Nyquist made the call long ago - any analog input signal that fits the sampling theory's amplitude, frequency limits can be exactly digitally encoded and properly decoded
there is a converse "problem" - not all bit patterns that fit the digital format's amplitude, frequency limits can be fit to analog waveforms with the same amplitude limits
an example is a digital fs square wave - Gibbs phenomena will give ~ 2dB overshoot in the reproduced analog output if the DAC doesn't saturate
so some digital mode edits can create signals that cause "overs" of the analog (or interpolated) output
of course you can intentionally do even worse...
there is a converse "problem" - not all bit patterns that fit the digital format's amplitude, frequency limits can be fit to analog waveforms with the same amplitude limits
an example is a digital fs square wave - Gibbs phenomena will give ~ 2dB overshoot in the reproduced analog output if the DAC doesn't saturate
so some digital mode edits can create signals that cause "overs" of the analog (or interpolated) output
of course you can intentionally do even worse...
sure, I get that, but every single transducer does this, unless you are multitracking everything separately in the studio, all the mics will be picking up a sum total of whats going on, not the sounds individually. I knew someone who knew the Nyquist theorem better than myself would pipe up, so I left that to them. thanks jcx.
remember that we are attempting to faithfully reproduce the recording of the event, not the actual event.
OK, you might get some idea from the youtube video but it's hard to really judge fully.
It's going to be hard for me to post a cellphone video that shows you how great 4K projection looks. And that's easier than an audio system thru a camcorder mic.
yes I know, I make digitally produced music for kicks and modelled analogue and digital synthesises is part of it. when in live mode before mixdown when the instruments are just doing their thing on their own independent channels on the bus; its possible to clip the tracks and produce glitches for the reasons stated, so I use a soft limiting feature on the mixer. but its not likely to produce tones that are faster than the sample-rate when its been mixed down … and even less likely to make it through any analogue LPF in the DAC.
That's one approach, sure. But not the only (good) one.
no, its a hard limit, thats what we are doing, there is no direct connection between the event and our living room. the audio system that we use, will only ever at best be able to faithfully represent its input, the out of band signal is gone, with the event
anecdotal reports of anything else are fantasy, the limitations of the transducers, the lowpass formed by the air in the room, the mixing of concurrent soundwaves, the interfaces (electrical and ADC) and sampling/mixing in the recording process are already imposed by the time we get it, so from a playback point of view, they are irrelevant.
too often I see conversation here and other forums seeming to indicate they believe that you can improve the recording somehow and bring out more information (known as 'low level microdetail') or assertions that harmonic content and resolution that is more true to life/transparent is able to be realised/added from equipment that is LESS resolving. its pretty much never admitted that these are distortions, just about always asserted to be some kind of magic.
ridiculous …
I have no issue with people that believe this, but inventing new psuedo technical terms to describe it with no basis in trials or reality (often its actually stuff that speaks AGAINST well traveled ground) and promoting its existence to noobs who ask questions looking to buy equipment, gets to me. building mystery around it, using emotionally charged language etc etc. you know the score.
but what do I know, i'm just grooving to the test tones on my computer monitor. the speakers dont even need to be connected; the numbers constantly changing, the math, the graphics.. OMG .. the data..OOOOH ....screw music.
Last edited:
For me, it's easy to hear the typical hifi sound artifacts. If you actually have to stop and think about whether it sounds OK then it's already failed. Refer back to the John Atkinson YouTube clip mentioned some weeks ago, a demonstration of recording techniques - at an early stage he produces a real, percussion woodblock, it has a certain quality to it. Then his demo system does the same, and it's a fairly miserable imitation of one. If you analyse and compare the waveforms of the real and fake, there's a yawning chasm between them ... and that's supposed to be a good system!
A snap judgement will tell you whether the sound is in the ballpark - then, if there's a reasonable level of quality it's worthwhile putting more attention into dissecting it ...
Edit: And this goes for sound from my system also - if I have to think about it's sounding good or not, then it's not good enough; it's a very easy, and accurate, Yes/No assessment ...
