Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 67

Thread: Sampling Rates

  1. #26
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    Everytime I start to get sucked into the vinyl is better than CD mystic, he washes away that illusion.

    But, there is nothing wrong with illusions. I enjoy the likes of David Copperfiled but I know that it is an illusion only
    mtrycrafts

  2. #27
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    I want to believe that higher sampling rates produce higher resolotion and better sound.
    I shudder to think that Sony, in its cheapness, would spend millions of dollars investing into R&D to deveolp a higher resolution format based on a physical property that didn't improve sound at all. It scares me even more to think that after the failure to improve sound, Sony expects its already critical market to be fooled into thinking they actually do hear a noticeable difference in sound quality.
    Such is what skeptic seems to be implying so far. I'm also afraid that if skeptic's view holds true, pure audio perfection has already been accomplished, and a new format cannot improve sound quality over what we have now.

    I believe that Princess Di is still alive.
    I believe that JFK was killed by the CIA.
    I believe that Micheal Jackson is innocent and that OJ will one day find the real killers.

    I can't believe that Sony is clever enough to fool millions of people who test audio equipment long before they buy that their newest format is superior to its predecessor when in fact it is not.

    And yet I can offer no evidence that I truly do hear a noticeable difference in sound quality other than I do. I attribute this to bit-rate on SACD's, and a combination of bit-rate and word length on DVD-A's...
    Now that's just plain funny
    There are many thruths in what skeptic has said.
    Audiophiles have a tendency to believe, falsly, that the ears ability to hear is limitless. Unfortunately that is not the case. We do know what the limits are. It wasn't nor is it a mystery. For the vast majority of the population and consumer homes capability for reproduction, the ears limits are surpassed, hence nothing new is needed.
    However, one area is very difficult to advance as it is the most important and complex. Your speakers capability and your room's acoustics. That is where the emphasis needs to be, not in wires, etc.

    As to your other premis about Sony being clever to fool the audiophile is simple. The marketing industry has been conditioning the public for more than a century and human nature is very gullible, far from being skeptical, or the marketing industry woul dbe different or non existant. So, Sony doesn't need to be very clever at all.

    Just in case you want to crack open some research into what we can hear, plenty out there. A few can hear 18 bits, period. That is the limit. Not many can hear 18kHz, fewer can hear 20kz and even fewer can hear 25khz but there are a couple who can. Do you build an industry based on a couple of individuals hearing accuity?
    mtrycrafts

  3. #28
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Might I suggest we let our ears make the decisions?


    That is what I want you to do, let your ears decide, but only your ears, not your eyes which component has a better name stamped on it, which component has a better marketing hype behind it, which component has 'golden ear' approval. You see, audiophiles, most of them, will never trust only their ears as you suggest, 'trust your ears.'
    That is an alien concept to them.

    Others do not like the sound of CD and prefer vinyl.

    Ah, the key here is 'prefer.' Hard to challenge a preference and hard or impossible to test. Unfortunately many go beyond and exhalt testable parameters, not preferences.




    but hell - there is an industry to support that employs a good number of people.


    Yes.
    mtrycrafts

  4. #29
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    So Mtry, if we were to use photography as an example, you are saying a 1megapixal camera is good enough, and a 5 mega pixel camera is not needed? In other words 2 sampled snapshots of the analog waveform is better than 6-12? Bull****, bull****!!!
    The more samples of the analog waveform you get, the closer you get to reproducing it transparently. The more samples, the better the audio. Thats an indusputable fact.



    "Photography is not audio and even in photography there is a limit at how many pixels you can differentiate. Simple.
    Check out Nyquist and what can be demonstrated with two samples. Rather simple."

    Not that simple as you believe. If everything was perfect, then you may have a point. However it has already been discovered that all is not perfect. This is simple whether you have the intelligence to understand it or not. More samples means more resolution. That's not disputable. Two samples is a bare minimum, adequate, but not superior. If I were to listen to you, then RBCD is perfect, and we do not need DVD-A or SACD. Much evidence has already said that isn't true. I guess you have been living under a rock. Theory only works when all other things are perfect.

