Is 44.1 KHz sample-rate enough? Yes and No.
![Green Xenon [Radium]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjXIeIJhTqOxEYFvKAuip5ejWy8hTeL-C1nyXJxAbSVgQnnxXQ=s40-c)
Green Xenon [Radium]
http://www.allexperts.com/user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4743184
http://www.allexperts.com/user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4742942
Yes:
http://www.allexperts.com/user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4742938
I am confused as to who is right and who is wrong. So I ask in this
group as well. Is a 44.1 kHz sample rate sufficient to cover the entire
human hearing range?
I am the "Green" guy who asked questions on Allexperts.com
Regards,
Radium
Allen Watson
It is, unless you can hear frequencies higher than 20 kHz. An easy way
to find out is to visit
http://www.freemosquitoringtones.org/
If you're older than 30, you may be surprised and disappointed by what
you hear... or don't hear.
Cheers!
- Allen
Schöön Martin
> No:
>
> http://www.allexperts.com/user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4743184
>
> http://www.allexperts.com/user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4742942
>
> Yes:
>
> http://www.allexperts.com/user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4742938
>
> I am confused as to who is right and who is wrong. So I ask in this
> group as well. Is a 44.1 kHz sample rate sufficient to cover the
> entire human hearing range?
>
Food for thought:
http://theaudiocritic.com/blog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=41&blogId=1
--
Martin Sch��n <martin...@gmail.com>
"Problems worthy of attack
prove their worth by hitting back"
Piet Hein
Green Xenon [Radium]
> "Green Xenon [Radium]" <gluc...@excite.com> writes:
>
>> No:
>>
>> http://www.allexperts.com/user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4743184
>>
>> http://www.allexperts.com/user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4742942
>>
>> Yes:
>>
>> http://www.allexperts.com/user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4742938
>>
>> I am confused as to who is right and who is wrong. So I ask in this
>> group as well. Is a 44.1 kHz sample rate sufficient to cover the
>> entire human hearing range?
>>
> Food for thought:
> http://theaudiocritic.com/blog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=41&blogId=1
>
> --
>
> "Problems worthy of attack
> prove their worth by hitting back"
> Piet Hein
DSD/SACD do not have sufficient bit-resolution at all. I prefer my
digital audio be linear PCM that is at least 16-bit and 44.1 kHz.
Anyways, while 16-bit and 44.1 kHz and sufficiently for just recording
and playback, those who wish to do intense audio processing should use
more bit-depth and sample-rate to avoid the artifacts from getting
perceptible.
Ron Capik
> Schöön Martin wrote:
> > "Green Xenon [Radium]" <gluc...@excite.com> writes:
> >
> < ....snip.... >
> >>
> > Food for thought:
> > http://theaudiocritic.com/blog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=41&blogId=1
> >
> > --
> > Martin Schöön <martin...@gmail.com>
> >
> > "Problems worthy of attack
> > prove their worth by hitting back"
> > Piet Hein
>
> DSD/SACD do not have sufficient bit-resolution at all. I prefer my
> digital audio be linear PCM that is at least 16-bit and 44.1 kHz.
>
> Anyways, while 16-bit and 44.1 kHz and sufficiently for just recording
> and playback, those who wish to do intense audio processing should use
> more bit-depth and sample-rate to avoid the artifacts from getting
> perceptible.
...and yet, your "favorite analog audio storage = B&W variable-density
optical track of old films."
Once again I seem to detect a total disconnect from reality.
Later...
--
Arny Krueger
message news:480678c5$0$7049$4c36...@roadrunner.com
> No:
>
> http://www.allexperts.com/user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4743184
"ANSWER: If you ever have the opportunity to come across a true audio buff,
especially one who prefers vinyl to CD, when a cartridge, tonearm and
transcription turntable are of performance quality, you will hear something
about harmonics that reinforce the fundamental frequencies. Myself included
there are people with trained ears or a gift of perfect pitch that can
easily hear those differences. In truth the sonority is felt even by the
layman when it's A/B'd. Even though Lucas has a claim to fame, since the
first Star Wars film, of mandating that THX become the standard for which
all sound reproduction must surpass any vinyl known to man, it was also
adopted by the audio industries golden ears. There truly is a difference,
but it cannot be appreciated unless the recording is pristine because it
will bring out imperfections as well. You are not going to hear it unless
all of the audio equipment in the chain can reproduce the dynamics and
frequencies. 44.1 is far from being a perfect sampling rate. Contained in it
are LSB's which are truncated lost ambient information. That information
adds warmth to a CD. SACD is a fine attempt at processing a CD to get a
little closer to 24/192 but it's only 20bit technology and is still like a
4x3 video image being stretched using processing to fit a 16x9 display.
"Some of us do hear like dogs & bats. Go into a true listening room with a
fine Telarc recording and be prepared to be blown out of your seat. The
average to really good sound systems that are marketed in the states will
not show you the benefits. You'll hear it more often in Japan.
"I am an associate of Mark Levinson. Now he's a guru!
Summary - it is true because I say it is true.
> http://www.allexperts.com/user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4742942
"The higher the sampling rate the more accurate the reproduction. The human
ear is an analog receiver. While most modern music is less effected by the
sampling rate, if you were to listen to classical music, you would hear the
difference. The higher sampling rate will reproduce what is called the
"warmth" of the music. This is a hard thing to describe, but it does exist.
Hard core classical enthusiasts will agree, that vinyl records provide a
more accurate reproduction of actual performances than CDs. Records are
analog recordings. Interestingly enough, many recording studios still
record in analog to tape before processing digitally...
Summary - an analog bigot.
> Yes:
>
> http://www.allexperts.com/user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4742938
Answer is so stupid as to be embarassing.
> I am confused as to who is right and who is wrong.
They are *all* wrong.
> So I ask in this group as well. Is a 44.1 kHz sample rate
> sufficient to cover the entire human hearing range?
Yes, because this has been investigated scientifically many different ways,
and removing all sound above 20 KHz generally makes no difference with
recordings of music, dialog, and almost all sound effects.
Green Xenon [Radium]
> ...and yet, your "favorite analog audio storage = B&W variable-density
> optical track of old films."
That's for analog audio. I am talking about digital audio here.
Green Xenon [Radium]
> "Green Xenon [Radium]" <gluc...@excite.com> wrote in
> message news:480678c5$0$7049$4c36...@roadrunner.com :
>> So I ask in this group as well. Is a 44.1 kHz sample rate
>> sufficient to cover the entire human hearing range?
> Yes, because this has been investigated scientifically many different ways,
> and removing all sound above 20 KHz generally makes no difference with
> recordings of music, dialog, and almost all sound effects.
So, IOW, its a waste of time, money, energy to move to 192 kHz, even 96
kHz, or even 48 kHz? Why doesn't the audio industry just stick to 44.1
kHz? Is it a marketing trick they use -- i.e. play with customers' minds
by claiming that a higher sample rate is always better than a lower
sample rate? It's starting to seem like it. I could be wrong though.
Ron Capik
"Green Xenon [Radium]" wrote:
There is a disparity here that you are not (nor have
you been) addressing, please address it.
Later...
--
Ron Capik
> < ...snip... >
>
> So, IOW, its a waste of time, money, energy to move to 192 kHz, even 96
> kHz, or even 48 kHz? Why doesn't the audio industry just stick to 44.1
> kHz? Is it a marketing trick they use -- i.e. play with customers' minds
> by claiming that a higher sample rate is always better than a lower
> sample rate? It's starting to seem like it. I could be wrong though.
Can YOU hear the difference? If not, case closed, move on;
else continue your "research."
Later...
--
Green Xenon [Radium]
> There is a disparity here that you are not (nor have
> you been) addressing, please address it.
What do you mean?
Arny Krueger
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
>> "Green Xenon [Radium]" <gluc...@excite.com> wrote in
>> message news:480678c5$0$7049$4c36...@roadrunner.com :
>
>
>>> So I ask in this group as well. Is a 44.1 kHz sample
>>> rate sufficient to cover the entire human hearing range?
>
>
>
>> Yes, because this has been investigated scientifically
>> many different ways, and removing all sound above 20 KHz
>> generally makes no difference with recordings of music,
>> dialog, and almost all sound effects.
>
>
> So, IOW, its a waste of time, money, energy to move to
> 192 kHz, even 96 kHz, or even 48 kHz?
Yes.
> Why doesn't the audio industry just stick to 44.1 kHz?
It pretty well has done exactly that, in terms of recordings that are
actually sold.
>Is it a marketing
> trick they use -- i.e. play with customers' minds by
> claiming that a higher sample rate is always better than
> a lower sample rate?
They tried that with SACD and DVD-A and they both flopped in the
marketplace, and failed scientific tests designed to see if they made an
audible difference.
> It's starting to seem like it.
Hold that thought!
Ron Capik
> What do you mean?
Seek the convergent path.
--
Eeyore
"Green Xenon [Radium]" wrote:
> No:
>
> http://www.allexperts.com/user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4743184
>
> http://www.allexperts.com/user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4742942
>
> Yes:
>
> http://www.allexperts.com/user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4742938
>
> I am confused as to who is right and who is wrong. So I ask in this
> group as well. Is a 44.1 kHz sample rate sufficient to cover the entire
> human hearing range?
Well, when younger I could 'detect' albeit not hear in the conventional
sense up to 23kHz so certainly 44.1kHz isn't an adequately high enough
sampling rate for that.
Early digital audio suffered from crazy phase shifts associated with the
'brick wall' anti-aliasing/anti-imaging filters too which some claimed were
audibly defective.
For my money I'd have made CD at least 50KHz and 18 bit.
Graham
Edmund
Long time ago, not with young people but older where tested.
They where tested and all where complete deaf over 14000 Hz.
So they played music and switched a filter on and off at 16000Hz,
ALL of them could tell the difference!
I myself have not yet done much listening tests between the SACD
and CD, however once I attended a session where SACD was played
and I made a copy of the CD layer of an SACD.
I clued a new CD sticker on both the SACD and the CD quality
copy. We played both and everybody could tell the difference.
( only I knew which was which )
Funny detail, we all picked the copy for the better one,
I am not joking.
As soon as I have tested more I will let you know, I think
it is interesting.
Some time ago :-) I have compared the CD with good vinyl,
no doubt the vinyl sounded better although the vinyl had the
additional vinyl problems.
Edmund
Arny Krueger
news:4815c591$0$16811$bf49...@news.tele2.nl
> Long time ago, not with young people but older where
> tested. They where tested and all where complete deaf
> over 14000 Hz.
It is unlikely that there are many people who are completely deaf over 14
KHz. Hearing doesn't work that way - when there are high frequency losses,
they are progressive. Hearing loss is not complete, just attenuated.
> So they played music and switched a filter on and off at
> 16000Hz, ALL of them could tell the difference!
I know how to build a 16 KHz filter that just about anybody can detect -
just use a gentle roll-off that also affects lower frequencies. There are a
number of anecdotes where more the filter's specifics are given, and it
turns out that the filter had audible loss at 10 KHz, due to the gentle
slope.
> I myself have not yet done much listening tests between
> the SACD and CD,
There is a recent JAES paper (refereed, published by a professional
organization with a world-wide reputation in audio) that says that if you
take recordings in a so-called hi-rez audio format, and downsample them to
44 KHz, the results are no audible differences.
However, a SACD and a CD of the same performance can sound different due to
different mastering.
> however once I attended a session where
> SACD was played and I made a copy of the CD layer of an
> SACD.
> I clued a new CD sticker on both the SACD and the CD
> quality copy. We played both and everybody could tell the
> difference. ( only I knew which was which )
Single-blind evaluations have well-known failings, going back to "Clever
Hans the talknig horse" circa 1800.
> Funny detail, we all picked the copy for the better one,
> I am not joking.
You may not be joking, but the listening evaluation was.
> As soon as I have tested more I will let you know, I think
> it is interesting.
If you want to see what a serious attempt at this sort of thing looks like,
check the AES web site.
> Some time ago :-) I have compared the CD with good vinyl,
> no doubt the vinyl sounded better although the vinyl had
> the additional vinyl problems.
Begs the question, why did all that audible noise and distortion still
"sound better"?
Edmund
> "Edmund" <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4815c591$0$16811$bf49...@news.tele2.nl
>
>> Long time ago, not with young people but older where tested. They where
>> tested and all where complete deaf over 14000 Hz.
>
> It is unlikely that there are many people who are completely deaf over
> 14 KHz. Hearing doesn't work that way - when there are high frequency
> losses, they are progressive. Hearing loss is not complete, just
> attenuated.
>
>> So they played music and switched a filter on and off at 16000Hz, ALL
>> of them could tell the difference!
>
> I know how to build a 16 KHz filter that just about anybody can detect -
> just use a gentle roll-off that also affects lower frequencies. There
> are a number of anecdotes where more the filter's specifics are given,
> and it turns out that the filter had audible loss at 10 KHz, due to the
> gentle slope.
Loss or phase shifts/problems?
>
>> I myself have not yet done much listening tests between the SACD and
>> CD,
>
> There is a recent JAES paper (refereed, published by a professional
> organization with a world-wide reputation in audio) that says that if
> you take recordings in a so-called hi-rez audio format, and downsample
> them to 44 KHz, the results are no audible differences.
I have seen such a report, strange,.... I like to hear or not hear it
myself, I don't beleive in god either :-)
>
> However, a SACD and a CD of the same performance can sound different due
> to different mastering.
I assumed the mastering was the same. Why would they use a different
mastering if they already had one for the SACD?
>
>> however once I attended a session where SACD was played and I made a
>> copy of the CD layer of an SACD.
>> I clued a new CD sticker on both the SACD and the CD quality copy. We
>> played both and everybody could tell the difference. ( only I knew
>> which was which )
>
> Single-blind evaluations have well-known failings, going back to "Clever
> Hans the talknig horse" circa 1800.
>
>> Funny detail, we all picked the copy for the better one, I am not
>> joking.
>
> You may not be joking, but the listening evaluation was.
I could not think of anything better I could do at the time.
>
>> As soon as I have tested more I will let you know, I think it is
>> interesting.
>
> If you want to see what a serious attempt at this sort of thing looks
> like, check the AES web site.
I will, do you have a specific URL with this article?
BTW check it yourself too, I see that you are comparing SACD
with a stretched 3X4 picture to make it look like 16 X9
I have seen the impulse of a SACD being the best available of
all used systems, how do they manage that in your opinion?
>
>> Some time ago :-) I have compared the CD with good vinyl, no doubt the
>> vinyl sounded better although the vinyl had the additional vinyl
>> problems.
>
> Begs the question, why did all that audible noise and distortion still
> "sound better"?
I don't say that the distortion sounded better, I said the overall sound
was better, much more detail in the guitars and alike.
Not only my opinion but also everyone who "knew" the CD should sound
better all agreed that that was not true.
Edmund
dpierce.ca...@gmail.com
> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 22:09:32 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
> Long time ago, not with young people but older where tested.
Who? When? How? Can you site a particular reference,
or is this just memory of an anecdotal tale?
> They where tested and all where complete deaf over 14000 Hz.
> So they played music and switched a filter on and off at 16000Hz,
> ALL of them could tell the difference!
There are ANY number of reasons why this could easily
be the case,, none of which involve ANY requirement of
bandwidth beyond 20 kHz. Arny mentioned the issue that
the filkter itself can easily have an audible effect.
Another case is where a standard laboratory function
generator is used as the stimulus. The frequency was
set to 7 kHz, and the output varied between a sine
wave and a square wave. It's almost certain that in
quick switch comparisons, MOST people will reliably
hear a difference. But the reason has NOTHING to do
with bandwidth.
Most function generators have outputs calibrated such
that the peak voltage of the waveforms is the same. That
means that if you set the square wave output to 1 volt P-P,
the sine wave output will also be 1 volt P-P. Unfortunately,
the 7 kHz component of the square wave is not 1volt P-P,
but some 1.3 or so dB lower. The result is that the listeners
end up hearing the difference betweem the different amplitude
of the 7 kHz sine wave in both, and NOT the presence or
absence of the 21 kHz, 35 kHz and so on components in
the square wave.
In other words, we have two examples of tests which have
a fundamental flaw in the methodology, and do NOT,
as you might think, illustrate the significance of ultrasonic
bandwidth.
Unitl you can site a test which accounts for these
and other issues, including small in-band amplitude
differences and more, the results are suspect, at best.
> I myself have not yet done much listening tests
> between the SACD and CD, however once I attended
> a session where SACD was played
> and I made a copy of the CD layer of an SACD.
> I clued a new CD sticker on both the SACD and the CD quality
> copy. We played both and everybody could tell the difference.
> ( only I knew which was which )
And can you prove conclusively that the CD layer
and the SACD layer were, to begin with, exactky
the same save for the bandwidth? For example, it
is not infrequently the case where the CD layer and
SACD layers can be made with two different sets of
masters.
> Some time ago :-) I have compared the CD with good vinyl,
> no doubt the vinyl sounded better although the vinyl had the
> additional vinyl problems.
That, if you're at all serious, is an interesting comment,
since, for the most part, the practical bandwidth of vinyl
is less than that of CD, due to mechnical limitations in
medium. And that's even more curious in light of the
fact that most recordings have significant bandwidth
limitations before they even hit the final stage.