Last edited:
What can be done is to reduce the level of distortion that is at similar sound levels as the 'microdetail', so that the ear can pick it up the recorded low level detail clearly. This detail is very, very easily obscured, and then the ear/brain just gives up on trying to decode it - it comes across as clutter, or noise, the sound is fatiguing ...
for instance, in one of my local forums here at the moment, having just crunched through USB cables and their effect, computer power cables and 2K shunt PC power supplies, I now am faced with a group of people talking about the fantastic new audiophile grade $500 SATA cable … its been said to improve the sound by some, so it must improve the sound, despite the insurmountable evidence to the contrary
so you get a group of self declared golden ears using psuedo technical made up terminology that they dont even understand themselves, reporting on improving mechanisms that they clearly dont have even the foggiest idea about the workings of. yet unbelievers are treated as closed minded, even with things like this, where there is absolutely ZERO window for improvement.
so you get a group of self declared golden ears using psuedo technical made up terminology that they dont even understand themselves, reporting on improving mechanisms that they clearly dont have even the foggiest idea about the workings of. yet unbelievers are treated as closed minded, even with things like this, where there is absolutely ZERO window for improvement.
Last edited:
I believe most people can hear it, they just don't translate it into the terms I use. Ask just about anyone whether the sound they hear at any moment is 'real' or coming from a hifi, they would have little trouble scoring 100%. When a system is really in its stride, that's when they'll start scratching their heads ...
I hope that these are two separate rants.
Are they?If you plop me down in front of a system that again and again sounds like the real thing to me and to others, what do I care how it measures? I've been in front of such systems. Overall the measurements don't look that different from other good systems that are not convincing.
If a system consistently, over a large number of recordings, sounds real - then it's High-Fidelity in my book. I don't necessarily know its fidelity to the signal, but I do know its fidelity to real sounds. And that's what matters to me.
yes, but nothing is going to reproduce them, neither is anything going to hear them, so no-one loses anything.
I hope that these are two separate rants.
yes, sorry I meant to edit to make that clear,the second part was a more general rant
its a bee in my bonnet at the moment. you cannot argue with someone that has completely lost all sense of reason, they are impervious to it.but they are both under the sound quality and measurements banner. often the proponents of such things claim that we have to listen to it before posting opinion, there are some circumstances were that is certainly not the case.
all perfectly valid, if you dont care how it measures and will accept that it isnt technically superior, but simply prefer the sound, then no problem. I have no issue at all with that.
the problem arises when people start making up new untested, unverified psuedo technical factors, with accompanying buzzwords, or strange unclear measurements with weird interpretations, to argue that its more true to source. often using claims of factors that are easily shown to be false, only then choosing to say that measurements dont matter.
also I dont really think that extensive and competent testing of the audio bandwidth is lacking in some way these days, the output can be tested quite completely. the psychological factors are less clear; but suggest it could be a psychological factor to many people and they get crazy.
Hi Dvv . I was rather rude to Mr Push Pull . Sometimes turning a problem on it's side or whatever makes it simpler . Galileo did exactly that . It wasn't so much the Earth going around the Sun that upset people . It was mountains on the Moon . It contradicted Aristotle ( ? one to the Greeks if not him ) . How Aristotle got involved with the Bible I will never know . The Earth as universe centre was something with great complexity could be debated . The simpler answer would have won in the end that is sure . The fact that the Moon was not a perfect sphere was bringing everything into doubt . Now the stupidity was nothing was espeailly wrong with ideas except the Earth is not the centre . 99% I would guess of all science known then is usable today . Later stuff it easier .
Some say the Mass centre of the Solar system is slightly away from the Sun . Without any evidence I doubt that . Mass of the Sun is so vast I would imagine at Km at most from the centre . Even that seems doubtful . Maybe other patterns suggest a strange arrangement of orbits of the planets . I have no idea . Speculation ? Not mine . Similar speculation over climate change . Now there is a deafening silence from those who said rubbish . Now it goes too far the other way . Polar ice melting seems too real to debate .
Simple tests are always welcome . I remember being shown out of phase by joining two speakers face to face . So easy and useful . Was it 40 years now ?
Here is a bit of fun . Absolute truth might be . How did the Universe come into existence ?
1 / It just did
2 / It was helped
3 / Neither
That would divide people . Would answer 3 by chosen ? 3 needs least work . Fred Hoyle being right would help , that is a slight complication .
Am I seeing things, or have we actually just AGREED on something?
But seriously, I have no doubt others got there and went further, the only thing is the Decca records cost just a bit more than the average fare, while the exotic brands cost WAY more and were not nearly as easily available.
Also, all of mine were purchased by my dad 1967-1970 in Ankara, Turkey, not the place were LPs blossomed. If Decca could do that in 1967, I would have loved to see what they did in say 1977.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.