That actually would be my worst nightmare if my Hi Fi system turned out to be some audio memory aid.
First time I drove wearing them I was seeing all sorts of things out the corner of my eye (tree looked like an artic) , but I adjusted. For the first week I was seriously considering a pair of driving glasses.
For digital media, the bits are the bits and that's all the information there is.
For an LP, its more complicated: there is information in the grooves, although it may be more difficult to extract with maximum possible accuracy. Doesn't mean it isn't there, and doesn't mean it couldn't be extracted with extreme accuracy in a well equipped forensics lab by reading the disk surface with laser interferometry, if one really had to. The point is not that one would likely go to such lengths, only that information exists on the LP and that's all there is to work with.
As Harry F. Olson claimed to be the one that did the experiments in the 50s which led to the conclusion that the extended bandwith (up to 20 kHz) was preferred by "ordinary" listeners it could be that Moir described those.
But that wasn´t a comparison between live and reproduction but unfiltered against filtered of the same event. Realized by a mechanical acoustic filter behind a curtain. Filter frequency was about 5kHz afair (i´ve linked his paper a couple of times in the past)
But anyway a ordinary customer normally does not have the luxury to compare the original sound to the recorded sound, and that makes things a bit more complicated....
You´ve cited Moir (High Quality Sound Reproduction) on this already in another thread. He wrote about the 400k rule and added his own suggestion of 750k (according to your post).
Wrt to another post in this thread you strictly advocated to seperate "personal preference" from "high fidelity" although your own citation from Moir contradicts that imo.
Simply for the reason that the numbers that you would consider to be connected to the definition of "high fidelity" are actually based on the preferences of listeners.
Sometimes it is difficult for me to get an idea transported but i´ll try again.
Isn´t the virtual sound source - in german called a phantom source - (like the illusion of depth as well) a fairie by definition?
If you belong to the small group of people that is unable to perceive a virtual sound source, you are perceiving the reality (i.e. two discrete sound source seperated by some distance) but you don´t get what was intended. I know of people that can´t stand that and prefer monoaural reproduction instead of the stereophonic version, because due to the missing virtual sound source feature the latter drives them crazy.
But what about the "high fidelity" point in that?
And now consider other individuals not differing from the mass by such an extreme amount but in other points.
Sure, but do you know what these bits should sound like? Which information about sound stage, depth of image, clarity and so on they do contain?
These bits aren´t there for self purpose but should carry the auditory scene/image (illusion) that the people created during production.
In this regard it will depend on the acoustical environment during the production process and of course on the individuals doing the production.
If listeners individual abilities/properties and/or his reproduction equipment differs, he will get something different, but has no chance to know about the degree or direction of the difference.
Ex-recording/mixing engineer here. Technically, accuracy in sound reproduction systems means the audio signal arriving at one's ears at the listening position matches as closely as possible to the audio signal stored in a digital media file. Or accurately reproduce music as close as possible to the content on the recording.
There are numerous guidelines and standards that span 40 years of subjective/objective research that show how one can accomplish this. Some are listed below:
Relevant loudspeaker tests in studios in Hi-Fi dealers' demo rooms in the home etc. using 1/3 octave, pink-weighted, random noise.
Recommendation ITU-R BS.1116-3 (02/2015) Methods for the subjective assessment of small impairments in audio systems
Listening conditions for the assessment of sound programme material: monophonic and two–channel stereophonic
The Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Room Correction Products
The Measurement and Calibration of Sound Reproducing Systems
Note that most of these refer to loudspeakers and room as this is the area most variable for accurate/neutral sound reproduction. If one reads the papers, one will note that each one says virtually the same things when it comes to neutral/accurate sound reproduction with respect to target frequency and timing responses, early reflections, room decay/reverb time, polar response of loudspeakers, etc.
I worked in a number of studios/control rooms that have been calibrated as per the specs above. I also calibrated my own sound reproduction system to these specs and can say that my recordings/mixes made in the control room translate near perfectly on my home system.
Is that Hi-Fi?
Happy New Year!
It is possible that I am confusing two different sets of tests. Anyway, the point I am making is that the engineering parameters for hi-fi were not dreamt up by engineers but came out of listening tests.
My understanding of the frequency results is that 20-20kHz is adequate for most people: that defines hi-fi along one axis. If a restricted frequency range is to be used (so 'not hi-fi') then people prefer a balanced range. These two results do not conflict or undermine each other as they refer to two different things. My guess is that if a wider than hi-fi range is used then the need for balance is reduced. The frequency range for hi-fi is not a matter of preference - I don't think the results show that a more restricted range is more life-like for some people.
The perception of depth probably comes from low frequency sound. It could be that an extended LF range would enhance this. If so, this would be another example of the criteria for hi-fi being adjusted in the light of new listening tests.
Of course it is conceivable that there is some other equipment behaviour which has thus far been ignored, but whatever it is it must relate to some difference between the input and the output because they are all we have. We must be close to knowing what we need to know (and another parameter might not be needed) because listening tests usually show that two or more systems which can reproduce sound are indistinguishable from each other. This is exactly what would be expected if they are all adequate to the task of hi-fi sound reproduction. It is unlikely that two quite different systems (e.g. SS and valve) would have the same value for this new unknown parameter.
My understanding of the frequency results is that 20-20kHz is adequate for most people: that defines hi-fi along one axis. If a restricted frequency range is to be used (so 'not hi-fi') then people prefer a balanced range. These two results do not conflict or undermine each other as they refer to two different things. My guess is that if a wider than hi-fi range is used then the need for balance is reduced. The frequency range for hi-fi is not a matter of preference - I don't think the results show that a more restricted range is more life-like for some people.
The perception of depth probably comes from low frequency sound. It could be that an extended LF range would enhance this. If so, this would be another example of the criteria for hi-fi being adjusted in the light of new listening tests.
Of course it is conceivable that there is some other equipment behaviour which has thus far been ignored, but whatever it is it must relate to some difference between the input and the output because they are all we have. We must be close to knowing what we need to know (and another parameter might not be needed) because listening tests usually show that two or more systems which can reproduce sound are indistinguishable from each other. This is exactly what would be expected if they are all adequate to the task of hi-fi sound reproduction. It is unlikely that two quite different systems (e.g. SS and valve) would have the same value for this new unknown parameter.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Yes. Listening is subjective. Just like all the other senses we have.
We have our subjective listening experience. People experience sound differently depending on their mood.
Last edited:
The bits, when reconstructed, give information of acoustical air waves to be launched from a transducer. The amplitudes and frequencies of the waves are encoded in the data, or to look at it in the time domain, they describe how a transducer should instantaneously move air as a function of time.
Whatever soundstage, depth, etc. may result, depends on the data, and the accuracy of the playback system and listening environment in recreating what the data instructs. There is nothing else available to work with.
Yeah, seriously. There's no magic in digital.. Or analog for that matter. The bits merely represent a magnitude versus time. It's a documentation of the analog electrical input into the ADC. The resolution, or fineness, of the magnitude scale (y axis) depends on how long of a word that is used to describe the electrical magnitude at a given time (bit depth). The resolution of time (x axis) depends on how many times in a second a word is being generated to describe the measurement (sample rate). With an infinite number of bits and samples per second, you would have the same analog waveform that exists on vinyl or a magnetic tape. There is nothing on either of these mediums that give extra information about sound stage or depth so why expect it from a digital recording?
sent from my mobile look-at device
I might have been able to cope with driving, but riding a bike is different. You have no protection apart from your senses.
Driving Under the Influence. Illegal in most jurisdictions. It has been applied to driving anything including cars, boats, golf carts, powered wheelchairs, and bicycles operated on public roads.
Driving while knowingly impaired to drive (operating a vehicle, self-powered or otherwise) safely, or under conditions legally presumed to impair driving ability (e.g. alcohol blood concentration over a limit), or driving with any impairment attributable to your negligence (e.g. you should have known better than to drive when you were very tired, or when emotionally distressed, etc.), can be prosecuted.
Also, the act of operating a vehicle can and has been construed to include sleeping in the drivers seat with the keys in ones possession while sleeping off some earlier drinking, as you are considered to be in control of the vehicle whether or not the engine is running. In such a case, safer to sleep in the back seat and put the keys in the trunk, to make absolutely clear you had no intention of driving.
Note: The foregoing is not legal advice and I am not a lawyer. Contact a lawyer for proper legal advice, if applicable.
Last edited:
It's those dang Americans. But the UK may well have similar laws. Driving while impaired could mean having the wrong glasses.
Have I got that right, Mark?
However, I didn't even get them out of the optician's before I realised. So all good, then.
Have I got that right, Mark?
However, I didn't even get them out of the optician's before I realised. So all good, then.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.