogs), please do not believe entirely without exercising your intellect. Any resemblance to real things in reality is purely coincidental. You are free to interpret/misinterpret the content however you like, most likely for entertainment, but in no case is the text written on this blog the absolute truth. The blog owner and Blogger are not responsible for any misunderstanding of ASCII characters as facts. *cough* As I was saying, you are free to interpret however you like. *cough*

Sunday, April 12, 2009

Continuing from the "Nice-Fi" vs "Hi-Fi" argument:

The only way to know if we got a more accurate sound after modding would be to:

1) Generate a complex waveform using the computer (I never believed in frequency sweep)

2) Connect the output of the DAC directly to the input of the ADC. It does not matter that the ADC is not perfectly accurate, since any recorded sound will have to pass through it. Because we are measuring which is going to give the closest sound to a recorded instrument. And this time our instrument is the DAC. So in both cases of sound reproduction, the sound goes through the DAC once, and goes through the ADC once. The only difference is it goes through which first - ADC then DAC for analogue to analogue, DAC then ADC for digital to digital. So if someway somehow the wrongs of the DAC and the ADC cancel each other out, it's a plus.

3) Compare the waveforms of both the source and the output

But, engineers probably have figured this out already, and all we can do is guess the result. And most of us can probably guess the result.

That maths wins. That always happens in a comparison based on maths.

But does maths always sound better?

No comments: