🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Apr11.171059.4664@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>My dictionary defines distortion as a deviation from the orginal signal
>waveform. It doesn't define "muddy" in any useful way. When you get the
>same signal out of a recording that was put into it originally, that's
>no distortion. A machine with .03% total distortion is over 200 times
>more faithful to the orginal recording than a system with 7% distortion.
>Whatever "muddy" means, it has to show up in the total distortion figure,
>or you are describing the orginal signal, and there's no helping that.

How are you measuring distortion?  I gather that you are talking about a
THD rating, but a system that has a poor slew rate may have excellent THD
and still sound poor because it doesn't follow transients well.   On the
other hand, if you define distortion as any deviation from the original
waveform, every CD player will have 100% distortion because there is a 
major phase shift (sometimes as much as 30 years or so with the CDs that
I buy) in the waveform.

Therefore, you basically need to find what particular rating is required
to account for a particular type of audible distortion.

This basically comes down to the argument as to whether people can hear
differences in CD players.  I can definitely hear them.  More than that,
I can measure them.  The group delay that is produced by the filters on
some CD players is really shocking.  I am sure that other things also may
be mangling the sound, but I don't know what so I can't give you an 
accurate measurement yet.

By the way, when people say something sounds "muddy" it generally translates
as excessive IMD.  I am starting to get better at guessing what is wrong with
systems ased upon very vague and subjective commentary.  Of course, it takes
an objective measurement to be sure.
--scott