Edmund
> On Apr 28, 8:39 am, Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 22:09:32 +0100, Eeyore wrote: Long time ago, not
>> with young people but older where tested.
>
> Who? When? How? Can you site a particular reference, or is this just
> memory of an anecdotal tale?
It is something I read 20 or even 30 years ago, don't ask
me for details :-)
>
>> They where tested and all where complete deaf over 14000 Hz. So they
>> played music and switched a filter on and off at 16000Hz, ALL of them
>> could tell the difference!
>
> There are ANY number of reasons why this could easily be the case,, none
> of which involve ANY requirement of bandwidth beyond 20 kHz. Arny
> mentioned the issue that the filkter itself can easily have an audible
> effect.
>
> Another case is where a standard laboratory function generator is used
> as the stimulus. The frequency was set to 7 kHz, and the output varied
> between a sine wave and a square wave. It's almost certain that in quick
> switch comparisons, MOST people will reliably hear a difference. But the
> reason has NOTHING to do with bandwidth.
>
> Most function generators have outputs calibrated such that the peak
> voltage of the waveforms is the same. That means that if you set the
> square wave output to 1 volt P-P, the sine wave output will also be 1
> volt P-P. Unfortunately, the 7 kHz component of the square wave is not
> 1volt P-P, but some 1.3 or so dB lower. The result is that the listeners
> end up hearing the difference betweem the different amplitude of the 7
> kHz sine wave in both, and NOT the presence or absence of the 21 kHz, 35
> kHz and so on components in the square wave.
>
> In other words, we have two examples of tests which have a fundamental
> flaw in the methodology, and do NOT, as you might think, illustrate the
> significance of ultrasonic bandwidth.
One detail I remember was the individual testing was done by
sine waves, which showed that non of the members heard anything
(at given level ) over 14000 Hz, most of them did a lot worse.
The filter test was done while playing music.
>
> Unitl you can site a test which accounts for these and other issues,
> including small in-band amplitude differences and more, the results are
> suspect, at best.
>
>> I myself have not yet done much listening tests between the SACD and
>> CD, however once I attended a session where SACD was played
>> and I made a copy of the CD layer of an SACD. I clued a new CD sticker
>> on both the SACD and the CD quality copy. We played both and everybody
>> could tell the difference. ( only I knew which was which )
>
> And can you prove conclusively that the CD layer and the SACD layer
> were, to begin with, exactky the same save for the bandwidth? For
> example, it is not infrequently the case where the CD layer and SACD
> layers can be made with two different sets of masters.
No I don't know about that, I assume they used the very same,
why would they use or even make different masters?
>
>> Some time ago :-) I have compared the CD with good vinyl, no doubt the
>> vinyl sounded better although the vinyl had the additional vinyl
>> problems.
>
> That, if you're at all serious, is an interesting comment,
> since, for the most part, the practical bandwidth of vinyl is less than
> that of CD, due to mechnical limitations in medium. And that's even more
> curious in light of the fact that most recordings have significant
> bandwidth limitations before they even hit the final stage.
If that is a fact and there are no exceptions
I wonder what kind of effects are at work then.
Edmund
dpierce.ca...@gmail.com
>>> Long time ago, not with young people but older where
>>> deaf over 14000 Hz. So they played music and
>>> them could tell the difference!
>> or is this just memory of an anecdotal tale?
>
> It is something I read 20 or even 30 years ago, don't ask
> me for details :-)
But you stated with such certainty, bordering on
authority. Now, it seems, you don't rmember any
details, you can't even say who did the study. That
might lead on to suspect that it might be nothing
more than third-hand urban legend.
I was active on the field 20-30 years ago and such
a study with such defintiive, nearly earth-shaking
results would have been VERY hard to miss. It certainly
is not to be found in any of the professional literature.
Does it even exist?
>> In other words, we have two examples of tests
>> which have a fundamental flaw in the methodology,
>> and do NOT, as you might think, illustrate the
>> significance of ultrasonic bandwidth.
>
> One detail I remember was the individual testing was done by
> sine waves, which showed that non of the members heard anything
> (at given level ) over 14000 Hz, most of them did a lot worse.
> The filter test was done while playing music.
You seem to have missed the point: we have before us
two classic and oft-used examples of tests that are cited
as "proving" that information above the ultrasonic cutoff
can be detected by the human auditory system. Both
of these methods are flawed and prove nothing.
The method you cited, switching a 16 kHz low-pass filter
in and out, is significantly flawed. 20-30 years ago, it
was almost certainly a purely analog filter. At 16 kHz,
it's already 3 dB down. Assume a maximally-flat 2nd-order
low pass filter. Here is its response:
2000 -0.03
2500 -0.05
3150 -0.09
4000 -0.14
5000 -0.23
6300 -0.38
8000 -0.64
10000 -1.06
12500 -1.76
15900 -3.02
20000 -4.84
Now, yes, the filter is down -3dB at 16kHz, as per
spec, but it's also down 1.76 dB at 12 kHz, which
the subjects COULD hear, according to your "test",
it's down 1 dB at 10 kHz, and it has arguably audible
effects down to 5 kHz.
How does such a test, which has real audible effects
BELOW 16 kHz, prove that information ABOVE 16 kHz
is audible? (hint: it can't: the test is fatally flawed from
the get-go).
And this is based on a mathematically filter: a physical
respresentation is not likely to be as good.
How does one now that the filter itself is not adding
other audible artifacts that the listeners were cueing
on (answer: you don't: you have no details of the test).
All in all, I think this 20- ro 30-year old test can be
simply dicounted as being of no value in proving
anything at all.
>> And can you prove conclusively that the CD layer
>> and the SACD layer were, to begin with, exactly
>> the same save for the bandwidth? For example,
>> it is not infrequently the case where the CD layer
>> and SACD layers can be made with two different
>> sets of masters.
>
> No I don't know about that, I assume they used the very same,
> why would they use or even make different masters?
Why would you assume they were the saem?
There are PLENTY of reasons, valid and not so valid, why
the would be different:
* Part of the function of mastering is to "optimize" (in
the best case) or otherwise "adjust" the recording
to fit the particular medium. That would result in
different end ,asters for CD, SACD, DSD, LP, and
so on. They would most definitely NOT be the same
because the media are different.
* Some producers have a stake in the outcome. If
they want to make sure their SACD sales are up,
they'll make the SACD quirte audibly different
than the CD. You think these people are in business
for YOUR benefit?
* Two entirely diffeent people may have been responsible
for mastering the two media, with different results.
* The SACD came first, and the CD layer was an
afterthought, so little effort was made to make
the CD layer was done right.
* If the SACD and CD layer REALLY DID sound the
same, what reason would their be for people to
replace their CD collection with SACDs?
That and 20 other reasons.
>>> Some time ago :-) I have compared the CD
>>> with good vinyl, no doubt the vinyl sounded
>>> better although the vinyl had the additional vinyl
> >> problems.
>
>> That, if you're at all serious, is an interesting comment,
>> since, for the most part, the practical bandwidth of vinyl
>> is less than that of CD, due to mechnical limitations in
>> medium. And that's even more curious in light of the
>> fact that most recordings have significant
>> bandwidth limitations before they even hit the final stage.
>
> If that is a fact and there are no exceptions
> I wonder what kind of effects are at work then.
Again, PLENTY of reasons.
The mastering process to produse an LP stamper results
in quite different audio than the mastering process to
produce the corresponding CD stamper. FOr example, to
prevent excessive groove excursion and thus reduce
the amount of available real estate on the LP, low frequencies
are compressed and, often, partially summed to mono.
Because the cutting and playback stylus must occupy
some non-infinitesimal volume, linnear superposition
does not hold, with a result of higher distortion in LPs.
The dynamic range of LPs is compressed, noise floor is
higher.
The original mastering of the LP is unsuitable for CD,
and vice versa, therefore, the mastering process for a cd
is VASTLY different than for the lp.
All of these and MANY other reasons make it a certainty
that NO LP is going to sound like the CD. That's a
matter of physical fact.
Which sounds better is a matter of personal preference
and judgement.
If someone were to come to you and want you to tell
if two media sound the same, you can save a LOT of time
by simply saying "they don't."
Which sounds better? To me, the one I like.
Arny Krueger
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:07:25 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Edmund" <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4815c591$0$16811$bf49...@news.tele2.nl
>>
>>> Long time ago, not with young people but older where
>>> tested. They where tested and all where complete deaf
>>> over 14000 Hz.
>>
>> It is unlikely that there are many people who are
>> completely deaf over 14 KHz. Hearing doesn't work that
>> way - when there are high frequency losses, they are
>> progressive. Hearing loss is not complete, just
>> attenuated.
>>
>>> So they played music and switched a filter on and off
>>> at 16000Hz, ALL of them could tell the difference!
