For Real, or just Audiophile Voodoo?
Analogeezer
sonic benefits of their DSD recorder.
http://www.tascam.com/press/news/2002_08/04_dsd.html
I didn't read any of the DSD vs. PCM stuff a while back, but this
comment from the article kind of intrigued me:
A strong advocate of analog audio, Levinson has recently lent his nod
of approval to a digital format for the first time with the
development of DSD-recorded SACDs (Super Audio Compact Discs).
Levinson has gone on record about his opinion in regard to PCM digital
processing, which he states can cause physiological effects that
interfere with a person’s ability to thoroughly enjoy listening
to music.
"We don't know exactly what it is about the PCM operating system that
creates these physiological reactions, but we do know that playing
PCM-recorded discs increases stress,” states Levinson, who is
the CEO of Red Rose Music, a manufacturer and retailer of audiophile
stereo systems. “Analog or DSD-recorded SACD discs don't have
this effect, provided no PCM processing is used during production."
Unlike PCM processed CDs, Levinson explains that listening to
DSD-based SACDs have similar physiological effects as listening to
traditional analog recordings.
Ever since CD's and multitrack digital came out, I have always felt
this "my head's in a vise" feeling when listening to CD's, etc. for
extended periods.
24 Bit recording seems to help it quite a bit, but when I first got my
analog two track, it was like "aahhhhh that's more like it".
So is there something to DSD vs. PCM encoding, or is this just a way
to get us all to buy new hardware and CD's?
Analogeezer
Jay Kadis
> Came across this article on the Tascam website, which is touting the
> sonic benefits of their DSD recorder.
>
> http://www.tascam.com/press/news/2002_08/04_dsd.html
>
> I didn't read any of the DSD vs. PCM stuff a while back, but this
> comment from the article kind of intrigued me:
>
> A strong advocate of analog audio, Levinson has recently lent his nod
> of approval to a digital format for the first time with the
> development of DSD-recorded SACDs (Super Audio Compact Discs).
> Levinson has gone on record about his opinion in regard to PCM digital
> processing, which he states can cause physiological effects that
> to music.
>
[snip]
>
> So is there something to DSD vs. PCM encoding, or is this just a way
> to get us all to buy new hardware and CD's?
>
> Analogeezer
There is indeed something about SACD/DSD that sounds better than PCM, but I
doubt it's reflected in the physiology*. I happen to have bought an SACD
player last week and had the chance to compare some of the Rolling Stones
records re-released in SACD with the older remastered PCM ones. There's a
definite difference in terms of imaging and clarity between the two releases:
the SACD release sounds obviously better.
No, I'm not likely to re-buy my entire CD collection, but for new releases I
might be tempted to go SACD. We're slated to get a demo from Sony of the
SACD/DSD system, which I expect will be most interesting.
-Jay
*As one actually trained in physiology, I inherently mistrust anyone who makes
such an unsubstantiated claim. When it's published in Nature or Science (or
any real scientific journal), I might change my mind...
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x
Scott Dorsey
>
>So is there something to DSD vs. PCM encoding, or is this just a way
>to get us all to buy new hardware and CD's?
I dunno, I thought the DSD stuff sounded audibly better than 44.1 PCM in
some tests, which is more than I can say for 96k PCM. Give it a listen
and see. I did think the DSD encoding was a definite sonic improvement.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
dbluefield
very good. I think DSD will continue to get more attention with things like
the recordings that Chick Corea did at Blue Note etc.
Maybe someome like Barry at IZ will make an all in on 24 trk recorder soon.
I'm looking at the pyramix thing and outboard converters etc -- too much
accessorizing for me. Apparently Genex anounced a 48 trk dsd recorder.
Mack
Arny Krueger
news:bfb37ea9.02100...@posting.google.com
> So is there something to DSD vs. PCM encoding, or is this just a
> way to get us all to buy new hardware and CD's?
It's obviously a way to get you to buy new hardware, logic and
science be damned.
Here's what I find to be a very cautionary footnote from the Redrose
web site:
http://www.1redrose.com/RedRoseSACDClub.htm
"We are considering a series on audio cassette for those who are not
able to get an SACD player at this time. Audio cassette, in spite of
its limitations, seems to retain more of the soul of the original
recording than CD."
To which all I can say is: Cassette sounds more like the original
performance than the best audio CD that Mark Levinson could make?
Yeah, sure!
Benjamin Maas
"dbluefield" <dblue...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> Maybe someome like Barry at IZ will make an all in on 24 trk recorder
soon.
> I'm looking at the pyramix thing and outboard converters etc -- too much
> accessorizing for me. Apparently Genex anounced a 48 trk dsd recorder.
>
> Mack
>
The Genex was shown at AES. If I remember correctly, they said the 48 track
recorder is roughly $18,000. I do not know, however, what cards that comes
with.
--Ben
--
Benjamin Maas
Fifth Circle Audio
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.fifthcircle.com
P Stamler
I happened to put on a set of headphones connected to one of the DSD Macs. I've
never heard a digital recording that sounded like that in my life. Ever. It
sounded like a good, well-tweaked Ampex, but with no hiss, flutter, modulation
noise.
I want it. And I want it to make all the other stuff go away.
Go hear one sometime. It will surprise you.
Peace,
Paul
dbluefield
> recorder is roughly $18,000. I do not know, however, what cards that
comes
> with.
>
> --Ben
Well 9k for 24 trks could be good. If its rock solid. But that's the
thing -- I don't want to know what cards it comes with -- I just want it to
work (which is why the radar seems cool)-- hopefully we'll get something
that records really well without the "you'll- need- this- to- connect- to-
that" geek factor.
Mack
Scott Dorsey
>All I can tell you is that when I was at the AES show and visited Sony's booth,
>I happened to put on a set of headphones connected to one of the DSD Macs. I've
>never heard a digital recording that sounded like that in my life. Ever. It
>sounded like a good, well-tweaked Ampex, but with no hiss, flutter, modulation
>noise.
When I heard this demo last year, I heard hiss, flutter, and modulation noise,
and the reproduction was good enough that I could tell the master was on
Ampex 406 or 456 on an ATR-100. It was amazing.
>I want it. And I want it to make all the other stuff go away.
>
>Go hear one sometime. It will surprise you.
Did you hear the big 5.1 demo this year? The one last year was depressingly
poor, with imaging that was much worse than I expect from 44.1 2-channel stuff.
red
>*SNIP*
>When I heard this demo last year, I heard hiss, flutter, and modulation noise,
>and the reproduction was good enough that I could tell the master was on
>Ampex 406 or 456 on an ATR-100. It was amazing.
