SACD vs. CD - Unfair competition?

[Mr Peabody]

Chris, while attending a training session, many years ago, given by Harmon Kardon, they explained the benefit of wide bandwidth in amplifiers. At the time they were only one a few companies that had bandwidth ratings up to 100kHz. They said it was for harmonics. For example, when middle C is struck on a piano it vibrates the other strings up and down from it. Phono cartridges are capable of reproducing very high frequencies as well as good home speakers. It would seem if analog is a 100% signal that more sampling would bring you closer to representing that 100%. And maybe these harmonics are what people are missing when listening to digital.

From what I understand of 5.1 music they do not use the extra channels for ambient reproduction but there is actually musical information in the rear channels. Is this true? If so, 2 channel may not be perfect but how can you fool yourself into thinking you are at a show with a guitar behind you in one channel and a trumpet in the other rear channel?

Terry, it is interesting to hear you confess you use your ears to evaluate sound when you tell those on the HT forum their system is crap if they don't use a SPL meter and measure every little thing. What is even more interesting is that your buddy mtrycraft is trying to convince me that 3dB difference is barely audible at all.

[mtrycraft]

Also read what Bob Stuart of Meridan Audio says about higher sampling rates.

http://www.meridian-audio.com/w_paper/Coding2.PDF

.

Did you read the whole article by Stewart? Did you read how much emphasis he places on science and research, psychoacoustic data on hearing?

Did you read page 8, 'Do we need more thatn 44.1 ...'

I am shagrined to read the two references he offeres up by Ohashi as they are anything but credible and has since been shown to be flawed.

Not much guessing on his part. He takes the science route, not what feels good.

This paper was also presented at an AES conference as well and published as a preprint which I happen to have

[mtrycraft]

However, for the life of me, I cannot see how the has anything to with the sampling frequency of the digital audio signal. Do you have any ideas?

It doesn't. But, it has everything to do with the recording engineer setting up the left and right channels.

This time difference between the two channels has an interesting impact
Diana Deutsch has an interesting CD on this 'Musical Illusions and paradoxes' at Amazon.

[Monstrous Mike]

This audio business is a funny business indeed. To proceed with experimentation in audio engineering based on a presumption that humans can hear above 20 kHz is absurd, IMHO, and I'm sure will form the basis of the next generation of audio snake oil.

I fully appreciate the need to digitally process (e.g. record, mix, master, filter, etc.) at word lengths greater than 16 bits and sampling rates greater than 44.1 kHz. But the PCM 16/44.1 signal has the dynamic range and frequency range that exceeds human hearing capabilities. Demonstrating that CDs in this format can sound bad is not proof that the format is incapable. It is proof that the digital processing was inadequate.

The "more is better" attitude is not restricted to audio but it sure is prevalent in audio.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Chris, it is not financially feasible for any engineer to sit around a wait for science to tell them what they already hear.

Or what they imagine to hear?
They should at least see what science has to say about it when that data is available.

Mtry, sorry man, I do not play into the "imagined" stuff. IN THIS CASE if we go by what you say, then you are the only sane one, and 90% of the engineers are there are suffering from mass suggestion. That is not logical, and is quite arrogant on your behalf. I do not think people who make a living at listening to audio are that stupid. Either you hear a benefit of a higher sampling rate, or you don't. It is that simple.


It is well documented that engineers get better imaging from the use of higher sampling rates.

What kind of documents? Not all documents are created equal.

Can you decode this response and play it back to me?


It is well documented that engineers hear their mixes more clearly at higher sampling rates,

Same as above.

Yeah, same as above

o I don't think any intelligent engineer is going to sit around waiting for research on the issue.

But what will that intelligent engineer do when the data is in? Or, cannot be demonstrated? Ignore it?

I guess the answer will come when we cross that bridge, right? We haven't gotten there yet.


I mean considering that just about every studio in Los Angeles, New York, Memphis, and every other major city that has a large music community has migrated from 16/44.1khz to 24/96khz, I would call that VERY substantial.

Substantial only by numbers. Doesn't mean much beyond that though. After all a huge number of people on the planet believe in the supreme being.

What does a person believing in a supreme being have to do with audio? And what makes you think that a studio would invest hundreds of thousands of dollars on something that was a figment of their imagination. Your response is incredibly silly. I gather you don't think audio engineers are very smart, and are subject to hearing things. Incredible!


Someone had to have heard an audible improvement, or there would be nothing to justify the cost of the upgrade,

That is absolute nonsense. One only has to look at the high end audio, and audio cable industry in specific.
This is a trend driven by numerous drivers. Besides, mastering is different from consumer audio listening and reproduction.

Here is the problem with discussing recording with someone who has never done it. A piece of wire and a $8000.00 amp costs no where near a Sonic Solution DAW. These things cost $100,000-$200,000 , a far cry from a piece of wire, or any high end product. If there was no improvement in the sonics of this workstation, how could a studio(working on a margin)justify its costs? You are trying to use the woes of the high end audio and cable industry, and apply it to the recording industry. Sorry Mtry, this is a round peg, and you are trying to squeeze it into a square hole. Not the same.


So if you are looking for science to prove what many already know,

Or, what they only think they know as that is certainly not out of question and is certainly a valid and real possibiolity.

What right do you think you have to question their judgement? Do you know more than they do? I do not think so, and everyone cannot be imagining everything. If left up to you everyone is delusional, and there is no reason to pursue any sonic improvements ever. That is not logical or reasonable, and VERY shortsighted.

In case you didn't know it, I (like many other engineers) sit down for many hours testing and listening to new equipment to decide whether it is worth my investment.

Subjectively, of course, right? So, it is prone top bias and gullibility?

Audio quality is indeed a subjective thing don't you agree?. Some people like the sound of MP3, and I think it is crap. Some engineers(like myself) test randomly, and unlabeled do we do not know what is what. Some know exactly what they are listening to. The point is not to prove anything scientifically as YOU desire, but to listen and judge for yourself. Do you understand that concept, or are you too skeptical to actually LISTEN to music rather than testing it?

It is not my job to become a scientist, conduct listening test to obtain a statistical measure just to justify my purchase.

Ah, but if you did do such lisening tests, maybe you wouldn't follow the herd blindly and not waste you money foolishly?

So that's what you think everyone is doing(except you of course), just being sheep. Mtry either you are the most airheaded individual in the world, or you are just plain arrogant as hell. EVERYONE is not blind and deaf as you loosely assert. Some people hear no difference between 48khz and 96khz sampling rate, and therefore remain stuck in redbook standards, and some hear a definate improvement and upgrade. I guess you would say that there is no audible improvement going from MP3 at 128kbps to 24/96khz

That is inefficient and unnecessary.

Not if it gets you to an objective answer instead of guessing or just an expensive preference issue.

You are only assuming they are guessing, and that would be presumptuous on your part. No smart engineer or studio is going to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in new equipment unless it has been rigorous tested by more than one individual(in the case of a studio) or objectively in the case of a smart freelancer. It would be too costly of a mistake for no benefit. Do you think you are the only one that thinks this stuff up?

After I am finish testing a piece of equipment, I know for a fact that my decision to purchase, or not is an educated one.

How can you? It is based on a very subjective test prone to bias and unreliability.

How do you know what it is based on? I never released that information.

I do not need DBT ,

That is unfortunate.

For you maybe.

It is my feeling that most engineers feel this way.

That is unfortunate also.

Once again for you, not for us.


(This is just my opinion) DBT, research and publishing for peer review is for the scientific community.

[quote}While you have this opinion, it is unfounded.

Who made you God so you could decide this?

That is not the job of a audio engineer.

Why not? I would think you wanted real answers, the truths, not maybe or whatever.

You are assuming that an engineer testing methods do not yield accurate answers. More arrogance on your behalf. Maybe we are not quite as smart as you are in this area (sarcasm off)


We only need one answer, does it sound better than my current equipment.

That is the whole point. You don't know, not in an objective manner. You think you do but far from being a fact.

Once again, how do you know YOU are correct? More presumptuous statements here

According to polls taken at the Surround 2004 conference, about 86% of engineers polled believes that 24/96khz sounds better than 16/44.1khz. Is that scientific? No, but it leads me to believe that where there is smoke, there is fire.

Well, at least you know it is not scientific. Why not find out for sure?
A higher percent believe in the supreme being. Where there is smoke there is fire, right?
How about psychics? Homeopathic medicines? We can go on and on, audio doesn't have immunity from nonsense, myths, hype, etc.

Everything is hype to you. So why bother with anything? Audio may not be immune from nonsense, but everyone is not ignorant as you would believe either. So what is your approach, everyone is stupid until science proves them smart?

Lets see, Mtry= no recordings, no experience recording, no recording education, but knows everything. Eliott Scheiner, Chuck Ainsley, Tony Brown, George Massenburg, Shawn Murphy and many more=almost a hundred years of experience between them, audio educated and degreed, thousands of recording between them, and they know nothing. Wow, Mtry you are a real legend(sarcasm off again)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

From what I understand of 5.1 music they do not use the extra channels for ambient reproduction but there is actually musical information in the rear channels. Is this true? If so, 2 channel may not be perfect but how can you fool yourself into thinking you are at a show with a guitar behind you in one channel and a trumpet in the other rear channel?

Terry, it is interesting to hear you confess you use your ears to evaluate sound when you tell those on the HT forum their system is crap if they don't use a SPL meter and measure every little thing. What is even more interesting is that your buddy mtrycraft is trying to convince me that 3dB difference is barely audible at all.

Mr Peabody;

Your understanding is lacking quite a bit. The rear channels are used for both ambient information, and for musical information. It is the artist/producers choice how the mix is done, not yours. The answer to this question is it depends on the mix, as there are no hard fast rules for how to use the surround channels.

How can you fool yourself into thinking that you are at a show when the audience is clapping behind the performers where two channel places them? Is that where they are in real life? I don't think so.

Lastly, your reading comprehension is lacking. You can use your ears to measure the QUALITY of a signal. You CANNOT use your ears as MEASURING devices for amplitude. Your ears know what sounds good, but they cannot tell you that your speakers are precisely balanced with any accuracy. Room acoustics make this impossible, as do the fact that your ears do not know exactly how loud 75db is. How many recording have you said you have done?????

A 3db imbalance is enough to pull the soundfield to the loudest channel, if you are talking about using 1khz as the test tone. 3db difference between channels in the bass region is very difficult to hear because of our hearing insensitivities in the bass region.

A man with your profound recording background ought to be able to go toe to toe with Mtry effortlessly. So what's up?

[WmAx]

Chris, it is not financially feasible for any engineer to sit around a wait for science to tell them what they already hear. It is well documented that engineers get better imaging from the use of higher sampling rates.....

I mean considering that just about every studio in Los Angeles, New York, Memphis, and every other major city that has a large music community has migrated from 16/44.1khz to 24/96khz, I would call that VERY substantial. Someone had to have heard an audible improvement, or there would be nothing to justify the cost of the upgrade, which can run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. So if you are looking for science to prove what many already know, then by all means do so, but that doesn't make good business sense to me.....

They have not been able to acheive a negative result either. So it would be short sighted to discount it altogether. ....

I disagree with your perspective entirely.....

This seems like a lot of explaining. This is not needed. I stated my position. I don't see any reason I should excuse a certain group of people from the requirements of proof that everyone else is bound to. I don't buy the 'popular opinion' - this is no substantial evidence. At one time, everyone believed the Earth was flat ... that the Earth was the center of the universe and other various fallacies. The opinion of hundreds of millions of people did not make it so.


-Chris

[Woochifer]

T-man, Mtry, et al

Just when I thought the general audio forum had gone peace and love on me, you guys decide to go old school! Now, I'm just waiting for references to space aliens, voodoo, and missile animations, and the cycle will be complete. You guys are keeping me young!

[mtrycraft]

T-man, Mtry, et al

Just when I thought the general audio forum had gone peace and love on me, you guys decide to go old school! Now, I'm just waiting for references to space aliens, voodoo, and missile animations, and the cycle will be complete. You guys are keeping me young!

Keeps me young too

[mtrycraft]

This audio business is a funny business indeed. To proceed with experimentation in audio engineering based on a presumption that humans can hear above 20 kHz is absurd, IMHO, and I'm sure will form the basis of the next generation of audio snake oil.

I fully appreciate the need to digitally process (e.g. record, mix, master, filter, etc.) at word lengths greater than 16 bits and sampling rates greater than 44.1 kHz. But the PCM 16/44.1 signal has the dynamic range and frequency range that exceeds human hearing capabilities. Demonstrating that CDs in this format can sound bad is not proof that the format is incapable. It is proof that the digital processing was inadequate.

The "more is better" attitude is not restricted to audio but it sure is prevalent in audio.

We know this but then one only needs to read SirT's responses. If most do it or believe it, it must be so, etc.

[mtrycraft]

exchange. So wonderful to get the facts from ones who know they are correct, never question anything or anyone.

Oh, I cannot claim to be supernatural. That I will leave to others.

[DMK]

Oh, I cannot claim to be supernatural. That I will leave to others.

You may not be supernatural but I see you are an A/R Elite Member. There's just GOTTA be some perks in that!

[mtrycraft]

You may not be supernatural but I see you are an A/R Elite Member. There's just GOTTA be some perks in that!

You bet
More get to pound on me, longer

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

This audio business is a funny business indeed. To proceed with experimentation in audio engineering based on a presumption that humans can hear above 20 kHz is absurd, IMHO, and I'm sure will form the basis of the next generation of audio snake oil.

I fully appreciate the need to digitally process (e.g. record, mix, master, filter, etc.) at word lengths greater than 16 bits and sampling rates greater than 44.1 kHz. But the PCM 16/44.1 signal has the dynamic range and frequency range that exceeds human hearing capabilities. Demonstrating that CDs in this format can sound bad is not proof that the format is incapable. It is proof that the digital processing was inadequate.

The "more is better" attitude is not restricted to audio but it sure is prevalent in audio.

MM,

You have read enough of my posts to know that I do not believe in 75% of the things the music industry says. A scientist does and hearing experiment, publishes his results at AES, and the next year someone comes back to AES disputing that person findings. This merry go round goes on year after year.

What you think is absurd may not be at all. At the last AES meeting, listening test were conducted to determine whether we could perceive tones, or overtones that lie outside of what is know to be the upper hearing of humans. This listening test proved inconclusive, with some individuals(who had great hearing tests) being able to hear the roll off of instruments with content above 20khz, and some not hearing a thing. So it maybe just a little quick to say this is absurd. While no one can say for sure, you certainly at this stage cannot rule ANY possibility out.

I do not think any says that we can 'hear" above 20khz. I also do not think the switch to 96khz was about that. What I think (and what is echo'd by other's) is the accuracy of the higher sampling inband. . You can plainly see what 44.1khz does to a 1khz( I choose that frequency for my test) sinewave, and it's not pretty. When you see that same 1khz sinewave at 192khz sampling, it is spot on the original waveform. So you are right, in terms of dynamic range, and ability to produce signals up to the limit of human hearing, 16/44.1khz is adequate. If accurate tracking of the musical waveforms is highly desired, the 44.1khz just does not cut it.

This same test was done at Surround 2002, except they used a signal much higher in frequency. Here is the link for your perusal.

http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/surr.../page_07.shtml

[DcnBlu]

I will keep this initial brief short, the idea that the human ear can hear the difference between 44.1Khz and 96.1Khz is a large stretch of the imagination. The average healthy human can hear 40hz to 18Khz without much concentration. Notes below ~40hz are not heard, they are felt, and notes above 18khz are heard by few. If you doubt me, go get a hearing test done at your local hospital, it will surprize you. How do I know you ask? I have over 15yrs in the medical profession to draw upon.

Now when it comes to the electronic component of this little equation, lets keep in mind that all the pretty sine waves don't matter a bit, when it comes to "human" perception. Not one person alive can tell the difference in a 1khz wave at 44.1khz or at 192khz, sorry

With this being said, I love a well put together system. The ability to be "transparent" in the audio path is a must. TRANSPARENT; performing its' given task without adding distortion or altering the signal. The proof in any system, IMO, is in its ability to reproduce the music as it was recorded, good or bad. I actually like finding/discovering poorly recorded material; shows my system is not bias...

Again, let me go on the forum record for saying, MEDICALLY, it is impossible to hear any difference between a signal sampled at 44.1 or 96khz. The human ear doesn't even function in a way that would facilitate such discriminatory properties. A good reminder of this is the use of the terms Decibel and linear. Human hearing is linear, we notice a doubling of power when there is a 10db change in amplification. Audio equipment will actually double the power of a signal with a 3db change in amplification.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

This seems like a lot of explaining. This is not needed. I stated my position. I don't see any reason I should excuse a certain group of people from the requirements of proof that everyone else is bound to. I don't buy the 'popular opinion' - this is no substantial evidence. At one time, everyone believed the Earth was flat ... that the Earth was the center of the universe and other various fallacies. The opinion of hundreds of millions of people did not make it so.


-Chris

Chris,

I hate to be the one that bursts your bubble, but know one in the industry really cares about your position. They don't care whether you excuse them or not from providing proof. What you need to do if you are so gung ho about holding audio engineers to your personal scrutiny, is to visit a studio and listen for yourself. You can postulate and pontificate on this audio forum all you desire, but if you are looking for evidence that someone hears improvements at higher sampling rate, you will be waiting a long time. You have heard neither DVD-A or SACD, and already by technical means (and not actually listening) condemning them as unnecessary. Music is for listening, and that what engineers do, they listen. If you really don't believe anything, and EVERYTHING is a marketing ploy then take a trip to a studio, and listen for yourself. If you are firm in your position, and are not willing to take a trip to a studio and listen for yourself, then you will find yourself still here at audioreview complaining like mad that science is the only way to tell what your ears hear. Science cannot measure imaging. Science cannot measure hearing more tightness in percussion, or space and air around instruments. So to rely so purely on science in a medium that requires that you listen, can sometime make you walk away with half a picture.

I am in the belief that more testing has to be done before anyone can discount anything. I think that bandwidth issue is pretty settled, but there are remaining issues yet to be explored. Rather than taking a hard fast position as you have, I will wait until more testing with filters, and converters and their influence on what we hear before I decide that 96khz is a waste. In the mean time, I will use what God gave me(my ears) and listening to those things that need listening to, and watch things that require my sight.

As far as your analogy about the earth, its off base. Audio has already discovered the earth was round, now we are looking into what is akin to the oceans, or best said area's where was have not sonically explored yet.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I will keep this initial brief short, the idea that the human ear can hear the difference between 44.1Khz and 96.1Khz is a large stretch of the imagination.

Since Chris is demanding scientific evidence to support everything under the sun, what scientific support do you have that backs your point?

The average healthy human can hear 40hz to 18Khz without much concentration. Notes below ~40hz are not heard, they are felt, and notes above 18khz are heard by few.

Not correct at all. Humans can hear 20hz signals, but below that they are felt. The average human cannot hear as high as 18khz, very few can. Lower that to around 16khz through your twenties(approximately) 16khz through part of your thirties, and no higher than 12khz above that. Those who have taken good care of the hearing do much better than those who have not.

If you doubt me, go get a hearing test done at your local hospital, it will surprize you. How do I know you ask? I have over 15yrs in the medical profession to draw upon.

I do every year. My last test showed I could hear signals up to 17khz, which is approximately 1khz down from last year.

Now when it comes to the electronic component of this little equation, lets keep in mind that all the pretty sine waves don't matter a bit, when it comes to "human" perception. Not one person alive can tell the difference in a 1khz wave at 44.1khz or at 192khz, sorry

So you are telling me that we will hear no difference in the most sensitive frequencies that we can hear? okay.........

With this being said, I love a well put together system. The ability to be "transparent" in the audio path is a must. TRANSPARENT; performing its' given task without adding distortion or altering the signal.

So what you are telling me so far is that 44.1khz sample rate is transparent compared to the analog original? okay........

The proof in any system, IMO, is in its ability to reproduce the music as it was recorded, good or bad. I actually like finding/discovering poorly recorded material; shows my system is not bias...

Do you realize music has gone through alot of transformation before it get's to your system? Compression, eq, conversion, downsampling etc. Unless you have spent hundreds of thousand of dollars, I seriously doubt your system is TRANSPARENT. Especially if the room is taken into consideration.

Again, let me go on the forum record for saying, MEDICALLY, it is impossible to hear any difference between a signal sampled at 44.1 or 96khz. The human ear doesn't even function in a way that would facilitate such discriminatory properties. A good reminder of this is the use of the terms Decibel and linear. Human hearing is linear, we notice a doubling of power when there is a 10db change in amplification. Audio equipment will actually double the power of a signal with a 3db change in amplification.

This is so off, I am not going to touch it. Human hearing linear????? How do you explain the fletcher-Munson curve if our hearing is linear. Wow!!!

[mtrycraft]

science is the only way to tell what your ears hear.

That is the only way to tell in a reliable manner. If you don't believe that and it appears that you don't, that is unfortunate. I suppose acoustics was arrived without the scientific approach? Without DBT listeing?

Science cannot measure imaging.

You think? Perhaps phase shift between the two front speakers cannot be measured? But why measure it and spec it? As soon as you change your acoutic environment, it affects the phase shift at your ears.

Science cannot measure hearing more tightness in percussion, or space and air around instruments.

You really think this? I bet the scope can detect what you perceive that better than you can imagine it, at times.

So to rely so purely on science in a medium that requires that you listen, can sometime make you walk away with half a picture.

One thing to measure it which you stated cannot be done which would imply something beyond science and the physical world, kind of supernatural, and, another having a real need for it as these are greatly affected by the acoustic space, speakers and recording quality.
Perhaps you deal in mysticism?


I will use what God gave me(my ears) and listening to those things that need listening to, and watch things that require my sight.

Unfortunately he also threw in a monkey wrench, the brain that can confuse the issue, make stuff up and fill in blank information or a different bit when nothing has changed. But, hey, blame science for that for discovering it. Throw it out. Burn them at the stake.

[DcnBlu]

Since Chris is demanding scientific evidence to support everything under the sun, what scientific support do you have that backs your point?



Not correct at all. Humans can hear 20hz signals, but below that they are felt. The average human cannot hear as high as 18khz, very few can. Lower that to around 16khz through your twenties(approximately) 16khz through part of your thirties, and no higher than 12khz above that. Those who have taken good care of the hearing do much better than those who have not.

Yes I am correct, and I did not bother to break out the age chart to offer such data in this post. I did want to keep it short. First, you are wrong, young healthy adults can and do easily hear the range of 18 to 20k..I test them all the time. As with anything else some have better hearing than others. Those that earn an H-1 rating can hear into 18khz +. As we age we do experience hearing loss. Most of this loss comes from our neglect in protecting our ears during our "super human" youth (blasting loud music in the car, turning up the tone controls on our parents stereos ect).
Since frequencies below 40hz or primarily non direcitonal, and very large ( a 44hz tone produces a wave larger than a mid size car) I am wondering where you get this information from. What you call hearing is actually a perceived feeling. If you want to get technical, yes our ears do respond to 20hz and 16hz and 13hz ect...the pressure wave at 90db is down right commanding. You can't "hear" them persay, you feel/perceive them.
With that said, I think we must define hearing. That which is decernable and identifable from and to its source. But if you don't believe me, grab a telarc/bose testing CD that has 50hz, 40hz and 20hz tones played -10db. Please remember to use a SPL meter and begin the test at 50db and increase ect. ect.


I do every year. My last test showed I could hear signals up to 17khz, which is approximately 1khz down from last year.

I am glad you have your hearing tested yearly, the 1khz difference in the test means little to nothing. It could have been you had more wax in your ears that day than last year. There are any number of factors to explain the drop, even the fact that you don't hear as well. What was the SD from left to right for this test and last years test?

So you are telling me that we will hear no difference in the most sensitive frequencies that we can hear? okay.........

Not at all, and I never said that. Since that range covers several octaves (~800hz to 8khz) there will be peaks and vallies depending on where a person is most sensitive. Note, this will differ from person to person. On AVERAGE, this range is not the problem when it comes to hearing, and we all will hear it just fine. Damage to the TM or ET will alter our perception of these tones, so lets just stick with the healthy adult ages 20-50.

So what you are telling me so far is that 44.1khz sample rate is transparent compared to the analog original? okay........

Transparent = the ability to reproduce the analog signal without coloration. As far as our ears are concerned, the 44.1khz reproduction of the analog original is more than adequate. Without sine wave generators, our ears can't tell if the signal is a perfect copy of the original or not. Hence, to our ears 44.1khz makes a transparent copy. I would bet that even at lower sampling rates the average person couldn't tell the difference.


Do you realize music has gone through alot of transformation before it get's to your system? Compression, eq, conversion, downsampling etc. Unless you have spent hundreds of thousand of dollars, I seriously doubt your system is TRANSPARENT. Especially if the room is taken into consideration.

Yes, I am aware of the transformation music goes through before it gets to our system. These uncontrolable variables differ from company to company. Are you telling me you know just how each CD is made? Are stereo mics or dual mono mics used? My system is very transparent/neutral in its reporduction of the signal supplied on the original CD. That is where we take our measurements and such from, not the recording studio. If you do, wow, you must some awesome ties in the music world.

This is so off, I am not going to touch it. Human hearing linear????? How do you explain the fletcher-Munson curve if our hearing is linear. Wow!!!

Lets discuss this. I know the fletcher-Munson test. Did you even review the sampling data used?


This is a copy of the graphed results. Notice not one person could hear the test tones in the 20hz range. Looks more like 40ish to me. On the high end 20khz was not reached either, maybe 18k. Look at the intensity of the signal used to even the lowest freq range, somewhere 100db (average loudness was kept to around 85db for testing purposes) to hear the lowest noted freq. Now this is only a graph of the end result, but lets use it as a basis to end this nick-picking on every little variable...unless you just want to I am enjoying this so. Oh did you also notice that they raised the intensity of each tone in 3db steps (linear raising the power/doubling it). LOL, I am sorry I noticed I said linear hearing, ack. I am incorrect, we hear analog, machines are linear . I see why you gave me the mental frown. You could have just pointed to my mistake though. If you notice any other obvious errors please just say so, I'm typing this while watching cartoons with my son. Oh, spelling errors don't count, that's my wife's expertise. Either way this test does support my original statement; we hear (~40hz to around 18khz) on average.

If the original poster wants loads of research data, more power to him. I am not going to spend hours typing a single point of view, audio is a "living" hobby, it grows as the equipment becomes better and the users become more demanding on reaching that near point in dopple-ganging the original signal flawlessly.

The whole point of digital is to mimic analog. Happy listening everyone.

[WmAx]

Chris,

I hate to be the one that bursts your bubble, but know one in the industry really cares about your position. They don't care whether you excuse them or not from providing proof.

I do not see any new issues being brought up. Only a defense of non-scientific evaluation. You can refer to my previous replies, as if i reply at this point, it will be redundant.

-Chris

[Monstrous Mike]

While no one can say for sure, you certainly at this stage cannot rule ANY possibility out. I do not think any says that we can 'hear" above 20khz.