>>
>> I know how to build a 16 KHz filter that just about
>> anybody can detect - just use a gentle roll-off that
>> also affects lower frequencies. There are a number of
>> anecdotes where more the filter's specifics are given,
>> and it turns out that the filter had audible loss at 10
>> KHz, due to the gentle slope.
>
> Loss or phase shifts/problems?
Phase shift applied equally to both channels usually has to be exceedingly
severe to be audible with most musical sources.
>>> I myself have not yet done much listening tests between
>>> the SACD and CD,
>>
>> There is a recent JAES paper (refereed, published by a
>> professional organization with a world-wide reputation
>> in audio) that says that if you take recordings in a
>> so-called hi-rez audio format, and downsample them to 44
>> KHz, the results are no audible differences.
> I have seen such a report, strange,.... I like to hear or
> not hear it myself, I don't beleive in god either :-)
Their procedure was pretty good, and might be helpful to your own personal
investigations.
>> However, a SACD and a CD of the same performance can
>> sound different due to different mastering.
> I assumed the mastering was the same. Why would they use
> a different mastering if they already had one for the
> SACD?
For one reason, because the SACD is a reissue, and the comparison is to a CD
that was mastered some time ago.
>>> however once I attended a session where SACD was played
>>> and I made a copy of the CD layer of an SACD.
>>> I clued a new CD sticker on both the SACD and the CD
>>> quality copy. We played both and everybody could tell
>>> the difference. ( only I knew which was which )
>> Single-blind evaluations have well-known failings, going
>> back to "Clever Hans the talknig horse" circa 1800.
>>
>>> Funny detail, we all picked the copy for the better
>>> one, I am not joking.
>>
>> You may not be joking, but the listening evaluation was.
> I could not think of anything better I could do at the
> time.
That's one reason why one looks at what people have done before you.
>>> As soon as I have tested more I will let you know, I
>>> think it is interesting.
>>
>> If you want to see what a serious attempt at this sort
>> of thing looks like, check the AES web site.
> I will, do you have a specific URL with this article?
> BTW check it yourself too, I see that you are comparing
> SACD
> with a stretched 3X4 picture to make it look like 16 X9
> I have seen the impulse of a SACD being the best
> available of
> all used systems, how do they manage that in your opinion?
The old fashioned way - with more bandwidth.
However, impulse response is a measurement, I thought you were interested in
listening tests?
>>> Some time ago :-) I have compared the CD with good
>>> vinyl, no doubt the vinyl sounded better although the
>>> vinyl had the additional vinyl problems.
>> Begs the question, why did all that audible noise and
>> distortion still "sound better"?
> I don't say that the distortion sounded better, I said
> the overall sound was better, much more detail in the
> guitars and alike.
How do you know that what you perceived as better detail wasn't distortion
due to the LP?
> Not only my opinion but also everyone who "knew" the CD
> should sound better all agreed that that was not true.
The canonical anecdote starts out with "Even my wife in the kitchen said
that it sounded better and she obviously didn't know what she was listening
to".
Peter Irwin
>
> I was active on the field 20-30 years ago and such
> a study with such defintiive, nearly earth-shaking
> results would have been VERY hard to miss. It certainly
> is not to be found in any of the professional literature.
>
> Does it even exist?
The closest thing I can recall to this was a mention in
John H. Potts' final "Editor's Report" for Audio Engineering
magazine in March 1949. Potts was reporting a conversation
that he had with W. S. Barrell, then technical director of EMI.
He promised a future article on the subject - none seems to
have appeared.
I suspect the study had the flaws you discussed.
Peter.
--
pir...@ktb.net
Mr.T
> > However, a SACD and a CD of the same performance can sound different due
> > to different mastering.
>
> I assumed the mastering was the same.
There's your first mistake!
>Why would they use a different mastering if they already had one for the
SACD?
To fool people like you into thinking a more expensive format actually
sounds different.
> > You may not be joking, but the listening evaluation was.
>
> I could not think of anything better I could do at the time.
So why waste your time on deceptive testing?
> > Begs the question, why did all that audible noise and distortion still
> > "sound better"?
>
> I don't say that the distortion sounded better, I said the overall sound
> was better, much more detail in the guitars and alike.
A common misbelief, easily proven wrong by inserting a good 16/44 AD/DA into
the vinyl playback chain. Make sure the gain is unity and see if anybody can
pick when it's in or out. I have been doing that for ten years and nobody
has reliably picked which is which.
> Not only my opinion but also everyone who "knew" the CD should sound
> better all agreed that that was not true.
Of course vinyl sounds DIFFERENT, and many people actually *prefer* it. That
does NOT make it better!
Just listen to whatever makes you happy, I know people still in love with
their 78's. Good for them, but why should I care?
MrT.
Green Xenon [Radium]
> They tried that with SACD and DVD-A and they both flopped in the
> marketplace, and failed scientific tests designed to see if they made an
> audible difference.
SACDs suck. There is just too much clipping in them -- due to the 1-bit
limit of resolution. If you want professional-quality audio, you need at
least 24-bits of resolution. Even 16-bit is too low. 16 bits can handle
only up to 96 dB without clipping. 24-bits can handle a stunning 144 dB
without distortion.
No DSD or SACD for me. No thanks. What a waste of money and a big
earache from all those nasty flat tops.
Richard Crowley
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> They tried that with SACD and DVD-A and they both flopped in the
>> marketplace, and failed scientific tests designed to see if they made an
>> audible difference.
>
>
> SACDs suck. There is just too much clipping in them --
Then you haven't been paying attention to what typical
audio CDs have on them.
> due to the 1-bit limit of resolution. If you want professional-quality
> audio, you need at least 24-bits of resolution. Even 16-bit is too low. 16
> bits can handle only up to 96 dB without clipping. 24-bits can handle a
> stunning 144 dB without distortion.
Now you're just being silly. No CDs have "1-bit resolution".
None. Nada. Not a single one. You appear to be confusing
a popular kind of D/A conversion which is called "1-bit".
> No DSD or SACD for me. No thanks. What a waste of money and a big earache
> from all those nasty flat tops.
But since you only listen in monaural, I'm surprised you even
noticed.
Mr.T
>
> SACDs suck. There is just too much clipping in them -- due to the 1-bit
> limit of resolution. If you want professional-quality audio, you need at
> least 24-bits of resolution. Even 16-bit is too low. 16 bits can handle
> only up to 96 dB without clipping.
Just another troll from Radium who still prefers Soundblaster MIDI :-)
>24-bits can handle a stunning 144 dB
> without distortion.
Unfortunately NO hardware can do that, not even your ears!
> No DSD or SACD for me. No thanks. What a waste of money
That I actually agree with :-)
MrT.
Green Xenon [Radium]
> "Green Xenon [Radium]" wrote...
>> No DSD or SACD for me. No thanks. What a waste of money and a big earache
>> from all those nasty flat tops.
>
> But since you only listen in monaural, I'm surprised you even
> noticed.
How is my preference for monaural relevant to this discussion? BTW,
those "flat tops" I was referring to are the clipped waveforms that
resulting when the amplitude of a sound exceeds the limit allowed. In
digital systems, this limit is determined by the bit-resolution.
Green Xenon [Radium]
> "Green Xenon [Radium]" <gluc...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:48167a9d$0$5694$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
>
>> 24-bits can handle a stunning 144 dB
>> without distortion.
>
> Unfortunately NO hardware can do that, not even your ears!
Huh? 1 bit provides 6 dB of dynamic range. So 1-bits of resolution can
handle 6 dB max without clipping. 8-bits of resolution can handle 48 dB.
16-bits can handle 96 dB.
dynamic range = bit-resolution X 6
So 24-bits can withstand a max of 144 dB without clipping.
Chris Hornbeck
<rcro...@xp7rt.net> wrote:
>Now you're just being silly. No CDs have "1-bit resolution".
>None. Nada. Not a single one. You appear
to be an under-bridge-dweller. For fixed-pitch fonts:
_____________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please do not |
/ O O\__ | feed the |
/ \ | Trolls |
/ \ \|_____________________|
/ _ \ \ ||
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | _||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | | --|
| | | |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ | ||
/ _ \\ | / `
* / \_ /- | | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
-from Ryan McGuire, April 1984
Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck
"It's for compatibility with 8-Track."
-scott
Mr.T
> >> 24-bits can handle a stunning 144 dB
> >> without distortion.
> >
> > Unfortunately NO hardware can do that, not even your ears!
>
>
> Huh? 1 bit provides 6 dB of dynamic range. So 1-bits of resolution can
> handle 6 dB max without clipping. 8-bits of resolution can handle 48 dB.
> 16-bits can handle 96 dB.