You can seriously tell the difference of the master tape stock by the
recording and the machine? !!
Scott, I am officially humbled (and have never worked in analog..)
.. and amazed
REd
Scott Dorsey
You shouldn't be. The thing about working in analogue is that everything
does have its own particular sound, and you can mix and match machines,
tape types, bias points, and operating levels in order to get precisely
the effect you want. It's like playing an instrument, almost, the way
you can alter tonality and the sense of ensemble in subtle ways.
Sadly a lot of that subtlety gets lost in mastering and CD release, but
it shouldn't have to.
This is what makes analogue tape so much fun.
red
Rupert Neve had an interview with an Aussie audio mag. He cited
Jpanese studies where the 44k switching frequency produced an
inaudiable spike (at 44k obviously) which we perceive rather than
hear.
By taking identical recordings and measuring brain wave patterns, the
CD recordings created brain function akin to those of aggression
whereas the analog versions measured brain patterns to ones of
relaxation.
He also cited a time when a golden ears called the Neve tech dept and
said the new console was distorted. The techs didnt believe him and
dismissed the golden ears as being full of shit but Rupert respected
the golden ears. So he visited him and asked the engineer to explain
the sound. after a few hours Rupert heard it also. They took it back
to the techs and discovered distortion at around 53K. The techs didnt
notice it because they didnt measure that high.
then rupert described how configuring the same components on the board
changes the harmonic distortion.... and so they did and removed the
distortion much to the golden ears delight.
Verdict, who knows but there is strong evidence to suggest that clean
up to 100k is necessary for absolute purity and replication.
As a side bar, I also read how a tech's cat always followed bird
sounds when the TV was on at the guys stereo speakers. He bought a new
set of speakers and the cat didnt follow the sound like it used to.
Verdict, the tech pulled the new speakers apart and discovered one of
the drivers was wired outta phase. When he fixed the problem, the cat
resumed normal audio following patterns. So there's strong evidence
that cats/animals can apparently tell out of phase information or know
when something isnt right. Gees imagine what they think of
hypercompression.
There's also strong evidence that the golden ears either
1. spent much of his childhood in an anechoic chamber
2. smoked fatty's
3. was in cahoots with the techs and played worlds greatest joke on
Rupert (i think not)
4. Had Steve Austins ears implanted into him.
5. Was really a girl (cos they hear better than us guys ....
especially in my case when I mention risotto)
Regards
REd
Jay Kadis
>
>
> Rupert Neve had an interview with an Aussie audio mag. He cited
> inaudiable spike (at 44k obviously) which we perceive rather than
> hear.
>
> By taking identical recordings and measuring brain wave patterns, the
> CD recordings created brain function akin to those of aggression
> whereas the analog versions measured brain patterns to ones of
> relaxation.
I've said it before, but this is not scientifically proven. Those Japanese
studies are often quoted without any actual references. Anyway, EEGs are not
accurately correlated to specific behaviors. If an f-MRI scan were involved, I
might give it some credibility, but not EEGs.
[snip]
> As a side bar, I also read how a tech's cat always followed bird
> sounds when the TV was on at the guys stereo speakers. He bought a new
> set of speakers and the cat didnt follow the sound like it used to.
> Verdict, the tech pulled the new speakers apart and discovered one of
> the drivers was wired outta phase. When he fixed the problem, the cat
> resumed normal audio following patterns. So there's strong evidence
> that cats/animals can apparently tell out of phase information or know
> when something isnt right. Gees imagine what they think of
> hypercompression.
Even a lowly human can detect this condition easily. The cancellations are
obvious. If the cat had peed on the out-of-phase speaker, then I'd be
impressed. (I have this problem at home, by the way, although the speakers are
in phase.)
-Jay
Michael R. Kesti
<snip>
>As a side bar, I also read how a tech's cat always followed bird
>sounds when the TV was on at the guys stereo speakers.
This adds nothing to the discussion, but I am reminded of when I was a kid
and a local brewery had a TV ad campaign intended to appeal to the many
sportsmen in our area, especially hunters. One had a guy hunting rabbits
with a beagle and included the distinctive sound beagles make while on
the chase. This would drive our pet, also a beagle, completely nuts
and she would run from one end of the house to the other, trying to join
the chase. Most comical was when she would run toward the front entry and
lose her footing on the linoleum, causing her to slam into the door while
attempting to back-pedal. It was like a real-life cartoon, and we would
be ROFL with tears in our eyes!
Another ad had a couple of guys fishing in a boat, and, while one was
reeling in a catch, his buddy exclaimed, "Don't let it get under the
boat!" 40 years later I still sometimes use that line!
--
========================================================================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mke...@gv.net | - The Who, Bargain
Jay Kadis
writes:
> red wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >As a side bar, I also read how a tech's cat always followed bird
> >sounds when the TV was on at the guys stereo speakers.
>
> This adds nothing to the discussion, but I am reminded of when I was a kid
> and a local brewery had a TV ad campaign intended to appeal to the many
> sportsmen in our area, especially hunters. One had a guy hunting rabbits
> with a beagle and included the distinctive sound beagles make while on
> the chase. This would drive our pet, also a beagle, completely nuts
> and she would run from one end of the house to the other, trying to join
> the chase. Most comical was when she would run toward the front entry and
> lose her footing on the linoleum, causing her to slam into the door while
> attempting to back-pedal. It was like a real-life cartoon, and we would
> be ROFL with tears in our eyes!
>
One of the first stereo LPs I ever had was the Bob and Ray Stereo Spectacular
on RCA that included a very high-fidelity cat fight. It sent our dog into a
frenzy, looking behind the speaker for those cats. It never failed. It still
evokes big reactions from our cats, but they get bored much quicker than the
dog did.
Maybe someday I'll dub it onto 44.1 kHz PCM and see if it still fools the cats.
red
Kadis) wrote:
>In article <jok8qu0c8jm6mrkl9...@4ax.com> red
><red...@computer.myjoint> writes:
>>
>>
>> Rupert Neve had an interview with an Aussie audio mag. He cited
>> Japanese studies where the 44k switching frequency produced an
>> inaudiable spike (at 44k obviously) which we perceive rather than
>> hear.
>>
>> By taking identical recordings and measuring brain wave patterns, the
>> CD recordings created brain function akin to those of aggression
>> whereas the analog versions measured brain patterns to ones of
>> relaxation.
