No. Sorry guys. I'm done. Said what I needed to say about the best way to determine sampling rate and thus what the BW will be and filters. Its the proper way and has been used in instrumentation since the dawn of mankind.
Next is, Ok but it doesnt matter. Or where is the DBLT?
I know the drill.
THx-RNMarsh
Next is, Ok but it doesnt matter. Or where is the DBLT?
I know the drill.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
No you are not pointing to its flaws! There was only one variable introduced: A/D/A at 44.1 kHz in, or out of the loop. That is 1 variable. If that cannot be distinguished by ear…...we call it transparant.
Although agreeing that it is interesting, I can't share your optimism wrt to my understanding as I'm at the moment do not even understand what Bonsai means with the "u/s" . 🙂
AFAIR Boyk found a few others as well and the gamelan music, which Oohashi and the others were using was rich in ultrsonic content too.
Interesting is/was spectrography of african "click sounds" in speech that are well extended even above 12 kHz; not the usual content of music records,though.
While I totally agree about on the huge difference between the real experience and the normal recording of the same acoustical instruments, it is (at least for me) always a shocking revelation wrt "process of loosing at lot" when comparing raw recordings, masters tape, (in case of vinyl) acetat laquer cuts (unfortunately playable only a small number of times), finished vinyl record and/or the CD version.
Unfortunately there are a lot of constraints that must be considered when releasing a record, but what could be possible even within the limitations of a two channel stereophonic reproduction system, can be experienced when doing just a minimal recording of a real acoustical sound event with two good microphones, good recording gear (be it tape or digital) and replay of that without the usual editing/limiting/compression/mixing and production steps.
Although true for the past, the AES changed their policy in this regard around 2002-2004, after that at least a precise of a planned convention paper is reviewed too.
Not really; it could have been one way to go, but instead of that the authors decided to do it with an additional A/D/A working at 16Bit/44.1 Khz (presumably), so the "hi res" content was replayed by a "hi res player" the analog output of this player was recorded by an AD-Wander (inside the CD recorder) and further replayed by an internal D/A-converter and the output stage for the listening to this chain.
Howie, that was perfect. You are absolutely spot on with your understanding.
That link is beautiful, thank you.
Jn
Vaccy,
Pretty sure I can select a loudspeaker system for you to compare MP3 to CD where you would be unable to tell a difference.
Brings up the issue you really can't prove a negative result only a positive one.
Now let's see how much noise that can generate.
Pretty sure I can select a loudspeaker system for you to compare MP3 to CD where you would be unable to tell a difference.
Brings up the issue you really can't prove a negative result only a positive one.
Now let's see how much noise that can generate.
Due to the space limitations of printed journals, there was usually a lot to these unknowns that you've mentioned; today using online publishing and the near limitless webspace to deliver supplemental informations it should be different.
In case of the M/M they offered some more at:
BAS Experiment Explanation page - Oct 2007
but as said before, it doesn't help that much (although the information about the technical problems not mentioned in th JAES publicaton alone is worth it) wrt the methological problems.
When mentioning some of these at another forum (for example pointing to the missing measurements and labnotes) I was accused of "rasing the bar too high" beacause of being interested just to make such experiments impossible.
Wrt the "don't worry about" it the old question what a consumer should do, if somebody, somewhere, somehow finds evidence for or against an audible effect. Does he have to follow "blindly" , or should it be more a matter of finding out for himself what is important to him?
With respect to the synthesis of music, it has been used quite a lot. On campus where I did undergrad, they had a laboratory where a huge amount of work was done on this. Sometimes walking down the main campus road, you would hear the most interesting sounds and music.
With respect to RF, it is older than all of us. As Howie showed in that great link, the BW of the signal is dependent on the slew rate of the modulation.
With respect to audio and sampling rate concerns when the brick filter is so close to the audible spectrum, I have not found anything that anybody did that would suggest it was ever considered.
Just examining the resistance of some here to a well known engineering understanding tells me it has never been considered in the audio/CD world.
In my work, i see this separation of understanding all the time. Whenever upper management assembles a varied group to solve a difficult task, it is the extreme expertise of subsets discussing around a table or hardware that produces results that are in general, 10 years in front of SOTA.
Resistance to another's expertise is unheard of in my work environment. From what I see here, it appears common in the outside world.
Jn
The authors expressed the intention of their experiments (from which we could deduce the hypothesis that they likely wanted to test) in the JAES article but I'd say they failed in this regard.
Although I could, based on what was atually done, derive a hypothesis (in hindsight) that was really tested, I'd interested in which respect this experiment was well done?
Don't get me wrong; I really appreciated the efforts, as I know how much work it is, but we can't dismiss the flaws in the design and the execution.
That’s the only thing that makes sense, do whatever what makes you feel happy and don’t try to convince others of your “right”.
Hans
I don't see resistance. To be honest I see you just stirring the pot with these sort of comments. If it's not audible its not a problem. No one has come up with an audible case yet. If you look at the spectrum of music 20kHz is usually 30dB down on 1kHz. If it wasn't your tweeters would burn out very quickly or you;d need Ed style horns.
For those who do use DA4006 mm from a cymbal there is higher resolution sampling. For domestic replay I am failing to see a problem.
I haven't listened to recorded music in over five years. I do on occasion, hit a local jazz club.
Unbelievable how the tech has changed... In the middle of one song, lf feedback hit hard, the artists were unable to stop it while playing...they paused, the sax player (a huge name talent) said it was 80 Hz... Some kid with an IPad walked toward the stage, notched 80 Hz, and done...
I asked the sax player during a break how he was sure it wasn't 79.9?
Just awesome.
Jn
It is not stirring the pot to point out that an engineering understanding in an entirely different discipline was not considered. It's just a fact.
Recall the range of "resistance" I encountered when I first broached this topic as a possibility... I have been accused of knowing nothing, I am "just" a coil winder, ranging up to strawman arguments and later, "I already told you that".
I agree on both counts.
If one is only concerned with long term integrated power density, that is entirely accurate. However, that ratio is time dependent based on the music.
Jn
Last edited: