Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
---MIKE---
 
Posts: n/a
Default Living Stereo frequency response

Now that Living Stereo is on SACD the question arises. What is the
frequency response of these old tapes? Do they take advantage of the
extended response of the SACD (not that these old ears could hear it
anyway)? Also, how about the Living Presence Mercury recordings? I
know that the center channel might be an advantage but I am not talking
about that.


---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580')

  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Braxus
 
Posts: n/a
Default Living Stereo frequency response

Being they are on old tape with old tube tape recorders and tube mikes on
many recordings, I wouldn't think the response would be very high. I
wouldn't think you'd hear much above 15 khz. Some of the newer recordings
may be better, but I don't think they taxed the system. The mikes probably
never went above 20 khz.

  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
alfred
 
Posts: n/a
Default Living Stereo frequency response

the important thing is that the sound be great in the audible range.
most digital sounds better at high frequencies below 20K on high
sampling rates.

all that ultrasonic information is not nearly as important.
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
 
Posts: n/a
Default Living Stereo frequency response

all that ultrasonic information is not nearly as important.

It has been my experience that the ultrasonic information is inaudible
but still a contributor to the overall color of the sound. Now the
question becomes whether or not that is always a good thing. Any
thoughts?

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Kalman Rubinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Living Stereo frequency response

On 2 Feb 2006 00:28:58 GMT, wrote:

It has been my experience that the ultrasonic information is inaudible


By definition.

Kal


  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
 
Posts: n/a
Default Living Stereo frequency response

If ultrasonics are contributing to 'overall color' it's because they're
causing audible-range distortion in the output of one
of the devices in the signal chain. That is rather unlikely
to be a good thing.


And:

How did you come up with that experience? If it's inaudible, how can it
affect the sound?


OK... here goes:

Harmonics.

Have you ever experienced a signal that goes slowly from audible to
inaudible up the spectrum? Then back? On the way back down, you will
likely start to grit your teeth just before you actually perceive the
sound consciously. The difference between Middle A played on a piano, a
clarinet, or a violin, or a sine-wave generator is a matter of
harmonics... color. That color could also be defined as "audible range
distortion", as only the sine-wave generator is making a "true" Middle
A. Only we happen to like the 'distortion' added to the simple
sine-wave by the vibrations of the various strings or reed(s).

My question-for-discussion is how far up the spectrum should our
speakers respond so as to get the closest to full color of the sound
produced? And if this is important, this would naturally push back the
the recording equipment, microphones, etc. etc.. Consider that if only
the information we can actually hear directly is at issue, most of us
would be happy with speakers flat to about 16kHz (or less) as we are
'out of it' most of the rest of the way anyway. And the highest not
possible on a piano has the fundamental frequency of 4186Hz (27.5Hz at
the bottom). Organs commonly go higher (and lower) but not by much.
Violins in the hands of a skilled player can go inaudible, but that is
an exercise in virtuosity.

To test this theory, if you have an octave-equalizer, try cutting the
highest band by about 6dB with some solo instruments such as
harpsichord or trumpet, or cello. Do this with the pre-amp set in the
mono position and cut only one channel (if you can) at a time, then
both. Note the quite-noticeable difference in color even though most of
the effect is at the inaudible end of the spectrum. In some cases, with
some speakers and some recordings it is *just* noticeable even at 3dB
of cut.

I am not necessarily saying that the effect is necessarily bad, good,
or indifferent. I am asking whether or not anyone else has noticed...

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
 
Posts: n/a
Default Living Stereo frequency response

wrote:
If ultrasonics are contributing to 'overall color' it's because they're
causing audible-range distortion in the output of one
of the devices in the signal chain. That is rather unlikely
to be a good thing.


How did you come up with that experience? If it's inaudible, how can it
affect the sound?

Harmonics.


Oversimplification

Have you ever experienced a signal that goes slowly from audible to
inaudible up the spectrum? Then back? On the way back down, you will
likely start to grit your teeth just before you actually perceive the
sound consciously.


I've done the experiment many times. ON highly linear systems
with sufficient badnwidth, the effect you're claiming doesn't
happen. On narrow band system with fairly non-linear
behavior it could, but, when you analyze why, you find it has
nothing to do with ultrasonic signals: it turns out the nonlinearity
of the system folds that energy back down into the audible band.

The difference between Middle A played on a piano, a
clarinet, or a violin, or a sine-wave generator is a matter of
harmonics... color.


Wrong. Attach, decay, envelope characteristics are at least as
important. This can be shown by taking the steady state portion
of the clarient, violin, even a repeated portion of the piano, remove
the trasnients, and it's VERY difficult to tell which is which.

My question-for-discussion is how far up the spectrum should our
speakers respond so as to get the closest to full color of the sound
produced?


Despite a lot of handwaving and spectra, no one has demonstrated
in any repeatable conclusive fashion that anything beyond audibility
is requisite. There's FAR more lost in recordings, for example, because
two-point sampling an reproduction loses SO much of the soundfield
information which is FAR more critical in promoting a sense of
the musical experience.

To test this theory, if you have an octave-equalizer, try cutting the
highest band by about 6dB with some solo instruments such as
harpsichord or trumpet, or cello. Do this with the pre-amp set in the
mono position and cut only one channel (if you can) at a time, then
both. Note the quite-noticeable difference in color even though most of
the effect is at the inaudible end of the spectrum. In some cases, with
some speakers and some recordings it is *just* noticeable even at 3dB
of cut.


Wrong, an octave-band equalizer 's top band, is centered on 16 kHz, but
the effect of that band extends from well below 10 kHz. Your experiment
is fundamentally flawed.

Try the same experiment, only do a sharp 18 kHz linear-phase
low pass filter, switch it in and out. The vast majority of people
are utterly incapable of detecting a difference listening to material
recorded with a substantially wider bandwidth.

The flaw in your hypothesis is that if the acoustic signal does not
cause any output from the auditory peripheral nervous system,
there's no detecting it. And no one has presented any repeatable
evidence that such happens in normal adults, the Pioneer paper
notwithstanding.


  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default Living Stereo frequency response

In article ,
wrote:

wrote:
If ultrasonics are contributing to 'overall color' it's because they're
causing audible-range distortion in the output of one
of the devices in the signal chain. That is rather unlikely
to be a good thing.


How did you come up with that experience? If it's inaudible, how can it
affect the sound?

Harmonics.


Oversimplification

Have you ever experienced a signal that goes slowly from audible to
inaudible up the spectrum? Then back? On the way back down, you will
likely start to grit your teeth just before you actually perceive the
sound consciously.


I've done the experiment many times. ON highly linear systems
with sufficient badnwidth, the effect you're claiming doesn't
happen. On narrow band system with fairly non-linear
behavior it could, but, when you analyze why, you find it has
nothing to do with ultrasonic signals: it turns out the nonlinearity
of the system folds that energy back down into the audible band.

The difference between Middle A played on a piano, a
clarinet, or a violin, or a sine-wave generator is a matter of
harmonics... color.


Wrong. Attach, decay, envelope characteristics are at least as
important. This can be shown by taking the steady state portion
of the clarient, violin, even a repeated portion of the piano, remove
the trasnients, and it's VERY difficult to tell which is which.


Do you know if such a test recording exists?
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Just for Ludovic Audio Opinions 64 November 19th 05 05:17 PM
Note to Trevor Audio Opinions 9 November 7th 05 09:45 AM
common mode rejection vs. crosstalk xy Pro Audio 385 December 29th 04 01:00 AM
Transient response of actively filtered speakers Carlos Tech 64 November 26th 03 06:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:14 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"