Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
"Les Cargill" wrote in message
... Jay Ts wrote: I was watching videos with Rupert Neve recently, and in one he told a story about a recording engineer who complained about a fault in just one channel of the studio's Neve console. Mr. Neve went in to investigate, at first found nothing, but then studied more and found a fault at about 50 KHz in that channel. After fixing the circuit, the engineer was satisfied. This is more anecdotal "evidence" that proves nothing, but I think it's significant, and I wish I knew more of what happened. I think things like this should be followed up on more to discern more about what's happening. For that to happen, people must get beyond the dogma that people can't hear anything above 20 KHz. Mr. Neve's response to the incident was to improve his circuit designs, and extend the frequency response to 120 KHz (I'm looking at his current designs to get that number, since I don't remember what he said in the video). He did not just say, "Well, I can't hear beyond 12 KHz so I don't care about that." I'd expect a fault at 50KHz to be more likely an oscillation - too much signal - rather than a deficit in the ultrasonic. Perhaps Mr. Neve updated his test regime as well as his designs to account for those ranges. For a production console I think it's a great idea, not because of what it's adding in the ultrasonic but because of what it's not adding in the audible range. Sean |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
On 12/09/2014 2:37 p.m., Les Cargill wrote:
The background to pono is pretty specific - Neil Young has this immense ... "box set" he wants to release as a sort of musical monument to ... his career ( which is fine ) and pono is him trying to invent a box to put it in. And yet it appears that his basis for this product is his still totally flawed understanding of digital audio. geoff |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
On 12/09/2014 1:09 p.m., Jay Ts wrote:
I was watching videos with Rupert Neve recently, and in one he told a story about a recording engineer who complained about a fault in just one channel of the studio's Neve console. Mr. Neve went in to investigate, at first found nothing, but then studied more and found a fault at about 50 KHz in that channel. An oscillation , if that's what it was at 50KHz would be a problem, but that does not imply that a response to 50K (or more) has an audible benefit. FWIW I have worked on Neve gear that was far less than god-like. I was going to put some more flippant remarks in, but considering the seriousness and effort you've put into this post, decided against ! But..... how did you go in a double-blind experiment to see if you can discern any difference between the same source media at extended versus 20KHz band-limited version of the same ? If not, I really think you ought to, to differntiate between what's real and what's "religious". geoff |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
Jay Ts wrote:
Anyway, here is what I find offensive about the article and how it is being used (or maybe really mis-used) by people online. I have more time today so I'll use some of it to explain my reactive attitude on this topic. (Maybe over-reactive, but that's normal for me. To quote, "Research shows that musical instruments may produce energy above 20 KHz, but there is little sound energy at above 40KHz. Most microphones do not pick up sound at much over 20KHz. Human hearing rarely exceeds 20KHz." I find all of these statements offensive. Although true, they mislead the reader into thinking that there is absolutely no reason to save anything above 20 KHz, and the rest of the article continues off of that idea, which is not even literally present in the above quote! If you read carefully and think a little, you might realize that there *is* content above 20 KHz, and that some people miss out on that if it is not present in the recording. But, there _is_ absolutely no reason to save anything above 20 KHz. Try it for yourself.... take a recording, bandlimit it to 20 KHz, and listen. Do you hear a difference? Can you say that benefit is an improvement? The real worry is that, because there IS content above 20 KHz, the additional recording bandwidth will be accurately recording it, but the reproduction system will not accurately reproduce it and will produce audible beat products from the inausible ultrasonics. In this case, the additional bandwidth is _degrading_ the sound and not improving it. The reason I'm offended by this is not that I think I can hear above 20 KHz. I know I can't. The best I've ever heard at a conscious level is about 17 KHz, and that was a long time ago. I'm not as good today. But I did meet someone who could hear up to 30 KHz in a very informal blind test. In science, all it takes to disprove any theory is one counterexample, and that incident was enough to change my thinking. The problem with informal blind tests is that people are very good at hearing audible beat products, so you need to have very very good linearity when you do them. Check out some of the Kanagawa Institute tests for some examples of how not to do good testing. But... it's possible some people may hear ultrasonics. I could hear up to 22 KHz when I was a child. The 20 KHz line is not a hard and fast limit. I'm really concerned that if a few people (it might be only 1%) have exceptional hearing at a conscious level, then maybe many more have subconscious senses in the 20KHz range that may be significant somehow. I don't know of any method of scientific research yet developed that can test for that, so my attitude is to remain conservative and wait patiently for more study. I'm waiting for higher resolution realtime brain scanning technology and other things that probably haven't been invented yet, and until then, I don't put much faith in listening tests. It will be interesting to see such tests, and I am not ruling out the possibility that people may exist who can hear such things. However, I haven't met any of these people. In the meantime, I think it's best to design for the possibility that the current assumptions may be wrong, and include support for higher frequencies. The problem is that you cannot support higher frequencies without _also_ degrading the signal in other ways, so you have to pick and choose what converter attributes are going to give you the best gain. I was watching videos with Rupert Neve recently, and in one he told a story about a recording engineer who complained about a fault in just one channel of the studio's Neve console. Mr. Neve went in to investigate, at first found nothing, but then studied more and found a fault at about 50 KHz in that channel. After fixing the circuit, the engineer was satisfied. This is more anecdotal "evidence" that proves nothing, but I think it's significant, and I wish I knew more of what happened. I think things like this should be followed up on more to discern more about what's happening. For that to happen, people must get beyond the dogma that people can't hear anything above 20 KHz. This is, I might add, one of the stupidest damn stories I have ever heard and I wish Mr. Neve would stop telling it. If you listen carefully, what he is saying is that there was a channel that sounded funny, and when he did a sweep test, he found a problem at 50 KHz, and when he investigated more carefully, he found an unterminated transformer. Terminating the transformer fixed the problem. The _problem_ was not a 50 KHz aberation, the problem was an unterminated transformer. A distortion test at 1 KHz would have shown this up, but he didn't do a distortion test, he did a sweep test. And, on a sweep test, the problem didn't show up as a response issue until 50 Khz. The 50 KHz response was a _symptom_ of a time domain problem. And Mr. Neve is not a stupid person and should very well know this. Mr. Neve's response to the incident was to improve his circuit designs, and extend the frequency response to 120 KHz (I'm looking at his current designs to get that number, since I don't remember what he said in the video). He did not just say, "Well, I can't hear beyond 12 KHz so I don't care about that." His response on the whole, like the rest of the audio industry, has been to eliminate transformers. I will say that there _are_ good arguments for extending frequency response of analogue systems, because in the analogue world if you want response that is very flat across a narrow passband the easiest solution is usually to extend the response well above that passband. But what is creating the benefit isn't that you have extended the 3dB point from 20 KHz to 120 KHz, the benefit is because in the process you have extended the 0.1dB point from 5 KHz to 25 KHz. This to me shows a good attitude towards engineering, with a good scientific attitude of never being sure about anything, and being open- minded. I've seen specs on many high-end "pro audio" products with extended high-frequency response, and it seems that Mr. Neve is not alone in thinking it is important to do so. It really bothers me that if I have products with that quality, I may have it cut back to a bandwidth of only 20 KHz, or even 40 KHz, at any later stage in the signal chain, especially the last one at the recording. A lot of people in the 2000s were pushing extended HF response, and a lot of papers that were financed by Pioneer were coming out with various listening tests claiming audibility of extended HF response (as well as improved hair growth). That is petering out. I would be in favor of extended HF response if we could just get extended HF response without any downside and without any side effects, because in that case it may or may not have any benefit but it certainly could do no harm. The problem is that the extended bandwidth is apt to do harm on playback, and it requires sacrifices in converter design that may do harm in recording. [a bunch of stuff clipped, some valid and some irrelevant] One final note about the Sampling Theory For Digital Audio article: I have nothing against the Nyquist Theorem, pure mathematics, or how the author explained it. My problem is with the limited thinking in the audio industry, and too many times, I've seen that article used to support and maintain that dogma. I think that is inappropriate; that's all. I think my negative statements earlier were more about that than anything in the article itself. If this is in fact the case, why is high sample rate recording so popular today? If anything, I would say the extreme popularity of the high rate formats says quite the opposite. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
geoff wrote:
On 12/09/2014 1:09 p.m., Jay Ts wrote: I was watching videos with Rupert Neve recently, and in one he told a story about a recording engineer who complained about a fault in just one channel of the studio's Neve console. Mr. Neve went in to investigate, at first found nothing, but then studied more and found a fault at about 50 KHz in that channel. An oscillation , if that's what it was at 50KHz would be a problem, but that does not imply that a response to 50K (or more) has an audible benefit. FWIW I have worked on Neve gear that was far less than god-like. It was transformer ringing... which I suppose is a sort of damped oscillation but one that doesn't occur until it's excited. But..... how did you go in a double-blind experiment to see if you can discern any difference between the same source media at extended versus 20KHz band-limited version of the same ? If not, I really think you ought to, to differntiate between what's real and what's "religious". His argument is that even if he cannot tell the difference (and I have done a double-blind test and I couldn't tell the difference), perhaps someone somewhere might. Perhaps I might even be able to do it under better circumstances. And he's right about that... perhaps someone might. But that someone is not my customer. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
"Jay Ts" wrote in message ... On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 08:28:31 -0500, Neil Gould wrote: Jay Ts wrote: [much snipped for brevity] Hank's post: http://lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lav...ing-theory.pdf I saw that about a year ago, and disregarded it due to its non-scientific nature (weasel words, dogma, and denial). If you can, please provide something better, based on good scientific thought and attitude. I read this expecting to find something that supports your assetions "weasel words..." etc., but did not. What did you find objectionable about the content in this writing? I'll have to retract the term "weasel words" because just now I re-read the article, and it seems my memory of it from the previous reading was inaccurate. Sorry about that one. [...] OK, but... Anyway, here is what I find offensive about the article and how it is being used (or maybe really mis-used) by people online. I have more time today so I'll use some of it to explain my reactive attitude on this topic. (Maybe over-reactive, but that's normal for me. To quote, "Research shows that musical instruments may produce energy above 20 KHz, but there is little sound energy at above 40KHz. Most microphones do not pick up sound at much over 20KHz. Human hearing rarely exceeds 20KHz." I find all of these statements offensive. Although true, they mislead the reader into thinking that there is absolutely no reason to save anything above 20 KHz, and the rest of the article continues off of that idea, which is not even literally present in the above quote! If you read carefully and think a little, you might realize that there *is* content above 20 KHz, and that some people miss out on that if it is not present in the recording. Since the statements are true, could it be that you're generalizing to say that it is "misleading the reader", especially as it lacks the content that leads to your implication? This sounds to me like a reaction to a presupposition that doesn't exist in the actual content of the work. The reason I'm offended by this is not that I think I can hear above 20 KHz. I know I can't. The best I've ever heard at a conscious level is about 17 KHz, and that was a long time ago. I'm not as good today. But I did meet someone who could hear up to 30 KHz in a very informal blind test. In science, all it takes to disprove any theory is one counterexample, and that incident was enough to change my thinking. I'm really concerned that if a few people (it might be only 1%) have exceptional hearing at a conscious level, then maybe many more have subconscious senses in the 20KHz range that may be significant somehow. I don't know of any method of scientific research yet developed that can test for that, so my attitude is to remain conservative and wait patiently for more study. [...] When tested as a youth, my hearing was slightly over 35k (yes, test equipment goes well beyond that range), and I used to get headaches walking into stores that had the "ultrasonic" alarm systems. But that range is pretty much occupied by tinitis at my age. ;-) It really bothers me that if I have products with that quality, I may have it cut back to a bandwidth of only 20 KHz, or even 40 KHz, at any later stage in the signal chain, especially the last one at the recording. It seems to me that your focus is on the possibilities rather than the realities of audio recording and playback. Does your audio system have a good response beyond 20k? Mine does, and I can say with certainty that the percentage of recordings that I own that have any response above 20k is pretty small, and of those that do, the ones that aren't downright offensive in that zone can be counted on one hand. There are reasons for this, and I think they are pretty well covered in Lavry's primer. Another reason I don't like the quote is that it assumes a lot about things like musical instruments and sound reproduction equipment. Maybe someone tomorrow will invent a microphone and speaker that can accurately reproduce sound at much higher frequencies. Who knows? I think if the industry standards don't support using them, that would really suck. Let's not make assumptions about the future based on things from the past. Good engineering is largely a matter of making good decisions about component choices, design parameters, and performance objectives, so perhaps they aren't so much assumptions about instruments and so forth but appreciation for the operational parameters of the whole chain! The real point is that the standards for