I wouldn't go that far, this is hardly the audio world.
In this thread
You are absolutely correct.
I made that assumption based on the horsepower of many of the contributors here, as well as the wide range of expertise. My feeling was, if it had been considered, somebody here would have heard of it...I could be wrong.
Jn
That’s kindly what I thought but didn’t have the energy to argue anymore.
Ive always been of the attitude ‘give it your best’ not ‘it’s good enough for the rest’ so when people say ‘most can’t hear a difference’ it really irks me because I might be one of the ‘some that can’ why should I concede to that kind of reasoning?
Has anyone tried (or even capable of) doing the wavelet transform of those cymbal strikes. The whole phase/timing keeps getting glossed over for the fr?
Can you explain to me how a slight change in that might matter? I've asked but been ignored 🙄
That's what the slight shift in the time domain of the filtered envelope is telling me, I might (probably am) be wrong.
Having said that, Jn has been talking about the amplitude of the envelope being modified lately
Last edited:
Matt, I’ll be the first one to admit that I fly by the seat of my pants here, but following my instincts usually gets me decent results. After extensive (albeit subjective) testing over the past couple yrs I’ve come to the conclusion that very slight differences in phase/timing make a huge difference in the final sound.....all the adjectives ever used in a good Stereophile review just fall into place when it’s right, I believe what Jn states with the envelope timing being slightly altered by the low sample rate/brick wall filter may indeed be the difference ‘some’ people hear when comparing cd to proper hi res.
Last edited:
Bob, specifically about cymbal strikes though, the mics are usually in a position your ears (well maybe not YOUR ears 😉) never will be, and where is the most accurate place for them? Also if the cymbal is struck only slightly differently the sound will be far more different than due to any shifting that may happen.
We’re not dealing with hypothetical’s after it’s recorded, and overhead miking on drum sets has worked for most everyone including me.
As the late great prof. T would say ‘it’s like a snapshot in time’ the photographer (recording engineer) is most important at that stage.
As the late great prof. T would say ‘it’s like a snapshot in time’ the photographer (recording engineer) is most important at that stage.
Last edited:
The consideration of envelope modulation creating sidebands which will exceed the filter Fs, so when removed, alter the envelope within the audio band.
Pretty much what I've been saying all along.
Jn
I know, Richard was wondering what I meant by "it" earlier, the same "it" you were referring to, he's one of your high "horsepower" contributors I take it? 🙂
Last edited:
have you considered how much phase shift is added during mixing and mastering. Or even how much phase shift your speakers add. with a studio recreased representation of a drum kit glued together from close miked drums what even is the right phase/timing for each feed?
. Your IT might have been same as JN's discovery or anything else IMO. So I asked you.
I dont like to Assume..
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
So why not start a test experiment to prove this ?
Go for it and follow your instinct.
Did you listen to Elektroj's samples and what was your verdict ?
Hans
But you can never focus a blurry picture, if your source is as focused as possible then it allows for a finer tune in final playback.....no?
Hans, if you recall I did compare someone’s files (Maybe yours?) and did find a difference.
Last edited: