[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Trevor" wrote in message
...

"Les Cargill" wrote in message
...
24 bit depth is good for tracking because of the additional 8 bits
headroom.

There's no converter ever made that will give 8 bits extra headroom, and
never will be even with cryogenic cooling. Of course 3 or 4 bits can still
be worthwhile.

Your typical live performance has about 65-70 dynamic range. 8 bits equals
about 48 dB. 65+48 = 113 dB. 70+48 = 118 dB. There are sub $200 products
that come within a dB or 2 of the lower goal. 115-117 dB products under
$250/channel have been around for at least 8 years. There are newer
commercial products that have in the vicinity of 130 dB dynamic range.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"James T" wrote in message
...

I've read through some archived r.a.p. threads where it was argued
that 16 bit/44.1k had an inaudible affect on music, at least as far as
the cited test went. I understand the merit in having more bits for
multitrack ops, where internal math can lose bits. But now I'm curious
about the widespread 'understanding' that 24-96 is better. Is there no
merit whatsoever in final mix?

Doing a proper DBT that relates to this question is actually very easy to do
if you have a DAC capable of 24/96 that is accessible from a PC.

Freeware DBT and resampling software is readily available.

Scott gave the procedure as follows:

"But try it yourself and see. Record at 24/96 then downsample to 44.1,
then upsample to 96. Can you tell the difference between the 44.1 and
the 96 ksamp/sec audio?
"

Another approach is to download one of your favorite recordings from
HDTracks.com or other sites that offer 24/96 downloads, and perform the
same sequence of operations.

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
In article , Trevor
wrote:
"Roy W. Rising" wrote in message
Through the years of emerging technology I have concluded that usually
it
is possible to store more information than current reproducers can
recover.
There's more in the groove of an old 'record' than we could play/hear
with
a sharpend nail hooked to a megaphone.

Since it was originally recorded to a disk master with a "sharpened nail"
as
well, any extra "information" is likely to be just as innacurate.

Not at all. Listen to an acoustic photograph vs. a modern transcription
of
the same disc some time. Lower distortion, not so many internal horn
resonances today. Technology got a lot better and it still keeps getting
better.

Right, but even if you reduce the replay errors to zero, all those present
in the original recording/master/pressing still remain, that was my point.


I'm not sure that this applies in the digital world, because for the first
time with digital conversion systems, the recorder and the medium itself
are no longer the bottleneck in terms of sound quality. But ask me in
fifty years, I'll have a better idea then.

I would not be surprised to discover that in fifty years, transducers are
a whole hell of a lot better than they are today and recorders are mostly
unchanged in concept and performance.

Sadly I'm not so sure. Speakers and microphones have not improved all that
much in the last 50 years compared to everything else. We may get lucky and
find a whole new concept to exploit, but I doubt I'll be around to see it. I
am extremely grateful however that recording technology is no longer the
limitation it once was, and the expense is now trivial to what it once was!

Trevor.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"James T" wrote in message
...
On 16 Jun 2012 15:40:24 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

James T wrote:
I've read through some archived r.a.p. threads where it was argued
that 16 bit/44.1k had an inaudible affect on music, at least as far as
the cited test went. I understand the merit in having more bits for
multitrack ops, where internal math can lose bits. But now I'm curious
about the widespread 'understanding' that 24-96 is better. Is there no
merit whatsoever in final mix?

Try it for yourself and see.

I may do that eventually, but I have presumed (perhaps wrongly) that
the question has been thoroughly explored by those with greater means
than my own.

It has. You can find discussions of it in the archives of several different
forums, including Hydrogen Audio. You can find discussions of it in the
archives of this forum. Please see Google Groups.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 6/16/2012 5:10 PM, James T wrote:

I have presumed (perhaps wrongly) that
the question has been thoroughly explored by those with greater means
than my own.

There have been demonstrations and presumably well conducted tests that
prove both ways.

That's self contradictory. There's only one real world out there, and
anything that is actually proven will be consistently in agreement with it.

It all boils down to human hearing, and humans all hear differently.

Many if not all relevant properties of the human ear have well-known
limitations that do not exceed known data points.

And equally important, all perceive the same thing differently.

Perception is personal, but the limits of human endurance is measurable, and
its limits strongly tend to converge to certain data points. While the 4
minute mile was broken, the 2 minute mile seems very remote.

[Trevor]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
We already have Blu-ray audio at higher bit rates than CD.
They haven't "replaced" CD yet of course, because most
people realise it is an answer to a problem they don't really
have.

That could be because they don't know how good a recording can be.

Or they sure as hell know their speakers are orders of magnitude worse than
their CD player, even if they don't realise their listening room is often
worse.


Though I much prefer CD to LP, I've never been fully happy with the
"sound"
of CDs. Few of them come remotely close to the sound of my own live
recordings -- including those made on cassette decks!

Nothing like pride in your own work is there :-)


SACD & BD recordings -- especially surround/multi-ch -- come much closer
to
what I expect a good (ie, realistic) recording to sound like.

Good for you then.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Sean Conolly" wrote in message
...
That could be because they don't know how good a recording can be.

Which leads directly to another discussion that's been had he most
people have never heard a really good recording, or really good speakers,
or a really good live performance...

I just love how when most people say "most people", they never mean
themselves! :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
Several years back, I purchased a DVD-Audio player and disks with the
intention to check out the new format. I can't remember the exact disk,
but I distinctly remember finding this to be the case, i.e., that at
least one of the disks had changed the mixdown (e.g., brought the vocals
forward, used some different reverb, or somesuch)! NOT apples-to-apples!

Exactly, and what was truly a con job is all the disks that used slightly
different master/mix for the CD layer of SACD disks to pretend the technical
difference was really audible.
You've got to hand it to the marketing people though :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
SACDs do, generally, sound different -- and "better" than
CDs. WHY is another matter.

Of course they souind different, the why is well known...

And the "why" is...?

Read the next line that you deliberately snipped, for the answer. Doing that
simply makes you look even more foolish than you are already.


Whether they sound "better" is purely up to the individual
releases and listener preference.

I disagree. Though SACDs vary, they are generally closer to "the real
thing"
than CD.


Perhaps the few you have are, (because of the mastering not bit rate) or you
are simply delusional.

Trevor.

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

"William Sommerwerck" writes:

By the way, I invented the FIR filter almost 40 years ago.

That's pretty neat! What was your application?

De-convolution to correct speaker phase and transient errors.

Very little work has been done on this, as most EQ aims to correct only
amplitude errors. The guy who developed the Apogee speakers has apparently
done some work along these lines.

Don't know about the Apogee work.

Have you read about Duane Cooper's (et al.) work in transaural
processing?

http://homepage.mac.com/cooperbauck/...transaural.pdf

He was attempting (in the late 80s or so) a superset of your idea,
namely deconvolving not only the speaker response but also the room
response and pinna directional response, while also incorporating an
interaural crosstalk canceller. Fascinating stuff!
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

"Trevor" writes:

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
Several years back, I purchased a DVD-Audio player and disks with the
intention to check out the new format. I can't remember the exact disk,
but I distinctly remember finding this to be the case, i.e., that at
least one of the disks had changed the mixdown (e.g., brought the vocals
forward, used some different reverb, or somesuch)! NOT apples-to-apples!

Exactly, and what was truly a con job is all the disks that used slightly
different master/mix for the CD layer of SACD disks to pretend the technical
difference was really audible.
You've got to hand it to the marketing people though :-)

Amen, brother. Preaching to the choir.
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Trevor]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
24 bit depth is good for tracking because of the additional 8 bits
headroom.

There's no converter ever made that will give 8 bits extra headroom, and
never will be even with cryogenic cooling. Of course 3 or 4 bits can
still be worthwhile.

Your typical live performance has about 65-70 dynamic range. 8 bits equals
about 48 dB. 65+48 = 113 dB. 70+48 = 118 dB. There are sub $200 products
that come within a dB or 2 of the lower goal. 115-117 dB products under
$250/channel have been around for at least 8 years.

Exactly, not quite 144dB however.


There are newer commercial products that have in the vicinity of 130 dB
dynamic range.

Right, but that's as good as it gets at room temperature. Still at least 2-3
bits shy of the "8 bits more headroom" claimed. That was my point. Still a
useful gain of around 4 bits in many cases. Of course you can gain even more
"headroom" anyway by using two channels for each recording track and adding
a pad to one. Something that I did many years ago when A-D boxes weren't
what they are now.

Trevor.

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

"William Sommerwerck" writes:

By the way, I invented the FIR filter almost 40 years ago.

That's pretty neat! What was your application?

De-convolution to correct speaker phase and transient errors.

William,

I'd like to pick your brain a bit.

You must certainly be aware that a speaker's response is very
location-dependent. For example, in an anechoic chamber and with a
single speaker, the on-axis response is going to be different than 30
degrees off axis.

And certainly you know that, in a typical listening room, the signal
making it to the listener's ear is a composite of the direct path plus
an infinite number of alternate paths, all at different speaker
transmission responses and "reflection responses." Pretty complex.

So, in your work in this area, what was your goal? To simply deconvolve
the speaker's on-axis response? Or was there some sort of "power
response" goal (i.e., an equalization of some function of the speaker's
composite response in different directions)?
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[William Sommerwerck]

Have you read about Duane Cooper's (et al.) work
in transaural processing?


http://homepage.mac.com/cooperbauck/...transaural.pdf

He was attempting (in the late 80s or so) a superset of
your idea, namely deconvolving not only the speaker
response but also the room response and pinna directional
response, while also incorporating an interaural crosstalk
canceller. Fascinating stuff!

I know who Duane Cooper is/was, but I never heard of that work. Sounds like
worthwhile research, though.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" writes:

By the way, I invented the FIR filter almost 40 years ago.

That's pretty neat! What was your application?

De-convolution to correct speaker phase and transient errors.

I'd like to pick your brain a bit.

You must certainly be aware that a speaker's response is very
location-dependent. For example, in an anechoic chamber and with a
single speaker, the on-axis response is going to be different than 30
degrees off axis.

And certainly you know that, in a typical listening room, the signal
making it to the listener's ear is a composite of the direct path plus
an infinite number of alternate paths, all at different speaker
transmission responses and "reflection responses." Pretty complex.

So, in your work in this area, what was your goal? To simply deconvolve
the speaker's on-axis response? Or was there some sort of "power
response" goal (i.e., an equalization of some function of the speaker's
composite response in different directions)?

Just to get the response on the primary axis correct. One thing at a time.

If one speaker "sounds better" than another -- that is, it more-accurately
reproduces the signal fed into it -- it is because it more-accurately
reproduces the signal fed into it. Not because it interacts less with the
room, or interacts in synergistic ways.

[William Sommerwerck]

Perhaps the few {SACDs] you have * are, (because of
the mastering not bit rate) or you are simply delusional.

You are certainly the master of intelligent conversation.

* I have several hundred.

[William Sommerwerck]

We already have Blu-ray audio at higher bit rates than CD.
They haven't "replaced" CD yet of course, because most
people realise it is an answer to a problem they don't really
have.

That could be because they don't know how good a recording
can be.

Or they sure as hell know their speakers are orders of magnitude
worse than their CD player, even if they don't realise their listening
room is often worse.

Tell you what, Trevor... Let's /pretend/ that I have an unlimited income and
I'm in a gracious mood. I'm going to give you a pair of speakers free,
gratis, no obligation. (Not /really/, of course. This is pretend.)

You can have any system using conventional cone drivers, or any
top-of-the-line electrostatic (such as QUAD or Martin-Logan). Which would
you choose, and why?

Trevor, you are what I call a "put-down artist". That is not a compliment.
All you want to do is criticize and/or humiliate others. Do you really think
I or anyone else is impressed -- or cowed? You're a worm who has nothing to
contribute, and has no idea of how to intelligent discuss anything.

[Trevor]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
If one speaker "sounds better" than another -- that is, it more-accurately
reproduces the signal fed into it -- it is because it more-accurately
reproduces the signal fed into it. Not because it interacts less with the
room, or interacts in synergistic ways.

In fact a speaker that interacts differently with the room, may indeed
"sound better" to some listeners, or worse, than another in that room,
regardless of their anechoic performance. There's a reason some people
actually like Bose speakers after all :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
Perhaps the few {SACDs] you have * are, (because of
the mastering not bit rate) or you are simply delusional.

You are certainly the master of intelligent conversation.

Pity I can't say the same for you.

Trevor.

[William Sommerwerck]

Exactly, and what was truly a con job is all the disks
that used slightly different master/mix for the CD layer
of SACD disks to pretend the technical difference was
really audible. You've got to hand it to the marketing
people, though. :-)

Amen, brother. Preaching to the choir.

Mr Yates... Do you believe that because a piece of equipment meets certain
technical specifications it must necessarily "sound good"?

If you say "yes", I can think of at least one amplifier you ought to hear.

It stands to reason that there /must/ be a level of measurable errors, below
which, a device becomes essentially transparent and neither contributes to
nor takes away from the sound. Arny Krueger claims to know what such specs
are, but steadfastly refuses to provide them, or describe the experiments he
performed to measure them.

[William Sommerwerck]

If one speaker "sounds better" than another -- that is, it
more-accurately
reproduces the signal fed into it -- it is because it more-accurately
reproduces the signal fed into it. Not because it interacts less with the
room, or interacts in synergistic ways.

In fact a speaker that interacts differently with the room, may indeed
"sound better" to some listeners, or worse, than another in that room,
regardless of their anechoic performance. There's a reason some people
actually like Bose speakers after all :-)

Baloney. Given rooms with reasonably "balanced" acoustics, the "better"
speaker will invariably sound better. (This assumes that a speaker is not
intentionally designed to interact with the room acoustics in some
particular way.)

[Trevor]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
We already have Blu-ray audio at higher bit rates than CD.
They haven't "replaced" CD yet of course, because most
people realise it is an answer to a problem they don't really
have.

That could be because they don't know how good a recording
can be.

Or they sure as hell know their speakers are orders of magnitude
worse than their CD player, even if they don't realise their listening
room is often worse.

Tell you what, Trevor... Let's /pretend/ that I have an unlimited income
and
I'm in a gracious mood. I'm going to give you a pair of speakers free,
gratis, no obligation. (Not /really/, of course. This is pretend.)

You can have any system using conventional cone drivers, or any
top-of-the-line electrostatic (such as QUAD or Martin-Logan). Which would
you choose, and why?

The whole point is that no matter what the budget, and what I chose, they
(and the room) would still be a far more limiting factor than what CD is
capable of.


Trevor, you are what I call a "put-down artist". That is not a compliment.
All you want to do is criticize and/or humiliate others. Do you really
think
I or anyone else is impressed -- or cowed? You're a worm who has nothing
to
contribute, and has no idea of how to intelligent discuss anything.

That's what all morons say when called on their delusional claims. If you
can't understand the difference is in the changes made during mastering to
different formats rather than the technical capabilities of those formats Vs
human auditory capabilities, no one here will ever change your mind. To
personally denigrate them simply makes you look foolish, not me.

Trevor.

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

"William Sommerwerck" writes:

Exactly, and what was truly a con job is all the disks
that used slightly different master/mix for the CD layer
of SACD disks to pretend the technical difference was
really audible. You've got to hand it to the marketing
people, though. :-)

Amen, brother. Preaching to the choir.

Mr Yates... Do you believe that because a piece of equipment meets certain
technical specifications it must necessarily "sound good"?

Well, that's a loaded question! I admit that I do tend to think that way
for things like preamps and receivers (e.g., SNRs, output impedance,
dynamic power, etc.). Speakers are a whole different ballgame, though.
And in all cases, I do believe the ear is the final judge.

If you say "yes", I can think of at least one amplifier you ought to
hear.

You're presuming I don't have a tin ear...

It stands to reason that there /must/ be a level of measurable errors, below
which, a device becomes essentially transparent and neither contributes to
nor takes away from the sound.

OK, sure.

Arny Krueger claims to know what such specs are, but steadfastly
refuses to provide them, or describe the experiments he performed to
measure them.

OK. But I don't see how this relates to the discussion Trevor and I
were having.
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Trevor]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
If one speaker "sounds better" than another -- that is, it
more-accurately
reproduces the signal fed into it -- it is because it more-accurately
reproduces the signal fed into it. Not because it interacts less with
the
room, or interacts in synergistic ways.

In fact a speaker that interacts differently with the room, may indeed
"sound better" to some listeners, or worse, than another in that room,
regardless of their anechoic performance. There's a reason some people
actually like Bose speakers after all :-)

Baloney. Given rooms with reasonably "balanced" acoustics, the "better"
speaker will invariably sound better. (This assumes that a speaker is not
intentionally designed to interact with the room acoustics in some
particular way.)


Right, any speaker you consider better in a particular room, will sound
better than a speaker you consider inferior in that room, to you!
And your point is? :-)

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

Randy Yates wrote:

You must certainly be aware that a speaker's response is very
location-dependent. For example, in an anechoic chamber and with a
single speaker, the on-axis response is going to be different than 30
degrees off axis.

And certainly you know that, in a typical listening room, the signal
making it to the listener's ear is a composite of the direct path plus
an infinite number of alternate paths, all at different speaker
transmission responses and "reflection responses." Pretty complex.

So, in your work in this area, what was your goal? To simply deconvolve
the speaker's on-axis response? Or was there some sort of "power
response" goal (i.e., an equalization of some function of the speaker's
composite response in different directions)?

You CAN correct for some things which are not directionally-dependent.
The thing is, even those things are often level dependent... speakers are
not a linear system and the frequency response and phase response will
change with level.

Meyer has done a lot of work on using dsp to work out as much as possible
of the errors which are not position-dependent. The end results sound
kind of mechanical and artificial to me in many cases, but the idea does
have promise. Thing is, I think Meyer was doing it more than 20 years back
also...
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mxsmanic]

Trevor writes:

Speakers and microphones have not improved all that
much in the last 50 years compared to everything else.

They are analog devices. Improvements in analog devices are always slow,
incremental, and expensive.

I expect that the gulf between the performance of analog components and the
theoretical fidelity of the digital recording protocol will continue to widen
over time. You can dramatically increase the fidelity of digital sound (or
video, or anything) just by increasing the number of bits or samples, which
costs very little ... but matching that fidelity at the endpoints of the chain
may be extraordinarily expensive, if it's possible at all in practice.

The advent of digital means that the only weak points in any system are the
analog components at each end.

I don't understand why someone does just measure the movements of test
subjects' eardrums as they listen to various sounds. By comparing these
measured movements with the actual sound waves as measured by more precise
instruments, it should be possible to determine just how much fidelity is
useful for human hearing. In other words, if the reproduced sound is closer to
the original than the eardrum can follow, there's no point in going any
further in recording fidelity.

[Sean Conolly]

"Trevor" wrote in message
...

"Sean Conolly" wrote in message
...
That could be because they don't know how good a recording can be.

Which leads directly to another discussion that's been had he most
people have never heard a really good recording, or really good speakers,
or a really good live performance...

I just love how when most people say "most people", they never mean
themselves! :-)

Most people have given up usenet, also :-) Our very presence here means
we're not like 'most people'.


Sean

[geoff]

Randy Yates wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" writes:

And certainly you know that, in a typical listening room, the signal
making it to the listener's ear is a composite of the direct path plus
an infinite number of alternate paths, all at different speaker
transmission responses and "reflection responses." Pretty complex.

And unless digital processing (whichever flavour you prefer) is HUGELY
flawed, then simply moving your head a few inches should impart far more
significant sonic changes


geoff

[geoff]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 08:50:00 +1200, "geoff"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

But it is at least correct, as opposed to yours in which you divide
instead of multiply. The results are a bit different, you will
appreciate.


Um, isn't saying 44,800/24/s is pretty specific and easy, whereas
2.304Mb/s could be any number of sample rates or bit depths that you
(probably) need additional information and a calcator to work out
any one of the relevant paramters ?

geoff

You are still dividing instead of multiplying. It doesn't work if you
divide.

"My way' you don't need to do anything to know the exact spec.

geoff

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

Randy Yates wrote:

You must certainly be aware that a speaker's response is very
location-dependent. For example, in an anechoic chamber and with a
single speaker, the on-axis response is going to be different than 30
degrees off axis.

And certainly you know that, in a typical listening room, the signal
making it to the listener's ear is a composite of the direct path plus
an infinite number of alternate paths, all at different speaker
transmission responses and "reflection responses." Pretty complex.

So, in your work in this area, what was your goal? To simply deconvolve
the speaker's on-axis response? Or was there some sort of "power
response" goal (i.e., an equalization of some function of the speaker's
composite response in different directions)?

You CAN correct for some things which are not directionally-dependent.

How?

The thing is, even those things are often level dependent... speakers are
not a linear system and the frequency response and phase response will
change with level.

That may be true, and any [good] practical implementation may require
this to to be addressed, but for the sake of tractability, let's assume
the speaker is a linear system when answering my question above.
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[William Sommerwerck]

In fact a speaker that interacts differently with the room,
may indeed "sound better" to some listeners, or worse,
than another in that room, regardless of their anechoic
performance. There's a reason some people actually like
Bose speakers after all. :-)

Baloney. Given rooms with reasonably "balanced" acoustics,
the "better" speaker will invariably sound better. (This assumes
that a speaker is not intentionally designed to interact with the
room acoustics in some particular way.)

Right, any speaker you consider better in a particular room,
will sound better than a speaker you consider inferior in that
room, to you! And your point is? :-)

That you don't know how to read. That is NOT what I said. AT ALL.

Do you do this deliberately to annoy people? Or do you see/read what you
want to see/read, rather than what's actually there?

[William Sommerwerck]

You CAN correct for some things which are not
directionally-dependent.

How?

It would be more-pertinent to say "You CAN correct for some things which ARE
directionally-dependent."

Mr Yates, have you ever performed detailed speaker EQs? I have.

My experiences weren't surprising. If the room is not particularly
reverberant, * flattening the response at the listening position invariably
reduces coloration, improves imaging, etc, etc.

If the room is strongly reverberant, an EQ produces little or no subjective
improvement.

Mr Yates is expressing a belief that I call "the New England fallacy" --
that a speaker's basic sound quality is determined by its overall power
response in the listening space. This is patently untrue, as is instantly
audible with electrostatic and orthodynamic speakers.

To put it a slightly different way... Henry Kloss didn't hire Arthur Janszen
because he felt sorry for the guy.

* I did not say "dead"! But some reading this will claim that I did.

[William Sommerwerck]

Speakers and microphones have not improved all that
much in the last 50 years compared to everything else.

That statement is a UXB dangerous to go near.

I'm tempted to say... How do you know? How does anyone know?

The best modern recordings are noticeably less-colored and more-lifelike
than those of 50 years ago. Why? Is it because digital recording is
generally superior to analog? That's probably the main reason. But it's hard
to believe that mics -- even condenser mics -- haven't improved even a
little. And dynamic speakers are grossly superior.

[William Sommerwerck]

Tell you what, Trevor... Let's /pretend/ that I have an unlimited income
and
I'm in a gracious mood. I'm going to give you a pair of speakers free,
gratis, no obligation. (Not /really/, of course. This is pretend.)

You can have any system using conventional cone drivers, or any
top-of-the-line electrostatic (such as QUAD or Martin-Logan). Which
would you choose, and why?

The whole point is that no matter what the budget, and what I chose, they
(and the room) would still be a far more limiting factor than what CD is
capable of.

Wrong. Stop by some time, and we'll play a variety of recordings on my
un-EQ'd system in my untreated room.


Trevor, you are what I call a "put-down artist". That is not a
compliment.
All you want to do is criticize and/or humiliate others. Do you really
think
I or anyone else is impressed -- or cowed? You're a worm who has nothing
to contribute, and has no idea of how to intelligently discuss anything.

That's what all morons say when called on their delusional claims. If you
can't understand the difference is in the changes made during mastering to
different formats rather than the technical capabilities of those formats
Vs
human auditory capabilities, no one here will ever change your mind. To
personally denigrate them simply makes you look foolish, not me.

You are functionally illiterate (which means you don't understand what you
read), because that was exactly my point -- it's difficult to separate the
sound of the source material from technical differences in the recording
medium.

Learn to read, learn to think -- then we can have a useful and productive
discussion.

I'm always amused by people who claim to know what the limitations of human
hearing are.

[William Sommerwerck]

Mr Yates... Do you believe that because a piece of
equipment meets certain technical specifications it
must necessarily "sound good"?

Well, that's a loaded question! I admit that I do tend
to think that way for things like preamps and receivers
(e.g., SNRs, output impedance, dynamic power, etc).
Speakers are a whole different ballgame, though.
And in all cases, I do believe the ear is the final judge.

If you say "yes", I can think of at least one amplifier
you ought to hear.

You're presuming I don't have a tin ear...

Why shouldn't I assume that? If you think you have a tin ear, you shouldn't
be discussing sound quality.

Find a Crown K-1 or K-2 (now mercifully discontinued). They're switching
amps, designed by the respected Gerry Stanley. They have excellent specs,
but sound horrible. They are proof (if needed) that we are not measuring the
right things.


It stands to reason that there /must/ be a level of measurable
errors, below which, a device becomes essentially transparent
and neither contributes to nor takes away from the sound.

OK, sure. But I don't see how this relates to the discussion
Trevor and I were having.

I believe one of you brought up the issue of technical specs as being the
major factor in determining subjective sound quality.

[Trevor]

"Sean Conolly" wrote in message
...
That could be because they don't know how good a recording can be.

Which leads directly to another discussion that's been had he most
people have never heard a really good recording, or really good
speakers, or a really good live performance...

I just love how when most people say "most people", they never mean
themselves! :-)

Most people have given up usenet, also :-) Our very presence here means
we're not like 'most people'.

Most people aren't :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
Speakers and microphones have not improved all that
much in the last 50 years compared to everything else.

That statement is a UXB dangerous to go near.

I'm tempted to say... How do you know? How does anyone know?

The best modern recordings are noticeably less-colored and more-lifelike
than those of 50 years ago. Why? Is it because digital recording is
generally superior to analog? That's probably the main reason.

Exactly.

But it's hard
to believe that mics -- even condenser mics -- haven't improved even a
little.

Right, only a little. Hell many haven't changed much at all except for
cheaper construction techniques, just look at the most common of all, the
Shure SM58.

And dynamic speakers are grossly superior.

A very small number perhaps, but only at the high price end, and there were
plenty of speakers made pre digital, which are still superior to the *vast*
majority of speakers sold today.
I'll put up a pair of Duntech Sovereigns made 30 years ago, against any
speakers made today for less than 10 times the price. (and they'd still beat
some at 20 times the price where *very* few people ever buy)
OTOH I'll put up a $500 8 channel interface and $500 laptop against ANY 8
track tape recorder ever made at any price. (and even more price difference
for 24 tracks!)
Or how about a $300 CD player against a modern $100,000 turntable! Now
*that's* where *big* improvements in performance, *and value* have really
been made, not speakers and microphones. The average persons sound system
has speakers no better than days gone by, just smaller, and often more of
them for home theatre rather than HiFi.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
Tell you what, Trevor... Let's /pretend/ that I have an unlimited income
and
I'm in a gracious mood. I'm going to give you a pair of speakers free,
gratis, no obligation. (Not /really/, of course. This is pretend.)

You can have any system using conventional cone drivers, or any
top-of-the-line electrostatic (such as QUAD or Martin-Logan). Which
would you choose, and why?

The whole point is that no matter what the budget, and what I chose, they
(and the room) would still be a far more limiting factor than what CD is
capable of.

Wrong.

In your opinion, which of course is never wrong, in your opinion!


You are functionally illiterate

Very funny coming from YOU! :-) :-) :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
OK, sure. But I don't see how this relates to the discussion
Trevor and I were having.

I believe one of you brought up the issue of technical specs as being the
major factor in determining subjective sound quality.

You believe many things that aren't based on fact unfortunately. Like the
idea that you alone can determine what is *objectively* good, and "better
sound quality" simply by casual listening, rather than what is in fact just
your own subjective *personal preference*!

(Good to see you use the term "subjective" at last however!!!)

Trevor.

[Mxsmanic]

William Sommerwerck writes:

I'm tempted to say... How do you know? How does anyone know?

It's the nature of analog vs. digital. It's practically cost-free to increase
the number of bits in the digital realm, but progress in the analog realm is
slow, expensive, and painful, since it is constrained by the laws of the
physical world.

The best modern recordings are noticeably less-colored and more-lifelike
than those of 50 years ago. Why? Is it because digital recording is
generally superior to analog? That's probably the main reason.

There's really no such thing as "digital recording," in the sense of an
action, only in the sense of representation. Everything is recorded using
analog equipment. Then the analog recordings are analyzed and converted into
digital form.

The more quickly you can convert a recording to digital representation, the
less deterioration there will be due to the limitations of physical, analog
devices. But the quality doesn't improve--it's just that the _loss_ of quality
_diminishes_, which isn't quite the same thing.