I haven't ruled out people be affected, whether it is hearing or some other perception, by frequencies over 20 kHz. However, there is simply no audio equipment to produce these frequencies. When that day comes, and source material is recorded up to 100 kHz and amps can amplify 100 kHz and speakers have supertweeters at 100 kHz, then yes, let's ditch 44.1/16

You can plainly see what 44.1khz does to a 1khz( I choose that frequency for my test) sinewave, and it's not pretty.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Even in your reference link they show a 10 kHz square wave that is processed with 44.1/16 and it produces a nice 10 kHz sine wave. That is really all we are asking 44.1/16 to do for us.

So you are right, in terms of dynamic range, and ability to produce signals up to the limit of human hearing, 16/44.1khz is adequate. If accurate tracking of the musical waveforms is highly desired, the 44.1khz just does not cut it.

I do not know what you mean here wrt to "accurate tracking" of musical waveforms. Higher sampling rates give you more bandwidth. Longer word lengths give you more dynamic range. What do you mean by "accurate tracking"?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I do not see any new issues being brought up. Only a defense of non-scientific evaluation. You can refer to my previous replies, as if i reply at this point, it will be redundant.

-Chris

I think I have learned enough from your replies that tell me that you would rather talk than listen. So I think its fair to say we have taken our debate as far as it can go.

[WmAx]

I think I have learned enough from your replies that tell me that you would rather talk than listen. So I think its fair to say we have taken our debate as far as it can go.

It is true that I have no desire to listen to a subjectively-based standpoint on the issue(bandwidth audibility). I did try to make it clear I was uninterested in subjective perspecitve on this issue. I apologize if I was not satisfactorily clear. In the event that research data collected via controlled scenarios is discussed in this matter, I am all ears. :-)

-Chris

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I haven't ruled out people be affected, whether it is hearing or some other perception, by frequencies over 20 kHz. However, there is simply no audio equipment to produce these frequencies. When that day comes, and source material is recorded up to 100 kHz and amps can amplify 100 kHz and speakers have supertweeters at 100 kHz, then yes, let's ditch 44.1/16

Mike, I don't know about that. My amp in my receiver is spec't out to 100khz. The tweeters in my speakers are flat to 45khz. My DVD player outputs DVD-A and SACD, so right there is the potential(key word) to playback higher frequencies. But admittedly you are right, not many speakers are flat past 19khz or so, but Tannoy has come out with a supertweeter that is flat to 54khz that can be added on to any speaker.

http://www.tannoyna.com/downloads/spec_ST50.pdf

I'm not sure what you mean here. Even in your reference link they show a 10 kHz square wave that is processed with 44.1/16 and it produces a nice 10 kHz sine wave. That is really all we are asking 44.1/16 to do for us.

Mike, the square wave of 44.1khz is rounded(averaged with only 4.
4 samples). Now look at the 96khz, and the 192khz square wave, it more closely follows the form of the squarewave, with some variation in the 96khz due to harmonics appearing in the sample.

I do not know what you mean here wrt to "accurate tracking" of musical waveforms. Higher sampling rates give you more bandwidth. Longer word lengths give you more dynamic range. What do you mean by "accurate tracking"?

You are correct about the longer word lengths, but only partially correct about the higher sampling rate. The higher sampling rate takes more snapshot of the waveform. So(to use an extreme example) when 44.1khz sample rate takes two snapshots at 20khz, 96khz takes four. The more snapshots taken, the more the digital audio looks like its original analog waveform. That is what I mean by more accurate tracking of the waveform.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

It is true that I have no desire to listen to a subjectively-based standpoint on the issue(bandwidth audibility). I did try to make it clear I was uninterested in subjective perspecitve on this issue. I apologize if I was not satisfactorily clear. In the event that research data collected via controlled scenarios is discussed in this matter, I am all ears. :-)

-Chris

Chris,

How am I to take you seriously. You admittedly do not own DVD-A or SACD player, yet you are already dismissing the formats as unnecessary. You are trying to analyze a listening format with a bunch of technical mumbo jumbo. I am unimpressed with someone who chooses to do more talking and less listening to a format that REQUIRES listening.

As far as what you desire, I don't really care. Sorry