Anti-Cabls Ic's alternatives?

Hi Tvad. I said that because people who know say so. I am not a techy. Aren't voices and instruments recorded using spectrum analyzers? Some folks have been pushing me to prove my sound through recording analyzers. That is an expensive proposition. The proof is in the pudding, of course.

Resolving is not measurable because it is not even definable.

Every person has a different concept of "resolving".

However, if muralman wants to pursue this I would ask the following:
1. If resolution can be measured, please list the appropriate units and parmameters in the quantification.
2. What tools, instruments, meters, apparatus, etc. are used in the measurement.

Thanks in advance.

Resolving is not measurable because it is not even definable. Every person has a different concept of "resolving".

True. And my suspicion is that Muralman is, intentionally or not, referring to "resolution" in a technical sense, while most audiophiles tend to use it in a musical sense.

For instance, redbook cd is capable of a "resolution" of 16 bits, or 1 part in 65,536 relative to full scale. And in theory a little better than that, if dither is properly applied, noise is weighted by frequency, etc. All of that can certainly be measured.

But as we all know, essentially all that those measurements will reveal about a component are gross design errors, or defects in individual examples of the component. They will tell us essentially nothing about how much musical detail the component is capable of revealing, partly because the ear has better "resolution" (in the musical sense) than most or all instrumentation, and partly because the science involved in correlating measurements with perceived sound quality is still not very well developed.

So I don't think there is a real conflict here, just terms being used in different ways.

Regards,
-- Al