Implementation is not simple as theory. All in the world are not ideal, so it must be compromised. Sometime we need safety margin.
I do not understand of defending 16bit/44.1kHz if can be done better with same cost or slightly expensive. Even if average people do not know the audible difference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before I can make a good amplifier, my wife enjoyed mp3, FM radio, etc with no complain. But now, most of time when she is listening music in cafe or public area, she complain the sound quality. She can not enjoy it as before.
I do not understand of defending 16bit/44.1kHz if can be done better with same cost or slightly expensive. Even if average people do not know the audible difference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before I can make a good amplifier, my wife enjoyed mp3, FM radio, etc with no complain. But now, most of time when she is listening music in cafe or public area, she complain the sound quality. She can not enjoy it as before.
But this thread is different from the rest of the forum apparently. It's primary function seems to have evolved into a place where obsessive egotistical maniacs can let off a little steam by waving their memberships at each other and generally behave a bit silly. I find it amusing and quite eye-opening, not at all sad.
But it’s also a rather hopeless fight between emotions and factual arguments.
East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet.
Hans
Highest fundamental in real instruments is about 4.3kHz. I agree if someone writes a concerto for bats and invents new instruments with fundamentals few humans over the age of 10 can hear we need a better system.
Does anyone know what sample rates are being used for the immersive 3D headphone work the gaming industry is driving?
You do not want better system. It is OK. Why do you mad if other want to better system? Do you feel your hearing ability is mediocre?
"You keep pushing Oohashi for over 10 years now, if you need a reminder pointer to SY's analysis from quite a few years ago let me know."
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part III
Yep, some quotes and links would be nice.
Last time you failed to cite the source. Did you write the piece in the "copper magazine"?
It's your hypothesis that in Oohashi et al.'s experimental setup, the additional speaker used for the reproduction of the ultrasonic content produced IM products that did fall in the audio band and were audible.
It's a valid concern, but could you provide some measured numbers to corrobate the hypothesis?
Did you consider the psychoacoustic tests, where the experimenters presented the ultrasonic content alone?
According to the publication the participants could not detect anything in this condition. Is therefore the data compatible with your hypothesis?
Last time you even promoted the totally incorrect assertion that Ashihara/Kiryu "repeated the Oohashi experiment", so it's a progress that your statement above is a bit different.
Still Ashihara/Kiryu did a completely different experiment, using different magnitudes and different signals (not to mention totally different speakers afair), so which way should they have been able to "completely debunk" Oohashi ?
You weren't interested in arguments/data that represented facts not compatible with your hypothesis, neither by me nor by SoundandMotion, so I guess you like fooling yourself.
Btw, afair there was one team involved in real reproduction attempts of the original Oohashi experiment, which addressed (means measured) the IM products in the audio band. I've to dig in the archive ......
You have a vivid imagination.
Sorry guy, It is very impolite to insult people with no reason at all.
In case you haven’t noticed, the ongoing discussion is not to take away that some people seem to enjoy higher sampling rates, let them be, I’m happy for them.
It start to get irritating is when they try to convince others that they are right, as if it were a religion to defend.
The silly undocumented, unproven and dead wrong theories used for that are even more annoying.
Hans
I never said I didn't want a better system. And I am getting very tired of your pathetic insults. So please be clear, next time you tell me there is something wrong with my hearing as part of your feeble attempts at trolling I will be taking action. I asked JN a reasonable question. If you have nothing to contribute other than cheap shots then you should consider not posting.
I don't think it's hopeless, often posts which are corrective get ignored, egos have a problem admitting when they are wrong, again, amusing
. Emotions running so high that people get banned, sin binned, suggest suicide I find hilarious. This is audio, it could be about music even, that is emotional, all kinds, perhaps that is reflected quite often here. Some people play the same tune over and over in their heads till they can't hear anything else....Don't be too harsh, as Bimo actually only asked "if you feel....."; in a foreign language it is always more difficult.
@ Hans_Polak,
IMO it would help if you explicitely name the wrong theories.
Question is, who would it help.
People saying all kind of things about violations of Nyquist, are using just words.
Let them come with well funded proves like graphs, simulations, calculations or whatever, but not just speculations.
Don't say I didn't try, but when a normal discussion trying to find out what they mean seems impossible, It simply makes no sense to go on.
But in between there are some very nice and informative postings that I enjoy.
Hans
May very bright people here appear to have a problem remaining focused, blinkered, agenda driven motives mean they are too eager to jump in without taking the time to read the context, it seems hard for them to listen, ironically
Bill,
Ever consider if our hearing is limited to 20,000 hertz why we would make musical instruments that only go to less than 5,000 hertz?
Does anyone remember when it was given that the range of human hearing was 15 to 15,000 hertz? Perhaps there was a reason standard hearing tests in the U.S. Only test up to 8,000 hertz? Why does A.M. Radio only have a bandwidth of 10,000 hertz?
All those issues have the common thread of "It was the best result/ability available at the time."
Today most folks record with techniques far above the reproduction mechanism and reduce the distributed copies for the media of distribution. It doesn't matter if it is CD, AM radio, FM radio or even MP3.
Why does MP3 exist? Because of technical limitations of memory at the time of introduction. CDs existed but were not portable enough, so reduced quality became acceptable to allow extreme portability.
Some of us remember the 1103 memory chips. A stunning 1024 bits that doomed magnetic core memory. By the time CDs were released you could easily get 64K memory chips. I think you might even have been able to get an 8" magnetic drive.
Technology might just be advancing, so who is going to argue MP3 represents the limits of perception?
BTY Nyquist-Shannon only provides guidance on limits. It does not set the hardware available.
Ever consider if our hearing is limited to 20,000 hertz why we would make musical instruments that only go to less than 5,000 hertz?
Does anyone remember when it was given that the range of human hearing was 15 to 15,000 hertz? Perhaps there was a reason standard hearing tests in the U.S. Only test up to 8,000 hertz? Why does A.M. Radio only have a bandwidth of 10,000 hertz?
All those issues have the common thread of "It was the best result/ability available at the time."
Today most folks record with techniques far above the reproduction mechanism and reduce the distributed copies for the media of distribution. It doesn't matter if it is CD, AM radio, FM radio or even MP3.
Why does MP3 exist? Because of technical limitations of memory at the time of introduction. CDs existed but were not portable enough, so reduced quality became acceptable to allow extreme portability.
Some of us remember the 1103 memory chips. A stunning 1024 bits that doomed magnetic core memory. By the time CDs were released you could easily get 64K memory chips. I think you might even have been able to get an 8" magnetic drive.
Technology might just be advancing, so who is going to argue MP3 represents the limits of perception?
BTY Nyquist-Shannon only provides guidance on limits. It does not set the hardware available.
Last edited:
Hans, I have not followed the progress in digital domain closely, just stayed sort of hazy background info. Your info along with elektroj's and syn08's (despite irrelevant preconceived baggage) have been quite illuminating. Thank you for sharing.
And yet a cymbal recording just presented on this thread had up to 60 kHz content.
My concern is not that we can hear up to there. Rather, how much of the measured spectra is there because a lower frequency we can hear was modulated. Like leading edge of the envelope.
Filtering to limit so as to not violate nyquist will remove envelope modulation upper side bands. I assume only percussive type instruments need apply.
My trivial example of modulating 20 kHz with a 5 k sine should be simple enough for all to follow. What I have never seen is an actual formal analysis on real instruments and their real modulation envelopes to determine what side bands result from the envelope.
This is not rocket science.
Jn
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.