>
>I've said it before, but this is not scientifically proven. Those Japanese
>studies are often quoted without any actual references. Anyway, EEGs are not
>accurately correlated to specific behaviors. If an f-MRI scan were involved, I
>might give it some credibility, but not EEGs.
>
>[snip]
(You mean... I've HEARD it before??)
Ahhh... good point. Not being a medico sound engineer /i dont know
the difference between a EEg and a Mag Resonance imaging thingammy
>
>> As a side bar, I also read how a tech's cat always followed bird
>> sounds when the TV was on at the guys stereo speakers. He bought a new
>> set of speakers and the cat didnt follow the sound like it used to.
>> Verdict, the tech pulled the new speakers apart and discovered one of
>> the drivers was wired outta phase. When he fixed the problem, the cat
>> resumed normal audio following patterns. So there's strong evidence
>> that cats/animals can apparently tell out of phase information or know
>> when something isnt right. Gees imagine what they think of
>> hypercompression.
>
>Even a lowly human can detect this condition easily. The cancellations are
>obvious. If the cat had peed on the out-of-phase speaker, then I'd be
>impressed. (I have this problem at home, by the way, although the speakers are
>in phase.)
hahahah. Yeah, I can too, and I'm not a cat. The humble domestic pussy
just went up in my estimations though. They exist to pat, feed and
judge us.
Out of phase between mid/highs and subs is interesting. I was doing a
gig once and couldnt pitch my voice. Sub was outta phase. changed that
and I could pitch again. Was a mono set-up. Xover @ 180. Never been
quite able to explain that.
REd.. again
>
>-Jay
Scott Dorsey
>Rupert Neve had an interview with an Aussie audio mag. He cited
>Jpanese studies where the 44k switching frequency produced an
>inaudiable spike (at 44k obviously) which we perceive rather than
>hear.
These studies are generally bullshit. They are from the Kanagawa Institute
and are mostly funded by Pioneer. They always give a couple papers at the
AES show and they are always good for a laugh and worth attending for
amusement value.
>He also cited a time when a golden ears called the Neve tech dept and
>said the new console was distorted. The techs didnt believe him and
>dismissed the golden ears as being full of shit but Rupert respected
>the golden ears. So he visited him and asked the engineer to explain
>the sound. after a few hours Rupert heard it also. They took it back
>to the techs and discovered distortion at around 53K. The techs didnt
>notice it because they didnt measure that high.
>then rupert described how configuring the same components on the board
>changes the harmonic distortion.... and so they did and removed the
>distortion much to the golden ears delight.
This is because there was a fundamental problem which caused something
audible, and also caused the high frequency distortion. Neve keeps telling
this story over and over again, but what he is talking about is an
improperly terminated transformer that was ringing, which can very easily
caused measurable effects below 20 KHz, even if the distortion problem is
most easily noticed at ultrasonic frequencies.
>Verdict, who knows but there is strong evidence to suggest that clean
>up to 100k is necessary for absolute purity and replication.
There is no evidence whatsoever. On the other hand, there is no real
evidence that it's not necessary either.
>As a side bar, I also read how a tech's cat always followed bird
>sounds when the TV was on at the guys stereo speakers. He bought a new
>set of speakers and the cat didnt follow the sound like it used to.
>Verdict, the tech pulled the new speakers apart and discovered one of
>the drivers was wired outta phase. When he fixed the problem, the cat
>resumed normal audio following patterns. So there's strong evidence
>that cats/animals can apparently tell out of phase information or know
>when something isnt right.
Well, of course. Having a driver out of phase totally screws up imaging.
This is not a subtle thing. Animals that are used to being able to locate
things by ear will get totally screwed up, as will human beings. How can
people tolerate this stuff?
Analogeezer
Well if you and Scott Dorsey like it I take it that DSD is a good
thing.
I guess to rephrase my question, what is different about the DSD
encoding process that could make it more aurally pleasing to humans
than PCM encoding?
Analogeezer
Scott Dorsey
>
>I guess to rephrase my question, what is different about the DSD
>encoding process that could make it more aurally pleasing to humans
>than PCM encoding?
Damned if I know. If you figure it out, you can get a nice JAES paper
out of it, I bet. I wouldn't have believed there would be any difference
until I heard it.
Bill Thompson
> One of the first stereo LPs I ever had was the Bob and Ray Stereo Spectacular
> on RCA that included a very high-fidelity cat fight. It sent our dog into a
> frenzy, looking behind the speaker for those cats. It never failed. It still
> evokes big reactions from our cats, but they get bored much quicker than the
> dog did.
Dogs seem to be more easily fooled than cats... at least the dogs and
cats I've owned. My previous hound would go beserk everytime I played
electric guitar (I don't think it was just my playing). He would curl up
on the couch when I played acoustic, but when I played electric he would
race between the amp and couch trying to figure out (as best as I can
guess) how the guitar was in one place, and the sound in another!
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Benjamin Maas
"dbluefield" <dblue...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>
> Well 9k for 24 trks could be good. If its rock solid. But that's the
> thing -- I don't want to know what cards it comes with -- I just want it
to
> work (which is why the radar seems cool)-- hopefully we'll get something
> that records really well without the "you'll- need- this- to- connect- to-
> that" geek factor.
>
> Mack
>
The machine has a series of slots that you can configure however you want...
PCM or DSD, Analog or digital... your choice.
Benjamin Maas
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
.
>
> Did you hear the big 5.1 demo this year? The one last year was
depressingly
> poor, with imaging that was much worse than I expect from 44.1 2-channel
stuff.
> --scott
The 5.1 demo was pretty impressive. They were showing the system using one
of the high-end Phillips players for the stuff that has already been
authored and a Sonoma with Meitner converters for the unfinished stuff...
Speakers were the big ATC SCM300s (5 of those are something like $75,000
worth of speakers...) and 4 of the ATC subs. I liked most of the stuff they
played.... One of the examples didn't really do it for me but that was a mix
issue, not a playback issue.
There was one 2 channel demo from the new Rolling Stones Remastering the Bob
Ludwig did. Everything else was surround. The live Allison Krause and the
Aerosmith remix were probably my favorites... The symphony orchestra one
was pretty impressive as well. I really got a sense in these that I was
right in the middle of where it was happening. The orchestra one seemed a
lot like when I'm sitting in a group playing (instead of recording).
Scott Dorsey
>
>I've said it before, but this is not scientifically proven. Those Japanese
>studies are often quoted without any actual references. Anyway, EEGs are not
>accurately correlated to specific behaviors. If an f-MRI scan were involved, I
>might give it some credibility, but not EEGs.
I don't have the actual citation to the Kanagawa study. All I can find is
AES Preprint 4562 which was done by some of the same people (and just as
lousy science but not as amusing). But, what they did was play music
recorded at 44.1 and music recorded at 96 ksamp/sec, and measure alpha
wave activity. They determined that people listening to higher sampling
rate music were more relaxed.
This is, well, not as bad as Joly's contention that listening to bad
speakers makes your hair become brittle and listening to their speakers
will make your hair more flexible, but it's certainly in the same league.
Mack
news:Es_o9.26055$hb4.6627@sccrnsc02:
Cool Thanx Ben
Anybody else there unveiling dsd?
Mack
Geoff Tanner
>
> >He also cited a time when a golden ears called the Neve tech dept and
> >said the new console was distorted. The techs didnt believe him and
> >dismissed the golden ears as being full of shit but Rupert respected
> >the golden ears. So he visited him and asked the engineer to explain
> >the sound. after a few hours Rupert heard it also. They took it back
> >to the techs and discovered distortion at around 53K. The techs didnt
> >notice it because they didnt measure that high.
> >then rupert described how configuring the same components on the board
> >changes the harmonic distortion.... and so they did and removed the
> >distortion much to the golden ears delight.
>
Hi
That story has distorted as much as the signal!
As far as I have heard the tale oft repeated, it was an early AIR
recording console and that Geoff Emerick noticed that one channel
sounded odd. The fault was found to be a faulty capacitor/solder joint
on an output transformer that caused a peak at a high frequency and
thus led Rupert to believe one could hear that high.
Back to basics...
All transformers have a leakage inductance and the frequency response
of the transformer is affected by the reactive load presented by the
cable and the ultimate load driven by the transformer.
Long cables can have a high capacitance and this resonates with the
inductance of the transformer and produces a marked peak... usually
around 40 - 50KHz and around 6 - 10dB.
The normal trick is to wire a damping resistor (value between 600 ohms
and 2,200 ohms, nominally) that will reduce the square wave ringing
caused by the HF hump.
Early Neve transformers used a 10nF and a 1,500 ohm resistor such
that, as the frequency rose beyond 20KHz, the impedance of the
capacitor reduced and the effect of the resistive load was prominant
and would damp the ringing.
If the network was open circuit then the ringing would occur.
This effect is especially noticeable on later Neve modules fitted with
the tertiary wound output transformer that must be loaded 600 ohms.
Many modules fitted with this transformer (3114/5/7, 1091/3/5, 31105,
3415/6, etc.) are put into racks and lunch boxes minus this load and
ring like hell... the proud owner thinking that this is the "Neve"
sound.
Believe me, my ears are not that hot (I'm 56) but I can hear the
difference... magic ears my a**!
The frequency boost is sufficiently huge that it must affect the lower
harmonics that fall within audible range. I really could never
understand why so much publicity and theory was given to a bad
soldered joint!
Geoff Tanner
phoeni...@earthlink.net
Chris Johnson
klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> Analogeezer <analo...@aerosolkings.com> wrote:
> >I guess to rephrase my question, what is different about the DSD
> >encoding process that could make it more aurally pleasing to humans
> >than PCM encoding?
> Damned if I know. If you figure it out, you can get a nice JAES paper
> out of it, I bet. I wouldn't have believed there would be any difference
> until I heard it.
> --scott
Huh? It's not that complicated, honestly.
DSD doesn't have a consistent error vs. frequency. PCM, the error's
gonna be essentially the same over frequency. It delivers the same
amount of error whether it's at 40 hz or 40K. DSD, the error is a factor
of frequency, and high frequencies generate increasingly much error (up
to a pretty high amount) and low frequencies generate increasingly LESS.
So, with DSD, the distortion is primarily in the highest of high
frequencies- and we can't hear those all that well. We can hear problems
in linearity at midrange and bass frequencies a lot easier than we can
hear 40K. A lot of people can't even hear 20K, at least not all by
itself.
It's a bit like this plot of noise floor on a dither/noise shaper:
<http://www.airwindows.com/dithering/main/TenNines.gif>
That is not DSD, but it IS a noise shaper with very similar
characteristics. DSD works like that. The lower the frequency drops, the
less error you have. Apparently people can hear that error.
Because the example I showed is a DSD-like behavior implemented in
PCM, you can download an audio clip, play it on a PCM system, and hear
some of what the DSD noise contour 'sounds like'. That's mainly because
I was working on a mic design and put up a sound clip of it. It's voice
and key jingling to stress out the mic, and it's dithered using 'Ten
Nines' like the picture shown above. w.r.t. the dither, maybe the
interesting thing is to observe how much the mic being overloaded by key
jingle in the second example sounds like a direct feed.
<http://www.airwindows.com/studio/Keys.AIFF>
That is _probably_ as close as 16 bit 44.1 can get to DSD- not
excepting POW-R 3. POW-R 3 is an amazing wordlength reducer but it does
NOT produce anything resembling a DSD error behavior. 'Ten Nines' does.
Did that help any? I can explain why you hear what you hear, in this
case. Ask me anything ;D
Chris Johnson (hm, that sound clip came in handy after all)
Jay - atldigi
Dorsey) wrote:
> I don't have the actual citation to the Kanagawa study. All I can find
> is
> AES Preprint 4562 which was done by some of the same people (and just as
> lousy science but not as amusing). But, what they did was play music
> recorded at 44.1 and music recorded at 96 ksamp/sec, and measure alpha
> wave activity. They determined that people listening to higher sampling
> rate music were more relaxed.
>
> This is, well, not as bad as Joly's contention that listening to bad
> speakers makes your hair become brittle and listening to their speakers
> will make your hair more flexible, but it's certainly in the same league.
> --scott
Pretty crazy stuff. Whether or not DSD sounds better than PCM
nonwithstanding, the studies cited are pretty well debunked. As was
heard in Oz, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. And
remember, even if DSD sounds "better", this may not mean it's more
accurate. It may mean it has some non-linearity that reminds of analog
and the we like to hear. Then again, maybe it's the absence of the nasty
filtering. Or maybe it's none of the above. The jury is certainly still
out on the high rate PCM vs. DSD question. What most of us _can_ agree
on, however, is that they both sound better than CD.
--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
Los Angeles
www.promastering.com
Jay - atldigi
<nos...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Anybody else there unveiling dsd?
>
> Mack
Sadie and Sonic both have new native DSD DAWs. Sadie's is available now
(or at least very soon), and Sonic's is available March 1st. Sadie has
an 8 channel version, and a 2 channel entry level version that is very
attractively priced (around $10K). The 8 channel version is in the mid
20's, as is the Sonic version (Sonic has not entry level stereo
version). Sonic's is also a 16x8 DSD virtual mixer. Both are native DSD
for all functions, including EQ with Sony brand new new chips from the
Oxford team. The Pyramix solution is affordable and clever, but not
native DSD for editing and processing. Some argue that it may not be
necessary to be native the whole way through (it uses a 384kHz PCM
interim step for processing), others are adamant that it must be native
front to back. Of course, non PCM audio DSP is still a bit new and
undeveloped. Then there are issues that have been raised about how to
deal with interim processing steps and proper dithering even if you keep
it all 64 wide. No matter, you can't keep it 1 bit from front to back
once you start processing it.
Geoff Wood
>
> You shouldn't be. The thing about working in analogue is that everything
> does have its own particular sound, and you can mix and match machines,
> tape types, bias points, and operating levels in order to get precisely
> the effect you want.
So if you have two superb analogue devices and they sound noticably
different, at least one is 'wrong' !
> Sadly a lot of that subtlety gets lost in mastering and CD release, but
> it shouldn't have to.
On the other hand, often these subtle differences in analogue source
equipment show up very clearly on even a modest 44k1 16 bit CD, so where
does that leave things in the 'definitive stakes'.
>
> This is what makes analogue tape so much fun.
> --scott
>
geoff
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis. Ne pas comme ATC
suisse....."
Geoff Wood
"red" <red...@computer.myjoint> wrote in message
>
> Rupert Neve had an interview with an Aussie audio mag. He cited
> Jpanese studies where the 44k switching frequency produced an
> inaudiable spike (at 44k obviously) which we perceive rather than
> hear.
>
And what speakers were reproducing this ? Just maybe that spike (
doubtlessly a result of inadequate filtering) was causing intermodualte
products in teh audio band. However that should have been measurable, so
the story remains an urban legend unless all the oarameters are adequately
described.
geoff
Geoff Wood
"Jay Kadis" <j...@ccrma.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message news:ao1n94
> One of the first stereo LPs I ever had was the Bob and Ray Stereo
Spectacular
> on RCA that included a very high-fidelity cat fight. It sent our dog into
a
> frenzy, looking behind the speaker for those cats. It never failed. It
still
> evokes big reactions from our cats, but they get bored much quicker than
the
> dog did.
And this LP had *any* hf content over 15KHz ?
geoff
Arny Krueger
"Jay - atldigi" <atl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:atldigi-162767...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> Pretty crazy stuff. Whether or not DSD sounds better than PCM
> nonwithstanding, the studies cited are pretty well debunked. As was
> heard in Oz, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. And
> remember, even if DSD sounds "better", this may not mean it's more
> accurate. It may mean it has some non-linearity that reminds of
analog
> and the we like to hear. Then again, maybe it's the absence of the
nasty
> filtering. Or maybe it's none of the above. The jury is certainly
still
> out on the high rate PCM vs. DSD question. What most of us _can_
agree
> on, however, is that they both sound better than CD.
IME, that's only because most people haven't done the relevant
level-matched, time-synched blind listening tests. That's called
doing your homework. Anything less is a pale shadow of science.
I've got some very wide-range highly dynamic 24/96 live-recorded
samples that I downsampled to 16/44, burned on a CD and played on a
$130 DVD player, recorded at 24/96 and burned on a CD and played on a
$130 DVD player, and repeated the process 5 times. I seriously doubt
that anybody can hear the difference in a level-matched, time-synched
blind listening test. Anybody interested in giving it a try?
If anybody had something good but uncopyrighted they wanted to hear
after the same treatment, if they got it to me I'd put it up for
download and listening as well.
The *real* question can as easily be CD audio versus 24/192 PCM, CD
audio versus anything else. People who've done their homework already
know the answer.
Geetar Dave
> klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in message news:<ao1nhv$2al$1...@panix2.panix.com>...
> >
> > >He also cited a time when a golden ears called the Neve tech dept and
> > >said the new console was distorted. The techs didnt believe him and
> > >dismissed the golden ears as being full of shit but Rupert respected
> > >the golden ears. So he visited him and asked the engineer to explain
> > >the sound. after a few hours Rupert heard it also. They took it back
> > >to the techs and discovered distortion at around 53K. The techs didnt
> > >notice it because they didnt measure that high.
> > >then rupert described how configuring the same components on the board
> > >changes the harmonic distortion.... and so they did and removed the
> > >distortion much to the golden ears delight.
> >
>
> Hi
>
> That story has distorted as much as the signal!
>
> As far as I have heard the tale oft repeated, it was an early AIR
> recording console and that Geoff Emerick noticed that one channel
> sounded odd. The fault was found to be a faulty capacitor/solder joint
> on an output transformer that caused a peak at a high frequency and
> thus led Rupert to believe one could hear that high.
>
I heard a variation of this story in which the "golden ears" belonged
to John Lennon.
-dave
red
Thanks guys.
A more learned response from the guys that know.
So is ol Rupert gettin old then... ya know, like ya old age parents
that tell the same story when visitors come round, or is it marketing,
or does he truly believe it?
Suppose it makes the music gear advertisment magazines more
interesting.
REd
On 9 Oct 2002 15:44:05 -0700, Phoeni...@earthlink.net (Geoff
Jay Kadis
Not after a few plays, certainly. The fidelity of this recording is pretty
amazing, though. I saw a used copy in some vintage record shop for something
like $125!
Roger W. Norman
debates about digital music and medical researchers saying that a 50kHz
sampling rate was something the mind was quick enough to peceive and that it
had a decided change in humans. Now admittedly I'm talking about the late
70s/early 80s here, and I have no references to point to, but certainly
there was more than enough information brought forth on both sides of the
question during the timeframe that DVD audio specs were being finalized into
the standard. The Acoustic Renaissance for Audio brought a ton of math to
bare on the situation and firmly believed in DSD for the standard, which can
be researched on the web. But inside of all that documentation was that
there was a studied medical perception of PCM audio that had physiological
effects on the human nervous system. It was akin to fingernails on
chalkboard type of subliminal effect.
One reference is http://www.meridian-audio.com/ara/araconta.htm, although
I'm not saying it has any physiological data in it. The timeframe is right
on the revision history as far as the standards committee submissions,
though. I'll see if I can somehow locate the data I'm talking about, but
obviously this is way in advance of any SACD or data streaming techology.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
"Jay Kadis" <j...@ccrma.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:anuukb$g2h$1...@news.Stanford.EDU...
> In article <bfb37ea9.02100...@posting.google.com>
> analo...@aerosolkings.com (Analogeezer) writes:
> > Came across this article on the Tascam website, which is touting the
> > sonic benefits of their DSD recorder.
> >
> > http://www.tascam.com/press/news/2002_08/04_dsd.html
> >
> > I didn't read any of the DSD vs. PCM stuff a while back, but this
> > comment from the article kind of intrigued me:
> >
> > A strong advocate of analog audio, Levinson has recently lent his nod
> > of approval to a digital format for the first time with the
> > development of DSD-recorded SACDs (Super Audio Compact Discs).
> > Levinson has gone on record about his opinion in regard to PCM digital
> > processing, which he states can cause physiological effects that
> > interfere with a person's ability to thoroughly enjoy listening
> > to music.
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > So is there something to DSD vs. PCM encoding, or is this just a way
> > to get us all to buy new hardware and CD's?
> >
> > Analogeezer
>
> There is indeed something about SACD/DSD that sounds better than PCM, but
I
> doubt it's reflected in the physiology*. I happen to have bought an SACD
> player last week and had the chance to compare some of the Rolling Stones
> records re-released in SACD with the older remastered PCM ones. There's a
> definite difference in terms of imaging and clarity between the two
releases:
> the SACD release sounds obviously better.
>
> No, I'm not likely to re-buy my entire CD collection, but for new releases
I
> might be tempted to go SACD. We're slated to get a demo from Sony of the
> SACD/DSD system, which I expect will be most interesting.
>
> -Jay
>
> *As one actually trained in physiology, I inherently mistrust anyone who
makes
> such an unsubstantiated claim. When it's published in Nature or Science
(or
> any real scientific journal), I might change my mind...
Roger W. Norman
3 years the average joe should be able to get one, assuming sales get
jumpstarted in the first place.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
"Benjamin Maas" <ben...@fifthcircle.com> wrote in message
news:YnNo9.87271$DN4.13445@sccrnsc01...
>
> "dbluefield" <dblue...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>
> > Maybe someome like Barry at IZ will make an all in on 24 trk recorder
> soon.
> > I'm looking at the pyramix thing and outboard converters etc -- too much
> > accessorizing for me. Apparently Genex anounced a 48 trk dsd recorder.
> >
> > Mack
> >
>
> The Genex was shown at AES. If I remember correctly, they said the 48
track
> recorder is roughly $18,000. I do not know, however, what cards that
comes
> with.
Lorin David Schultz
>
> Rupert Neve had an interview with an Aussie audio mag. He cited
> Jpanese studies where the 44k switching frequency produced an
> inaudiable spike (at 44k obviously) which we perceive rather than
> hear.
>
> CD recordings created brain function akin to those of aggression
> whereas the analog versions measured brain patterns to ones of
> relaxation.
This reeks of urban legend. Can anyone provide direction to an actual
published study? I'd like to see them myself.
--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the audio booth
making even bad news sound good
Jay Kadis
> I don't know about your doubts on the physiology part. I remember the early
> debates about digital music and medical researchers saying that a 50kHz
> sampling rate was something the mind was quick enough to peceive and that it
> had a decided change in humans. Now admittedly I'm talking about the late
> 70s/early 80s here, and I have no references to point to, but certainly
> there was more than enough information brought forth on both sides of the
> question during the timeframe that DVD audio specs were being finalized into
> the standard. The Acoustic Renaissance for Audio brought a ton of math to
> bare on the situation and firmly believed in DSD for the standard, which can
> be researched on the web. But inside of all that documentation was that
> there was a studied medical perception of PCM audio that had physiological
> effects on the human nervous system. It was akin to fingernails on
> chalkboard type of subliminal effect.
>
My reservations are due to the ease with which claims of physiological effects
are made in the absence of conclusive scientific documentation. In order to
stand up in a peer-reviewed journal, quite a bit of scrutiny is applied to the
claims within an accepted framework of scientific technique. When the results
are verified by other researchers, the study may then be accepted as verifiably
true.
The proliferation of so-called "junk science" is a growing issue. It is easy
to mislead the non-scientist with scientific-looking "experiments" that are not
truly verifiable. EEG studies are simple to perform, but the meaning of such
results are easily challenged. The EEG is a summation of all of the neuronal
activity in an area through the bulk conduction of the extracellular ionic
environment. You simply cannot make critical judgements about cellular-level
activity by looking at the EEG, it's like trying to tell what people are
watching on their TV by looking at the light from a city from space.
I'm not saying there are no physiological consequences of higher-resolution
sampling audio signals, I'm saying we do not know what they are at the present
time. The f-MRI scanner is the instrument which may be able to resolve this
issue, as it measures localized, real-time physiological activity while tasks
are presented to the subject. Unfortunately, the machine makes very loud
sounds which make audio testing problematic. Visual tests are revealing the
minute details about physiology of visual perception and work is underway to
extend this to audio perception. (If you have a way of driving headphones in a
very strong magnetic field, please let me know. Electrostatic phones didn't
work very well and dynamic phones are impossible. Acoustic stimuli are still
presented through plastic tubes like the old airline headphones.
Magnetically-susceptible materials are forbidden.)
-Jay
Scott Dorsey
>extend this to audio perception. (If you have a way of driving headphones in a
>very strong magnetic field, please let me know. Electrostatic phones didn't
>work very well and dynamic phones are impossible. Acoustic stimuli are still
>presented through plastic tubes like the old airline headphones.
>Magnetically-susceptible materials are forbidden.)
Why didn't electrostatic phones work well? My guess is that if you had a
problem, it was because the transformer box was being subjected to a
magnetic field. You can go transformerless, or run very long cables to
get the step-up transformer into another room.
Dynamic phones won't work at all, no.
--scott
--
Jay Kadis
writes:
I'm not sure what the problem with the electrostatics was, as it was attempted
in a different lab. Since the presence of any magnetically-susceptible
materials in the magnetic field can alter the imaging, that alone might have
been the problem. The study I participated in made use of very band-limited
audio stimuli through the plastic tubes. The test signals, as it turns out,
managed to avoid any of the resonant frequencies of the tubing and were finally
determined to have been delivered to the ear without alteration.
Patric D'Eimon
hasn't come up with a cable to prevent the physiological/psychological effect
of digital music.
Do you think this whole thing is a conspiracy by some radical "Analog For
America" group? A bunch of hothead 2" deck owners trying to confuse use
digital sots? Steve Meyer?
Is the popping and wow and flutter of vinyl and the hissing of cassettes more
pleasing to our delicate nervous systems?
Will we be able to point to digital music as a reason for low SAT scores from
our children?
Kurt Albershardt
>
> Did you hear the big 5.1 demo this year?
I thought is sounded pretty good, but I would have preferred a different
mic choice for the ambient pickup. For my taste, the Kunstkopf picks up
too much direct sound from the front--creating a sort of slap echo
effect from the rear speakers.
Kurt Albershardt
>
> Verdict, who knows but there is strong evidence to suggest that clean
> up to 100k is necessary for absolute purity and replication.
I'll disagree here as well. Analog tape doesn't reach 100kHz but it can
have a farily benign rolloff curve above 20k. I do think there are some
audible ultrasonic effects from the filters used in most PCM systems,
quite possibly from folddown IMD of some sort.
Kurt Albershardt
>
> Sadie and Sonic both have new native DSD DAWs.
> Both are native DSD
> for all functions, including EQ with Sony brand new new chips from the
> Oxford team. The Pyramix solution is affordable and clever, but not
> native DSD for editing and processing. Some argue that it may not be
> necessary to be native the whole way through (it uses a 384kHz PCM
> interim step for processing), others are adamant that it must be native
> front to back. Of course, non PCM audio DSP is still a bit new and
> undeveloped. Then there are issues that have been raised about how to
> deal with interim processing steps and proper dithering even if you keep
> it all 64 wide. No matter, you can't keep it 1 bit from front to back
> once you start processing it.
"DSD Wide" looks a lot like PCM to me.
Did any of you catch the DSD papers presented on Monday AM? Lots of
juicy stuff there, including DSD dither .vs. Lipshitz round two (quite
civilized and informative, BTW.) Sony proposed a multichannel transport
for 24 channels of DSD over CAT5 using the 100baseTX PHY layer (smart!)
and John Siau from Benchmark commented that a minor twist would enable
it to handle 64 channels of 44.1 PCM (similar to MADI but using cheaper
components and with better flexibility.) A very interesting "jither"
concept popped up near the end of the morning.
Scott Dorsey
>
>I'm not sure what the problem with the electrostatics was, as it was attempted
>in a different lab. Since the presence of any magnetically-susceptible
>materials in the magnetic field can alter the imaging, that alone might have
>been the problem. The study I participated in made use of very band-limited
>audio stimuli through the plastic tubes. The test signals, as it turns out,
>managed to avoid any of the resonant frequencies of the tubing and were finally
>determined to have been delivered to the ear without alteration.
Shouldn't be anything in there paramagnetic, except possibly the headband.
If you want me to rig you up something, let me know. The actual elements
on these things are ceramic electrets.
Kurt Albershardt
>
> The Acoustic Renaissance for Audio brought a ton of math to
> bare on the situation and firmly believed in DSD for the standard, which can
> be researched on the web.
I'm not sure what you're saying here, but AFAIR the ARA was hardly
supporting SACD. I think the inclusion of DSD as an optional data type
for DVD-A would have done all of us a world of good. Watching these two
formats struggle for survival is NOT what any of us wanted to see happen.
James
> *As one actually trained in physiology, I inherently mistrust anyone who makes
> such an unsubstantiated claim. When it's published in Nature or Science (or
> any real scientific journal), I might change my mind...
I dunno 'bout that, it's been found that listening to Barry Manilow in
PCM consistently evokes psychotic reactions.
Jay - atldigi
<ku...@nv.net> wrote:
Most agree about that, but the way it's told, Sony/Phillips wanted it to
be a mandatory part, not optional, and when that wasn't agreed to,
decided to take their toys and go home to promote a different product
that they could collect royalties on. This is just as the story is
commonly told in it's most diluted form, and there are sure to be
details that are not represented here, so don't take this little
paragraph as gospel, but it does offer some insight as to why a format
war was started when it could have been avoided. Then again, it can
still be avoided if manufacturers start making more universal players. I
think there are six available now, and some of them reasonably
afforddable, but maybe still not in the $199 category - at least I don't
think so.
Monte P McGuire
Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>"Jay - atldigi" <atl...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:atldigi-162767...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
>still
>> out on the high rate PCM vs. DSD question. What most of us _can_
>agree
>> on, however, is that they both sound better than CD.
>
>IME, that's only because most people haven't done the relevant
>level-matched, time-synched blind listening tests. That's called
>doing your homework. Anything less is a pale shadow of science.
Arny, I haven't done any matched anything tests with DSD, but I
listened to a playback that sounded _awfully_ good, in a way that I
haven't heard from PCM ever. Sort of like being able to see green for
the first time when all you've seen before was blue and red. Have you
ever heard DSD?
>I've got some very wide-range highly dynamic 24/96 live-recorded
>samples that I downsampled to 16/44, burned on a CD and played on a
>$130 DVD player, recorded at 24/96 and burned on a CD and played on a
>$130 DVD player, and repeated the process 5 times. I seriously doubt
>that anybody can hear the difference in a level-matched, time-synched
>blind listening test. Anybody interested in giving it a try?
All of these sources have gone through "on chip" decimation filters.
One theory about why DSD sounds good is that this step is skipped.
According to this theory, it's not _just_ about sample rate, but
rather the quality of DSP inside of a converter chip.
I'm quite certain that the coefficient lengths in many on-chip
decimation filters are modest, the internal resolution is low and
there's no dither inside, only what comes in as random noise from the
quantizer. So, I can see an intellectual argument as to why this sort
of processing could sound bad, and that removing it could improve
things.
In practice, DSD is implemented with a Crystal 5390 A/D except that
the single bit signal is extracted from the modulator and the
decimator output is ignored. That is basically the only difference
between DSD and PCM.
>The *real* question can as easily be CD audio versus 24/192 PCM, CD
>audio versus anything else. People who've done their homework already
>know the answer.
Have you heard DSD? It has a lot of the nice qualities that the old
single bit DBX 700 system has, but even better clarity. It's pretty
impressive, on an absolute level.
Regards,
Monte McGuire
mcg...@theworld.com
Roger W. Norman
the late 70s. But it's interesting when people profess to hear what the
scientists described years ago. Again, I haven't had the time for the
research to pinpoint a reference, nor would it necessarily be accurate today
with all the technological advances in human system measurements.
Hey, who knows. It might be the answer to where the fuck road rage came
from! <g>
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
"Patric D'Eimon" <pat...@gci.net> wrote in message
news:3DA5C019...@gci.net...
Roger W. Norman
No, nor did I say SACD, although since SACD was a proprietary product still
in the design process at the time, I think DSD on DVD-A fits the subject's
question. And it was more one reference of a few I was planning to put out
on physiological effects of PCM, this one being more the explanation of the
PCM as a rotten standard in the first place, and even earlier scientists'
concerns.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
"Kurt Albershardt" <ku...@nv.net> wrote in message
news:10342742...@nnrp2.phx1.gblx.net...
Roger W. Norman
kHz. The point really is that, even though the techs did all the
measurements within the audible range to find the problem on the board, it
really was a problem way up high and it had to be fixed. That the engineer
noticed something out of kilter in comparison with the rest of his inputs
basically says he has good hearing, but doesn't really go towards his
hearing extending into dog areas. But I think it does say that in our 44.1
kHz sampling rate world, there are people that will miss what audibly occurs
coming from tape once it's moved to CD, although there are others that say
if the occurance can be heard (like a frequency beat) on tape, then the same
thing will be there on CD. However, if the frequency beat, for example, is
because of 45 kHz and 46 kHz signals setting up a 1 kHz beat, doesn't the
anti-aliasing filter eliminate the beat in the digital conversion. I
imagine I could figure out a way to try this and see, but maybe someone else
has already done it. I've never looked to see if the frequency generator I
have can go that high.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
"red" <red...@computer.myjoint> wrote in message
news:fo2bqu090n1a6qm26...@4ax.com...
Geoff Wood
"Roger W. Norman" <rno...@starpower.net> wrote in message news:ao961b$pj5
> imagine I could figure out a way to try this and see, but maybe someone
else
> has already done it. I've never looked to see if the frequency generator
I
> have can go that high.
Now is the time tolook then. Can't be too difficult.
geoff
red
Roger
I remember from a fw years ago, "new" technology that was gonna
"revolutionise" the loudspeaker by using two ceramic plates and a
carrier plate which produced 100K. By modulationg the other two plates
against the "carrier" signal, our ears would hear perfect 20 20
without the need for "clumbersome" subwoofers and high powered amps by
only audiably hearing the beats.
... Heard of it. Last I heard it was just a great New Scientist read
that didnt stand up in reality.
Kinda same theory as you have been alluding to.
regards
REd
Roger W. Norman
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
Send your RAP CD submissions to:
SirMusic Studio
10 Hamilton Avenue
Silver Spring, MD
20901-3411
"Geoff Wood" <ge...@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote in message
news:cy%p9.9658$b5.10...@news02.tsnz.net...
Roger W. Norman
21kHz and create an audible 1kHz beat frequency without hearing the others.
Why do you suppose that just because a particular theory didn't work out the
physics would be wrong? There's a difference between a theory of
interaction that could create sound where no sound was present before, but
there's no difference when we know the sound is present but can't hear it
except in the beat frequency.
I believe somewhat of what you're alluding to is the beamed audio that's not
audible unless it's directly in line with the beam, which has, not only a
bunch of theory behind it, but some known practical applications now.
Theory doesn't always define the applications, but the applications always
lie within the confines of theory.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
Send your RAP CD submissions to:
SirMusic Studio
10 Hamilton Avenue
Silver Spring, MD
20901-3411
"red" <red...@computer.myjoint> wrote in message
news:76viqu4tsg2io0bc6...@4ax.com...
Luke Kaven
> analo...@aerosolkings.com (Analogeezer) writes:
> > Came across this article on the Tascam website, which is touting the
> > sonic benefits of their DSD recorder.
> > A strong advocate of analog audio, Levinson has recently lent his nod
> > of approval to a digital format for the first time with the
> > development of DSD-recorded SACDs (Super Audio Compact Discs).
> > Levinson has gone on record about his opinion in regard to PCM digital
> > processing, which he states can cause physiological effects that
> > interfere with a person's ability to thoroughly enjoy listening
> > to music.
> >
> [snip]
> There is indeed something about SACD/DSD that sounds better than PCM, but I
> doubt it's reflected in the physiology*. I happen to have bought an SACD
> player last week and had the chance to compare some of the Rolling Stones
> records re-released in SACD with the older remastered PCM ones. There's a
> definite difference in terms of imaging and clarity between the two releases:
> the SACD release sounds obviously better.
>
> No, I'm not likely to re-buy my entire CD collection, but for new releases I
> might be tempted to go SACD. We're slated to get a demo from Sony of the
> SACD/DSD system, which I expect will be most interesting.
>
> -Jay
>
> *As one actually trained in physiology, I inherently mistrust anyone who makes
> such an unsubstantiated claim. When it's published in Nature or Science (or
> any real scientific journal), I might change my mind...
The article appears to confuse *psychological* effects with
*physiological* effects. The two domains are miles apart. Jay's
scepticism with respect to physiological effects is appropriate.
Measuring stress is an attempt to measure psychological effects using
physiological indications. There is room for scepticism there too, a
lot. I wonder though, whether there may be some veracity to the claim
about psychological effects.
Luke
red
<rno...@starpower.net> wrote:
>No, I don't think so. It's obvious that one can take a signal at 20kHz and
>21kHz and create an audible 1kHz beat frequency without hearing the others.
>Why do you suppose that just because a particular theory didn't work out the
>physics would be wrong?
No mate, I think ya may have misundersood me (or I didnt write clearly
for ya ;) ).
I always agreed with the physics of it and was intrigued by it. What I
disagreed with was the New Scientist article stating that it would
revolutionize loudspeakers.
There's a difference between a theory of
>interaction that could create sound where no sound was present before, but
>there's no difference when we know the sound is present but can't hear it
>except in the beat frequency.
Yup.
>
>I believe somewhat of what you're alluding to is the beamed audio that's not
>audible unless it's directly in line with the beam, which has, not only a
>bunch of theory behind it, but some known practical applications now.
>Theory doesn't always define the applications, but the applications always
>lie within the confines of theory.
Yup. Clearly a 100k source would be very direct. Military apps are
amongst the possible uses apparently. Allows teams to communicate
without radio transmissions.
Regards
REd