    Another reason that 96khz and higher sample rate is desireable lies in the white papers presented to AES by Julian Dunn. He sites measurements on the several high end CD players shows the anti alias, and anti image filters do not achieve full rejections of signals above the nyquist frequency. He found VERY non linear behavior in the electronic and electromechanical stages following the signal path of the DAC. This causes the non rejected signals(above the passband) to interact with signal below the passband(what we can hear) and this interaction can be heard by even inexperienced listeners. This is even with oversampling applied(which one can concluded that oversampling at the output stage CAN be of limited benefit if the filters are not well designed) These results are from some VERY expensive CD players, can you imagine what happen in CD players that imploy cheap DAC to meet a price point? Oversampling works great for 44.1khz in theory, but because of limitations in the electronic parts imployed in CD players it has been proven this is not always the most effective solution.


    "I guess someone needs better recording engineers then who can do it properly."

    The design of filters is not a recording engineers job. Or didn't you know this?


    That is just a benefit and allows low pass filters with more gentle slopes. But the higher sampling is used to get MORE samples within the audible frequencies. Yes 2 samples is a MINIMUM point, but more samples leads to higher resolution, cleaner audio, and better imaging.

    "Here is the debate then. I need better convincing evidence of this."

    No matter what evidence you get, you'll debate to save your pitful ego.

    Recent research suggests that the human brain can discern a difference in a sound's arrival time between the two ears of better than 15 microseconds –around the time between samples at 96 kHz sampling – and some people can even discern a 5ÁS difference! So while super-high sample rates are probably unnecessary for frequency response, they may be justified for stereo and surround imaging accuracy.


    "OK. But you are confusing timing for localizing with the two ears and how stereo is used on a disc to create soundstage. Totally different concept and events. Sampling has nothing to do with this. Varying the levels and amounts of signal in each speaker does, not sampling rates."

    Sorry, but all of this works hand in hand. Its a chain mtry. You think only in snapshots, however there is a concept stream here. I think that is why my point elludes you. When you engineer your first recording, I am sure your tune will change when you try and apply all of your internet born theories.
    If you get a better snapshot(and more of them) of the varing levels, the localization is more clear. Every engineer understands this, oh wait, you not an engineer. Timing is how you get imaging. If a flute's sound arrives to the microphone before a trumpet, it will be percieved to the ear as closer to us. If a flute's sound arrives to the left microphone in a Blumlein array before the right one, it will be preceived by the ear as coming from the left speaker. When recording, the distance between the performer and the microphone, and where they sit in relation to the microphone array determines the localization, not the level or amount of signal. Once again, basic recording 101


    It is clear and widely recognized that most of us can ’t hear much above 18 kHz(there no argument here), but that does not mean that there isn’t anything up there that we need to record – and here's another reason for higher sampling rates. Plenty of acoustic instruments produce usable output up to around the 30 kHz mark(harmonics which make up timbre, and transient attacks) – something that would be picked up in some form by a decent 30 in/s half-inch analog recording. A string section, for example, could well produce some significant ultrasonic energy.(its been measured out to 40khz)


    "Useable to whom, for what? You can measure until the cows come home. It is useless information just as the masked info that is discarded in perceptual coding. Actually, it is more useless as you will never know its existancce, period. And, it doesn't affect anything in the audible bands. If there are interactions that happens to be audible, then the mic will recordid it and you will hear it with the 44.1 sampling just as well as higher sampling.

    That is exactely what the research has shown."

    Are you telling me an instruments harmonics doesn't mean anything? Do you believe that when a violin plays a C note at 256hz, that only that C note at 256hz is heard. Wrong man, you hear harmonics two octaves above that, and more. If you chop off the harmonics, then you change the timbre. This can easily be emulated by listening to a cymbal crash, and then using a eq to cut the upper frequencies off. The timbre will be altered. Even cutting just the 20khz filter on the eq will alter the perceived timbre within the range of hearing. That's simple to understand(even you can understand it)
    Since a sample rate of 44.1khz contains no signals above 22,050khz, then none of the harmonics in the upper frequencies of strings and cymbals will be recorded, thus altering its timbre in the audible range. If you don't believe what I say, listen to a recording with strings, cymbals, and high brass with a eq cut at 20khz and see how dull it sounds compared to the master tape. Easy.

    Boyk has measured harmonics to 100kHz. So what. If he had better measuring gear he may have measured it to 200kHz. Meaningless to us. Again, just because it was measured doesn't mean we hear it, it affects anything that we hear.

    More theory, but no experience and no basic understanding of recording.

    The ultrasonic content of all those instruments blends together to produce audible beat frequencies which contribute to the overall timbre of the sound.

    Fine. IF the instrument produces ultrasonic harmonics that creates audible byproducts which we hear before recording, the audible frequency will be recorded by the recorder and it will be on the CD at 44.1 sampling just as well as it is with 96k sampling.

    Sorry bud, if you use 44.1khz, then the ultrasonic components of the signal are cut off by the low pass filters in DAC process.

    "Now, on the otherhand, if you claim this to happen after the recording takes place, in the electronics, it can only be as an IM byproduct, that is distortion, and not part of the music which needs to be discarded as any distortion."

    I think my point is pretty clear.

    If you record your string section at a distance with a stereo pair,

    "Unfortunately, ultrasonic frequency disperses very rapidly, much more so that ones we hear. Hence, your premise is not sound as nothing will happen."

    If that was the case, then no measurement of high frequency harmonics is attainable(and your comments about Boyk measurements are a lie). That mean if we step away 20 feet from the instrument we will hear no high frequencies at all. We know that's not the case. Since when know they are, they don't disperse as rapid as you think. Again your lack of experience and knowledge of basic recording techniques leaves you ignorant of the process.


    If, however, you recorded a string section with a couple of 48-track digital machines(which is the most common practice), mic on each instrument feeding its own track so that you can mix it all later, your close-mic technique does not pick up any interactions.The only time they can happen is when you mix,

    "When you mix, you are hoping for Inter modulation to take place? That is distortion. And why would your premis only happen at ultrasonic frequencies? It will happen at all frequencies, down to the lowest recorded frequency. Is that what you want? IM distortion? Hardly. Your premise is false. It doesn't happen. If it happens, it is IM distortion, an undesired byproduct."

    You missed the boat entirely on this one. You can't get IM distortion from close miking techniques. Where did you get that from?

    Iteractions only take place in the higher frequencies because their wavelengths are shorter than the path to the microphones.

    Think of higher sample rates and longer word lengths as a kind of “headroom.”We need higher resolution in the studio than consumers so we can start with a higher level of quality in case some gets lost on the way which might well happen.

    "You need higher quality in the recording so you can master them properly in th edigital domain, all the algorythins, additions and subtractions, averaging, etc will not diminish the final quality, nothing more. The consumer has no need for that in the final product."

    What???

    And what happens when you modify a digital signal in the digital domain, say by EQing it, or fading it out? You create more bits – more data.You ought to have spare bits so you have room to work.You can always lose resolution, but you can’t easily get it back again.

    This is why you need it in recording, so the gear can do all the mathematical applications, rounding off, etc, so you don't end up below what is audible, not because we can detect 96kHz samoling and 20+ bit word length. We just cannot hear it. Finite hearing ability by the end user.
    No qualms for using this in th emastering and mixing stage. That is where it is needed, not on playback at home. That is all marketing.

    We can hear 120db dynamic range, and we can detect clarity. And that's what 20/96khz would give you. . The point is to have a delivery system that exceeds the hearing, not limit what we can hear.

    In the end to say higher sampling rates are just a marketing ploy shows an extreme case of ignorance.


    Not at all. I didn't say you have no need for that in the studio for mixing, nuimber crunching as that is what happnes. You have no need in the home for playback. You cannot hear it.


    Theory only works well if all else is perfect. Nothing is perfect though. Oversampling only works if the low pass, and digital filters operate perfectly. It has been shown they don't. Alot of your assumption and believes are based in a perfect world scenario. We don't live that way, or in that world.


    "Are you telling me that the 96k sampling is not further oversampled? That 96 is enough? If so, that is only 2X oversampling, a fraction more. CD players have been doing at least 4X and much more for a very long time. That woul de 192k and 384k."

    No need to oversample when 96khz captures all of the fundemental and harmonics of all instruments. 44.1khz does not capture all of the harmonics, and oversampling at the player level is not perfect, and sometimes not very effective if VERY good filtering isn't used. Julian Dunn has already proven this. Oversampling a 44.1khz sample at the DAC output doesn't reproduce the upper harmonics, that is already lost in recording at 44.1khz

    Skeptic, with a 44.1khz sample rate, a analog signal cannot be perfectly regenerated.

    "Nyquist works. Recording and playback is a bit more complicated to accomlish, hence the oversampling and fanal playback at 44.1."

    Nyquist works, but just like anything it can be improved. If we just stop once we learn about something, then there can be no advance in technology. If we go by your thinking, then cars shouldn't have ever been invented(the horse and buggy can get you to point B right?, jets should not have ever been invented(propellors are good enough), the CD shouldn't have ever been introduce because vinyl is good enough to reproduce the music. Understanding Nyquist theory is just the start, you take that theory and improve on it.
    I think that is what you have done with all the information you glean off the net. You learn the bare minimum, and never take it any further than that. This is why so many complex issues escape you.

    Perhaps a little read for you may help.

    http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/surr.../page_08.shtml
    Last edited by Sir Terrence the Terrible; 02-05-2004 at 01:26 PM.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  5. #30
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Close-mic is a bane to good recording practice, regardless

    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    ...
    The ultrasonic content of all those instruments blends together to produce audible beat frequencies which contribute to the overall timbre of the sound.

    Fine. IF the instrument produces ultrasonic harmonics that creates audible byproducts which we hear before recording, the audible frequency will be recorded by the recorder and it will be on the CD at 44.1 sampling just as well as it is with 96k sampling.

    Now, on the otherhand, if you claim this to happen after the recording takes place, in the electronics, it can only be as an IM byproduct, that is distortion, and not part of the music which needs to be discarded as any distortion.

    If you record your string section at a distance with a stereo pair,

    Unfortunately, ultrasonic frequency disperses very rapidly, much more so that ones we hear. Hence, your premise is not sound as nothing will happen.

    If, however, you recorded a string section with a couple of 48-track digital machines(which is the most common practice), mic on each instrument feeding its own track so that you can mix it all later, your close-mic technique does not pick up any interactions.The only time they can happen is when you mix,

    When you mix, you are hoping for Inter modulation to take place? That is distortion. And why would your premis only happen at ultrasonic frequencies? It will happen at all frequencies, down to the lowest recorded frequency. Is that what you want? IM distortion? Hardly. Your premise is false. It doesn't happen. If it happens, it is IM distortion, an undesired byproduct.
    ...
    I mean, whether recording is DDD, ADD, AAD, AAA, or whatever.

    Why is it that Mercury Living Presence recordings sound so real? Is it because they used 35mm film? No way!! It was because they used only three, omnidirectional mics.

    To capture the sound of an actual ensemble in a real auditorium, you need to capture all sounds with a natural balance of direct and reflected sound. This is lost with close-micing and no mix-down engineer can recreat it. Skill engineers can create a plausible "virtual" space, but I would say they can never equal the sound of a good, actual auditorium.

  6. #31
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    "Basically we are in a win win situation. We have a choice and we exercise it."

    Actually there really isn't much choice. People who want to buy vinyl phonograph records have to hunt them down, usually on the used market and take what they can get. Everything ever released on vinyl and even shellac is finding its way onto cd. What's more, the worlds fixed supply of vinly is not only dwindling but detriorating. In 50 years, vinyl phonograph records will be more of an antique curiousity than a viable alternative to whatever recording method is in vogue. CDs on the other hand will probably always be around because they can be reproduced indefinitely with no deterioration for almost no cost at all and you can buy a player for as little as five dollars. (Twenty years ago they were a thousand to fifteen hundred and those were more expensive dollars. Too bad for vinyl lovers. That can't be much fun. Shopping for them is more like a treasure hunt than building a library of music you want.
    The nice thing about a treasure hunt is, upon its completion, you have a treasure.

  7. #32
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    162

    Um...

    [QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible][. If you don't believe what I say, listen to a recording with strings, cymbals, and high brass with a eq cut at 20khz and see how dull it sounds compared to the master tape. Easy.

    QUOTE]

    Not so easy! Most of us don't have access to master tapes or eq that high. Can you explain to a lay person exactly what is occurring here and how cutting frequencies we cannot hear can impact what we do hear? Thanks in advance.

  8. #33
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    I mean, whether recording is DDD, ADD, AAD, AAA, or whatever.

    Why is it that Mercury Living Presence recordings sound so real? Is it because they used 35mm film? No way!! It was because they used only three, omnidirectional mics.

    To capture the sound of an actual ensemble in a real auditorium, you need to capture all sounds with a natural balance of direct and reflected sound. This is lost with close-micing and no mix-down engineer can recreat it. Skill engineers can create a plausible "virtual" space, but I would say they can never equal the sound of a good, actual auditorium.
    Sometime omnidirectional mikes pic up too much reverberation. Also some engineers spotlight certain instruments that are difficult to hear in the presence of louder instruments. Such as close miking a flute solo passage in the presence of a brass chorus. Different venues, genre's of music, and instrumentation required different miking techniques. That is why there are so many different placement techniques. Different techniques produce different results. On size doesn't fit all.
    You don't record a solo piano with an spaced pair of onmidirectional mikes or you will lose all of the percussive transient attacks of the instruments hammers hitting the strings.
    Last edited by Sir Terrence the Terrible; 02-05-2004 at 02:02 PM.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  9. #34
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    There are a number of posteres there with a hell of a lot more knowledge in digital audio and acoustics, especially Richard Pierce, who would be most interested to enlighten a poster on these.
    Or more interesting still, have a debate between Pierce who presumably thinks RBCD is perfect with guys like Steve Hoffman and Jack Fenner (they don't). If you're into classic rock music, then you will recognize Hoffman's name. His favorite recording media is still a 60's vacuum tube based Ampex recorder. For classical fans, you should be well aware of Fenner who has been with Telarc for over twenty five years. I met him briefly back in 1978 when he was in Atlanta to record Stravinsky's Firebird. Telarc has released many a SACD recording.

    rw

  10. #35
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    I don't doubt the it depends

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Sometime omnidirectional mikes pic up too much reverberation. ...
    You don't record a solo piano with an spaced pair of onmidirectional mikes or you will lose all of the percussive transient attacks of the instruments hammers hitting the strings.
    For one thing, some venues have too much reverberation for good live listening. In particular it can be difficult to distinguish instrument from instrument or voice from voice. For sure omni mic recording won't work in these places.

    From what I've read, the Mercury crews took great pains with the placement of their microphones -- using only three mics didn't make their job easier but the results were worth the extra effort.

    As for piano sound, I own MLP's recording of Byron Janis playing Mussorksky's Pictures at a Exhibition, (cat# 434 346-2) I terms of percussive transients this recording is as good as any I have heard. The notes don't give many details but do state that it was made with three microphones -- presumably according to their normal practice.

  11. #36
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Or more interesting still, have a debate between Pierce who presumably thinks RBCD is perfect with guys like Steve Hoffman and Jack Fenner (they don't). If you're into classic rock music, then you will recognize Hoffman's name. His favorite recording media is still a 60's vacuum tube based Ampex recorder. For classical fans, you should be well aware of Fenner who has been with Telarc for over twenty five years. I met him briefly back in 1978 when he was in Atlanta to record Stravinsky's Firebird. Telarc has released many a SACD recording.

    rw
    Yes, that would be a very interesting debate but embarrassing to your friends, I would predict.
    Whiule I do like those old music, I think they are the classic rock by your def, I don't follow who does what or who is behing the mixing boards. Not many names impress me.
    mtrycrafts

  12. #37
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720

    oh yes

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    For classical fans, you should be well aware of Fenner who has been with Telarc for over twenty five years. I met him briefly back in 1978 when he was in Atlanta to record Stravinsky's Firebird. Telarc has released many a SACD recording.
    rw

    I know of him and happen to have that recording and a few more from Telarc. I like their CDs just fine.
    mtrycrafts

  13. #38
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    The internet is so fun. I often find it interesting that generally speaking most people will make attacks and snyde comments on computers and not face to face.

    On the Internet Mrty, Skeptic and Sir Terrence all seem to be experts on digital. Unfortunately do any of you have any technical background. Pretty sure Skeptic is at least an EE and submitted some patent on something that no one else wanted.

    I would say the arguements can stand on their own regardless of background but then you have audio experts like JJ on Audio Asylum who hold the same degree level as Martin Colloms who sits seemingly in opposition and is a world wide renouned expert in the field...and then people disagree wholeheartedly with him and his impressive degree.

    The relative layperson is royally screwed because it looks like a bunch of people who seem to know something about science and totally dissagree on practically every point about the actual measurement and of course the testing of human subjects...well we of course know that is not the field to be conducted for an Engineer. But besides that leap out of the qualified field I'd at least expect all the EE's to agree 100% 0n all aspects of all things audio...after all is not 100% of everything measured?

    It's actually rather frustrating to read because there almost seems like 3 distinct opinions just from you three and then we add the two people I mentioned who have distinct opinions from each other and also from you three. Add in the other million EE and experts and now it's starting to look like the 6 economists in a room with 6 different answers...of course any science relying on statistical evidence is in big fat trouble but that aside it's highly frustrating.

    More so when references don't directly discuss EXACTLY what was being discussed to an exact tee. Hell I even read Tom Nousaine's letters to Stereophile and even he writes a bunch of weasal worded commentary on type 1 and 2 errors. It's softpeddled back and forth. Bleggh - circular statistical clap-trap.

    There is no one scientific process - and it appears when my instructor said this today he was correct...if there was you three and these others would all have the exact same result.

    I suppose the easiest thing for the layperson would be for you three to lay down your degrees for all of us to see. The best and most prestigious wins. After all a claim made by an expert should be able to show his/her expertise. I'm not going to hire a Doctor who does not have proof he is a doctor...so why should anyone here take advice from non audio experts. Not that we will anyway...but many companies can just throw the non-degree people's resumes in the garbage so it would be nice if I could start a similar root out process.

    Most people make buying decisions on anecdotal stuff like reviews. SO if we're going to take someone who is spouting fact then that person should provide their expertise.

    Damn Damn frustrating.

  14. #39
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    123

    Looks like RCA and I are on the same page....

    and getting no joy from the "experts".

    One other thing:

    "CDs on the other hand will probably always be around because they can be reproduced indefinitely with no deterioration for almost no cost at all "

    I think that was from Skeptic. MY question is with regard to the no deterioration bit. I have found that of the 450 or so CD's that I own (and about 200 DVD's) several are no longer readable on any of my players. I do not know why - I have tried cleaning them but without joy. A couple are readable in the main but get stuck on certain songs. There is no visible damage to the CD.

    Whilst I have already rejected the "perfect sound" hype of CD I am now also leaning towards rejecting the "forever" bit too.

    Not a good sign. I have records from the 1950's that play wonderfully and CD's from the 80's that dont. Time will tell I suppose.

    One other thing on the treasure hunting bit with regards to vinyl. Yes, it can be a game to find a specific recording you are looking for but it is not quitte as difficult as non-vinyl lovers would have you believe. I live in Athens, Greece. Within half an hours car journey from either my house or my office I have counted 16 shops selling vinyl - 5 within walking distance of my office which is the centre of the city.

    Stocks vary, but several have over 10,000 records in at any time, and you, Skeptic, would be amazed at the classical vinyl available.

    One store, typically the most distant, has what we might refer to as NOS (New Old Stock) classical - 20,000 of them - all sealed from Philips and DECCA and a couple of others in a lock-up near his shop. Viewing and buying is by appointment only.

    It is worth going if only to see 2 shelves, approximately 10 feet long - filled with Philips vinyl from the '70's - all matching covers.

    Final item for vinyl lovers - has anyone else noticed how much more is coming out on vinyl these days - hell - even Sony are getting back into it:

    http://www.sonymusicstore.com/store/...=00003&alpha=A

    Not a great selection but it is a start.

  15. #40
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    162

    This topic was discussed on the Analog Room

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    The internet is so fun. I often find it interesting that generally speaking most people will make attacks and snyde comments on computers and not face to face.

    On the Internet Mrty, Skeptic and Sir Terrence all seem to be experts on digital. Unfortunately do any of you have any technical background. Pretty sure Skeptic is at least an EE and submitted some patent on something that no one else wanted.

    I would say the arguements can stand on their own regardless of background but then you have audio experts like JJ on Audio Asylum who hold the same degree level as Martin Colloms who sits seemingly in opposition and is a world wide renouned expert in the field...and then people disagree wholeheartedly with him and his impressive degree.

    The relative layperson is royally screwed because it looks like a bunch of people who seem to know something about science and totally dissagree on practically every point about the actual measurement and of course the testing of human subjects...well we of course know that is not the field to be conducted for an Engineer. But besides that leap out of the qualified field I'd at least expect all the EE's to agree 100% 0n all aspects of all things audio...after all is not 100% of everything measured?

    It's actually rather frustrating to read because there almost seems like 3 distinct opinions just from you three and then we add the two people I mentioned who have distinct opinions from each other and also from you three. Add in the other million EE and experts and now it's starting to look like the 6 economists in a room with 6 different answers...of course any science relying on statistical evidence is in big fat trouble but that aside it's highly frustrating.

    More so when references don't directly discuss EXACTLY what was being discussed to an exact tee. Hell I even read Tom Nousaine's letters to Stereophile and even he writes a bunch of weasal worded commentary on type 1 and 2 errors. It's softpeddled back and forth. Bleggh - circular statistical clap-trap.

    There is no one scientific process - and it appears when my instructor said this today he was correct...if there was you three and these others would all have the exact same result.

    I suppose the easiest thing for the layperson would be for you three to lay down your degrees for all of us to see. The best and most prestigious wins. After all a claim made by an expert should be able to show his/her expertise. I'm not going to hire a Doctor who does not have proof he is a doctor...so why should anyone here take advice from non audio experts. Not that we will anyway...but many companies can just throw the non-degree people's resumes in the garbage so it would be nice if I could start a similar root out process.

    Most people make buying decisions on anecdotal stuff like reviews. SO if we're going to take someone who is spouting fact then that person should provide their expertise.

    Damn Damn frustrating.

    But no so well written. RGA, as usual, you cut to the heart of the matter with surgical precision. There are dissenting opinions on top of dissenting opinions which leads me to wonder if anybody is "right"... that is, if all of this is mostly opinion based on interpretation of the facts. I think I'm just going to stick with what sounds good to my ears.

  16. #41
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    162

    Treasure hunt

    Quote Originally Posted by maxg
    Whilst I have already rejected the "perfect sound" hype of CD I am now also leaning towards rejecting the "forever" bit too.

    Not a good sign. I have records from the 1950's that play wonderfully and CD's from the 80's that dont. Time will tell I suppose.

    One other thing on the treasure hunting bit with regards to vinyl. Yes, it can be a game to find a specific recording you are looking for but it is not quitte as difficult as non-vinyl lovers would have you believe. I live in Athens, Greece. Within half an hours car journey from either my house or my office I have counted 16 shops selling vinyl - 5 within walking distance of my office which is the centre of the city.

    .
    Agreed on the hype. I am willing to allow them the word "sound" but I'm not convinced on the other two words.

    As for the treasure hunt: Give me $17, an hour, and instructions to find a good sounding CD and a good sounding LP at a music shop. The LP will sound great and cost $2, the CD will sound poor and cost $15. Do this 10 times and this scenario will hold at least 8 times out of 10. Plus, I'll have 10 new LP's and 10 new CD's! My kind of experiment!

    Anyway, this is a digital forum and I come here not to argue analog and digital formats but to learn more about RBCD vs SACD/DVD-A. Onward, gentlemen!

  17. #42
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    For one thing, some venues have too much reverberation for good live listening. In particular it can be difficult to distinguish instrument from instrument or voice from voice. For sure omni mic recording won't work in these places.

    From what I've read, the Mercury crews took great pains with the placement of their microphones -- using only three mics didn't make their job easier but the results were worth the extra effort.

    As for piano sound, I own MLP's recording of Byron Janis playing Mussorksky's Pictures at a Exhibition, (cat# 434 346-2) I terms of percussive transients this recording is as good as any I have heard. The notes don't give many details but do state that it was made with three microphones -- presumably according to their normal practice.
    I would make no presumptions on this unless you know exactly. If they took careful pains to place their microphones recording an orchestra, they will do the same with a solo piano work. I can guarantee the two are NOT miked in the same fashion, and probably NOT with the same type of microphones. At least one of the microphones had to be very close to either the sounding board underneath, or inside close to the strings. It all depends on what kind of sonic imaging you want to paint. Do you want a close perspective(close mike) or a distant perspective with plenty of ambience(spaced omni's) or a combination of both(one mike close, two omni's spaced) That is where the artistic side of recording comes into play.
    Mercury isn't the only label making great recording however. Telarc, Nimbus, and Chesky label all make excellent recording, but use more than three microphones in their recording chain. The old adage is true," there is more than one way to skin a cat"
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  18. #43
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Here ya go, Terrence, a couple of simple tests for you to peform of audibility of ultrasonic interaction, intermodulations producing audible sound:

    take two tweeters that can reproduce ultrasonic sound to, say 30kHz, not difficult I hope. Send one a 25kHz signal and the other one gets 24kHz. No, since you cannot individually hear either one, you seem to claim that they will intermodulate and produce a 1kHz audible sound. Is this what you claim? Please put this simple test to work. While you are at it, use a mic and also measure it.

    Second one. Try a pet shop that has dog whistles. There should be sample to sample frequency differences between enough to modulate audible frequencies when they intermodulate. Now take these two, make sure they don't produce audible sound individually by themselves, blow then simultaneously and see if there is an audible byproduct. This experiment is Free!

    Don't be surprized if there is no audible byproduct. For this to happen, the air molecules would have to produce audible sound when they interact, collide. What a noizy place this would be full of audibel noize from air molecule collisions.

    Test three. Check your components IM distortion which is unwanted intermodulation of different signals. Guess what, the designe is trying to eliminate this, not hear it. Now why would this be desired byproduct of audible tones intermodulating to produce audible harmonics? IT isn't.

    Oh, by the way, you have totally misunderstood about the harmonics and believe as that is all it can be, a belief on your part, that I would claim instruments don't produce harmonics but only pure tones? The harmonics are produced by the instrument, not the air molecules intermodulating once they are outside of the instrument. But, who knows, maybe you have discovered something new.

    As to ultrasonics, I would be interested in something more solid information than what you seem to want me to believe. Any interesting reading you can point me to?
    mtrycrafts

  19. #44
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720

    By the way

    What's the wavelength of a 1kHz tone in air? How about a 5kHz tone? Are you saying that they don't travel far enough to interact/modulate with each other before the mic picks it up 2 ft away? 5ft away? Really?
    Where is all the in air intermodulation of the lower frequencies? It better be there, according to you, it better be.
    That is another test you can do with two speakers, 2kHz in one speaker and 3kHz in the other. You better measure, in aid a 1kHz signal and a 5 kHz signal as well. Sure.
    mtrycrafts

  20. #45
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720

    Interesting link but

    it has no real meaning. Why would you want to sample a 10kHz square wave anyhow? After all, it contains the fundamental and all the odd harmonics, 30kHz being the first odd harmonic. Silly exercise, really.

    What they should have shown is music being sampled at the different rates and see that, not the sq wave.

    What you really need to do is get the Cd "The Digital Audio" by Marcus Erne, available at Amazon and do some DBT comparisons of fully sampled music and the same band limited at different frequencies, like 5.5kHz, 11kHz and 16kHz. Or at different bit rates. Yes, now that is an eye opener, not sampling the square wave. It also has some other real eye openers on it. Have fun.
    mtrycrafts

  21. #46
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    240
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    So Mtry, if we were to use photography as an example, you are saying a 1megapixal camera is good enough, and a 5 mega pixel camera is not needed? In other words 2 sampled snapshots of the analog waveform is better than 6-12? Bull****, bull****!!!
    The more samples of the analog waveform you get, the closer you get to reproducing it transparently. The more samples, the better the audio. Thats an indusputable fact.

    Actualy 8 megapixels has the same resolution for an 8x12 photograph as film to the naked eye. Increasing the sampling rate helps sound to a point.

  22. #47
    The Collector
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Springfield, MA
    Posts
    331
    a higher sampling rate prevents aliasing which is a false sound in the recording. when a frequency occurs above the Nyquist limit a false frequency will occur the same distance from the Nyquist limit only in the opposite direction. for example with a redbook cd the limit is 22.050kHz and if a frequency happens to occur at 30kHz then you will hear aliasing at 14khz

  23. #48
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by pelly3s
    a higher sampling rate prevents aliasing which is a false sound in the recording. when a frequency occurs above the Nyquist limit a false frequency will occur the same distance from the Nyquist limit only in the opposite direction. for example with a redbook cd the limit is 22.050kHz and if a frequency happens to occur at 30kHz then you will hear aliasing at 14khz

    So do anti-aliasing filters
    mtrycrafts

  24. #49
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Am I understanding these issues?

    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    So do anti-aliasing filters
    Aren't there issues with anti-aliasing filters? E.g. phase shifts that affect audible frequencies? Or have the problems been beaten? Wouldn't it be better to virtually eliminate anti-aliasing by recording much farther up the frequency band?

    That is, perhaps the benefit of higher frequencies is not that we actually hear them, but that having them prevents real-world digital record/playback problems in the freqency band that we can hear?

  25. #50
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    Aren't there issues with anti-aliasing filters? E.g. phase shifts that affect audible frequencies? Or have the problems been beaten? Wouldn't it be better to virtually eliminate anti-aliasing by recording much farther up the frequency band?

    That is, perhaps the benefit of higher frequencies is not that we actually hear them, but that having them prevents real-world digital record/playback problems in the freqency band that we can hear?
    No Feanor, you are right, they have not been beaten according to the white paper mentioned in my previous post. And your second paragraph is right on the money!
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Linear PCM audio...what the heck is it ?
    By Tarheel_ in forum Home Theater/Video
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 05-03-2013, 01:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •