+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 21 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 201

Thread: Digital Facts and realities?

  1. #11
    Join Date: Sep 2013

    Location: North Island New Zealand

    Posts: 1,146
    I'm Chris.

    Default Beginning with the tenants

    Just as Genesis "Get em out by Friday" predicted, we can fit twice as many in the same building site.. they say its all right.

    The quoted text is a ploy to reduce further the capability of a already compromised medium. https://earthworksaudio.com/wp-conte...yond-20kHz.pdf
    with singular aim of money making.

    Now how about instead extending the frequency response of CD to 48khz with sampling then at 100khz allowing a more gradual filter. I would be happy buying CD's with this added capability.

  2. #12
    Join Date: Jan 2009

    Location: Essex

    Posts: 19,536
    I'm openingabottleofwine.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigman80 View Post
    Probably but that was the title of the file.
    Nothing probable about it, this is the second sentence:

    "The Human ear does not hear from the 20 Hz to the 20 KHz range." (My emphasis)
    Have you listened to this month's choice in the Album Club?

    Barry

  3. #13
    Join Date: Nov 2015

    Location: Wolverhampton

    Posts: 8,161
    I'm Oliver.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry View Post
    Nothing probable about it, this is the second sentence:

    "The Human ear does not hear from the 20 Hz to the 20 KHz range." (My emphasis)
    Lol, ah yes. You're right!

    Surely there should be a "only" in there?
    Analogue: Technics SP10 MK2 > Phonomac AT-1010 MK6 tonearm > Ortofon Kontrapunkt b > Bigbottle Jfet MC Valve Phonostage (Telefunken Valves)
    Digital: Raspberry Pi 3+ With Allo Boss.
    Amplification: Nelson Pass DCB1 with Khozmo 48 Step Series Attenuator & Krell KSA100 MK2 Amplifier
    Cables: SPOTFIRE Speaker Cable & SPOTFIRE IC Cables & NEW SPOTFIRE Tonearm cable
    Speakers: Pioneer CS-77A

  4. #14
    Join Date: Jan 2009

    Location: Essex

    Posts: 19,536
    I'm openingabottleofwine.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigman80 View Post
    Lol, ah yes. You're right!

    Surely there should be a "only" in there?
    Yes that would make more sense; though beyond those frequencies, humans tend to perceive the 'sounds' rather than hear them. Infra bass is felt, whereas ultrasonic sounds can be perceived, by some people, directly through the scull.
    Have you listened to this month's choice in the Album Club?

    Barry

  5. #15
    Join Date: May 2018

    Location: Woking

    Posts: 94
    I'm Chris.

    Default

    I have a love/hate relationship with scientific "facts".

    We use facts indefinitely to build systems based on scientific theory. They help us understand how sound travels from recording format via source and through various amplification stages into your speakers/headphones.

    However these "facts" don't really explain the effects these frequencies, that apparently cannot be heard, have on your brain. You certainly do not have to "hear" the frequencies for them to have an effect on your "hearing/portrayal" (and therefore your appreciation) of the music.

    As others have eluded to sub bass frequencies are felt and ultrasonic ones perceived (they can also break glass etc). Also consider the effects these frequencies have on the rest of the recording.

    We may not hear them but they may have some effect on other notes that were being recorded at the same time. I'm speculating in this previous sentence but having mixed digital music in the past I can tell you that sometimes removing what technically a human ear cannot detect in a recording, can effect that recording in both positive and negative ways.

    I've also attempted to "clean up" ambient, live recordings and sometimes the silence (which often has detectable noise well above 15k) when removed, again, removes something more from the recording.


    Plus think how devastated our K9 friends would be if we started cutting off the extra frequencies in our favorite albums, they expect to hear them!!


    As with a lot of these topics its likely very subjective but I think this is an interesting discussion.

    Cheers

    Chris

  6. #16
    Join Date: May 2018

    Location: Woking

    Posts: 94
    I'm Chris.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry View Post
    Infra bass is felt, whereas ultrasonic sounds can be perceived, by some people, directly through the scull.
    Exactly Barry, spot on.

  7. #17
    Join Date: Nov 2011

    Location: Seaton, Devon, UK

    Posts: 1,264
    I'm Adrian.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigman80 View Post
    Ah, not my comments mate. This was in a "Read me" file on some music files I was given. Just shared it here to see what people thought.

    And yes, I notice as soon as I turn the Super tweeters off
    Yes you noticed that you switched them off, but did you determine what frequencies were coming from them that you then noticed were not there after turning them off?
    [FONT="Arial"]
    Listening is the act of aural discrimination and dissemination of sound


    Michel GyroDec (slightly modified), SME IV arm(special build virtually a V), Michel Cusis MC cartridge, Furutech AG-12-R4 High Performance Phono Cable, LFD MMC special phono stage, RaspberryPi/HifiBerry Digi to Beresford Caiman SEG DAC, Meridian 508 CD to Caiman SEG, ALLNIC T1500 MKII SET 300B amp, Vienna Acoustics Mozart SE speakers, Chord Epic speaker leads, & signature links, the Eccose Conductor CA1 cd to pre

  8. #18
    Join Date: Jan 2008

    Location: Gerrards Cross

    Posts: 2,252
    I'm Tony.

    Default

    Morning Oli

    What are your thoughts on this?
    Coherent Systems
    Real high end sound with musicality not hifi

  9. #19
    Join Date: Apr 2015

    Location: Central Virginia

    Posts: 1,458
    I'm Russell.

    Default

    I have read many times that higher sampling rates only increase the highest frequency. But that is simply not true. It is true that the Nyquest rate, or whatever it is, says that the highest recordable frequency is half of the sampling frequency, this much is true. But that is not the Only thing it does. Lower frequencies are also sliced into finer samples, increasing accuracy. Just because thereís a beautiful smooth sine wave coming out, doesnít mean itís a perfect copy of the original. The same for bit rates, each sample has a numeric representation, a number between the lowest, and highest number possible, so the more numbers, the more accurate that sample will be.

    And I hear these things from designers and engineers! If they donít have a real grasp of what is going on, does that get in the way of the success of their designs? I guess anyone can get lucky now and then?

    And I also agree that a good recording versus a bad recording makes one hell of a lot more difference than any of it. A poor recording sounds bad, no matter what you do, the better the equipment, the worse it sounds.

    Russell

  10. #20
    Join Date: Jan 2008

    Location: Wrexham, North Wales, UK

    Posts: 84,796
    I'm AudioAl'sArbiterForPISHANTO.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Opti-cal View Post
    I have a love/hate relationship with scientific "facts".

    We use facts indefinitely to build systems based on scientific theory. They help us understand how sound travels from recording format via source and through various amplification stages into your speakers/headphones.

    However these "facts" don't really explain the effects these frequencies, that apparently cannot be heard, have on your brain. You certainly do not have to "hear" the frequencies for them to have an effect on your "hearing/portrayal" (and therefore your appreciation) of the music.

    As others have eluded to sub bass frequencies are felt and ultrasonic ones perceived (they can also break glass etc). Also consider the effects these frequencies have on the rest of the recording.

    We may not hear them but they may have some effect on other notes that were being recorded at the same time. I'm speculating in this previous sentence but having mixed digital music in the past I can tell you that sometimes removing what technically a human ear cannot detect in a recording, can effect that recording in both positive and negative ways.

    I've also attempted to "clean up" ambient, live recordings and sometimes the silence (which often has detectable noise well above 15k) when removed, again, removes something more from the recording.


    Plus think how devastated our K9 friends would be if we started cutting off the extra frequencies in our favorite albums, they expect to hear them!!
    Excellent post, Chris. I concur completely, especially with the bit in bold! And that's why in audio, forming opinions based on said 'facts' will only ever take you so far, certainly in terms of understanding how we as humans 'hear' music.

    Marco.
    http://www.thestainedglasscompany.com

    "A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and gets to bed at night, and in between he does what he wants to do" -- Milan Kundera.

    BE HAPPY EVERYDAY!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 21 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast



 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •