Man, we are dealing with Hifi. We listen to music with a very complex system combining our ears, our brain (think to color temperature perception in photography, as an example), and imperfect transducers (Loudspeakers).
As an example, feed a speaker witch have a limited bandwidth at HF with a perfect square wave at, let says 1kHz.
Now, feed-it with the same square wave but with a big overshoot. And see the wave form difference with a microphone.
You, all the pure objectivists of the forum, will better read partitions in your quest of intellectual satisfaction.
How much do-you believe we know about all the electro acoustic effects once treated by our minds ?
Why don't you make you own mind, verifying the things by yourself ? if something is true, you can verify and reproduce-it.
Of course, if you use your ears for it, the complex system we are working for, you will only be able to affirm "for you". Then ask for others to ensure it is true for them too.
Music, in a way, is very subjective. And I'm pretty sure we don't listen and feel the same way.
Most of the records you are listening too are made in recording studios, by sound engineers, using their own ears to figure-out what they are doing. Not often using oscilloscopes during mixing sessions ;-)
Last edited:
We perceive rather than hear.
But why does one has to be an objectivist or subjectivist? It's an argument that I never understood. We all know we can hear 100% distortion. Yet '100%' is a measurement, so what if it turns out to be 99%?
Everything is measurable because it happens in a physical world, but I don't feel a need to measure every thing - but I do not deny the desirability to measure some things, because they are things that interests me.
The correct scientific approach is:
1- Observation of a phenomena (with our sens or extension of our sens).
ex: an apple falling from a tree.
2- Elaboration of a theory with can explain it in a satisfactory intellectual way.
ex: Gravity theory.
- Verification this theory works in various circumstances.
ex: Launching a satellite.
SY, I proposed to you the step 1. Why to put the cart before the horse ?
I had a teacher who taught-me not to believe, but to verify everything by my own. How can-you believe if I try to give-you an explanation about a phenomenon you are not even sure it exists ?
1- Observation of a phenomena (with our sens or extension of our sens).
ex: an apple falling from a tree.
2- Elaboration of a theory with can explain it in a satisfactory intellectual way.
ex: Gravity theory.
- Verification this theory works in various circumstances.
ex: Launching a satellite.
SY, I proposed to you the step 1. Why to put the cart before the horse ?
I had a teacher who taught-me not to believe, but to verify everything by my own. How can-you believe if I try to give-you an explanation about a phenomenon you are not even sure it exists ?
That's a very long way of saying "no evidence."
I'm not sure what oscilloscopes have to do with this other than making a word salad.
I'm not sure what oscilloscopes have to do with this other than making a word salad.
The question is (for me): "Can we perceive the difference" ?
About distortion in audio, can-you give me a value under-it nothing can be perceived ?
What kind of distortion are-we talking about ? Is this 'number' have the same effect if this distortion is produced in an amplifier, or in a speaker etc...
I use my distortion meter to figure out if I'm working in the right direction, designing some electronic device, and trying to reduce distortions. I use my ears to ensure it 'sound' better.
Between two amps, the best is not always the one with the best distortion number ;-) So many other aspects to be known and understood. (Slew rate, damping factor, and so many others regarding dynamic, transients etc.)
Last edited:
It must be clearing customs that is the problem, I occasionally get stuff shipped from China via DHL and it gets from their door to mine in sometimes in as little as 3 - 4 days which I found rather impressive. It's consistently under a week except around Christmas time. It's not cheap however, however even with shipping it's usually cost effective compared to local alternatives if available at all...
Stuff from anywhere in the EU gets here with no hassles by mail generally in a couple of weeks or less. UK is generally a few days.
Not in my experience, and see no evidence it is true. Actually, many people on this thread might struggle to 'hear' programme material levels even at 12kHz-14kHz, based on age demographic. Just an inconvenient truth we all sweep under the carpet I suspect. Whether such content then remains somehow perceivable ought to belong locked up in the Pandora's box of phantom perception IMO - much might depend on what one expects as to the outcome I suspect.
Amongst the more tangible tests is whether supertweeters are audible by people of the demographic here - but since distortion from these devices yields IMD which can be in the audible band for most people in principle, it hardly seems a fair test. And many systems fail the same way, unfortunately.
Deaf to fairly modest frequencies and levels, Yoda is...........
Probably not then, IMO. But YVMV. It took me years to come to terms with the hard facts of population hearing loss at fairly modest ages.......one of those facts of life we might choose to ignore.
