I note with more than casual humor, that you simply ignored my statement:
"Also note that excel did the line fit, I had no say in how it does the fit."
Also I find it funny you neglected that I said:
"Note that the dots are exact out to 15 places in amplitude. (that was the resolution of PI in excel.)"
And, that I said: "Also, the data points do indeed mimic Lavry's 17Khz sampled 44.1K prefiltered."
Your feeble attempts at culling things to try and squash those you don't like is duly noted and shown for all to see.
Apparently you found it useful to neglect that Lavry did the EXACT same thing in his paper. I note with humor that you don't trash him for that.
It is clear you have an agenda having nothing to do with actual dialog, discussion, or civility. I have no idea why you have gone down this path, as you used to be far better in your postings.
I hope whatever is causing you to do this ends well for you.
jn
When I was young, with all those treeble in my young ears, I was trying to add more in my mixs.
Big mistake. It is crash, not p(i)ss.
That is not here where the most important thing is. But the initial impact of the stick to reproduce the simplicity and natural of the real thing. Lot of basses, as you said and huge instant dynamic.
It is, for me, moreover obvious on the piano. I was unable to record-it correctly, always shamed. And suddenly, DIGITAL. Oh Lord thank-you. But still an incomfort. Then 24X96, then it was possible to near forget the recording artefacts, compression, reduction in size ... just pushing the fader up. I can believe the piano is in the room, with all its size and weight.
We could argue during decades to understand if it is the added dynamic of the 24 bits, or the added speed (slopes) and trebles that the 96 bring, but it works. This is a pure nonsense, if we consider the inertia of our speakers, and their limited bandwidth... it works.
Now, let's try, together, to understand how and why, listening to each others that have various experiences and knowledges.
Many people open their fridges without knowing how they work. Some defrost in time, some buy ventilated freezers (Crazy audiophiles ?). That to answer the SYN08 "acceptable ignorance has it's limits." if you understand what means this image. And that the pleasure is on the table.
Last edited:
What can I say? You are a big, big disappointment. While I am sure it is reciprocal, this does not constitute an excuse for you.
You must make a distinction between those who think it is ok for themselves so it must be ok for everybody.....and those (like me) who think it ok for themselves but do not extend that ok for anybody else.
jn
So, I completely dispel every single statement in you post with factual content, and your retort is...I am a big big disappointment??
Wow, just...wow.
To be clear, I have never considered you a disappointment. Just unsure as to why you have changed your mannerism so much in the last few months. I liked the old syn08 who actually provided good technical content posts, not the attack dog style you now use.
jn
Last edited:
Tomlinson Holman investigated this back in the 1970's and found music (ie derived from instruments that were being played) information on LP discs up at 50 kHz. I don't recall what the levels were (the paper is somewhere on my site).
In modern 44.1/16 bit CD recordings you would never get any of this information since the c. 22kHz brickwall filter would remove it.
That said, have any studies been done on say 96/24 bit systems to look at ultrasonic music content? I could imagine a test set-up where you passed the music from left and right channels through a 20 kHz high pass filter and then looked at the content below 20 kHz arising subsequently from IMD. I suspect the levels would be very low with a good amplification chain. Then take it one step further, and do it but include the speakers and use a mic to pick it up.
There's no point for me to continue this debate, I'll let other to explain it to you, since I believe a personal animosity is blinding you to any arguments I may bring in (although I believe it should already be crystal clear). I hope others may enlighten you better that I could ever hope to.
Until, you may take this message as a "I give up, you are right and I am wrong" or "I apologize Master for daring to challenge you", if you prefer.
Again, your retorts are rather simplistic, childish, and not needed. The facts I posted are obvious and clear to all.
It is not clear to me why you choose your fighting tactics and hostility (in lieu of discussion), directed towards me as well as quite a few other posters in this thread. You have actually trashed this thread, for reasons I do not understand.
I hope all is well with you.
jn
I was already more or less expecting to get this answer.
And no, I’m not going to do this myself.
Hans
I found it odd that Lavry depicted a brickwall in his paper, but it attenuated 17Khz 50%.
Is that consistent with all brickwalls? I thought by definition, they remained flat out to close to 20K.
From his discussion, it almost looks like he says NRZ had lots of error energy above nyquist, and by implication, the brickwall removing that error energy reduces the final waveform by half..
Note I read between the lines for that last statement, am looking for a viable explanation.
jn
Last edited:
Dear John, what is better ? LPs ? With all this surface noise and distortions ?
Talking about accuracy, no one can hesitate in a blind test between a master tape and its vinyl. Very few between a master in 24X96 and its 44.1 copy, no one on a 24X96 copy. Same thing is the master is an analog tape at 38 cm/s.
Now, that you prefer the "sound" of vinyl, may-be because it is the one you liked in your young age, it is an other subject.
I wanted to add that, as we acoutumate ourselves to the different artifacts of our reproduction systems (remember the discomfort with the first (good) transistors amplifiers compared to the tubes we were used too), we have to accoutumate ourselves to each new technology.
I told, recently that I found the first digital recording of the Ry COODER "Bop t'll you drop" sounding strange (on the LP version) and kinda sterile, at this time. It is still today one of my favorite CDs. I found nothing strange any more.
Accustomed ? I am sure of this. As we are accustomed to all the distortions of our speakers, that our brains ignore with indulgence.
Some dogs or cats are interested in what is on the TV. I'm near sure the others just see moving lights.
We all know that you are a sympatical alcoolic ;-)
Do-you mean no controversies about the qualities and defects of various adhesive tapes ?
Last edited:
Apologies if I missed your context, but I really did not know what you were driving at with that, and I had read all the preceding posts. It seemed context-free when I read it, and frankly I still don't get it, it seems like a very synthetic example with little if any probative (heard that word on TV!) value. It seemed like you were suggesting an "experiment" which would not show anything interesting.
John, your fight with Nyquist is at least very unhappy, if I am to stay polite. Attached is a 20kHz sine in RedBook format, brickwall reconstructed. And it even does not take that much time after signal sudden turn on to settle and stabilize. Please take into account I am not going to show other signal/sampling ratios that you would be suggesting, time is precious.
Attachments
Last edited:
That was exactly what I was showing. A three point sine fit did not fit the overall concern of redbook accuracy.
And, I also love the word probative. However, I am not sure I could correctly use it in a sentence. I suspect you did, but not sure...
Jn
Lets do this in parallel and not series .... everyone do it and everyone listen and everyone decide.
If over time and place and culture, many people report the same findings, it is accepted.
OK? Got it? Bye. Got a lot of hi-rez downloads I am interested in.
THx-RNMarsh
Lets see what other trouble I can stir up here..... carry on your fights. Good luck syn08 with proving no one can hear improvement over CD.
That still won't do. Why? See below.We all have to listen to the same thing though and discuss it
IOW, there was no procedures taken to match levels within 0.1 db between components under test. As for for visual bias control... Oh, never mind.
I would not ask you to do so, as the last time we did this dance, you tended to choose conditions seemingly designed to hinder my observations. nuff said.
I do thank you however for the effort here. I do note that I have not been speaking about how long it takes to stabilize after sudden turn on, that was a detractor trying to use that premise to browbeat me.
Is it NRZ that was filtered through a brickwall, or is there some math going on prior to the brick wall.
Also, is it consistent with full scale? IOW, if swept from 5k to 20k, does the peak remain the same?
It appears to be a simulation, is that correct?
Lavry showed that a 17Khz signal was dropped 50% with respect to the analog, so is this dropping even more?
Did Lavry err in his calculation or setup? Or was the NRZ above band energy filtered out the reason for the 50% drop in level?
Thanks,
ps..btw, I do not have a fight with nyquist. That is what someone else would like you to believe..I assumed you were immune to misdirection on this type of technical discussion..
jn
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.