Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus  Your call, but I'm just telling that using wrong words refering to science and physics that some people might misunderstood because of that, could lead to misconception of what a transient is. |
The word “transient” is used in acoustics and sound engineering to describe a certain sonic property. I’ve defined what I mean by it and I don’t think I’m being idiosyncratic in my usage. Please, revisit my posts for my definition of it. What part of that definition are you not getting, what part of it is wrong or inapplicable?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus If you want to stay on a subjective listener's terrain, ok, let's speak using subjective listener lexical field, and let's talk about cold, hot, smooth, yellow, blue, or whatever poetry "it" sounds like...but not transients, as people might be confused if you're not interested (or don't want) to explain how they are really working. |
Subjective descriptions need not be arbitrary or counter-scientific. I choose to stay on the perceptual side of the object-subject relationship for the benefit of this thread honoring the guidelines the original poster has set for it.
So dear Spartacus, have you listened to the audio files? What are your perceptions? Any preferences or dislikes? If so, what sound qualities made you prefer one converter over another?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus It is all about keeping channels clocked at the same time. If a converter introduce time delays between channels, yes indeed we have a problem, and it could yields to some cancelations at certain frequencies, transient or not ! Again, it has nothing to do with "transient"...and nothing to do with some instrument family. |
You see, there is not the least bit of you in what you are saying. Your non-subjective statements are too abstract to bear a direct relation to what the original poster is offering and asking for in this thread. Please, listen to the files and come back with your personal findings.