Is there a point to this ? Some one else's opinion is not relevant. You are doing the listening to your familiar voice... not another person. In your listening space.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
There are also 2011 and 2018 remasters. One of these was also done in 5.1 to try and replicate the quadrophonic effects they originally put in. I fear I may need to search the deep underbelly that is the steve hoffman forum.
Thanks Tom
I’ll give him an extra dinner daily if he decides to get fixed to this video (my criteria are of pure artistic nature)
YouTube
While searching for Ed’s 20kHz filter block (still nothing Ed), I found this detailed pdf on noise suppression, thought to share.
https://www.murata.com/-/media/webr...y/catalog/products/emc/emifil/c33e.ashx?la=en
This and related app.notes are found here:
PDF Catalog Library | Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
George
Nice references, thank you, but aren't these filters to be used starting in the 30Mhz region and above ?
My audio doesn't go this high 😀 😀
Hans
You are missing the point of my critique on your comparison setup.
Have you done a live vs. recorded sound comparison of cello?
Yes Hans, it’s countermeasures against HF pollution. (in our case for reducing IMD within audio band).
Now the attachment is from here
About The History of Sinc Filters | Dirk Mittler's Blog
Content is over my head but I think some of you here understand what is happening and why.
George
Attachments
Excuse me, but you mistake me for someone who cares about your critique.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
The last paragraph seems a particularly interesting point.
Can we expand on that? Might be useful.
-RNM
Last edited:
Here is an interview with one of the most respected classical (and Jazz)
recording engineers on the planet, Tony Faulkner. It's quite long but worth
the time.
YouTube
Rode has recently developed a small diaphragm condenser in conjunction
with TF specifically for Classical and Acoustic recording.
TCD
Actually, it is not over your head, don't be bashful..😉
I pointed out the problem of sampling exactly twice frequency back in the orig thread, and showed exactly what happens as you start to back off (recall the "fish" envelope.)
The closer you get to sampling freq, the longer the sampled stream will take to adjust to an abruptly starting sine. (The Gibbs artifact demonstrates this "adjustment period".)
As to the discussion at hand, the starting premise is this: the 44k sampling rate is sufficient to reproduce accurately any steady state signal within the BW of zero to 20khz.
That premise can fall apart if the signal is not steady state. When a signal is amplitude modulated, it creates sidebands. If the upper sideband extends out from the fundamental far enough that the brickwall removes it to prevent nyquist violation, the envelope of the reconstructed signal will be changed.
Remember, the filter is removing content that we as (older) humans cannot possibly hear. But it is leaving behind content that we can hear, however, that contents envelope has been changed.
The simplest modulation was chosen for explanation, the sincos, which luckily has a trig identity that allows us to test and verify several concerns in our methodology. The "H" guy (sorry, it keeps insisting on apostrophe s), chose the raised sine modulation, so the results were inconsistent with the premise due to the carrier present. It was pointed out that both the carrier frequency changed as did the modulation envelope, both being artifacts of the bad choice in modulation scheme. Much argument persisted over the changed frequency, which while a diversion, did emphasize the need for a proper, clean, modulation. KSTR used the correct modulation, and clearly provided the expected results..a sincos modulation that has the USB filtered, absolutely changes the envelope of the reconstructed signal, in this case the output was a steady state sine. That has been the point all along, that removal of the USB changes the envelope.
The fact that much musical content has generated sidebands should also be clear by now, especially percussion instruments. Should any of that sideband content be filtered out, the audible envelope will be changed.
So, the answer to the first question should be resolved by now...that is, 44k rate has the ability to alter the envelope of the audible content in the reconstructed signal IFF (if and only if) the combination of fundamental and envelope conspire to create content above Fs. Care must also be taken when creating test waveforms, "H" used an 18k exp envelope, but did not choose the decay exponent large enough that the sideband exceeded Fs, hence the incorrect conclusion. A side question to his plots..why was the reconstructed envelope so messy? Given the nature of the plot software, it cannot be determined if that roughly 3k modulation adder was an artifact of pixelation, an artifact of the software, or an artifact of the modulation math..
The second question, is that change to the envelope something humans can perceive? There are claims that some can hear something...
My point in all this: now that the mechanism has been identified, testing is much easier to do. Without the understanding of envelope modulation, all everybody has been doing is arguing over "something has changed, don't know what". It's not possible to clearly test an entity is you can't measure it.
Sorry for the diatribe length.
Jn
Ps..mountain man Bob. Your hint saved the day on this one, I would have given up.
Pps..ok, done editing
Last edited:
Immink worked at that time on the code schemes used for the CDDA and he tells another story for the changes in diameter and playing time:
Kees Schouhammer Immink, Shannon, Beethoven, and the Compact Disc, IEEE Information Theory Society Newsletter, December 2007, 42
available at:
(PDF) Shannon, Beethoven, and the Compact Disc
He wrote that initially both Philips and Sony targeted a running time of 60 minutes and later (on request of Sony) was changed; his reasoning was about the already existing manufacturing capability at Polygram while Sony didn't yet had something comparable. Given that Immink's EFM, as he wrote, offered a 30 percent more efficient coding scheme the increased in diameter from 11.5 to 12 cm wouldn't have been necessary anymore, but....
Looks quite plausible, but, as said before, I've read over the years 4 different versions about this diameter change and all given by people directly involved in the meetings between the two parties, so I'd guess it can't be resolved (especially if the minutes of the meeting did not include these discussions, as Immink wrote) finally. 🙂
Interesting anecdote around the presentation of the CDDA to the press/public when allegedly Karajan introduced his punch line "everything else is gaslight" was given by Stereophile's John Atkinson, who meant to the contrary that "the sound quality during this event was truly gas-light" (words to that effect).....
Couple of weekends ago took the sproglets to their first classical gig. We chose seats based on escape route for a bored 2 year old doing Godzilla impressions so were on the balcony at the back. Direct line of sight to orchestra. No reinforcement, not too loud, but a very nice presentation. Wife sitting next to me(tm) commented on how nice the sound was, so had to be good.
As a kids concert we got to see the william tell overture with the conductor balancing an apple on his head 🙂.
As a kids concert we got to see the william tell overture with the conductor balancing an apple on his head 🙂.
Attachments
Had the same problems when trying to find out the specific characteristics of the antialiasing filters used in the pre-CD-era digtial recording systems, but had up to now no luck either; no matter if looking for the Soundstream system or the Sony video tape based systems.
I remember having some quite old Sony datasheets on (CD so can't be that old) that might offer a bit more insights.
Some filters (intended for use as antialiasing and reconstrucion filters) were done by RIFA/Ericsson at that time, with quite different specifications between SOTA and low cost versions, for example the PBA 3167 and the PBA 3244....
https://datasheet.datasheetarchive.com/originals/scans/Scans-108/DSASCANS15-68415.pdf
https://datasheet.datasheetarchive.com/originals/scans/Scans-108/DSASCANS15-68428.pdf
https://datasheet.datasheetarchive.com/originals/scans/Scans-108/DSASCANS15-68414.pdf
@DPH,
I'd still think that one of the main problems exists as we don't know which intentions the producers (recording engineers) of a specific recording had in mind.
Some obviously try to recreate an impression (perceived by a listener) most similar to that he would have had when attending the original sound event, while others think more about enhancing the original sound to compensate for the missing visual information.
As said before, given the quite large differences in production and reproduction environments and considering the also quite large intersubject differences, it can't be (still) that surprising that different listeners differ vastly in their assessment of any reproduction that lossy like the usual two channel stereo system.
Measurements are fine, but can't tell us anything about the audibility; it's the exact opposite, as listeners must tells us what to measure.
Otherwise we are only able to state that the difference between the original soundfields and the reproduces soundfields is huge.
I'd still think that one of the main problems exists as we don't know which intentions the producers (recording engineers) of a specific recording had in mind.
Some obviously try to recreate an impression (perceived by a listener) most similar to that he would have had when attending the original sound event, while others think more about enhancing the original sound to compensate for the missing visual information.
As said before, given the quite large differences in production and reproduction environments and considering the also quite large intersubject differences, it can't be (still) that surprising that different listeners differ vastly in their assessment of any reproduction that lossy like the usual two channel stereo system.
Measurements are fine, but can't tell us anything about the audibility; it's the exact opposite, as listeners must tells us what to measure.
Otherwise we are only able to state that the difference between the original soundfields and the reproduces soundfields is huge.
If he does not mind, I will do that.
I'm afraid I've missed the photo reference. What movie?
Jn