What about the idea that the "changing the envelope changes the sound perception" supporters start a separate thread.
Then this thread, now completely dominated by this subject, will be free again for other discussions.
Hans
Then this thread, now completely dominated by this subject, will be free again for other discussions.
Hans
Last edited by a moderator:
On the CFA thread A few years ago, I tried to get the VFA guys to go away with that approach. Didn’t work. They redoubled their efforts.
But I ended up enjoying being a heretic.
High horsepower contributors do not have to be audio, or even technical experts.
jn
That is why they conducted this particular test on a wide array of systems, high end, studio, electrostatics. All the same nil result. No cigar this time.
John, a 24/192k Focusrite 2i2 sells for ~$200 these days. What is it you think would benefit readers of this thread with further discussion?
But for a miked up drum kit its a Hannah Hoech montage not a 'sharp' picture. It's the mixing engineers idea of what he thinks you think a drum kit should sound like (or what he wants to give you). Look for how Glynn Johns did Led Zepp drum miking for a more purist approach.
Hans is not the one being a bully on the thread. I tend to agree with him that this theory needs to be spun off to be tested now. Too many pages of no progress on that, which whilst is how BT went we did hope to cover many topics here.
I presume you know what you mean, it's up to the rest of us to guess, no change there then.
Well Bill, must admit I never knew that, and that’s exactly how I ended up miking our sons band drum kit.....two overheads and a kick. Gave me the best results with the limited equipment I had. Those recordings are still buried in storage but hopefully we get the new house Certificate of Occupancy permit on the 18th (if it passes inspection!) and I can start emptying into the house.
You fellers have no sense of humor, it ain’t like the future of humanity is on the line here!
You fellers have no sense of humor, it ain’t like the future of humanity is on the line here!
Pfff, if it's that easy I'm not interested (must have been something with forrest and trees) 🙂
@mountain bob;
I'd guess that these statements that you've made led to a bit of confusion:
" There’s still something about that doesn’t make sense?
Hi res sounds better than cd until you downsample it to cd resolution!?"
and
"They were comparing CD to downsampled hi-res (to cd 16/44.1)
How did they expect it to sound any different is what I’m asking?"
In their experiments they were comparing so-called (or assumed) "hi res" sacd converted back to analog to a rerecorded version (recorded by a 16bit/44.1 kHz system) that was converted back to analog as well.
No version was downsampled for comparison.
The statement in the article about the sound quality advantage of the "hi-res" records was just a general one. They listened to these "hi-res" records and found the sound quality much better than that delivered by most CDs they had at hand. See the list from the accompanying website that I've linked in my response to Markw4's post.
Listening to these records from the list and comparing the sound quality to any set of CDs they had at hand led to the impression that the newer/modern records offered just better sound quality overall.
That is quite similar to my stance on it. Doesn't mean that I'd prefer "no music reproduction" over "music reproduction of not so good sound quality" .
And it must not be me, who is able to detect something but some others.
It is interesting. Considering that speech and music are non-stationary signals and that our hearing sense must be able to cope with that (means is working like a time-frequency analyzer) using additional tools makes sense......
Last edited:
hmmm. are you saying I should NOT respond to a direct question, or are you insisting others do not ask any?
jn
I am quite astounded by your statement and strawman.
I value the experience and skills of everybody unless they prove they are writing checks they cannot cash. I do not care what discipline the skills are in.
Your statement seems written only to be contrary.
jn
The eagles drummer could not get on with that method according to an interview I read. But Bono was an animal!
I’d just like to say I appreciate you fellers including me in these discussions, I’ve learned a lot here even if it is at the expense of some of your patience’s!
I know I know I’m not trained in EE but I am a self trained consumer/listener and I think that might bring a little value to the table. 😛
I know I know I’m not trained in EE but I am a self trained consumer/listener and I think that might bring a little value to the table. 😛
Accordign to the authors the majority of tests was done on their main system, some sets of trials were done on the other systems. It is exactly one of the (quite dubious at least to me) surprising pecularities of these experiments that nobody did taking notes, neither of the number of trials done overall nor of the records used or the number of trials done on each record.
I don't understand which way the analysis that they've mentioned in their article:
"We have analyzed all of the test data by type of music
and specific program; type of high-resolution technology;
age of recording; and listener age, gender, experience, and
hearing bandwidth."
could have been done; it might be that they meant something completely different.
Last edited:
Since we know which sources they used, why not doing it in your own well controlled environment and report the findings.
This is absolutely meant as a positive suggestion.
I never found a difference when downgrading sample rate and word length of Hi-Res, but that’s just me, I don’t pretend that we all have the same hearing ability.
But at least I tried.
Hans
Last edited:
There's a line in Nick Hornby's How To Be Good that stuck in my mind mainly due to it's "perfection"; A character is attempting to make him doubt his judgement, I can't remember about what, anyway, he says to himself: "I know that I know that I know that" as a self-affirmation