Page 14 of 18 FirstFirst ... 4 12 13 14 15 16 ... LastLast
Results 326 to 350 of 426
  1. #326
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    You keep referring to the AES running this test.
    Please cite the work. It better be good, not that sloppy conference paper.
    http://www.stereophile.com/news/10860/

    http://www.aes.org/events/115/papers/SessionJ.cfm

    Read J4

    http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ashon/a...ltrasonics.htm

    Mtry, since you have added absolutely nothing to this conversation, you have a lot of nerve to make demands on anyone. I went ahead and posted this for the benefit of the board, not for you, Chris, or Thomas.

    Not one of you have submitted anything that discounts the beneift of the higher frequencies, the only thing that you guys seems to say is that we cannot HEAR it. Yet perceptually speaking, you just don't get that while direct stimulus is not possible, test have shown that there is definately a change in brain patterns when it is present.
    Last edited by Sir Terrence the Terrible; 07-26-2004 at 12:16 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

  2. #327
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    Faulty? You read it? You don't like the answer?
    You have a better one? Didn't think so. Come back when you have something.
    I guess this is how you respond when you actually decide to stretch beyond the rhelm of inneuendo and make an actual assertion, unsubstantiated as it is. How sad when someone who demands that others live up to such high standards of evidence and proof when commenting on their hobbies can't even come close to attaining those standards himself.

    Pretty funny to keep asking me repeatedly to come back with something when all I've said all along is that I lack the means to come up with an answer on causal effects. So, now you expecting me to provide the answer for you? You said it was easy to prove, so why would not come up with the evidence yourself? After all, you're the all knowing expert and the one that's out to prove something, right? Asking me to bail you out is quite a humorous, albeit empty and hypocritical, gesture.

  3. #328
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Yet perceptually speaking, you just don't get that while direct stimulus is not possible, test have shown that there is definately a change in brain patterns when it is present.
    The sad part is that these guys really don't get the live musical experience. To each his own. The "dumbing down" of America marches onward.

    rw

  4. #329
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    I see speculation. I don't see any controlled/peer-reviewed listenig tests. I also see an error(that I myself made eariler in this thread taht Monstrous Mike graciously corrected):

    " A fascinating discussion ensued in which an alternate model of human hearing was presented as a possible explanation for the reason high-resolution audio sounds better. Instead of simply detecting tones, the hearing system might also detect impulses, or "clicks"—localization cues that arrive at the ears within a 10-microsecond window. These impulses necessarily lie above the bandwidth for tones—in the energy band studied by Story and his dCS colleagues. In the wild, hearing is the body's "early warning system," as one panelist put it, and the "wideband target locator" hypothesis might explain why high-resolution audio sounds better—because it gets the cues right."

    A larger bandwidth is not required in order to have signal accuracy that is placed in time to the limits of human perception. The vector combinatino of frequency respnse and signal:noise ratio are respnsible, not simply the bandwidth. Well under 10 usec range is possible with RBCD standards.



    I have not yet had an opportunity to aquire and review this paper. Here is the preprint information for those that wich to find it(no preprint ID is given in the link above):

    Physical and Perceptual Considerations for High-resolution Audio

    Preprint Number: 5931 Convention: 115 (September 2003)
    Author: Woszczyk, Wieslaw

    Not one of you have submitted anything that discounts the beneift of the higher frequencies,
    the only thing that you guys seems to say is that we cannot HEAR it. Yet perceptually speaking, you just don't get that while direct stimulus is not possible, test have shown that there is definately a change in brain patterns when it is present
    Be careful. You misrepresent the testers and the person referring to the Oohashi paper. It is not shown that their is DEFINATELY a change when IT(hi frequency data - being the only variable) is present. The authors of the paper and the reference link carefully state terms such as 'may' repeatedly in order to qualify their statements. Their are some key reasons: No difference was found in the brain scans when only the ultrasonic data was presented. Only when combined with the sonic data, was a pattern difference found to be present. This, itself, poses many more questions --- some related to the test system /methodology itself. NHK Labs in response to Oohashi, ran new bandwidth audibility test, specifically looking for audible positive results paying attention to Oohashi's concerns. No positive results could be obtained:

    Perceptual Discrimination between Musical Sounds with and without Very High Frequency Components

    Preprint Number: 5876 Convention: 115 (September 2003)
    Authors: Nishiguchi, Toshiyuki; Iwaki, Masakazu; Hamasaki, Kimio; Ando, Akio



    As far as CAN HEAR or CANNOT HEAR -- I don't remember making such an absolute statement without qualification(maybe I did by some error at one point that i do not remember?). What I have tried made clear is that no one has yet shown under repeatable, controlled and scrutinized tests that a larger bandwidth is responsible for audible differences for music playback.

    -Chris



  5. #330
    Forum Regular hifitommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    sylmar, ca. in beautiful so cal earthquake country
    Posts
    1,442

    in all of this quagmire,

    its amusing/amazing to see those that maintain that hi rez isnt necessary to advance sound storage.

    robert harley, a jounalist and former digital mastering engineer, who has a VERY thorough understanding of audio in general, and digital recording in particular is pro hi rez.

    doug sax, ever heard of him. many of the very CDs in your collections have been mastered by him and the mastering lab. he STARTED hi rez vinyl, and has a large investment in digital recording equipment, and therefore a lot to lose by touting the hi rez systems available today.

    yet, these two, among others, professionals in the trade, far more qualified than mtry, ax, or tomA, are vigorously supporting the improved sound of the hi rez formats over conventional RBCD.

    its not to say that bernie grundman or a host of other pros are not up to snuff, but why would sax and harley go out on a limb? well, its not a limb. its the right pathway to better music storage.

    you can shoot holes in me (untrained, uneducated, but can hear), but not them nor terrible terrence. these are guys out there making a living in doing what they believe in. someone PAYS them for what they know and do.

    i hear the relaxed, fulfilled sound of sacd, i support this format by purchasing product. its not overpriced, nor was the hardware which sounds better on RBCD than any i have had in the house. NO, they dont all sound the same!

    i still dont get the unfair competition angle. the product can stand on its own.
    ...regards...tr

  6. #331
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    its amusing/amazing to see those that maintain that hi rez isnt necessary to advance sound storage.

    robert harley, a jounalist and former digital mastering engineer, who has a VERY thorough understanding of audio in general, and digital recording in particular is pro hi rez.



    Isn't Harley the one who wrote an idiotic audio book? Ah, no wonder you are so confused. You are listening and reading someone who has no idea what componets sound like, in reality. He makes up bs. You give him more credit than he deserves. Just because he is pro hi res is indication of absolurtely zero.

    doug sax, ever heard of him. many of the very CDs in your collections have been mastered by him and the mastering lab.

    So what?

    he STARTED hi rez vinyl,


    What? That is laughable. Vinyl is anything but hi res, LOL. But, understandable, coming from you.

    and has a large investment in digital recording equipment, and therefore a lot to lose by touting the hi rez systems available today.

    Maybe he uses it to master music? Nothing wrong with that at all. I subscribe to that.

    yet, these two, among others, professionals in the trade, far more qualified than mtry, ax, or tomA, are vigorously supporting the improved sound of the hi rez formats over conventional RBCD.


    Well, you certainly dredge up the bottom of the rotten barrel with Hartley to support you? LOL. Try someone with credentials for a change, not entertainers of the golden ears.

    but why would sax and harley go out on a limb?

    Sax is probably doing it for mastering. Harley is overcome by the dark side of audio, mythology.

    its the right pathway to better music storage.

    Certainly for the studios and recording engineers. But, how would you know?

    you can shoot holes in me (untrained, uneducated, but can hear),

    No, you shoot yourself, thanks. Oh, when did you demonstrate your hearing ability?


    [b] but not them nor terrible terrence. [b]


    Really?

    these are guys out there making a living in doing what they believe in. someone PAYS them for what they know and do.

    Did you know that this also applies to John Edwards et al?


    i hear the relaxed, fulfilled sound of sacd, i support this format by purchasing product. its not overpriced,

    Very good. Enjoy.
    mtrycrafts

  7. #332
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
    I guess this is how you respond when you actually decide to stretch beyond the rhelm of inneuendo and make an actual assertion, unsubstantiated as it is. How sad when someone who demands that others live up to such high standards of evidence and proof when commenting on their hobbies can't even come close to attaining those standards himself.

    Pretty funny to keep asking me repeatedly to come back with something when all I've said all along is that I lack the means to come up with an answer on causal effects. So, now you expecting me to provide the answer for you? You said it was easy to prove, so why would not come up with the evidence yourself? After all, you're the all knowing expert and the one that's out to prove something, right? Asking me to bail you out is quite a humorous, albeit empty and hypocritical, gesture.

    You mean you have not read that citation then after all?
    mtrycrafts

  8. #333
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    http://www.stereophile.com/news/10860/

    http://www.aes.org/events/115/papers/SessionJ.cfm

    Read J4

    http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ashon/a...ltrasonics.htm

    Mtry, since you have added absolutely nothing to this conversation, you have a lot of nerve to make demands on anyone. I went ahead and posted this for the benefit of the board, not for you, Chris, or Thomas.

    Not one of you have submitted anything that discounts the beneift of the higher frequencies, the only thing that you guys seems to say is that we cannot HEAR it. Yet perceptually speaking, you just don't get that while direct stimulus is not possible, test have shown that there is definately a change in brain patterns when it is present.
    From your previous post:
    The test that AES ran tested the hearing of the subjects that participated. The ones that could hear the highest frequencies were the ones that tested with a positive result, and the ones that had some hearing damage(high frequency losses) produced the null result.

    You failed to post the citation to those tests. You offer 3 lame links.
    J4 has nothing in it, nor the other two. Links to discussions? Suppositions?
    I thought for sure you had something about ultrasonics or something definitive. Thatt is what I get for thinking/
    Don't forget, you are the one who made all the claims, then you make a rocus when asked for citations. Still waiting.
    mtrycrafts

  9. #334
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    To each his own. The "dumbing down" of America marches onward.

    rw
    Yes, the hi end audio certainly is doing its best to do its part. Thanks.
    mtrycrafts

  10. #335
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    Yes, the hi end audio certainly is doing its best to do its part. Thanks.
    Lame try.

    BTW, one of TTT's AES references should have been J3. Reading really is fun - just like listening to music. Perhaps some day you will pick that up.

    rw

  11. #336
    Forum Regular hifitommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    sylmar, ca. in beautiful so cal earthquake country
    Posts
    1,442

    typical

    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    its amusing/amazing to see those that maintain that hi rez isnt necessary to advance sound storage.

    robert harley, a jounalist and former digital mastering engineer, who has a VERY thorough understanding of audio in general, and digital recording in particular is pro hi rez.



    Isn't Harley the one who wrote an idiotic audio book? Ah, no wonder you are so confused. You are listening and reading someone who has no idea what componets sound like, in reality. He makes up bs. You give him more credit than he deserves. Just because he is pro hi res is indication of absolurtely zero.

    doug sax, ever heard of him. many of the very CDs in your collections have been mastered by him and the mastering lab.

    So what?

    he STARTED hi rez vinyl,


    What? That is laughable. Vinyl is anything but hi res, LOL. But, understandable, coming from you.

    and has a large investment in digital recording equipment, and therefore a lot to lose by touting the hi rez systems available today.

    Maybe he uses it to master music? Nothing wrong with that at all. I subscribe to that.

    yet, these two, among others, professionals in the trade, far more qualified than mtry, ax, or tomA, are vigorously supporting the improved sound of the hi rez formats over conventional RBCD.


    Well, you certainly dredge up the bottom of the rotten barrel with Hartley to support you? LOL. Try someone with credentials for a change, not entertainers of the golden ears.

    but why would sax and harley go out on a limb?

    Sax is probably doing it for mastering. Harley is overcome by the dark side of audio, mythology.

    its the right pathway to better music storage.

    Certainly for the studios and recording engineers. But, how would you know?

    you can shoot holes in me (untrained, uneducated, but can hear),

    No, you shoot yourself, thanks. Oh, when did you demonstrate your hearing ability?


    [b]but not them nor terrible terrence. [b]


    Really?

    these are guys out there making a living in doing what they believe in. someone PAYS them for what they know and do.

    Did you know that this also applies to John Edwards et al?


    i hear the relaxed, fulfilled sound of sacd, i support this format by purchasing product. its not overpriced,

    Very good. Enjoy.
    once again, mtry covers his ears and yells "LALALALALALALALALALA, I DONT HEAR YOU" typical answer mrt.
    ...regards...tr

  12. #337
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    You mean you have not read that citation then after all?
    No, and I never said that I did (though I have read plenty of articles citing that test and its procedural flaws). Your response is just another convenient excuse and bailout to avoid the other questions. Nice try. You're the one who's making an assertion, so the burden's on you to demonstrate why that citation supports your point. All you've offered up so far is inneuendo, which is typical. FYI, inneuendo does not equate to evidence or proof, but I thought that you knew that already. How disappointing that you can't make that distinction, given how consistently you demand higher standards of evidence from everybody else.

    Since you've obviously read the ORIGINAL SOURCE MATERIAL (assuming that your definition of "citation" means that you've read the original article and not just some third party interpretation of it, since you're an all knowing expert who's so into proof and evidence), educate me on how a test that Sony did and has been criticized by naysayers everywhere is actual evidence that the SACD resolution as the sole causal effect is indistinguishable from 44.1/16. You're citing this as evidence, so make your argument. We're still waiting. Should be quite amusing.
    Last edited by Woochifer; 07-27-2004 at 10:20 AM.

  13. #338
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    So predictable it pitful. You show evidence, and they discount it immediately because it does not square with their beliefs. I said this was going to happen, and it did. When you have people picking and choosing what is right, then nothing you offer will be good enough, especially if they don't want to believe that on some level you are correct. This has become a total waste of my time. Mtry and Chris are not going to stop the progress of high rez audio, because too many VERY reputable audio engineers( who have conducted their own DBT and have participated in countless others) are convinced that it sounds better than RBCD(I am on that list)

    Hundreds of audio engineers sing the praises of high rez, and three guys posting on a audio forum think these engineers are imagining things, hearing things, and have no proof it sound any better than redbook. Ears don't count because white papers don't support what you hear (what???) Your hearing is biased, the test were not valid. These are all excuses these gentlemen lay down, but whether the word maybe is used, people are noticing a improvment, and the formats are growing.

    Mtry, in the end you lost the DD vs Dts arguement from years ago. When DBT from the studio level was conducted, the studio's ended up purchasing encoders, and now Dts is everywhere. In the end all three of you will lose this arguement as well. DSD now has editing and processing tools, DVD-A editing and processing tools are getting better and cheaper, engineers are getting better at mixing 5.1, and enough people with a better understanding of digital audio than you three are going from conference to conference playing up high rez formats.

    You three guys are forum killers. It was just the kind of behavior that you three have exibited in this thread that has chased many a experience audio person away from here. Nobody with a good understanding of digital audio, and years of hands on experience is interested in having three guys who have never even mixed a single piece of music to tell them that they are hearing things. Your picking and choosing what information can been deemed as credible is the height of arrogance, and does a huge disservice to this board, as it serves to only confuse someone when it is not necessary. The spin jobs you guy do muddles the issue, clouds the subject matter, and has added nothing to further anyone knowledge on this issue.

    Chris, your lack of respect towards a EXTREMELY reputable audio engineer was sickening. The very fact that you don't have any mixing experience whatsoever, and you took Michael's words completely out of contexted should garner you no respect on the board at all.

    Thomas, the listening test you designed is dirty, complex, and loaded with unnecessary processes. I asked four other engineers who have done several AES sanctioned DBT to check out your post, and all of them said that the only thing your test will reveal, is the quality of the downconversion capabilites of a particular processor, and nothing more.

    As I said about 30 posts ago, this issue is not going to be decided here. I think based on the formats growth many have already made up their minds. You guys can sit behind and white paper yourself to death hanging on to an old, dated, and unsufficient format if you desire, but the audio world is leaving you behind. Good luck to all three, and time will whether your are correct, or I am.
    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

  14. #339
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    236

    Seems you have renewed my interest for the moment! :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    This has become a total waste of my time. Mtry and Chris are not going to stop the progress of high rez audio
    , because too many VERY reputable audio engineers( who have conducted their own DBT and have participated in countless others) are convinced that it sounds better than RBCD(I am on that list)
    Yet these tests have not been published and peer reviewed for crtitical analysis...

    Do you realize that studies by David Griesinger(acoustics physicist, Lexicon) and presented at 2002 Munich AES conference showed that speakers that do not use a seperate supertweeter, with the normal tweeter rolled off, are likely to cause audible intermodulation distortion under some circumstances. A DBT or ABX test applied ignoring this issue will be automaticly flawed.

    Hundreds of audio engineers sing the praises of high rez, and three guys posting on a audio forum think these engineers are imagining things, hearing things, and have no proof it sound any better than redbook.
    Well, if they would go on to produce a valid study supporting their suspicions(as anyone is required to do in any field that uses a scientific method/protocol) then I would not have any issues with the claim(s).

    Ears don't count because white papers don't support what you hear (what???) Your hearing is biased, the test were not valid. These are all excuses these gentlemen lay down, but whether the word maybe is used, people are noticing a improvment, and the formats are growing.
    Pointing out popularity or success of an item/trend is not represnative of it's merits. At one point, for example, exotic wires and the like were not popular. They have grown in popularity. Lots of things are successful that are not established as real. Psychics are enjoying much more money and success today then a hundred years ago. :-) Don't try to point to popularity, success, etc. as an indication of objective proof.

    You three guys are forum killers. It was just the kind of behavior that you three have exibited in this thread that has chased many a experience audio person away from here
    The kinds of people that don't want to post in an environment that requires substantiation of claims ---- if that's what you mean --- good riddance.

    . Nobody with a good understanding of digital audio, and years of hands on experience is interested in having three guys who have never even mixed a single piece of music to tell them that they are hearing things. Your picking and choosing what information can been deemed as credible is the height of arrogance, and does a huge disservice to this board, as it serves to only confuse someone when it is not necessary.
    Well, if you believe their is a correlation between having to mix/master music and the independant issue of requiring substantiation... your views are just scewy, to be frank. Again, your trying to correlate experience with fact. Must be able to communicatino with the dead -- John Edwards says so -- he has ALOT of experience and is REALLY successful, too. Silvyia Brown, another one of thse very well-respected pyschics.They have got to be right, huh.

    The spin jobs you guy do muddles the issue, clouds the subject matter, and has added nothing to further anyone knowledge on this issue.
    Indeed, I have no contributions in performing lab experiments with bandwidth. But I can point out the ones who do and their results.

    Chris, your lack of respect towards a EXTREMELY reputable audio engineer was sickening. The very fact that you don't have any mixing experience whatsoever, and you took Michael's words completely out of contexted should garner you no respect on the board at all.
    Please refer to 'out of context' quotes that are fraudulently represenative of the situation(s) you are talking about. This is what you seem to imply. I provided the entire text of our communications for ANYONE to read in full. I quoted certain parts of the letters, as y ou have to select out parts to response to specifically. This was done directly after teh full text(s) were posted.

    As I said about 30 posts ago, this issue is not going to be decided here.
    The issue I am resolving here is that their is no substantiation to suppport claims of audibility to hi-rez bandwidth over standard RBCD in playback. If that substantian pops up, then good for you and me. Don't make empty claims as if they are fact.

    -Chris
    Last edited by WmAx; 07-28-2004 at 02:25 PM.

