Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Volume and dynamic range question.
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Volume and dynamic range question.
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Volume and dynamic range question.
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 04:15:08 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote: Funny Stewart, you didn't list two different SACD players when you responded to my earlier question. Why would I, when I already said that you don't *need* two SACD players? So how did you mask sound, get quick switching, or do any of the other things required to get a truly blind test. You yourself indicated your tests weren't all that rigorous. Now you imply that they were. I said they were inconclusive. They were however quick-switched between the two players used (hardly a challenge with a preamp having a source selector switch!), and used conventional DBT protocols. And how did you determine *which* disks had an identical mix between CD and SACD layer, since you are one of the most vociferous to say the CD layers are doctored and you used mostly SONY disks for the comparison (which is the company you continually assert does this). Impossible to say, which is perhaps one reason why the results were inconclusive. Note however that it wasn't always the SACD which was preferred. Harry, this is going nowhere. It is a plain *fact* that the jury is out among the pros, hence any differences are clearly subtle at best, so let's just wait and see what falls out commercially. I'll be happy when the market moves to multichannel 24/96, which looks the most likely result. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Volume and dynamic range question.
Andre Yew wrote:
FWIW, I think the most interesting recent test on the audibility of ultrasonics is David Griesinger's informal tests found he http://world.std.com/~griesngr/intermod.ppt The experimental method seems sound, and Griesinger provides a reference to what sounds like a credible paper for ultrasonic perception which has experimental and solid theoretical reasons for the audibility of ultrasonics. What may be surprising to some is the mechanism by which they become audible. I won't give the ending away :-). There are lots of other interesting stuff on his website, including many things on surround sound. --Andre Thanks for the link to a very interesting paper. It's pretty amazing that human perception is inherently asymmetric, and can result in the apparent "harshness" of some musical material. I noticed that the John Eargle SACD has much higher ultrasonic noise than the Sting SACD. Does anyone know why some discs have so much more shaped noise? BTW, Creative Labs has a new soundcard, the Audigy 2 Platinum Pro ZS, that can sample at 96kHz/24bit now. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Volume and dynamic range question.
Thanks for making a fine source of information available.
"Andre Yew" wrote in message news:tY6Ib.693033$Tr4.1733745@attbi_s03... FWIW, I think the most interesting recent test on the audibility of ultrasonics is David Griesinger's informal tests found he http://world.std.com/~griesngr/intermod.ppt The experimental method seems sound, and Griesinger provides a reference to what sounds like a credible paper for ultrasonic perception which has experimental and solid theoretical reasons for the audibility of ultrasonics. What may be surprising to some is the mechanism by which they become audible. I won't give the ending away :-). There are lots of other interesting stuff on his website, including many things on surround sound. --Andre |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Volume and dynamic range question.
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:11:23 GMT, (Ben
Hoadley) wrote: (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ... On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:37:43 GMT, (Ben Hoadley) wrote: Its not just my opinion that says cd format is stressful to listen to over long periods (even when done to an optimum quality). Yes, it is. no its not. just because you and a couple of other very experienced people don't have this issue doesn't mean no-one does Some people can't stand the sound of a live viloin. This doesn't mean that it is stressful per se. You are claiming that this is a CD problem, not your personal problem, while I claim that there's no sucyh thing as 'CD sound', it sounds just the same as an analogue master tape fed to it - and no one claims that analogue master tapes are 'stressful'. You can *not* find any artifacts in a properly made CD which would demonstrate otherwise. A well done CD is plesurable to listn to but when the lowres artifacts are absent its such a relief! Shame for your argument that vinyl has at least ten times *less* resolution than CD............ vinyl? yes vinyl is a very nonlinear inconsistent unreliable difficult medium. As is any analogue medium. So what exactly do you mean by 'low res artifacts'? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Volume and dynamic range question.
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:11:23 GMT, (Ben Hoadley) wrote: (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ... On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:37:43 GMT, (Ben Hoadley) wrote: Its not just my opinion that says cd format is stressful to listen to over long periods (even when done to an optimum quality). Yes, it is. no its not. just because you and a couple of other very experienced people don't have this issue doesn't mean no-one does Some people can't stand the sound of a live viloin. This doesn't mean that it is stressful per se. You are claiming that this is a CD problem, not your personal problem, while I claim that there's no sucyh thing as 'CD sound', it sounds just the same as an analogue master tape fed to it - and no one claims that analogue master tapes are 'stressful'. You can *not* find any artifacts in a properly made CD which would demonstrate otherwise. A well done CD is plesurable to listn to but when the lowres artifacts are absent its such a relief! Shame for your argument that vinyl has at least ten times *less* resolution than CD............ vinyl? yes vinyl is a very nonlinear inconsistent unreliable difficult medium. As is any analogue medium. So what exactly do you mean by 'low res artifacts'? -- I'm starting to think it doesn't matter. CD audio is dead, because its original developers have wrung out any profit they will make from this technology a decade ago. Physics, science, engineering doesn't enter into it. The marketers are quite successful convincing the non-technical that they need a system that uses over twice the necessary bandwidth so they won't miss the mystical overtones lost to "bandwidth limited CD audio". Brute force wins out over elegance and optimal design. Just follow the money. About the only thing we can hope for is multi-mode players that will continue to provide decent CD audio performance. Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Volume and dynamic range question.
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Volume and dynamic range question.
In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:29:21 GMT, (Ben Hoadley) wrote: "Karl Uppiano" wrote in message ... "Ben Hoadley" wrote in message ... [snip] I did have it demonstrated to me once. you get a analog tone generator. set a sine wave to 15khz then switch it to triangle wave. you gan clearly hear the change even though the first harmonic difference is at 30khz. I don't know if this is a good demonstration though since its more the distortion within the signal that is the problem with cd This can be a misleading demonstration. Switching between sine and triangle (or sine and square) is only valid if the fundamental tone is *exactly* the same in all cases. Setting equal RMS values using a meter, or equal peak values using an oscilloscope will both give erroneous results. You can *not* hear any difference when the fundamental tone is higher than 8kHz or so, providing that the level of the *fundamental* is matched. This is also true of a square wave, which has even higher velues of harmonic content than a triangle wave. This is assuming that the amplifier handles frequencies above 20Khz properly, which a lot of solid state designs ca 1975 didn't. I assume that at this point a LP filter at the input is standard, but wouldn't be surprised to find middle-brow equipment which assumes that the input is from a device that doesn't have output above 20Khz. (A number of preamps ca 1975 had very high IM distortion at frequencies over 20Khz, and the IM products in the audible range were quite audible when the preamp was driven by inputs with a lot of energy over 20Khz. There are a lot of moving magnet and moving coil designs which produce a lot of (distortion) energy above 20Khz.) Much of the sonic difference I heard between amps at that time was due to differences in clipping and output current clamping behavior driving full range ESL's; amplifiers that could drive my ESLs without being driven in to clipping (tube and solid-state) or having their current limiting clamp down (solid-state) were far too expensive for my budget. The tone generator might also have bizarre problems, such as differing hum levels with different switch positions (probably not true for professional equipment, but not impossible with hobbyist equipment). I'm not disagreeing with your point, but since I am constrained by a finite budget I had to choose between imperfect alternatives. I'm quite certain I heard sonic differences between preamps and amps ca 1975, but every time I put the equipment on the bench I found a measurable difference. Mike Squires -- Mike Squires (mikes at cs.indiana.edu) 317 233 9456 (w) 812 333 6564 (h) mikes at siralan.org 546 N Park Ridge Rd., Bloomington, IN 47408 |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Volume and dynamic range question.
"Michael Squires" wrote in message
... In article , Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:29:21 GMT, (Ben Hoadley) wrote: "Karl Uppiano" wrote in message ... "Ben Hoadley" wrote in message ... [snip] I did have it demonstrated to me once. you get a analog tone generator. set a sine wave to 15khz then switch it to triangle wave. you gan clearly hear the change even though the first harmonic difference is at 30khz. I don't know if this is a good demonstration though since its more the distortion within the signal that is the problem with cd This can be a misleading demonstration. Switching between sine and triangle (or sine and square) is only valid if the fundamental tone is *exactly* the same in all cases. Setting equal RMS values using a meter, or equal peak values using an oscilloscope will both give erroneous results. You can *not* hear any difference when the fundamental tone is higher than 8kHz or so, providing that the level of the *fundamental* is matched. This is also true of a square wave, which has even higher velues of harmonic content than a triangle wave. This is assuming that the amplifier handles frequencies above 20Khz properly, which a lot of solid state designs ca 1975 didn't. I assume that at this point a LP filter at the input is standard, but wouldn't be surprised to find middle-brow equipment which assumes that the input is from a device that doesn't have output above 20Khz. (A number of preamps ca 1975 had very high IM distortion at frequencies over 20Khz, and the IM products in the audible range were quite audible when the preamp was driven by inputs with a lot of energy over 20Khz. There are a lot of moving magnet and moving coil designs which produce a lot of (distortion) energy above 20Khz.) Much of the sonic difference I heard between amps at that time was due to differences in clipping and output current clamping behavior driving full range ESL's; amplifiers that could drive my ESLs without being driven in to clipping (tube and solid-state) or having their current limiting clamp down (solid-state) were far too expensive for my budget. The tone generator might also have bizarre problems, such as differing hum levels with different switch positions (probably not true for professional equipment, but not impossible with hobbyist equipment). I'm not disagreeing with your point, but since I am constrained by a finite budget I had to choose between imperfect alternatives. I'm quite certain I heard sonic differences between preamps and amps ca 1975, but every time I put the equipment on the bench I found a measurable difference. Mike Squires -- Mike Squires (mikes at cs.indiana.edu) 317 233 9456 (w) 812 333 6564 (h) mikes at siralan.org 546 N Park Ridge Rd., Bloomington, IN 47408 This would be a good argument for CD audio, since any halfway decent CD player will strongly attenuate everything above 22kHz. So a mid-fi amplifier would be well-behaved in this regard. From what I gather, SACD emits a lot of ultrasonic garbage, which would be a clear indication of a very poor implementation. That's not *necessarily* a poor reflection on the SACD specification (although the specification could dictate a poor design). |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Volume and dynamic range question.
On 3 Jan 2004 19:46:42 GMT, (Michael Squires)
wrote: In article , Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:29:21 GMT, (Ben Hoadley) wrote: "Karl Uppiano" wrote in message ... "Ben Hoadley" wrote in message ... [snip] I did have it demonstrated to me once. you get a analog tone generator. set a sine wave to 15khz then switch it to triangle wave. you gan clearly hear the change even though the first harmonic difference is at 30khz. I don't know if this is a good demonstration though since its more the distortion within the signal that is the problem with cd This can be a misleading demonstration. Switching between sine and triangle (or sine and square) is only valid if the fundamental tone is *exactly* the same in all cases. Setting equal RMS values using a meter, or equal peak values using an oscilloscope will both give erroneous results. You can *not* hear any difference when the fundamental tone is higher than 8kHz or so, providing that the level of the *fundamental* is matched. This is also true of a square wave, which has even higher velues of harmonic content than a triangle wave. This is assuming that the amplifier handles frequencies above 20Khz properly, which a lot of solid state designs ca 1975 didn't. I assume that at this point a LP filter at the input is standard, but wouldn't be surprised to find middle-brow equipment which assumes that the input is from a device that doesn't have output above 20Khz. Yes, I am assuming that the amp does not produce any IMD products which image into the audible baseband. This debate was supposed to be about the audibility of tones above 22kHz, not baseband distortion products! (A number of preamps ca 1975 had very high IM distortion at frequencies over 20Khz, and the IM products in the audible range were quite audible when the preamp was driven by inputs with a lot of energy over 20Khz. There are a lot of moving magnet and moving coil designs which produce a lot of (distortion) energy above 20Khz.) Hence my concern about the very high levels of wideband ultrasonic hash delivered by SACD. I'm not disagreeing with your point, but since I am constrained by a finite budget I had to choose between imperfect alternatives. I'm quite certain I heard sonic differences between preamps and amps ca 1975, but every time I put the equipment on the bench I found a measurable difference. Agreed. There is no mystery about audible differences among amplifiers, IME this *always* shows up as a very easily measured defect. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
rec.audio.car FAQ (Part 2/5) | Car Audio | |||
Adjust volume before or after noise reduction? | Audio Opinions | |||
Question re. Speaker Sensitvity | High End Audio |