Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
Appropos the recent mention here of Neil Young's disdain for digital
audio, I have come across several references to an article on this topic recently. It found it interesting - as is the site whence it came. (Sorry if this has already been posted here; I try to check before posting and didn't find it.) "24/192 Music Downloads ...and why they make no sense" is he http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
"Jason" wrote in message
... Appropos the recent mention here of Neil Young's disdain for digital audio, I have come across several references to an article on this topic recently. It found it interesting -- as is the site whence it came. "24/192 Music Downloads ...and why they make no sense" is he http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html A couple of points... It's possible to see into the near infra-red -- if the light is intense enough, and there is no visible light to interfere. This can be done by covering the eyes with an IR filter -- and dark-adapting during the daytime. (I've seen at least one Web article on it.) Obviously, one has to make sure the "blinders" don't come off, except in a dark room! The following... "192kHz digital music files offer no benefits. They're not quite neutral either; practical fidelity is slightly worse. The ultrasonics are a liability during playback. "Neither audio transducers nor power amplifiers are free of distortion, and distortion tends to increase rapidly at the lowest and highest frequencies. If the same transducer reproduces ultrasonics along with audible content, harmonic distortion will shift some of the ultrasonic content down into the audible range as an uncontrolled spray of intermodulation distortion products covering the entire audible spectrum. Harmonic distortion in a power amplifier will produce the same effect. The effect is very slight, but listening tests have confirmed that both effects can be audible." ....is broadly incorrect. First, the writer means IM, not harmonic distortion. (Harmonic distortion does not "cause" IM.) Second, few microphones have significant response above 20kHz. "Sampling does not affect frequency response." Not quite true. The sampling function itself has an "amplitude envelope" that varies as (sin x) / x. The wider the sampling function, the greater the ampliftude variation introduced. Also... The sampling theorem does not "explain" how digital audio works, because sampling can be part of analog data transmission. It's quantization that needs splainin'. "The BAS test I linked earlier mentions as an aside that the SACD version of a recording often does sound substantially better than the CD release. It's not because of increased sample rate or depth but because of the better mastering of the SACD. When bounced to a CD-R, the SACD version still sounds as good as the original SACD and much better than the CD release. Good production and mastering obviously contribute to the final quality of the music [19]." I have no idea what he's talking about. The idea that bouncing a recording to & from a hard drive or recordable CD "improves" the sound, for any number of reasons, is taken as gospel by many people, but I've never found it plausible. His remarks on surround sound suggest he hasn't done much listening to surround. He's also missing a fundamental point. If I make a "simple" recording with just two or three mics (as opposed to heavy multi-micing), then the original surround sound of the recording venue is "mixed down" to stereo, whether or not you like it. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... "The BAS test I linked earlier mentions as an aside that the SACD version of a recording often does sound substantially better than the CD release. It's not because of increased sample rate or depth but because of the better mastering of the SACD. No doubt a reference to the Meyers and Moran (both BAS members) JAES paper titled: "Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback" J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 55, No. 9, 2007 September 779 Abstract: "Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz "bottleneck." The tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects. The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels." When bounced to a CD-R, the SACD version still sounds as good as the original SACD and much better than the CD release. Good production and mastering obviously contribute to the final quality of the music [19]." I have no idea what he's talking about. Put the two pieces above together and we find that the SACD format all by itself makes no reliably audible difference as compared to the CD format. However being remastered again after release of the CD version does make an audible difference and explains why many favor the SACD version. The Meyers and Moran paper appears to have a flaw that is not really the fault of the authors. The problem is that they took vendor claims that SACD and DVD releases were high resolution recordings at face value. Later investigations show that many of them were based on lower resolution analog and digital recordings which sets a lower bar for their audible performance. The idea that upsampling increases resolution violates Shannon's theorem and is the audio equivalent of perpetual motion. Therefore, their low-res beginnings forces of Meyer's and Moran's test away from being a comparison of CD lower format resolution fomat versus SACD and DVD-A. higher resolution formats. Their comparison includes a large number of recordings that were already secretly limited to CD format resolution or worse by their pedigree. They mistakenly considered them to be valid members of the so-called "high resolution" group. As many as half of the so-called high resolution recordings had this hidden fault, which might have dire effects on their statistical analysis. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
On 3/6/2012 10:58 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels." The Meyers and Moran paper appears to have a flaw that is not really the fault of the authors. The problem is that they took vendor claims that SACD and DVD releases were high resolution recordings at face value. Later investigations show that many of them were based on lower resolution analog and digital recordings which sets a lower bar for their audible performance. The idea that upsampling increases resolution violates Shannon's theorem and is the audio equivalent of perpetual motion. Therefore, their low-res beginnings forces of Meyer's and Moran's test away from being a comparison of CD lower format resolution fomat versus SACD and DVD-A. higher resolution formats. Their comparison includes a large number of recordings that were already secretly limited to CD format resolution or worse by their pedigree. They mistakenly considered them to be valid members of the so-called "high resolution" group. As many as half of the so-called high resolution recordings had this hidden fault, which might have dire effects on their statistical analysis. But ... if half were high resolution ones, and no one could tell on those that the loop was employed, does this not still validate their results ... just with worse statistics? Doug McDonald |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
"Doug McDonald" wrote in message ... On 3/6/2012 10:58 AM, Arny Krueger wrote: The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels." The Meyers and Moran paper appears to have a flaw that is not really the fault of the authors. The problem is that they took vendor claims that SACD and DVD releases were high resolution recordings at face value. Later investigations show that many of them were based on lower resolution analog and digital recordings which sets a lower bar for their audible performance. The idea that upsampling increases resolution violates Shannon's theorem and is the audio equivalent of perpetual motion. Therefore, their low-res beginnings forces of Meyer's and Moran's test away from being a comparison of CD lower format resolution fomat versus SACD and DVD-A. higher resolution formats. Their comparison includes a large number of recordings that were already secretly limited to CD format resolution or worse by their pedigree. They mistakenly considered them to be valid members of the so-called "high resolution" group. As many as half of the so-called high resolution recordings had this hidden fault, which might have dire effects on their statistical analysis. But ... if half were high resolution ones, and no one could tell on those that the loop was employed, does this not still validate their results ... just with worse statistics? If you compare a file that is already lower-res to a lower-res version of itself, the expected outcome is random guessing. In a test like this you want to minimize random guessing in the hopes of obtaining statistically significant results. But half of your so-called high rez recordings are bound and determined to push the listeners into random guessing. Let's say that enough of the files that actually had high resolution pedigrees were reliably detected by the listeners often enough for slim but clear statistical significance.. The other half lacked high resolution pedigrees and led to random guessing. Put all of the results together and all of that random guessing would push the total results over the edge and into the land of no statistical significance. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
On Tuesday, March 6, 2012 12:03:57 PM UTC-5, Doug McDonald wrote:
But ... if half were high resolution ones, and no one could tell on those that the loop was employed, does this not still validate their results ... just with worse statistics? I made this point repeatedly in a forum, just before they banned me from posting further. :-) --Ethan |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
wrote in message ... Appropos the recent mention here of Neil Young's disdain for digital audio, I have come across several references to an article on this topic recently. It found it interesting -- as is the site whence it came. "24/192 Music Downloads ...and why they make no sense" is he http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html A couple of points... It's possible to see into the near infra-red -- if the light is intense enough, and there is no visible light to interfere. This can be done by covering the eyes with an IR filter -- and dark-adapting during the daytime. (I've seen at least one Web article on it.) Obviously, one has to make sure the "blinders" don't come off, except in a dark room! The following... "192kHz digital music files offer no benefits. They're not quite neutral either; practical fidelity is slightly worse. The ultrasonics are a liability during playback. "Neither audio transducers nor power amplifiers are free of distortion, and distortion tends to increase rapidly at the lowest and highest frequencies. If the same transducer reproduces ultrasonics along with audible content, harmonic distortion will shift some of the ultrasonic content down into the audible range as an uncontrolled spray of intermodulation distortion products covering the entire audible spectrum. Harmonic distortion in a power amplifier will produce the same effect. The effect is very slight, but listening tests have confirmed that both effects can be audible." ...is broadly incorrect. First, the writer means IM, not harmonic distortion. (Harmonic distortion does not "cause" IM.) That is actually a questionable assertion. Harmonic and IM are not as independent as they might seem. His essential point - ultrasonics are a liability - remains quite true. Second, few microphones have significant response above 20kHz. "Sampling does not affect frequency response." Not quite true. The sampling function itself has an "amplitude envelope" that varies as (sin x) / x. The wider the sampling function, the greater the ampliftude variation introduced. Cite, please? Yeah, that's the sinc function/kernel but it does not mean that there's any nonlinearity or response change over the published passband of a properly ... sampled system. Also... The sampling theorem does not "explain" how digital audio works, because sampling can be part of analog data transmission. It's quantization that needs splainin'. He assumes digital in the entire article... snip -- Les Cargill |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
"Les Cargill" wrote in message
... William Sommerwerck wrote: His essential point -- ultrasonics are a liability -- remains quite true. That assumes amps and speakers suddenly misbehave badly above the upper limits of human hearing. That's unlikely. "Sampling does not affect frequency response." Not quite true. The sampling function itself has an "amplitude envelope" that varies as (sin x) / x. The wider the sampling function, the greater the ampliftude variation introduced. Cite, please? Any book with a thorough discussion of sampling. Yeah, that's the sinc function/kernel but it does not mean that there's any nonlinearity or response change over the published passband of a properly ... sampled system. There has to be some, because you can't have an infinitely narrow sampling function. In practice, it's not of any major importance. But there /is/ an effect on frequency response, however small. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
wrote in message news:16419066.174.1331058130743.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbbfy7... On Tuesday, March 6, 2012 12:03:57 PM UTC-5, Doug McDonald wrote: But ... if half were high resolution ones, and no one could tell on those that the loop was employed, does this not still validate their results ... just with worse statistics? I made this point repeatedly in a forum, just before they banned me from posting further. :-) For me it is a clear case of we don't know for sure. If half the comparisons in a test sequence are bound to force random guessing, you've seriously raised the bar for the remaining ones aren't a priori impossible. I would think that scoring better than random guessing would be plenty hard even if all of the comparisons were truly hi rez versus CD. That the "pro" side has half of their possibly correct responses taken away before they even listened the first time, makes this seem like a very unfair test. Yes, there are a good number of other reasons why this test is very likely come out random guessing on the best day of its life. But, at least lets give those who affirm hi rez formats an even break! ;-) |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
William mentioned that few microphones have significant response over
20kHz. I've looked at some of my students' recordings using a spectrum analyzer, and there was plenty of 20kHz+ signal present. I don't know exactly which mics were used on which recordings -- most probably various Neumanns on most of them -- but there was lots of signal up above the audible range. Peace, Paul |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
"PStamler" wrote in message
... William mentioned that few microphones have significant response over 20kHz. I've looked at some of my students' recordings using a spectrum analyzer, and there was plenty of 20kHz+ signal present. I don't know exactly which mics were used on which recordings -- most probably various Neumanns on most of them -- but there was lots of signal up above the audible range. When I owned Pearls, I measured the response of my electrostatic speakers, and all four mics got to at least 22kHz; one got to 24kHz. Considering the universe of microphones, "few" is probably correct. Obviously, a higher percentage of condenser mics is going to have significant ultrasonic response. Regardless, the idea that amps and speakers are going to run into significant problems with such signals is hard to swallow. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
Jason wrote:
Appropos the recent mention here of Neil Young's disdain for digital audio, I have come across several references to an article on this topic recently. It found it interesting - as is the site whence it came. (Sorry if this has already been posted here; I try to check before posting and didn't find it.) "24/192 Music Downloads ...and why they make no sense" is he http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html OK, yes, music distribution in format 192-24 is a marginal concept for many reasons. What is more relevant here in this rec(reational).audio.pro(duction) newsgroup is recording. I recorded a string quartet using very good violins yesterday. The shortest possible signal chain pre ad conversion, so it was a good chance to compare the actual sound quality of an R44 using different sample rates, on that actual recorder the cleanest record-replay was at 192 kHz sample rate. Equipment used: quality condenser mic, minimalist preamp, Edirol R44, Sennheiser HD25 headphones. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
"PStamler" wrote in message ... William mentioned that few microphones have significant response over 20kHz. I've looked at some of my students' recordings using a spectrum analyzer, and there was plenty of 20kHz+ signal present. I don't know exactly which mics were used on which recordings -- most probably various Neumanns on most of them -- but there was lots of signal up above the audible range. What exactly does "plenty of 20 KHz+" mean in dB @ various frequencies? Then there is the problem of the human ear's construction. (1) Note that the Fletcher Munson curves fall off at approx 12 dB/octave above 5 KHz. That's for a normal young adult. (2) Hearing is based on hair cells within the Organ of Corti on the Basilar membrane, with the high frequency related hairs first. The first cells generally respond to frequencies just below 20 KHz, and there are no hair cells that respond to higher frequencies. (3) Masking. If the spectral content of the sound being heard is not rising at a rate of 12 dB/octave then lower frequencies will control the critical band and the higher frequencies, even if audible by themselves, will be masked and not heard. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k... I recorded a string quartet using very good violins yesterday. The shortest possible signal chain pre A/D conversion, so it was a good chance to compare the actual sound quality of an R44 using different sample rates, on that actual recorder the cleanest record-replay was at 192 kHz sample rate. Equipment used: quality condenser mic, minimalist preamp, Edirol R44, Sennheiser HD25 headphones. "Cleanest" in what way? If we assume that inadequate low-pass filtering causes significant in-band aliasing, then 192kHz recording -- and playback -- would produce the least amount of spurious junque in the audio band. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Les wrote in message ... William Sommerwerck wrote: His essential point -- ultrasonics are a liability -- remains quite true. That assumes amps and speakers suddenly misbehave badly above the upper limits of human hearing. That's unlikely. Fair enough. "Sampling does not affect frequency response." Not quite true. The sampling function itself has an "amplitude envelope" that varies as (sin x) / x. The wider the sampling function, the greater the ampliftude variation introduced. Cite, please? Any book with a thorough discussion of sampling. Yeah, that's the sinc function/kernel but it does not mean that there's any nonlinearity or response change over the published passband of a properly ... sampled system. There has to be some, because you can't have an infinitely narrow sampling function. of course not. Please note the phrase "over the published passband." Or did I miss your meaning? In practice, it's not of any major importance. But there /is/ an effect on frequency response, however small. If I am confused... so you are saying with a narrower, more perfectly-approximating-a-Dirac-Delta ... impulse response ( I am not 100% sure *that* is even correct ) that we would get a wider bandwidth... which is probably assumption #1 of his whole thing ( and a widely used assumption which he defends pretty well ). because otherwise I think you're up against the Shannon Theorem and its "completely reconstructs." I read him to ( reasonably well ) state that the 20-20KHz limit is a working assumption, with lots of empirical support. -- Les Cargill |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
Yeah, that's the sinc function/kernel but it does not mean that there's
any nonlinearity or response change over the published passband of a properly ... sampled system. There has to be some, because you can't have an infinitely narrow sampling function. of course not. Please note the phrase "over the published passband." Or did I miss your meaning? I think we're both missing each other's meaning! If I am confused... so you are saying with a narrower, more perfectly-approximating-a-Dirac-Delta ... impulse response ( I am not 100% sure *that* is even correct ) that we would get a wider bandwidth... which is probably assumption #1 of his whole thing ( and a widely used assumption which he defends pretty well ). The "bandwidth" has little to do with it. It's rather that, the narrower the sampling function, the less "up and down" in the response. For practical systems it amounts to no more than 1 or 2 dB at 20kHz. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Yeah, that's the sinc function/kernel but it does not mean that there's any nonlinearity or response change over the published passband of a properly ... sampled system. There has to be some, because you can't have an infinitely narrow sampling function. of course not. Please note the phrase "over the published passband." Or did I miss your meaning? I think we're both missing each other's meaning! If I am confused... so you are saying with a narrower, more perfectly-approximating-a-Dirac-Delta ... impulse response ( I am not 100% sure *that* is even correct ) that we would get a wider bandwidth... which is probably assumption #1 of his whole thing ( and a widely used assumption which he defends pretty well ). The "bandwidth" has little to do with it. It's rather that, the narrower the sampling function, the less "up and down" in the response. For practical systems it amounts to no more than 1 or 2 dB at 20kHz. Fair enough -- Les Cargill |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... (2) Hearing is based on hair cells within the Organ of Corti on the Basilar membrane, with the high frequency related hairs first. The first cells generally respond to frequencies just below 20 KHz, and there are no hair cells that respond to higher frequencies. Not true for very young females, who have demonstrated an ability to hear beyond 20kHz. However they have almost universally demonstrated they don't care. It's almost always older men who have NO hope that bang on about the necessity! :-) Trevor. |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
"Jeff Henig" wrote in message ... I've only a few albums in my collection where I have both CD and DVD-A copies: Queensryche "Empire" and Clapton/King's "Riding With The King," to name two, and I know I can most definitely hear better detail even in MY poor excuse for a home sound system. I dunno if that is due to a difference in format or mastering, but I can definitely hear it. Yep a difference in mastering, THAT is not news. Trevor. |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
What is more relevant here in this rec(reational).audio.pro(duction)
Many of the most active and longest standing members of this list insist that the .pro stands for 'production'. Yet here is the FAQ: Q1.1 - What is this newsgroup for? What topics are appropriate here, and what topics are best saved for another newsgroup? This newsgroup exists for the discussion of issues and topics related to professional audio engineering. We generally do not discuss issues relating to home audio reproduction, though they do occasionally come up. The rec.audio.* hierarchy of newsgroups is as follows: rec.audio.pro Issues pertaining to professional audio rec.audio.marketplace Buying and trading of consumer equipment rec.audio.tech Technical discussions about consumer audio rec.audio.opinion Everyone's $0.02 on consumer audio rec.audio.high-end High-end consumer audio discussions rec.audio.misc Everything else So I just wonder whether this knowledge that the '.pro' stands for 'production' is handed down from some founding member, and whether (if the fact is true) this should not be made clear in the FAQ, as it seems to me the the distinction is not without some importance. Tobiah |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
Tobiah wrote:
What is more relevant here in this rec(reational).audio.pro(duction) Many of the most active and longest standing members of this list insist that the .pro stands for 'production'. Yet here is the FAQ: .... la snippage grande ... rec.audio.pro Issues pertaining to professional audio yes, but pro is according to Gabe about production. He was the guy who wrote the charter. So I just wonder whether this knowledge that the '.pro' stands for 'production' is handed down from some founding member, and whether (if the fact is true) this should not be made clear in the FAQ, as it seems to me the the distinction is not without some importance. No contest. Tobiah Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message k... I recorded a string quartet using very good violins yesterday. The shortest possible signal chain pre A/D conversion, so it was a good chance to compare the actual sound quality of an R44 using different sample rates, on that actual recorder the cleanest record-replay was at 192 kHz sample rate. Equipment used: quality condenser mic, minimalist preamp, Edirol R44, Sennheiser HD25 headphones. "Cleanest" in what way? Less like grungy plastic violins from a toy-shop and more like the "real stuff" from Cremona. If we assume that inadequate low-pass filtering causes significant in-band aliasing, then 192kHz recording -- and playback -- would produce the least amount of spurious junque in the audio band. I don't _know_ that this is the actual case, but there is correlated audio up beyond 30 kHz. Spectral energy minimum is around 50 kHz, beyond that noise increases fairly steeply. It is my distinct impression that the increased cleanness largely remains also after high quality downsampling, I wonder about this myself and will let some friends listen to snippets recorded at various sample rates during the pre-rehearsal. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
On Mar 6, 12:33*pm, Jeff Henig wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... "The BAS test I linked earlier mentions as an aside that the SACD version of a recording often does sound substantially better than the CD release. It's not because of increased sample rate or depth but because of the better mastering of the SACD. No doubt a reference to the *Meyers and Moran (both BAS members) JAES paper titled: "Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback" J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 55, No. 9, 2007 September 779 Abstract: "Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz "bottleneck." The tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects. The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels." When bounced to a CD-R, the SACD version still sounds as good as the original SACD and much better than the CD release. Good production and mastering obviously contribute to the final quality of the music [19]." I have no idea what he's talking about. Put the two pieces above together and we find that the SACD format all by itself makes no reliably audible difference as compared to the CD format. |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
"Mark" wrote in message ... so do the test yourself, copy the DVD-A version onto a CD and see what happens... I bet it sounds the same as the DVD-A. Not if you don't do a blind test, people have a remakable abilty to convince themselves of whatever they expect. Trevor. |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
On 3/6/2012 7:25 PM, Trevor wrote:
"Arny wrote in message ... (2) Hearing is based on hair cells within the Organ of Corti on the Basilar membrane, with the high frequency related hairs first. The first cells generally respond to frequencies just below 20 KHz, and there are no hair cells that respond to higher frequencies. Not true for very young females, who have demonstrated an ability to hear beyond 20kHz. However they have almost universally demonstrated they don't care. Even men can hear well above 20 kHz. When in college I could hear to 23kHz and I am male ... and cared even back then. Of course, there was no source material of consequence. Doug McDonald |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
"Doug McDonald" wrote in message ... Even men can hear well above 20 kHz. I could hear 20kHz when I was that age, but not "well above". When in college I could hear to 23kHz and I am male I wouldn't call 23kHz "well above" the 22kHz cut off of CD! (even assuming you could hear it) ... and cared even back then. I cared *absolutely* about sound quality, but NOT much about 22kHz+ frequencies. My biggest concerns at the time was the HIGH level of noise on record and tape, plus the HIGH levels of distortion, and speaker performance in general. Lack of 22kHz+ frequencies never really entered my mind. Far too many other sound problems to worry about! Of course, there was no source material of consequence. Exactly. Trevor. |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
PStamler wrote:
William mentioned that few microphones have significant response over 20kHz. I've looked at some of my students' recordings using a spectrum analyzer, and there was plenty of 20kHz+ signal present. I don't know exactly which mics were used on which recordings -- most probably various Neumanns on most of them -- but there was lots of signal up above the audible range. Naa, those were produced by the Aural Exiter (aka clipping) ! geoff |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
On Mar 6, 4:36*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"PStamler" wrote in message ... William mentioned that few microphones have significant response over 20kHz. I've looked at some of my students' recordings using a spectrum analyzer, and there was plenty of 20kHz+ signal present. I don't know exactly which mics were used on which recordings -- most probably various Neumanns on most of them -- but there was lots of signal up above the audible range. What exactly does "plenty of 20 KHz+" *mean in dB @ various frequencies? I don't have quantitative figures, merely noted that as levels on the spectrum analyzer rose and fell with the music, there was significant content 20kHz. In some instances, greater than between 10-20kHz (possibly due to microphone resonances in the ultrasonic regions). Then there is the problem of the human ear's construction. (1) Note that the Fletcher Munson curves fall off at approx 12 dB/octave above *5 KHz. That's for a normal young adult. (2) Hearing is based on hair cells within the Organ of Corti on the Basilar membrane, with the high frequency related hairs first. The first cells generally respond to frequencies just below 20 KHz, and there are no hair cells that respond to higher frequencies. (3) Masking. If the spectral content of the sound being heard is not rising at a rate of 12 dB/octave then lower frequencies will control the critical band and the higher frequencies, even if audible by themselves, will be masked and not heard. What's that got to do with whether microphones produce significant output over 20kHz? Peace, Paul |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
"PStamler" wrote in message ... I don't have quantitative figures, merely noted that as levels on the spectrum analyzer rose and fell with the music, there was significant content 20kHz. In some instances, greater than between 10-20kHz (possibly due to microphone resonances in the ultrasonic regions). Or possibly due to spectrum analyser settings etc. What's that got to do with whether microphones produce significant output over 20kHz? Naturally some do, just as some instruments produce significant sound above 22kHz. What's that got to do with whether you can hear it though? Trevor. |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k... William Sommerwerck wrote: If we assume that inadequate low-pass filtering causes significant in-band aliasing, then 192kHz recording -- and playback -- would produce the least amount of spurious junque in the audio band. I don't _know_ that this is the actual case, but there is correlated audio up beyond 30 kHz. Spectral energy minimum is around 50 kHz, beyond that noise increases fairly steeply. It is my distinct impression that the increased cleanness largely remains also after high-quality downsampling, I wonder about this myself and will let some friends listen to snippets recorded at various sample rates during the pre-rehearsal. There's a catch, of course. Downsampling requires the appropriate anti-aliasing to limit the bandwidth to that appropriate for the new sampling rate. If it isn't... |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message k... William Sommerwerck wrote: If we assume that inadequate low-pass filtering causes significant in-band aliasing, then 192kHz recording -- and playback -- would produce the least amount of spurious junque in the audio band. I don't _know_ that this is the actual case, but there is correlated audio up beyond 30 kHz. Spectral energy minimum is around 50 kHz, beyond that noise increases fairly steeply. It is my distinct impression that the increased cleanness largely remains also after high-quality downsampling, I wonder about this myself and will let some friends listen to snippets recorded at various sample rates during the pre-rehearsal. There's a catch, of course. Downsampling requires the appropriate anti-aliasing to limit the bandwidth to that appropriate for the new sampling rate. If it isn't... Audition 3's sample rate conversion is known good, better exists according to some webpage that tested it - it may have been Arny who posted the link - but it is ok, at least if you put it on highest quality settings. For some reason the conversion quality is adjustable, I haven't quite been able to figure out why. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
On Mar 6, 8:27*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message news:16419066.174.1331058130743.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbbfy7... On Tuesday, March 6, 2012 12:03:57 PM UTC-5, Doug McDonald wrote: But ... if half were high resolution ones, and no one could tell on those that the loop was employed, does this not still validate their results ... just with worse statistics? I made this point repeatedly in a forum, just before they banned me from posting further. :-) For me it is a clear case of we don't know for sure. If half the comparisons in a test sequence are bound to force random guessing, you've seriously raised the bar for the remaining ones aren't a priori impossible. I would think that scoring better than random guessing would be plenty hard even if all of the comparisons were truly hi rez versus CD. That the "pro" side has half of their possibly correct responses taken away before they even listened the first time, *makes this seem like a very unfair test. Yes, there are a good number of other reasons why this test is very likely come out random guessing on the best day of its life. But, at least lets give those who affirm hi rez formats an even break! ;-) And what's the problem to remove faulty part of test and recalculate results based on lesser number of tested samples? Not that I'm really interested. |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
"PStamler" wrote in message ... On Mar 6, 4:36 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "PStamler" wrote in message ... William mentioned that few microphones have significant response over 20kHz. I've looked at some of my students' recordings using a spectrum analyzer, and there was plenty of 20kHz+ signal present. I don't know exactly which mics were used on which recordings -- most probably various Neumanns on most of them -- but there was lots of signal up above the audible range. What exactly does "plenty of 20 KHz+" mean in dB @ various frequencies? I don't have quantitative figures, merely noted that as levels on the spectrum analyzer rose and fell with the music, there was significant content 20kHz. In some instances, greater than between 10-20kHz (possibly due to microphone resonances in the ultrasonic regions). Then there is the problem of the human ear's construction. (1) Note that the Fletcher Munson curves fall off at approx 12 dB/octave above 5 KHz. That's for a normal young adult. (2) Hearing is based on hair cells within the Organ of Corti on the Basilar membrane, with the high frequency related hairs first. The first cells generally respond to frequencies just below 20 KHz, and there are no hair cells that respond to higher frequencies. (3) Masking. If the spectral content of the sound being heard is not rising at a rate of 12 dB/octave then lower frequencies will control the critical band and the higher frequencies, even if audible by themselves, will be masked and not heard. What's that got to do with whether microphones produce significant output over 20kHz? It means that few if anyy ever actually hear it. Therefore, it is largely sonically moot. |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
"Luxey" wrote in message ... On Mar 6, 8:27 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Yes, there are a good number of other reasons why this test is very likely come out random guessing on the best day of its life. But, at least lets give those who affirm hi rez formats an even break! ;-) And what's the problem to remove faulty part of test and recalculate results based on lesser number of tested samples? Not that I'm really interested. Seems like a worthy rainy-day project for the paper's authors. They'd have to obtain the recordings and test them - probably with a FFT. It would only take a few minutes per recording. |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
Mark" wrote in message ... On Mar 6, 12:33 pm, Jeff Henig wrote: so do the test yourself, copy the DVD-A version onto a CD and see what happens... Back in 2002 I did a very similar experiment by recording some music that was very rich in 20 KHz content and/or had very wide dynamic range courtest of close micing and a very quiet room. I bet it sounds the same as the DVD-A. I downsampled my hi-rez recordings down to 16/44 and then upsampled them back up to 24/96 so that they technically were the same. Of course the upsamping was totally benign, neither restoring that which was lost nor adding any but microscopic artifacts. In blind tests using a variety of listeners of various ages, a statistically significant result was not found, either for all listeners as a group, or for each listener by him or herself. |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... "Peter Larsen" wrote in message k... I recorded a string quartet using very good violins yesterday. The shortest possible signal chain pre A/D conversion, so it was a good chance to compare the actual sound quality of an R44 using different sample rates, on that actual recorder the cleanest record-replay was at 192 kHz sample rate. Equipment used: quality condenser mic, minimalist preamp, Edirol R44, Sennheiser HD25 headphones. "Cleanest" in what way? Probably clean from the experimental controls that normally used for this kind of evaluation when it matters. E.g. ITU BS 1116-1. |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... "Peter Larsen" wrote in message k... I recorded a string quartet using very good violins yesterday. The shortest possible signal chain pre A/D conversion, so it was a good chance to compare the actual sound quality of an R44 using different sample rates, on that actual recorder the cleanest record-replay was at 192 kHz sample rate. Equipment used: quality condenser mic, minimalist preamp, Edirol R44, Sennheiser HD25 headphones. "Cleanest" in what way? Probably clean from the experimental controls that normally used for this kind of evaluation when it matters. E.g. ITU BS 1116-1. It is quite rare for you not to get the point made. Said point is that for a valid test of a recording system you need audio that is not previously recorded because otherwise it is undefined what it is you are testing. As for your comment in another post to the effect that you have found it possible to sample rate convert a high sample rate recording down and then up again with no obvious audible artifacts that is just what I would expect and correlates well with my findings when doing high sample rate recordings and then downsampling them, ie. they remain cleaner that recordings made at 44.1 kHz sample rate. I'm getting confident that the issue that warrants the use of highest possible samplerate when making the sampling is reducing aliasing and getting antialias filters well out of the audio band. There does not at an initial glance seem to be any consideration of that issue in the literature referred to in this thread, it has instead become bandwidth religion. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
On 3/6/2012 11:58 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
The Meyers and Moran paper appears to have a flaw that is not really the fault of the authors. The problem is that they took vendor claims that SACD and DVD releases were high resolution recordings at face value. Later investigations show that many of them were based on lower resolution analog and digital recordings which sets a lower bar for their audible performance. Hmmm . . . It's probably true that a lot of SACDs were recorded before 2x and higher sample rates were available or were at least better than standard sample rates, but as you point out, a fresh mastering job done by or under the supervision of real engineers and producers can indeed provide a more musical product. What's a "low resolution" analog recording? I would think that what limits resolution would be the noise floor. Either you hear it, you don't hear it, or you hear it and it doesn't bother you (that's me). The idea that upsampling increases resolution violates Shannon's theorem and is the audio equivalent of perpetual motion. I suppose that some claim that up-sampling increases resolution but I don't think that's its primary modus operandi. It came about before we had good oversampling digital filters, and the idea was that by up-sampling, you could use a gentler reconstruction filter with less group delay than the conventional brick wall at 20 kHz. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
On 3/6/2012 3:02 PM, PStamler wrote:
William mentioned that few microphones have significant response over 20kHz. I've looked at some of my students' recordings using a spectrum analyzer, and there was plenty of 20kHz+ signal present. James Boyk made this point many years back. His paper is probably still around Oh, yeah, here it is: http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm When Sennheiser came out with the MKH-800 mic, they made a big deal that it had reasonably mic-like response (my term, not theirs, meaning that it was actually useful, not a lab curiosity) up to 40 kHz or so. The idea was that there was finally a mic that could take advantage of 2x sample rates. Tannoy had a 50 kHz tweeter about the same time. Don't know what ever became of that, but the MKH-800 is still around and, as far as I know, still around $3,000. http://www.sennheiserusa.com/media/p...oductSheet.pdf -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Music downloads at 24/192 make no sense...
The idea that upsampling increases resolution violates Shannon's
theorem and is the audio equivalent of perpetual motion. Yes. I suppose that some claim that up-sampling increases resolution but I don't think that's its primary modus operandi. It came about before we had good oversampling digital filters, and the idea was that by up-sampling, you could use a gentler reconstruction [sic] filter with less group delay than the conventional brick wall at 20 kHz. You can have a sharp filter and constant group delay. You just need more-complex filtration. Some upsampling uses interpolation. I've often wondered whether that affects what we hear. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Trying to make sense of things | Audio Opinions | |||
The real tickets that make sense | Audio Opinions | |||
does this box make sense electronically? (Folcrom) | Pro Audio | |||
Would this make any sense | Pro Audio | |||
Ebay sometimes doesn't make sense... | Pro Audio |