  15. #340
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    133
    Thomas, the listening test you designed is dirty, complex, and loaded with unnecessary processes. I asked four other engineers who have done several AES sanctioned DBT to check out your post, and all of them said that the only thing your test will reveal, is the quality of the downconversion capabilites of a particular processor, and nothing more.
    You may critize the report better when I bring the results. It will contain much more than just down-conversion.

  16. #341
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas_A
    You may critize the report better when I bring the results. It will contain much more than just down-conversion.
    Are you applying a line level low pass filter to the tweeter(22khz is likely sufficient), seperately amplifying and crossing at the relevant frequency to the supertweeter? I did not see a specification such as this in your test description.

    Please refer to:

    Detection threshold for tones above 22 kHz

    Preprint Number: 5401 Convention: 110 (April 2001)
    Authors: Kiryu, Shogo; Ashihara, Kaoru

    -Chris


  17. #342
    Forum Regular kingdaddykeith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    72
    Sorry if I’m butting in, but considering that many on this thread seem to have experience in pro sound recording and mixing, maybe one of you can either confirm or rebut this statement I recently read.

    I’ll have to paraphrase, the article was a Q&A to 3 top recording/Audio engineers on the subject of Hi-Rez recordings.

    They all unanimously agreed that the highest resolution medium of all time to present is 2” analog tape, they claim that there is far more headroom , dynamic range and resolution then SACD, DVD-A, DAT or any analog device. If this is true, I wonder why they don’t aim a little higher with these new formats, or just go back to analog, I would try it if I could afford it.

  18. #343
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by WmAx
    Are you applying a line level low pass filter to the tweeter(22khz is likely sufficient), seperately amplifying and crossing at the relevant frequency to the supertweeter? I did not see a specification such as this in your test description.

    Please refer to:

    Detection threshold for tones above 22 kHz

    Preprint Number: 5401 Convention: 110 (April 2001)
    Authors: Kiryu, Shogo; Ashihara, Kaoru

    -Chris

    Wmax, there will be no additional supertweeter. The monitor system that usually is used during testing has a f response 20 Hz - 25 kHz ± 1 dB at listening position, and the tweeter continues, reasonably linear, to at least 45 kHz.

  19. #344
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas_A
    Wmax, there will be no additional supertweeter. The monitor system that usually is used during testing has a f response 20 Hz - 25 kHz ± 1 dB at listening position, and the tweeter continues, reasonably linear, to at least 45 kHz.
    In short, Karou and Shogo found that when the ultransonic harmonics were at the same amplitude as the fundamentals, non linearity was introduced at an audible level. Postive results were confirmed with 13 subjects. This audible non linearity was eliminated when the ultrasonic information was played over a seperate supertweeter. None of the subjects could differentiate at this point. Note that this was specifically when the harmonics were = fundamental amplitude. Source material that had considerably lower level harmonics in the ultrasonics will impose less non linearity. Be critical of these issues(fundamental vs. ultrasonic harmonics and the speaker arrangement).

    -Chris

  20. #345
    Forum Regular hifitommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    sylmar, ca. in beautiful so cal earthquake country
    Posts
    1,442

    nap time, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Quote Originally Posted by WmAx
    Yet these tests have not been published and peer reviewed for crtitical analysis...

    Do you realize that studies by David Griesinger(acoustics physicist, Lexicon) and presented at 2002 Munich AES conference showed that speakers that do not use a seperate supertweeter, with the normal tweeter rolled off, are likely to cause audible intermodulation distortion. Of the samples he tested, all had this audible distortion present. A DBT or ABX test applied ignoring this issue will be automaticly flawed.


    Well, if they would go on to produce a valid study supporting their suspicions(as anyone is required to do in any field that uses a scientific method/protocol) then I would not have any issues with the claim(s).


    Pointing out popularity or success of an item/trend is not represnative of it's merits. At one point, for example, exotic wires and the like were not popular. They have grown in popularity. Lots of things are successful that are not established as real. Psychics are enjoying much more money and success today then a hundred years ago. :-) Don't try to point to popularity, success, etc. as an indication of objective proof.


    The kinds of people that don't want to post in an environment that requires substantiation of claims ---- if that's what you mean --- good riddance.


    Well, if you believe their is a correlation between having to mix/master music and the independant issue of requiring substantiation... your views are just scewy, to be frank. Again, your trying to correlate experience with fact. Must be able to communicatino with the dead -- John Edwards says so -- he has ALOT of experience and is REALLY successful, too. Silvyia Brown, another one of thse very well-respected pyschics.They have got to be right, huh.


    Indeed, I have no contributions in performing lab experiments with bandwidth. But I can point out the ones who do and their results.


    Please refer to 'out of context' quotes that are fraudulently represenative of the situation(s) you are talking about. This is what you seem to imply. I provided the entire text of our communications for ANYONE to read in full. I quoted certain parts of the letters, as y ou have to select out parts to response to specifically. This was done directly after teh full text(s) were posted.


    The issue I am resolving here is that their is no substantiation to suppport claims of audibility to hi-rez bandwidth over standard RBCD in playback. If that substantian pops up, then good for you and me. Don't make empty claims as if they are fact.

    -Chris
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by WmAx
    Are you applying a line level low pass filter to the tweeter(22khz is likely sufficient), separately amplifying and crossing at the relevant frequency to the supertweeter? I did not see a specification such as this in your test description.

    Please refer to:

    Detection threshold for tones above 22 kHz

    Preprint Number: 5401 Convention: 110 (April 2001)
    Authors: Kiryu, Shogo; Ashihara, Kaoru

    -Chris


    Quote:
    Thomas, the listening test you designed is dirty, complex, and loaded with unnecessary processes. I asked four other engineers who have done several AES sanctioned DBT to check out your post, and all of them said that the only thing your test will reveal, is the quality of the downconversion capabilites of a particular processor, and nothing more.


    You may critize the report better when I bring the results. It will contain much more than just down-conversion.

    WmAxQuote:
    Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    This has become a total waste of my time. Mtry and Chris are not going to stop the progress of high rez audio

    Quote:
    , because too many VERY reputable audio engineers( who have conducted their own DBT and have participated in countless others) are convinced that it sounds better than RBCD(I am on that list)

    Yet these tests have not been published and peer reviewed for crtitical analysis...

    Do you realize that studies by David Griesinger(acoustics physicist, Lexicon) and presented at 2002 Munich AES conference showed that speakers that do not use a seperate supertweeter, with the normal tweeter rolled off, are likely to cause audible intermodulation distortion. Of the samples he tested, all had this audible distortion present. A DBT or ABX test applied ignoring this issue will be automaticly flawed.
    Quote:
    Hundreds of audio engineers sing the praises of high rez, and three guys posting on a audio forum think these engineers are imagining things, hearing things, and have no proof it sound any better than redbook.

    Well, if they would go on to produce a valid study supporting their suspicions(as anyone is required to do in any field that uses a scientific method/protocol) then I would not have any issues with the claim(s).
    Quote:
    Ears don't count because white papers don't support what you hear (what???) Your hearing is biased, the test were not valid. These are all excuses these gentlemen lay down, but whether the word maybe is used, people are noticing a improvment, and the formats are growing.

    Pointing out popularity or success of an item/trend is not represnative of it's merits. At one point, for example, exotic wires and the like were not popular. They have grown in popularity. Lots of things are successful that are not established as real. Psychics are enjoying much more money and success today then a hundred years ago. :-) Don't try to point to popularity, success, etc. as an indication of objective proof.
    Quote:
    You three guys are forum killers. It was just the kind of behavior that you three have exibited in this thread that has chased many a experience audio person away from here

    The kinds of people that don't want to post in an environment that requires substantiation of claims ---- if that's what you mean --- good riddance.
    Quote:
    . Nobody with a good understanding of digital audio, and years of hands on experience is interested in having three guys who have never even mixed a single piece of music to tell them that they are hearing things. Your picking and choosing what information can been deemed as credible is the height of arrogance, and does a huge disservice to this board, as it serves to only confuse someone when it is not necessary.

    Well, if you believe their is a correlation between having to mix/master music and the independant issue of requiring substantiation... your views are just scewy, to be frank. Again, your trying to correlate experience with fact. Must be able to communicatino with the dead -- John Edwards says so -- he has ALOT of experience and is REALLY successful, too. Silvyia Brown, another one of thse very well-respected pyschics.They have got to be right, huh.
    Quote:
    The spin jobs you guy do muddles the issue, clouds the subject matter, and has added nothing to further anyone knowledge on this issue.

    Indeed, I have no contributions in performing lab experiments with bandwidth. But I can point out the ones who do and their results.
    Quote:

    Chris, your lack of respect towards a EXTREMELY reputable audio engineer was sickening. The very fact that you don't have any mixing experience whatsoever, and you took Michael's words completely out of contexted should garner you no respect on the board at all.

    Please refer to 'out of context' quotes that are fraudulently represenative of the situation(s) you are talking about. This is what you seem to imply. I provided the entire text of our communications for ANYONE to read in full. I quoted certain parts of the letters, as y ou have to select out parts to response to specifically. This was done directly after teh full text(s) were posted.
    Quote:
    As I said about 30 posts ago, this issue is not going to be decided here.

    The issue I am resolving here is that their is no substantiation to suppport claims of audibility to hi-rez bandwidth over standard RBCD in playback. If that substantian pops up, then good for you and me. Don't make empty claims as if they are fact.

    -Chris



    ...regards...tr

  21. #346
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Yes, it is nap time for you. Way over your head. Best if you just read something you can.
    mtrycrafts

  22. #347
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    No, and I never said that I did (though I have read plenty of articles citing that test and its procedural flaws).

    Your implication was certainly there.

    Then, perhaps you can cite those that you did read then, thanks.



    Should be quite amusing.


    Actually, you did a great job.

    Maybe you should read it too. As was indicated, Sony had to play games to make SACD better than the CD. They were caught at the demo. Simple.
    mtrycrafts

  23. #348
    Forum Regular hifitommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    sylmar, ca. in beautiful so cal earthquake country
    Posts
    1,442

    its funny

    pictures take but a small amount of data but music requires monster quantitiies. listening to the music reveals more in seconds than in reams of print. and you prefer print.

    you must be an intelectual with no need for reality.
    ...regards...tr

  24. #349
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by hifitommy
    pictures take but a small amount of data but music requires monster quantitiies. listening to the music reveals more in seconds than in reams of print. and you prefer print.

    you must be an intelectual with no need for reality.

    Ah, you are comparing a still picture to a stream of notes? You think that is fair?
    How about comparing video stream to music stream. Oh, the video has more?
    mtrycrafts

  25. #350
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by WmAx
    In short, Karou and Shogo found that when the ultransonic harmonics were at the same amplitude as the fundamentals, non linearity was introduced at an audible level. Postive results were confirmed with 13 subjects. This audible non linearity was eliminated when the ultrasonic information was played over a seperate supertweeter. None of the subjects could differentiate at this point. Note that this was specifically when the harmonics were = fundamental amplitude. Source material that had considerably lower level harmonics in the ultrasonics will impose less non linearity. Be critical of these issues(fundamental vs. ultrasonic harmonics and the speaker arrangement).

    -Chris
    Yes. Those data were a 2 kHz pure tone with odd harmonics of the same amplitude. Usually this is not audible with music material. However the ultrasonics of SACD may introduce non-linearites.

Page 14 of 18 FirstFirst ... 4 12 13 14 15 16 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Simple SACD question!
    By N. Abstentia in forum General Audio
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 07-01-2011, 03:10 PM
  2. SACD 2 Channel Output - I'm Confused...
    By Sammy EX in forum General Audio
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-18-2004, 02:07 PM
  3. 5.1 sacd analog compatibility?
    By Jottle in forum Home Theater/Video
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-14-2004, 10:20 PM
  4. Question regarding SACD connections
    By Tyler in forum General Audio
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-29-2004, 05:03 PM
  5. sacd superior to rbcd
    By hifitommy in forum Digital Domain & Computer Audio
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 12-07-2003, 11:00 AM

Posting Permissions

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