Nor have I, and I would never expect such considering how easy it is to go higher rate nowadays. But that data would do great for informing us if the need for a 40 khz microphone is worth it.
jn
It can muck up the timing of all the mini transients of a cymbal/bell/etc strike. Does this matter considering all the variables of a cymbal etc strike?
John/jn the bickering does nothing to better the situation. Similarly, you have been asking people to do your job for the rather than producing your own plots and the imprecise nature of your comments in written rather than graphical form has caused an inordinate amount of extra posts and frustration.
Oh, what I meant was, that just a couple of months (or a year) later it would have been possible to realise a system with dithered 16 Bits and a Fs of 60 - 80 Khz; the manufacturing equipment had to be changed anyway (due to the nice Beethoven trick), so no need to wait another five years, therefore I said "near miss" .
Now you are going all the way back to the beginning of this whole discussion.
I think we are all done. I am.
Thank you all and JN. Nice expose. Innovative and enlightening. Added something new to the knowledge base re CD/filter. A contributor to the HF deterioration sonically and how/why.
-Richard
Last edited:
So "midrange" to you is in the high kilohertz audible range, thanks for clearing that up 🙄
New to you 🙂
Last edited:
I think it was you who stated that when a sinus is started from nothing, this is a NON-continuous event - so cant be captured accurately - because, theoretically, the start and stop contains infinite high frequency component.
Between the start and stop you may feed the theorem whatever you want - it is only limited by the Fs/2 aspect...AS long as the in-signal continues - no breaks!! - rigth?!
So basically the theorem states that there are problems in the start and end of a recording 🙂
The "repetitive" aspects I suppose it manes that it varies?
//
When CD first came out, the immediacy with which it was compared to vinyl by the high enders was something I'd think would have been taken into account by Sony/Phillips. So perhaps targeting mass-market consumption - versus critical listeners - was part of their willingness to make do with the lowest specs you could theoretically get by on - a smidge past nyquist.
Back in that day I found a CD in a snowbank of the computer company's parking lot. Its surface was all scratched, but with a little cleaning the salt off it played perfectly all the way through. When I posted "Try that with your LP" on the company's "Audio" notes forum, no one acknowledged that aspect just might be a +, compared to how the playback format sounded. Pops and ticks are part of "how it sounds" too and I recall elaborate signal processing devices for eliminating those.
Back in that day I found a CD in a snowbank of the computer company's parking lot. Its surface was all scratched, but with a little cleaning the salt off it played perfectly all the way through. When I posted "Try that with your LP" on the company's "Audio" notes forum, no one acknowledged that aspect just might be a +, compared to how the playback format sounded. Pops and ticks are part of "how it sounds" too and I recall elaborate signal processing devices for eliminating those.
Last edited:
Thanks.
I didn't find any mention of the microphones in that article.
If I were going to test the audibility, I would have started with source material that clearly had material that the 44k would remove.
jn
I have engaged a dialogue on how brick filtering so close to human hearing might be an issue.
I have detailed the exact mechanism, which you clearly understood.
I have detailed how I would recommend testing for this effect (that of envelope changes caused by the transient nature of music.)
It is a dialogue, a brainstorming session, a discussion of actual engineering signal theory.
Are you saying that if I were to come here and say force = mass times acceleration, you would ask me to prove it?
jn
I disagree that is was the lowest you could theoretically get by on. It was a good compromise for the technology of the time, and a damn site better than 90% of home systems of the era.
And even for the afficionados it had lower noise floor, better dynamic range and far superior low end performance.
tech spec willy waving apart I can't tell the difference. Then again I don't listen to close miked cymbals for pleasure. I suspect for those who claim they can the big blue 'high res' LED on their DAC may be part of this.
What exactly is this saying?
From cbdb’s link....
“4 A NOTE ON HIGH-RESOLUTION RECORDINGS
Though our tests failed to substantiate the claimed ad- vantages of high-resolution encoding for two-channel au- dio, one trend became obvious very quickly and held up throughout our testing: virtually all of the SACD and DVD-A recordings sounded better than most CDs— sometimes much better. Had we not “degraded” the sound to CD quality and blind-tested for audible differences, we would have been tempted to ascribe this sonic superiority to the recording processes used to make them.“
From cbdb’s link....
“4 A NOTE ON HIGH-RESOLUTION RECORDINGS
Though our tests failed to substantiate the claimed ad- vantages of high-resolution encoding for two-channel au- dio, one trend became obvious very quickly and held up throughout our testing: virtually all of the SACD and DVD-A recordings sounded better than most CDs— sometimes much better. Had we not “degraded” the sound to CD quality and blind-tested for audible differences, we would have been tempted to ascribe this sonic superiority to the recording processes used to make them.“
If you look at the spectral plots of a lot of CD releases they seem to have LP like low end roll off. SACDs are often mastered off a 5.1 surround mix with full LF intact. Much moar bass!
No, John, I'm saying that by asking others to do simulations or modify theirs to your long list of critiques without much in the way of gratitude (whether you mean to or not you maintain a high level of academic combativeness), you've done a lot to burn through charity and good will. I try to pay attention to what you have to say because it often has good meat to it (meaning I take a charitable view), but there were plenty of circumstances where I could not follow what you were trying to say and it took a number days and posts to get to the bottom of it. It may be patent to you but opaque to someone else until formed in a way that they think. We all come at problems from different formalisms.
The folks here aren't your employees or graduate students and the behavior you've shown looks a lot like what I see on a daily basis in my institution. It doesn't necessarily engender a collaborative spirit.
The folks here aren't your employees or graduate students and the behavior you've shown looks a lot like what I see on a daily basis in my institution. It doesn't necessarily engender a collaborative spirit.
Last edited:
The discussion if kept non personal would be of interest but it’s very technical for me. Jacob understands all those. I am out of my waters on this.
Then I haven’t seen much of real content above 15kHz apart from cymbals, close-miked trumpet and triangles.
A week ago I attended a three days avant-guard music recital. On the second day there were 3 different pianos on stage and an old restored French clavecin (harpsichord)
Well, at home, I listen a lot to music for piano and less for harpsichord (there are very good compositions by the way, Louis Couperin, Jean-Baptiste Lully, Jean-Philippe Rameau, JS Bach).
The live sound of harpsichord is heavenly. It is miles away from the recorded, and it isn’t a matter of frequency bandlimiting (CD Fs/2). It isn’t a matter of dynamic range either. It is a matter of capturing this delicate sound.
With piano, on recordings, things are better, the limiting factor being the dynamic range.
George
@billshurv - I had mentioned previously about a CD that seemed to be EQ'd to sound like the LP - with the wrong phono cartridge loading. So you present another datapoint that mastering engineers were EQing CDs to sound like LPs. Wondering why they wouldnt just let the format stand on its own - not EQ it to sound like something it's not?
An attempt to appease the vinyl level-set critics?
An attempt to appease the vinyl level-set critics?
Last edited:
Maybe not imagination. Do other people who don't know which source you are playing hear any difference between your SACD and CD? Don't give hints, just ask them to describe in detail what they hear from the sound system, not the musical content but the realism of instrument and vocal reproduction.
In other words, why don't you do your own experiment to satisfy yourself as to whether you are imagining things or not? See what you can learn from it.
Last edited:
We think it sounds better but can't prove it using the methods we employed. In other words, hand wavy material that folks will latch on to, but throw-away commentary until there's meat behind it. May provide basis for hypotheses but not much more.