Please note that some very early performances of Callas is said to have been recorded on paper tapes (1938-1940?).
That said, Callas throughout her live recordings with EMI (past 1953) had mics/preamps overload. There are non EMI live recordings in Milan (Votto, Giulini) and later in Buenos Aires and Mexico City, where mic overloading is frequent
See this if you are interested in her recordings
https://www.divinarecords.com/articles/callas_at_emi.html
George
Attachments
I believe he is making a different claim.
I pulled that information from his Wikipedia page. Was not my own interpretation. Take a look.
Further in the article:
“I believe that this sound quality information includes waveform, embedded transient identification, and high frequency component identification to at least 40kHz (even if you can't 'hear' these frequencies in isolated form).
TO FULLY MEET the requirements of human auditory perception I believe that a sound system must cover the frequency range of about 15Hz to at least 40kHz (some say 80kHz or more) with over 120dB dynamic range to properly handle transient peaks and with a transient time accuracy of a few microseconds at high frequencies and 1°-2° phase accuracy down to 30Hz.”
OK, I only tried to be serious. A good paper on minimum ITD detectability
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3663869/
Of course it is not about audibility of HF tones, but detecting a direction and angle from which we hear the sound source. So we speak about time difference of signals between the left and right ear, not about their absolute frequency.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3663869/
Of course it is not about audibility of HF tones, but detecting a direction and angle from which we hear the sound source. So we speak about time difference of signals between the left and right ear, not about their absolute frequency.
Thanks for trying. Does this mean we don't have to spend thousands on amplifiers that "are capable of delivering speeds into the Gigahertz range" in order to have excellent sound reproduction? https://merrillaudio.net/element-118-power-amplifier-monoblocks/
As PMA says, it is the directional ability to notice a sudden rustle, the onset of a leaf or twig breaking meant life or death to our distant ancestors when we were mostly prey for other larger animals. It would also mean the difference between catching smaller prey or not.
and 5-20usec is an accepted range for the value, not that we need tweeters that respond that high.
You miss the point. Many listening tests are actually 'checking the properties of the detectors': can they distinguish between A and B? If they can, then maybe it could be interesting to investigate the differences in the signal processing properties of A and B.Jakob2 said:
If something is obvious then it should not need pointing out. As far as I recall, that is the meaning of the word 'obvious'? I realise that tricks can be played with gorillas, but I believe this is a red herring.
If some people choose to adopt a different meaning for the word 'obvious' (or any other word) then communication with them becomes more difficult.
If 100 people were asked to compare a 10cm string with a 12cm string and all agreed that the 12cm string was longer, would you say that the data was too good?
Given that I stated it perhaps I am aware of it?
So our sense of sight tells us whether this item ought to sound better than that item? Thanks for confirming that sighted audio tests are deeply meaningless.mmerrill99 said:
Which is precisely what we would expect if A and B really are so similar that they are, to most people most of the time, indistinguishable. I am really pleased to have you confirm exactly what I have been saying.
If the differences are so small that only a trained recording engineer can distinguish them with some difficulty, then for most people for most practical purposes they are indistinguishable - which is what most people will find from ABX. Hence once again you are confirming that ABX is a useful protocol.
You may be confusing two quite different issues here: 'A and B are different' vs. 'A and B are distinguishable'. It can be assumed that unless A and B are identical then they will be different. The issue is not 'are they different' but 'are they distinguishable by hearing'? It is expected that real differences will be statistically unrecognised, because the test is not 'different?' but 'distinguishable?'. If they are found to be indistinguishable then the result is 'indistinguishable' not 'same'. If you want to look for difference then test equipment is your best bet, but use people to look for distinguishability.
DF96, I now believe that you are acting purposefully dumb in your replies as I & Jakob2 have explained as best we can what is going on in auditory perception, multiple times & yet you refuse to allow any of this information to inform your understanding. If you don't understand what's being said, that's fine, just ask but don't just talk past each of us.
Maybe neither I or Jakob2 are explaining ourselves succinctly enough?
But I'll try one more time
I'm not saying that the effect of the sound on our emotions is due to brain processing - I'm saying that why we perceive a sound as coming from a bell as opposed to a piano key is due to the processing.
Do you understand this? Please answer this exact point as you seem to be ignoring/missing this. & in all your answers there's seems to be an underlying premise that the ear's signals (hearing) somehow already contains the pre-formed perception of the object creating the sound
When you can understand/accept this then you have to ask questions about this processing.
Please re-read what I wrote in my text you quoted to understand what I'm saying - it's explaining the uncertainty at the heart of auditory perception
Underlying your statement is that you assume the ABX test is not interfering with "most people's" ability to perform the task under the test but it is & has been shown to be less sensitive a differential test for trained listeners - I don't believe any studies have been done for "most people". And the reason such a study has not been done is that those who know about perceptual testing laugh at Foobar ABX & would not waste their time doing such a test - i's only on audio forums that it has any stock.
Part of the reason that people laugh at audiophiles is because they often believe in the ridiculous - the same applies to those who believe in Foobar ABX - it is laughable & fine as a bit-o-fun but please inform yourself about what it is purporting to test, auditory perception & please inform yourself about perceptual testing (& the shortcomings of Foobar ABX) before you start/continue to treat it as a serious, in any way scientific test
[qoute]You may be confusing two quite different issues here: 'A and B are different' vs. 'A and B are distinguishable'. It can be assumed that unless A and B are identical then they will be different. The issue is not 'are they different' but 'are they distinguishable by hearing'? It is expected that real differences will be statistically unrecognised, because the test is not 'different?' but 'distinguishable?'. If they are found to be indistinguishable then the result is 'indistinguishable' not 'same'. If you want to look for difference then test equipment is your best bet, but use people to look for distinguishability.[/QUOTE]No, again you are just trying semantics as a debating tactic.
Do you understand the meaning of false positives & false negatives?
What is the issue that many raise with regard to sighted listening? That they perceive an audible difference in sound which your & others claim doesn't actually exist i.e. a false positive.
There could never be a false positive if we took your semantic misunderstanding - these people perceive an audible difference & can distinguish it . QED as far as your semantics are concerned - no false positive
Maybe neither I or Jakob2 are explaining ourselves succinctly enough?
But I'll try one more time
I told you that auditory perception is mainly processing - the signals themselves are meaningless without this processing.
I'm not saying that the effect of the sound on our emotions is due to brain processing - I'm saying that why we perceive a sound as coming from a bell as opposed to a piano key is due to the processing.
Do you understand this? Please answer this exact point as you seem to be ignoring/missing this. & in all your answers there's seems to be an underlying premise that the ear's signals (hearing) somehow already contains the pre-formed perception of the object creating the sound
When you can understand/accept this then you have to ask questions about this processing.
Please re-read what I wrote in my text you quoted to understand what I'm saying - it's explaining the uncertainty at the heart of auditory perception
Again, I will repeat, it's the Foobar ABX test itself that makes distinguishing between small differences very difficult for most people. This is due to the nature of how perception works & the design of the 'test'
Again, that same argument again & again - the nature of perception means that even obvious differences can be missed given certain cognitive tasks which interfere with the perception & this has pointed out to you over & over yet you come back with the same point ignoring what has been explained to you.
Underlying your statement is that you assume the ABX test is not interfering with "most people's" ability to perform the task under the test but it is & has been shown to be less sensitive a differential test for trained listeners - I don't believe any studies have been done for "most people". And the reason such a study has not been done is that those who know about perceptual testing laugh at Foobar ABX & would not waste their time doing such a test - i's only on audio forums that it has any stock.
Part of the reason that people laugh at audiophiles is because they often believe in the ridiculous - the same applies to those who believe in Foobar ABX - it is laughable & fine as a bit-o-fun but please inform yourself about what it is purporting to test, auditory perception & please inform yourself about perceptual testing (& the shortcomings of Foobar ABX) before you start/continue to treat it as a serious, in any way scientific test
[qoute]You may be confusing two quite different issues here: 'A and B are different' vs. 'A and B are distinguishable'. It can be assumed that unless A and B are identical then they will be different. The issue is not 'are they different' but 'are they distinguishable by hearing'? It is expected that real differences will be statistically unrecognised, because the test is not 'different?' but 'distinguishable?'. If they are found to be indistinguishable then the result is 'indistinguishable' not 'same'. If you want to look for difference then test equipment is your best bet, but use people to look for distinguishability.[/QUOTE]No, again you are just trying semantics as a debating tactic.
Do you understand the meaning of false positives & false negatives?
What is the issue that many raise with regard to sighted listening? That they perceive an audible difference in sound which your & others claim doesn't actually exist i.e. a false positive.
There could never be a false positive if we took your semantic misunderstanding - these people perceive an audible difference & can distinguish it . QED as far as your semantics are concerned - no false positive
Last edited:
Apologies for suggesting you might be acting dumb - it's just pretty frustrating to have all that I post simply ignored - seemingly, not understood!
The most important thing in auditory perception that I mentioned but may have been missed is that the nerve impulse signals coming from the two ears are often not enough for the processing engine to definitively construct the soundscape of the objects that created these sounds.
This is the crucial understanding needed - auditory perception is based on guesswork or best fit analysis/processing.
It therefore uses various techniques to solve this dilemma.
The most important thing in auditory perception that I mentioned but may have been missed is that the nerve impulse signals coming from the two ears are often not enough for the processing engine to definitively construct the soundscape of the objects that created these sounds.
This is the crucial understanding needed - auditory perception is based on guesswork or best fit analysis/processing.
It therefore uses various techniques to solve this dilemma.
Last edited:
I knew Dave and Jerry Sussman of MIT (one of the most brilliant multi-disciplined people you could meet) both believed strongly in 100kHz hearing. The key word here is "I believe". It is possible to measure the output of musical instruments to 100kHz, but AFAIK the reciprocal process is beyond any current transducer technology. There are several problems, speakers capable of 120dB dynamic range out to 100kHz without masking or confounding effects from IMD don't exist and it it is very difficult to reproduce a 3D sound field (the old caveman and predator story). I have not seen any tests of this belief using speakers in the free field.
BTW James Boyk of Performance Recordings and Jerry wrote a paper on this that might still be around.
I don't know where the 120dB DNR comes from but I suspect the fact that Dave's involvement with DBX has something to do with it. I would have liked to see how he would get 15Hz - 40kHz audio in and out of a DBX box preserving the required fidelity. I don't quite understand his comment about bass, it is quite easy to generate a signal with nothing below 200Hz that sounds to anyone like there is lots of 20Hz content. DBX even made sub-harmonic synthesizers.
Last edited:
They might make GaN CATV amplifiers but the power transistors designed for switching regulators have input capacitance that would yield no power gain for continuous signals at frequencies far less than a GHz. A GaN class D multi-bit DAC directly driving the speakers, that would be a great project.
Haha, I know it's human nature to try to find 'dirt' on the messenger (no matter how wrong it is) in order to dismiss the message but if you read any of the academic links posted by Jakob2 or me you will see what I am saying is solid research. It's just incredible that the bias shown here is so strong as to try to negate the scientific research & some people prefer instead to believe in their own pseudo-science. Is this not the very exact same characteristic that this group attacks the other group with?
Audiophiles, anyone?
Audiophiles, anyone?
Knowing about your time/life constraints i tried to make it a bit easier and therefore mentioned the membership number total to avoid having to collect the number of members who actually have written about their (self-ascribed) listening abilities.
30% of the total members are roughly 140.000 humans, but compare that number to the 5% of the population (at the moment total 7-8 bill. humans- us billions).
Assume that we are only talking about teenagers and not too old adults, lets restrict it to the age range of 14 - 65. Still hundreds of millions.
Given normal statistical practice, we can assume that the "5% range" means actually people who overperform and people who underperform, so that would only leave the half of those hundreds of millions, but it´s still hundreds of millions.
That´s why i wrote, that it could be true.
My personal assumption about the number of members who claim to have extremely good listening abilities would be in fact much lower, more in the range of a couple of hundreds to thousands.
Please direct your comments about attitudes to specific individuals. Many of us while delivering our own experiences are open to hearing other's viewpoints and will make our own minds up.
Me, I dislike being lumped in with anyone on any subject, I would never join a club that would have me...(Woody Allen)
Cheers,
Howie
When I first heard of what were often called, at the time, digital amplifiers I thought what a great idea, why am I still waiting?
Although i too think that around 40kHz would be sufficient as upper limit (the 15 Hz are according to our experiments way to high) we should keep in mind that unsually several components are sort of daisy chained till the end.
So if the whole reproduction system should meet the 40Khz target, it follows that any processing device in the chain must have a higher bandwidth.
So if the whole reproduction system should meet the 40Khz target, it follows that any processing device in the chain must have a higher bandwidth.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.