>
> dynamic range = bit-resolution X 6
>
> So 24-bits can withstand a max of 144 dB without clipping.
The FILE can, but NOT any hardware!!!!!!!
MrT.
Eeyore
"Green Xenon [Radium]" wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> > They tried that with SACD and DVD-A and they both flopped in the
> > marketplace, and failed scientific tests designed to see if they made an
> > audible difference.
>
> SACDs suck. There is just too much clipping in them -- due to the 1-bit
> limit of resolution.
You're talking complete nonsense. Clearly you don't understand the coding
method.
Graham
Green Xenon [Radium]
What is the max dB the strongest audio hardware can handle? 120dB?
Chris Hornbeck
<rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> SACDs suck. There is just too much clipping in them -- due to the 1-bit
>> limit of resolution.
>
>You're talking complete nonsense. Clearly you don't understand the coding
>method.
Clearly he *does*. For a fixed-pitch font:
Mr.T
> >> So 24-bits can withstand a max of 144 dB without clipping.
>
> > The FILE can, but NOT any hardware!!!!!!!
>
>
> What is the max dB the strongest audio hardware can handle? 120dB?
Like "Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy", first you need to understand the
question.
Define "max dB" and "strongest audio hardware". But be aware that Maximum dB
SPL, digital dBFS, and dB DNR are three different things.
The best digital audio hardware is slightly less than 120dB dynamic range.
But more importantly you cannot possibly hear even that range without a VERY
good isolation chamber, AND possible risk of hearing damage.
120dB DNR is good for making measurements however. Just totally pointless
for listening to music.
MrT.
Edmund
I made a copy of the CD layer from an SACD, I read that
studio's had a new format to use the SACD master for
producing CD's too.
I could be very wrong but still I assumed that was the case.
>
>>>
>>> If you want to see what a serious attempt at this sort of thing looks
>>> like, check the AES web site.
>
>> I will, do you have a specific URL with this article? BTW check it
>> yourself too, I see that you are comparing SACD
>> with a stretched 3X4 picture to make it look like 16 X9 I have seen the
>> impulse of a SACD being the best available of
>> all used systems, how do they manage that in your opinion?
>
> The old fashioned way - with more bandwidth.
Yes the SACD has more bandwith but still you seem to have some
problems with the SACD format, don't you?
>
> However, impulse response is a measurement, I thought you were
> interested in listening tests?
No I am not into voodoo I am not talking in extremes,
I both do listen and like to know how stuff works.
Both SACD and DVDA seems a pretty steep step forward
to me and very interesting if in serious listening tests
nobody seems to be able to hear the difference.
>
>>>> Some time ago :-) I have compared the CD with good vinyl, no doubt
>>>> the vinyl sounded better although the vinyl had the additional vinyl
>>>> problems.
>
>>> Begs the question, why did all that audible noise and distortion still
>>> "sound better"?
>
>> I don't say that the distortion sounded better, I said the overall
>> sound was better, much more detail in the guitars and alike.
>
> How do you know that what you perceived as better detail wasn't
> distortion due to the LP?
That is the fun of listening, I don't know that but we all
agreed that the vinyl sounded better.
It is hard for me to believe that we where all addicted to
some kind of distortion, but who knows?
>
>> Not only my opinion but also everyone who "knew" the CD should sound
>> better all agreed that that was not true.
>
> The canonical anecdote starts out with "Even my wife in the kitchen said
> that it sounded better and she obviously didn't know what she was
> listening to".
So that could be true too.
Edmund
Randy Yates
kTB in a 20 kHz bandwidth at 293K is about 8E-17 watts, or -131 dBm,
so it is certainly possible in those terms.
Or perhaps you were mistakenly referring to +144 dB SPL?
--
% Randy Yates % "She tells me that she likes me very much,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % but when I try to touch, she makes it
%%% 919-577-9882 % all too clear."
%%%% <ya...@ieee.org> % 'Yours Truly, 2095', *Time*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
Randy Yates
> [...]
> The best digital audio hardware is slightly less than 120dB dynamic
> range.
That may be true on the ADC side, but I'm not sure it is on the DAC
side.
--
% Randy Yates % "My Shangri-la has gone away, fading like
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % the Beatles on 'Hey Jude'"
%%% 919-577-9882 %
%%%% <ya...@ieee.org> % 'Shangri-La', *A New World Record*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
geoff
> Just listen to whatever makes you happy, I know people still in love
> with their 78's. Good for them, but why should I care?
You should care when those people go around telling others that theirs'
**is** 'better'. A lot of people end up believing them.
geoff
geoff
And you try to tell us you are really not a troll, just aspergers ?
geoff
Edmund
> "Edmund" <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4815dd90$0$1058$bf49...@news.tele2.nl...
>> > However, a SACD and a CD of the same performance can sound different
>> > due to different mastering.
>>
>> I assumed the mastering was the same.
>
> There's your first mistake!
>
>>Why would they use a different mastering if they already had one for the
> SACD?
>
> To fool people like you into thinking a more expensive format actually
> sounds different.
>
>
>> > You may not be joking, but the listening evaluation was.
>>
>> I could not think of anything better I could do at the time.
>
> So why waste your time on deceptive testing?
Because I am curious and like to know if I and others would
hear any difference. I had no option to make it a perfect test.
>
>> > Begs the question, why did all that audible noise and distortion
>> > still "sound better"?
>>
>> I don't say that the distortion sounded better, I said the overall
>> sound was better, much more detail in the guitars and alike.
>
> A common misbelief, easily proven wrong by inserting a good 16/44 AD/DA
> into the vinyl playback chain. Make sure the gain is unity and see if
> anybody can pick when it's in or out. I have been doing that for ten
> years and nobody has reliably picked which is which.
I find that very interesting can you tell us how you exactly do that
what equipment and all?
Edmund
Mr.T
"Randy Yates" <ya...@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:m3lk2w4...@ieee.org...
> >> So 24-bits can withstand a max of 144 dB without clipping.
> >
> >
> > The FILE can, but NOT any hardware!!!!!!!
>
> kTB in a 20 kHz bandwidth at 293K is about 8E-17 watts, or -131 dBm,
> so it is certainly possible in those terms.
>
> Or perhaps you were mistakenly referring to +144 dB SPL?
Nope, I was simply stating there is NO hardware available with a dynamic
range of 144dB. If you actually know of any please let us all know?
Not that it would serve any useful purpose for listening as Radium suggests
in any case!
MrT.
Mr.T
> > The best digital audio hardware is slightly less than 120dB dynamic
> > range.
>
> That may be true on the ADC side, but I'm not sure it is on the DAC
> side.
So for solely computer generated music you may get an extra few dB's. So
what? Still less than 144dB that Radium wants.
I'm still puzzled how one is going to listen to 144dB dynamic range even IF
it was possible. Any suggestions Randy?
MrT.
Mr.T
"geoff" <ge...@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote in message
news:Q8mdnQGXGrlfAYrV...@giganews.com...
So what, I don't!
MrT.
Mr.T
> > So why waste your time on deceptive testing?
>
> Because I am curious and like to know if I and others would
> hear any difference.
Which an incorrect testing methodology will NOT prove!
Simply a waste of time and misleading to boot.
> > A common misbelief, easily proven wrong by inserting a good 16/44 AD/DA
> > into the vinyl playback chain. Make sure the gain is unity and see if
> > anybody can pick when it's in or out. I have been doing that for ten
> > years and nobody has reliably picked which is which.
>
> I find that very interesting can you tell us how you exactly do that
> what equipment and all?
Extremely simple these days to do a similar test with almost any decent
computer sound card. A stand alone A-D/D-A simply makes it easier, but is
far from necessary.
And as far as vinyl playback equipment is concerned, the beauty of the
method is that anything can be used including those $100,000+ systems, if
you have access to one :-) Simply use whatever the other person CLAIMS to be
superior to CD.
BTW if you do get a positive result one way or the other, simply look for
where you have gone wrong in your tests. Often a level mismatch, or using a
SoundBlaster card with it's pitiful 48-44 resampling for example. (someone I
told a few years ago had that exact problem when trying to use a
SoundBlaster Audigy, problem was solved with an M-Audio Audiophile. I will
admit to being surprised that even the Audigy could be worse than vinyl :-)
(actually not really worse, but still a detectable difference)
MrT.
geoff
I kind of find mass ignorance a bit of a worry.
geoff
Mr.T
> >>> Just listen to whatever makes you happy, I know people still in love
> >>> with their 78's. Good for them, but why should I care?
> >>
> >> You should care when those people go around telling others that
> >> theirs' **is** 'better'. A lot of people end up believing them.
> >
> > So what, I don't!
>
> I kind of find mass ignorance a bit of a worry.
But I find trying to educate those who do not want to learn, even more
frustrating. And everyone is entitled to their own opinion, no matter how
wrong. It's only when politicians make it law that I get really worried!
MrT.
Randy Yates
> "Randy Yates" <ya...@ieee.org> wrote in message
> news:m3fxt44...@ieee.org...
>> > The best digital audio hardware is slightly less than 120dB dynamic
>> > range.
>>
>> That may be true on the ADC side, but I'm not sure it is on the DAC
>> side.
>
> So for solely computer generated music you may get an extra few dB's. So
> what? Still less than 144dB that Radium wants.
The statement in your original post above is reasonably correct. I was
still seeing the intimation of "impossible" from your other post to
Radium on the topic.
However, it may be POSSIBLE to reach 144 dB DR in a DAC. For example,
Figure 9 from my presentation on delta-sigma D/A conversion
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com/presentation.pdf
is based on an equation I wrote in a Matlab function (m-file). Tonight I
wrote another Matlab function which rearranged that equation to return M
(oversampling ratio) given SNR and modulator order. Using an SNR of 144
dB and a modulator order of 2 (quite conservative) I obtained a required
oversampling ratio of 1266.
At 44.1 kHz, that means we would have a 1-bit stream at 55.8 Mb/s. This
is completely reasonable given the current state of today's hardware
using, say, a Xilinx Virtex FPGA or somesuch. The MIPS required for the
interpolating filter would be well within reason as well using polyphase
filtering techniques, and a 2nd order modulator isn't too expensive in
terms of MIPS.
The bigger challenge would most likely be the analog design. But if
money were no object, then you could resort to extremes such as
cryogenically cooling the front-end amp.
This is certainly crazy for anything close to practical, but I just
wouldn't rule out "possible."
> I'm still puzzled how one is going to listen to 144dB dynamic range even IF
> it was possible. Any suggestions Randy?
I'm not sure what the problem would be since you can always turn the
"volume" down and let the soft parts drop into the ambient noise floor
(either thermal or acoustical). You might even get better results than
you think given the ear's ability to act like an adaptive matched filter
(e.g., you can hear a sine wave well below the noise floor).
I never intended to challenge the impracticality of it, only the
possibility. I don't believe it's IMPOSSIBLE to achieve this level of
dynamic range.
--
% Randy Yates % "Rollin' and riding and slippin' and
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % sliding, it's magic."
%%% 919-577-9882 %
%%%% <ya...@ieee.org> % 'Living' Thing', *A New World Record*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
Green Xenon [Radium]
DNR is digital noise reduction. I am not asking about that.
What I am asking is what audio system has the highest Max dB SPL and
highest digital dBFS?
I want the audio system which has the has the highest SPL, dBFS and
treble response. I don't like aliasing because it is annoying. I don't
like clipping because it makes me feel sad. Clipping sounds like someone
in pain. As a warm-hearted and compassionate individual I find such
sounds to be disturbing.
So please introduce me to the present-day audio system which can handle
the loudest and highest-frequency sound without distortion.
Chris Hornbeck
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please do not |
/ O O\__ | feed the |
/ \ | Troll |
/ _ \ \ ||
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | _||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | | --|
| | | |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ | ||
/ _ \\ | / `
* / \_ /- | | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
-from Ryan McGuire, April 1984
Chris Hornbeck
Mr.T
> However, it may be POSSIBLE to reach 144 dB DR in a DAC. For example,
> Figure 9 from my presentation on delta-sigma D/A conversion
Sure, in theory. Never said it wasn't.
> > I'm still puzzled how one is going to listen to 144dB dynamic range even
IF
> > it was possible. Any suggestions Randy?
>
> I'm not sure what the problem would be since you can always turn the
> "volume" down and let the soft parts drop into the ambient noise floor
> (either thermal or acoustical).
That's simply manual compression to reduce the dynamic range. Simply do it
before putting on disk, as is the current practice.
The full dynamic range would require an SPL 144dB above the threshold of
your hearing, plus any extra environmental noise that causes any masking.
NOT something I want to attempt, but you are welcome :-)
>You might even get better results than
> you think given the ear's ability to act like an adaptive matched filter
> (e.g., you can hear a sine wave well below the noise floor).
I'm sure you know the difference between wide band and narrow band DNR
measurements?
CD's can go better than 96dB when measured narrow band too. A sine wave
below the *full band noise floor* is no problem.
> I never intended to challenge the impracticality of it, only the
> possibility. I don't believe it's IMPOSSIBLE to achieve this level of
> dynamic range.
And I never said it was. But there is NO available hardware, the
difficulties are enormous, and you couldn't use it for actual listening in
any case.
Read carefully what I have said all along.
MrT.
Mr.T
> DNR is digital noise reduction. I am not asking about that.
Or Dynamic Range in this case.
> What I am asking is what audio system has the highest Max dB SPL and
> highest digital dBFS?
Highest Max SPL simply depends on listening distance. Some Car Audio
contests reach around 160dB I believe, and they just use a CD source since
no one is inside in any case!
Highest digital dBFS is always zero for any sample size.
> I want the audio system which has the has the highest SPL, dBFS and
> treble response. I don't like aliasing because it is annoying.
OK, use a 16 bit rather than 8 bit soundblaster! :-)
(and avoid digital recordings made over 20 years ago, some (although very
few) failed to use dithering.
>I don't like clipping because it makes me feel sad. Clipping sounds like
someone
> in pain. As a warm-hearted and compassionate individual I find such
> sounds to be disturbing.
Simply keep levels below FS when recording/mastering and NO clipping occurs.
That rules out almost all current pop music, but leaves most classical
music.
> So please introduce me to the present-day audio system which can handle
> the loudest and highest-frequency sound without distortion.
CD's are quite capable of that. Whether any particular recording does is
another matter altogether.
And whether the rest of your system can is far more doubtful.
MrT.
Randy Yates
> [...]
> And I never said it was.
It sounded like it to me:
"Green Xenon [Radium]" <gluc...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:48168b01$0$5706$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> [...]
> So 24-bits can withstand a max of 144 dB without clipping.
The FILE can, but NOT any hardware!!!!!!!
> But there is NO available hardware
You didn't say "available" hardware---you said ANY hardware.
--
% Randy Yates % "Maybe one day I'll feel her cold embrace,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % and kiss her interface,
%%% 919-577-9882 % til then, I'll leave her alone."
geoff
>
> I want the audio system which has the has the highest SPL, dBFS and
> treble response. I don't like aliasing because it is annoying. I don't
> like clipping because it makes me feel sad. Clipping sounds like
> someone in pain. As a warm-hearted and compassionate individual I
> find such sounds to be disturbing.
>
> So please introduce me to the present-day audio system which can
> handle the loudest and highest-frequency sound without distortion.
You find all those things above annoying, sad , and painful. Guess what we
find makes us feel the same ?
You have speakers that can reproduce anything at 44k1/16 with anything
appoaching the linearity and distortion(less) capability of CD, SACD, or
whatever ?
geoff
Randy Yates
> [...]
> Clipping sounds like [...]
You seem to be under the impression that a 1-bit delta sigma D/A
converter "clips" - it does not.
--
% Randy Yates % "My Shangri-la has gone away, fading like
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % the Beatles on 'Hey Jude'"
%%% 919-577-9882 %
%%%% <ya...@ieee.org> % 'Shangri-La', *A New World Record*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
Mr.T
> > So 24-bits can withstand a max of 144 dB without clipping.
>
> The FILE can, but NOT any hardware!!!!!!!
>
> > But there is NO available hardware
>
> You didn't say "available" hardware---you said ANY hardware.
Strange then that you have included it above.
In any case I certainly never said "no possible FUTURE hardware" did I?
IF you know of ANY available hardware with 144dB DNR then just tell us, and
we can stop arguing.
Surely you have something better to complain about though?
MrT.
Randy Yates
> "Randy Yates" <ya...@ieee.org> wrote in message
> news:m3tzhkm...@ieee.org...
>> > So 24-bits can withstand a max of 144 dB without clipping.
>>
>> The FILE can, but NOT any hardware!!!!!!!
>>
>> > But there is NO available hardware
>>
>> You didn't say "available" hardware---you said ANY hardware.
>
> Strange then that you have included it above.
You find it strange because you are interpreting it differently. That's
not wrong, just a fact. See below.
> In any case I certainly never said "no possible FUTURE hardware" did I?
> IF you know of ANY available hardware with 144dB DNR then just tell us, and
> we can stop arguing.
> Surely you have something better to complain about though?
And you apparently enjoy stirring up ill will rather than attempting a
peaceful resolution, even if that is to simply agree to disagree.
I would categorize what just happened in this series of posts as a
miscommunication - neither you nor I made any errors - it is simply a
matter of different interpretations. So, peace man. Maybe we can have
a beer together sometime.
--
% Randy Yates % "Bird, on the wing,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % goes floating by
%%% 919-577-9882 % but there's a teardrop in his eye..."
%%%% <ya...@ieee.org> % 'One Summer Dream', *Face The Music*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
Dave Platt
Green Xenon [Radium] <gluc...@excite.com> wrote:
>What I am asking is what audio system has the highest Max dB SPL and
>highest digital dBFS?
It's actually a 1-bit system with a very low sampling rate.
It consists of a single switch, which actuates the kryton-switch
detonator chain on the shell of high explosives which implode a
spherical core of uranium 235, at the center of an outer shell of
lithium hydride. There are lots of other finicky details, but true
audiophiles will consider it worth the effort.
The SPL and dynamic range is astounding.
When the input bit is all 0 bits, it's completely quiet.
When the input goes to 1, even once, the resulting SPL (and associated
sonic shock wave) is sufficient to destroy every listener's ears...
along with the listener... for a distance of quite a few miles.
>I want the audio system which has the has the highest SPL, dBFS and
>treble response.
Out of curiosity, have you ever had your hearing tested, to determine
accurately what the upper frequency limit of your hearing actually is?
> I don't like aliasing because it is annoying. I don't
>like clipping because it makes me feel sad. Clipping sounds like someone
>in pain.
I agree that clipping sounds nasty. However, your conclusion that
SACD and similar systems are more prone to clipping than CD because
they use a 1-bit modulator is entirely wrong. Oversampled systems
like this have a much higher dynamic range than the basic bit-width
would indicate to the naive.
Also, essentially none of the clipping that one hears in commercial
digital recordings has *anything* to do with the dynamic range
limitations of CD, or other digital-audio systems as practiced today.
It has to do with the producers *deliberately* compressing the audio
into overdrive, in order to raise the average audio output level up to
win the "loudness wars" on AM and FM radio.
The human ear has a respectably wide dynamic range capability, from
down at sound levels just above the level of thermal noise of the
atoms in the air hitting the eardrum, up to levels that can cause
physical damage to the ear itself.
However, it *CANNOT* perceive this wide a range at any one time, or
even within a short range of time. Loud noises or sounds will
desensitize the ear significantly, so that it will lose its ability to
detect low-level sounds until quite a bit of "recovery time" has gone
by.
>So please introduce me to the present-day audio system which can handle
>the loudest and highest-frequency sound without distortion.
KaBOOM.
--
Dave Platt <dpl...@radagast.org> AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
Green Xenon [Radium]
> "Green Xenon [Radium]" <gluc...@excite.com> writes:
>> [...]
>
>> Clipping sounds like [...]
>
> You seem to be under the impression that a 1-bit delta sigma D/A
> converter "clips" - it does not.
Yeah. My bad. I was confusing it with 1-bit LPCM.
Chronic Philharmonic
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4817df56$0$17511$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Fifteen years ago I attended a seminar put on by Crystal Semiconductor to
talk about their A/D and D/A converters. I was primarily interested in audio
applications, but they also discussed instrumentation devices. These were
sigma-delta noise-shaping devices capable of true 24-bit resolution (in
truth, their 24 bit audio devices were not, at least at that time). Anyway,
they still had a problem with the instrumentation devices at the LSB level.
It seems the thermocouple effects of simply soldering the parts together
caused a temperature dependent DC offset which could not be ignored, even
though the converters were self-calibrating. From that, it became obvious to
me that 24 bits (audio or not) was getting to the theoretical level of
diminishing returns, requiring near superhuman efforts to keep the
resolution stable. I doubt the theoreticals have changed much in fifteen
years.
Chris Hornbeck
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please do not |
/ O O\__ | feed the |
Chris Hornbeck
<karl.u...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Fifteen years ago I attended a seminar put on by Crystal Semiconductor to
>talk about their A/D and D/A converters. I was primarily interested in audio
>applications, but they also discussed instrumentation devices. These were
>sigma-delta noise-shaping devices capable of true 24-bit resolution (in
>truth, their 24 bit audio devices were not, at least at that time). Anyway,
>they still had a problem with the instrumentation devices at the LSB level.
>It seems the thermocouple effects of simply soldering the parts together
>caused a temperature dependent DC offset which could not be ignored, even
>though the converters were self-calibrating. From that, it became obvious to
>me that 24 bits (audio or not) was getting to the theoretical level of
>diminishing returns, requiring near superhuman efforts to keep the
>resolution stable. I doubt the theoreticals have changed much in fifteen
>years.
Instrumentation classically means a much lower bandwidth
than audio, but without definitions, anything can mean
anything.
This whole thread is in response to a grad-student-level
troll, so all discussion that truly informs, like yours,
is good stuff. _Potential_, as opposed to "practically
available/ real world" dynamic range is constrained by
temperature and by the Carnot cycle.
Dynamic range and information are related by their mulplicative
terms: bandwidth and bit depth.
And, as others have said better, humans are constrained
by their own noise at one end and by hearing damage at the
other. Numbers larger than 130dB (as defined as within a wide
audio bandwidth, maybe 20-20K Hz just to be conventional) are
purely fictional in this context.
Much thanks, as always,
Mr.T
> > In any case I certainly never said "no possible FUTURE hardware" did I?
> > IF you know of ANY available hardware with 144dB DNR then just tell us,
and
> > we can stop arguing.
> > Surely you have something better to complain about though?
>
> And you apparently enjoy stirring up ill will rather than attempting a
> peaceful resolution, even if that is to simply agree to disagree.
What is exactly that YOU are attempting to do?
I have made my position clear. I have NOT denigrated you. WHAT is your
problem?
MrT.
Chronic Philharmonic
"Chris Hornbeck" <chrishornbe...@att.net> wrote in message
news:c7qf145eqg1akbh8k...@4ax.com...
Yes, the instrumentation devices had a significantly lower effective
bandwidth than the audio devices. However, the main consideration in this
case was that the instrumentation devices had to accurately encode DC
voltage levels, whereas the audio devices contained a high pass filter that
removed DC, and with it, any stray DC offsets. What I took away from all
that was, 24 bit encoding put us firmly at the lower limits of the
fundamental ability of of analog technology (or even straight wire for that
matter) to represent the signal in the first place.
Green Xenon [Radium]
Well, I am not so concerned about DNR as I am with the clipping point
and aliasing.
I want my audio system to be able to record, process, playback, receive,
transmit, generate, reproduce and otherwise perfectly-handle audio and
ultrasonic acoustic signals as loud as 200 dB without any clipping and
as high-frequency as 300 GHz without any aliasing.
If one were to graph the frequency response of my fantastic audio
system, anything below 1 kHz would be attenuated in such a manner that
if you go from 1 kHz down to 0 Hz [on the graph] you will find an smooth
downward slant. IOW, for any frequency below 1 kHz, the lower that
frequency is, the more attenuated it will be. I don't like bass.
300 GHz is the highest ultrasonic acoustic frequency that can exist in
Earth's atmosphere, as you can see below.
Igor wrote in http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2006-11/msg0075905.html :
"The mean free path in air at sea level is about 0.1 micron[1]. Let's
take the speed of sound to be roughly 300 m/s. Then the upper limit on
sustainable sound frequencies is
f_max = (300 m/s) / (10^-7 m) = 3*10^9 Hz = 3 GHz."
Unfortunately for me, this audio system of mine is way too good to ever
be true.
Mr.T
> Well, I am not so concerned about DNR as I am with the clipping point
> and aliasing.
The record gain control takes care of clipping. The anti-alias filter takes
care of aliasing.
So now you can stop worrying.
> I want my audio system to be able to record, process, playback, receive,
> transmit, generate, reproduce and otherwise perfectly-handle audio and
> ultrasonic acoustic signals as loud as 200 dB without any clipping and
> as high-frequency as 300 GHz without any aliasing.
Good for you. Make one then.
And then please use it at 200dB SPL!!!!!!!!!
(but make sure no one else is within a few kilometers :-) :-)
> Unfortunately for me, this audio system of mine is way too good to ever
> be true.
Or way to ridiculous, (and is certainly not "an *audio* system"), but I'm
glad you realise it at last!
MrT.
Arny Krueger
>> A common misbelief, easily proven wrong by inserting a
>> good 16/44 AD/DA into the vinyl playback chain. Make
>> sure the gain is unity and see if anybody can pick when
>> it's in or out. I have been doing that for ten years and
>> nobody has reliably picked which is which.
> I find that very interesting can you tell us how you
> exactly do that what equipment and all?
I've done it with this device:
http://www.maudio.co.uk/images/global/manuals/FlygCow20b_Manual.pdf
Serge Auckland
news:d6Wdnfc5xOR4_YXV...@comcast.com...
I too have done it using my Digigram VXPocket card and with a Lindos Studio
AD/DA converter. It works equally well ADDA as DAAD. We used as a source a
live recording replayed on a Studer analogue 38cm/s tape machine, live
speech straight off the microphone (through a mic amp, of course!) and
commercial CDs. In each case 44.1/16 is audibly transparent in that there
was no way of telling if the source went direct or through the ADDA or DAAD
process.
S.
Dave Platt
Green Xenon [Radium] <gluc...@excite.com> wrote:
>I want my audio system to be able to record, process, playback, receive,
>transmit, generate, reproduce and otherwise perfectly-handle audio and
>ultrasonic acoustic signals as loud as 200 dB without any clipping and
>as high-frequency as 300 GHz without any aliasing.
>300 GHz is the highest ultrasonic acoustic frequency that can exist in
>Earth's atmosphere, as you can see below.
>Igor wrote in http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2006-11/msg0075905.html :
>"The mean free path in air at sea level is about 0.1 micron[1]. Let's
>take the speed of sound to be roughly 300 m/s. Then the upper limit on
>sustainable sound frequencies is
>f_max = (300 m/s) / (10^-7 m) = 3*10^9 Hz = 3 GHz."
And, as Bob Morein explained to you in some detail back in December of
last year, the mean free path travel distance is *not* the primary
limiting factor on the upper frequency which can be carried through
the air via sound. Rather, it's the kinetic energy of the
molecules... and this limits the upper frequency to around 30 MHz.
Similarly, the "200 dB" maximum SPL you ask for is meaningless
(assuming you're referencing it to the usual "0 dB" standard of
pressure, which is set to the minimum volume level that a human
listener can detect in an otherwise-silent environment) since it
exceeds the theoretical limit for the passage of undistorted sound
through atmosphere at sea level (which one reference gives as being
194 dB). You cannot have "200 dB" and "perfectly handle... without
any clipping", because the air itself will distort the signal.
It's also far, *far* above the "threshold of pain" (at which the sound
becomes unbearable to the listener) and the "threshold of damage" (at
which irreversable damage to the listener's hearing can occur even due
to short exposures).
>Unfortunately for me, this audio system of mine is way too good to ever
>be true.
It's not just "way too good to ever be true". It's defined in a way
which is actually *meaningless*.
And, if it weren't meaningless, it wouldn't be an audio reproduction
system. It would be a weapon of war.
Green Xenon [Radium]
Ok, I forgot to add some additional details about my audio system:
1. First and foremost, it does not emit sound/ultrasound of any
intensity that would cause any harm or discomfort [physical or
psychological] to any living organism. Safety first. The entire system
can perfectly attenuate a 200 dB signal down to 0 dB without
experiencing any distortion. One of the reasons my audio system should
be able to handle such high-amplitude signals is so that it can survive
those amplitudes without experiencing damage. Also it needs to be able
to handle high-amplitudes it is going to attenuate loud signals. This
audio system is designed for smooth jazz, soft rock, and light punk --
such as Phil Collins and Blink 182. Those who like the loud heavy metal
songs of Creed and other loud-mouths will not want my audio system
because the attenuation would make the originally-loud sounds too soft
to give the feel of heavy metal. My system can actually scan through
tracks of songs recorded into it. As it scans a track it will attenuate
everything in the track until the loudest sound is soft enough not to
cause any harm, discomfort, or startle response in the listener. You
could have this audio system in a room that is initally in total silence
and then suddenly turn the volume to max. Even then, the loudest sound
will not cause you any hint of startle.
2. It does not concern me that the air would not be able to carry
mechanical vibrations as high-frequency as 300 GHz or as loud as 200 dB
SPL. In fact, it further drives my curiosity to find out what would
happen if one attempts to force the air to carry acoustic vibrations at
frequencies significantly higher than what the air can carry.
3. My entire audio system has the physical ability to handle even the
nastiest of clipping without experience any amount of damage. It can
handle 200 dB square waves without experiencing any damage or generating
any perceptible heat. [A precautionary measure just in case there is
some hard-clipping somewhere in the amp]. Let me assure you though that
my audio system will never actually playback any signal that loud
because the system is designed not generate unwanted/harmful sounds.
4. Only sounds that are high-frequency enough not to cause any injury to
any living organism will get anywhere near 194 dB. [Assuming such a
"loud" ultrasound could actually be harmless].
5. Can't stress this enough -- safety first! safety first! safety first!
safety first!
Green Xenon [Radium]
> Also it needs to be able
> to handle high-amplitudes it is going to attenuate loud signals.
Sorry, that should read "also it needs to be able to handle
high-amplitudes *if* it is going to attenuate loud signals."
Richard Crowley
> 3. My entire audio system has the physical ability to handle even the
> nastiest of clipping without experience any amount of damage. It can
> handle 200 dB square waves without experiencing any damage or
> generating any perceptible heat.
Proof positive (if you needed any additional proof)
that Mr. Radium is posting from some alternate
universe where the laws of physics are different than
here.
Since Mr. Radium has found out how to communicate
with our planet, we can suspend the SETI experiment.
Ron Capik
You seem to have a loose interpretation of the "i" in
SETI
Later...
Ron Capik <<< cynic in trainuing >>>
--
WindsorFox<SS>
You seem to be reading through an alternate universe. Care to
address my reply in the other thread?
--
"I have no need to purchase any bulk e-mail software
and use it to piss off the Internet community and lose
my Internet account. If I want to piss off somebody,
I'll do it on a one-to-one basis." - Norman L. De Forest
Richard Crowley
> You seem to be reading through an alternate universe.
> Care to address my reply in the other thread?
Huh?
WindsorFox<SS>
And you apparently are ignoring the fact that your
misstatement went on your permanent record (i.e.
Google Groups Archive). Misstatement of facts
should not go unchallengd in the record.
I asked that you provide what I made as a "misstatement."
--
"I've also noted that a couple of my regular spammers
have pretty much switched over to phishing and 419s
from pecker pills and sawdust tablets." - Bar0
Richard Crowley
"WindsorFox<SS>" <darksh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fvctnr$uuv$3...@posting2.glorb.com...
> Richard Crowley wrote:
>> "WindsorFox<SS>" wrote ...
>>> You seem to be reading through an alternate universe. Care to address
>>> my reply in the other thread?
>>
>> Huh?
> Richard Crowley wrote:
> And you apparently are ignoring the fact that your
> misstatement went on your permanent record (i.e.
> Google Groups Archive). Misstatement of facts
> should not go unchallengd in the record.
>
> I asked that you provide what I made as a "misstatement."
IIRC, the statement was addressed to the person who
made the misstatement. Were you feeling guilty, too?
WindsorFox<SS>
> "WindsorFox<SS>" <darksh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fvctnr$uuv$3...@posting2.glorb.com...
>> Richard Crowley wrote:
>>> "WindsorFox<SS>" wrote ...
>>>> You seem to be reading through an alternate universe. Care to address
>>>> my reply in the other thread?
>>> Huh?
>> Richard Crowley wrote:
>> And you apparently are ignoring the fact that your
>> misstatement went on your permanent record (i.e.
>> Google Groups Archive). Misstatement of facts
>> should not go unchallengd in the record.
>>
>> I asked that you provide what I made as a "misstatement."
>
> IIRC, the statement was addressed to the person who
> made the misstatement. Were you feeling guilty, too?
>
>
Then you should click reply on the message from the person you
intend the reply for.
Ron Capik
> < ...snip... >
>
> Then you should click reply on the message from the person you
> intend the reply for.
>
> --
>
From your response one would guess that the
concept of threaded news groups is beyond
your comprehension.
Later...
Ron Capik <<< cynic in training >>>
--
Steven Sullivan
> > They tried that with SACD and DVD-A and they both flopped in the
> > marketplace, and failed scientific tests designed to see if they made an
> > audible difference.
> SACDs suck. There is just too much clipping in them -- due to the 1-bit
> limit of resolution.
You really haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about here.
--
-S
maybe they wanna rock.
maybe they need to rock.
Maybe it's for the money? But That's none of our business..our business as fans is to rock
with them.
Mr.T
"Steven Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:g0e0rq$79o$3...@reader2.panix.com...
> Green Xenon [Radium] <gluc...@excite.com> wrote:
> > SACDs suck. There is just too much clipping in them -- due to the 1-bit
> > limit of resolution.
>
> You really haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about here.
We already established that a LONG time ago.
MrT.
Arny Krueger
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
>>> They tried that with SACD and DVD-A and they both
>>> flopped in the marketplace, and failed scientific tests
>>> designed to see if they made an audible difference.
>
>
>> SACDs suck. There is just too much clipping in them --
>> due to the 1-bit limit of resolution.
>
> You really haven't the slightest clue what you're talking
> about here.
Obviously.