Yep, I get PCBs made by Elecrow in China. The entire round trip, from me uploading the Gerber files onto Elecrow's website, to Shenzhen DHL putting the finished boards in my hand in California, is 5 days total. Total cost for manufacturing AND shipping is $35.00 for ten boards (10cm x 10cm), delivered in 5 days. That's for standard green FR4 laminate. They don't charge extra money for red laminate, but it does seem to take an extra day.
I've posted Dave Griesinger's study that showed this several times. If anyone can devise a test where the considerable IM of the ultra-sonics from the average tweeter mixing down can be eliminated, please post it. This is almost as hard to do as a true CD/LP "blind" test.
Lucky,
I was doing some speaker testing the other day, one volt amplifier output @8ohms and using sin pulse on my Clio test system and can't say I could hear 20khz but I definitely heard 16khz at that level. I didn't try and increase the level to see if I could hear higher frequencies with more output but it was very repeatable and I could use a pure sin @ 16khz and hear it no problem. The speakers are about 86db efficiency so it wasn't like I was listening to a high efficiency compression driver. it was an Audax dome tweeter with an upper limit of 20khz even if it isn't perfect FR. So no I couldn't detect the 20Khz anymore but not as bad as some seem to be talking about, not limited to 12Khz for sure. I was using an Earthworks M30 1/4 instrumentation mic and Earthworks single channel preamp and a Parasound power amp to drive the speaker.
I was doing some speaker testing the other day, one volt amplifier output @8ohms and using sin pulse on my Clio test system and can't say I could hear 20khz but I definitely heard 16khz at that level. I didn't try and increase the level to see if I could hear higher frequencies with more output but it was very repeatable and I could use a pure sin @ 16khz and hear it no problem. The speakers are about 86db efficiency so it wasn't like I was listening to a high efficiency compression driver. it was an Audax dome tweeter with an upper limit of 20khz even if it isn't perfect FR. So no I couldn't detect the 20Khz anymore but not as bad as some seem to be talking about, not limited to 12Khz for sure. I was using an Earthworks M30 1/4 instrumentation mic and Earthworks single channel preamp and a Parasound power amp to drive the speaker.
As I am 70 years old, imagine where i cut !
I'm not able to hear any sinus at 20kHz, I cut around 13kHz by now. I can figure out an amplifier witch oscillate, as it create a very specific sensation to me. But may-be it is IM components at lower frequencies, or heat the tweeter, who knows ?
Try my tip, with female voices and an analog one octave equalizer centered around 30-40KHz: Of course it will not change the 'character' of the voice, but you can clearly feel-it more airy, and closer in distance in the same time.
You probably never tried, because i know no mixing desk with an equalizer at such frequencies.
I had my own build device for it that I used in insert.
Last edited:
What Esperado is talking about is fairly "common knowledge" in studio circles. Does it mean that something magical is going on, probably not, it means something is changing in the audio pass band below the center frequency. Is is a big difference, no, is it sometimes interesting musically, to some people yes. Is it different with different EQ's, yes. I've never been interested enough to try and quantify it, when its in the trenches time of mixing, there is no time and after that who cares. (Obviously not I)
separate subject:
In the past condensor mics and the losses of analog production made a pretty synergistic combination. Condensor mics tend to have some sort of an exaggerated hf, this combined with generational losses of multitrack tape production techniques tend to keep some of the hf presence intact thru the process. Generally a complementary process. It is my belief that this was a major contributor to the decline of ribbon mic usage in the US, as the production styles changed. The newer modern condensor mic gave a more pleasing and "sharper" signal that was desired. Especially as the playback frequency response extended. Also had a higher level signal that overcame some noise limitations and hence became the preferred style of mic used in the US.
Today the production process has no significant hf loss in the system. If you stay in the box, you will potentially have no hf loss in mixing, nor any other generational losses. A far cry different than analog production. We are seeing the return of some ribbon mics to the studio as they are not deemed as to dark now.
Not having a resonant peak in the hf range gives a different character to ribbons in general. It is commonly stated that ribbons "take eq well". ie you can crank on the hf eq and it can still sound pleasant. Conversely if you take a lot of condensor mics, particularly ones with metal diaphragms, they don't "take eq well". Of course you usually don't want to as they are bright enough already.
Anyway, those are a couple of observations from the trenches.
Cheers
Alan
separate subject:
In the past condensor mics and the losses of analog production made a pretty synergistic combination. Condensor mics tend to have some sort of an exaggerated hf, this combined with generational losses of multitrack tape production techniques tend to keep some of the hf presence intact thru the process. Generally a complementary process. It is my belief that this was a major contributor to the decline of ribbon mic usage in the US, as the production styles changed. The newer modern condensor mic gave a more pleasing and "sharper" signal that was desired. Especially as the playback frequency response extended. Also had a higher level signal that overcame some noise limitations and hence became the preferred style of mic used in the US.
Today the production process has no significant hf loss in the system. If you stay in the box, you will potentially have no hf loss in mixing, nor any other generational losses. A far cry different than analog production. We are seeing the return of some ribbon mics to the studio as they are not deemed as to dark now.
Not having a resonant peak in the hf range gives a different character to ribbons in general. It is commonly stated that ribbons "take eq well". ie you can crank on the hf eq and it can still sound pleasant. Conversely if you take a lot of condensor mics, particularly ones with metal diaphragms, they don't "take eq well". Of course you usually don't want to as they are bright enough already.
Anyway, those are a couple of observations from the trenches.
Cheers
Alan
Thanks a lot. I can feel so lonely, sometimes, here ;-)
And, no, it is not magical.
When some client asked-me some impossible things, (they often do this) I used to answer: "Oh, man, I'm a sound engineer, not a magician !".
I agree with a lot of things you said here. I would like to add ( I said-it several times here) that, on my opinion, the reputation of the harshness of digital, at the beginning of the CD story, was the same kind of reasons. Many good studios had their monitors equalized in such a way that they were presenting the same losses that the ones we usually had on the Vinyl. This automatically obliged the engineers and producers to add trebles during mixing. Those trebles, once lose in the vinyl, the overall sound were nice at home on a flat speaker.
But, with digital, no more those losses. So, the mixes were often sounding aggressive, warmthless, with all those unwanted added trebles.
I can observe that this reputation still persists in a lot of audiophile minds, while I have NO complaint to express about a good digital process (recording, mixing, reproducing) and a lot about analog (tapes and vinyls).
In my late 20s I decided as a laugh to see how high my hearing went. Few motorhead concerts as a teenager but otherwise figured it was ok. Blew a hole in an emit cranking the volume up to try and hear anything at 18KHz. Not repeated that experiment.
But when the local shop installed a mosquito to keep the teens from loitering I could here that. Go figure!
What is the point of science if it seeks answers to the unknowable and unobserved. Surely the basic motivation is what we 'see' and experience with our senses and explore how we react with the universe around us. That is our playground.
The hearing loss among certain professionals is nothing short of scandalous. Many are significantly impaired above 4kHz. And most audio reviewers have hearing anomalies, based on testing that is done at Harman prior to participating in listening tests, and the statistical scatter in their data is worse than trained listeners, usually.
Sadly, a lot of us have been listening at too-high levels and for too long.
I was amused by the Rolling Stone article about Jimmy Iovine. He admits to hearing loss and talks about how his kids tease him by mumbling. Then on another page he states that he can hear what's wrong with audio from a block and a half away, iirc. This fit in well with his characterization of imagined feckless audio professionals walking around with white lab coats and clipboards, and Dre's insistence that the kids aren't hearing all the music.
Of course, they don't. Music is, too, a question of culture.
To recognize and follow an instrument in the musical crowd, you need to know 'him'.
Most of the people are listening to music, the singer apart, in a vertical way.
I understand the danger that quacks are to science, I get that. I see a reaction against anything that looks like New Age and total subjectivism, that many see science as a bulwark against the disorder of the past and that we should not revert to that - a kind of return to the Dark Age of superstition and confusion.
I get that!
But, OTOH, I don't see too many quacks here.
I don't think that we should label somebody as a quack just based on a person's experience being something beyond the norm, that alone does not make him a practicer of quackery. It is what he does with that experience is what determines what he or she truly is. It is the desire and curiosity that is at the heart of real science.
I am reminded that Faraday presented the view that light was electromagnetic waves - not everybody was ready for that - but Maxwell believed and came up with the proof. The road to greater understanding is not always straight and linear.
-
I get that!
But, OTOH, I don't see too many quacks here.
I don't think that we should label somebody as a quack just based on a person's experience being something beyond the norm, that alone does not make him a practicer of quackery. It is what he does with that experience is what determines what he or she truly is. It is the desire and curiosity that is at the heart of real science.
I am reminded that Faraday presented the view that light was electromagnetic waves - not everybody was ready for that - but Maxwell believed and came up with the proof. The road to greater understanding is not always straight and linear.
-
- Status
- Not open for further replies.