digital recording, processing and distribution have the effect of setting the status quo. Once a standard is set, everything in the future is limited by it. So rather than set the standard to a minimum, isn't it better to have them set higher? At least some provision needs to be made for applications that don't fit the norm, to allow further development to happen as it is needed. To achieve what you are suggesting, not only does the "front end" have to have extended capabilities, but there has to be equally capable equipment on the consumer end to benefit from it. Considering the *very* small percentage of consumer gear capable of good performance in the range that you consider to be offensively restrictive, how practical would it be to try to get well beyond that? It sounds like your objections are not really based on the content in the article, but to the realities of audio recording and reproduction. Although I can appreciate your attraction to such abstract possibilities, I have a greater appreciation for the practicalities of good design and the reality of the purpose for recording music. Recordings wouldn't exist to the extent they do if someone wouldn't buy them, and the sales volume necessary to support the industry is not rooted in reaching theoretical boundaries of human perception. -- best regards, Neil |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
Neil Gould wrote:
It sounds like your objections are not really based on the content in the article, but to the realities of audio recording and reproduction. Although I can appreciate your attraction to such abstract possibilities, I have a greater appreciation for the practicalities of good design and the reality of the purpose for recording music. But I think Jay does make a valid point that, were all other things equal, it would be better to shoot for wider bandwidth reproduction. The problem is that all other things aren't equal and that there are disadvantages as well as advantages to that wider bandwidth. Recordings wouldn't exist to the extent they do if someone wouldn't buy them, and the sales volume necessary to support the industry is not rooted in reaching theoretical boundaries of human perception. There _is_ an audiophile record market. It's small, and sad to say the customer base that follows it is made up of the people who statistically are least likely to have ultrasonic hearing. But, it exists and it can be lucrative. If one can record wideband audio well enough to be able to issue a special wideband audiophile version as well as the bandlimited version, there may be a market for that. But I would not place any money on which recording would actually sound better. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
On 9/11/2014 9:09 PM, Jay Ts wrote:
http://lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lav...ing-theory.pdf I'll have to retract the term "weasel words" because just now I re-read the article, and it seems my memory of it from the previous reading was inaccurate. Sorry about that one. (I could have sworn that I at least encountered the phrase, "It is generally recognized that..." in the article, but when I searched for it just now, it wasn't there! I may be confused with something else I read on the subject recently.) What's "weasel-worded" about that? Ask anyone who might have a clue what the normal range of human hearing and you'll get the "20 to 20 thousand cycles" answer. That's what "generally recognized" means. It doesn't imply a conclusively proven fact. To quote, "Research shows that musical instruments may produce energy above 20 KHz, but there is little sound energy at above 40KHz. Most microphones do not pick up sound at much over 20KHz. Human hearing rarely exceeds 20KHz." I find all of these statements offensive. Although true, they mislead the reader into thinking that there is absolutely no reason to save anything above 20 KHz Maybe so, if that's where the reader stops reading. And a large majority of listeners to recorded and reproduced music will indeed never haven anything above 20 kHz reach their ears, whether or not they can hear it. But that doesn't mean that this brick wall exists for everyone. The question is how much it actually matters in practice. If you read carefully and think a little, you might realize that there *is* content above 20 KHz, and that some people miss out on that if it is not present in the recording. There's no question that there's sound energy above 20 kHz. James Boyk has (or at least used to have) measurements posted on one of his web sites. Many musical instruments have more than a trivial amount of energy above 20 kHz, though the human voice doesn't. There have been a number of listening experiments conducted over the years, some of which have demonstrated that listeners can hear a difference when presented with music containing frequencies above 20 kHz, and others can't. But nobody has yet satisfactorily proven that the experience of listening to music with supersonic content is really enhanced, not just detectable. One explanation that Boyk suggested was that we don't actually hear the supersonic frequencies, but that they interact with other frequencies and generate frequencies that we can hear that wouldn't be present without the supersonics. Some would call that intermodulation distortion. Others would call this intermodulation a real part of a particular sound. I did meet someone who could hear up to 30 KHz in a very informal blind test. In science, all it takes to disprove any theory is one counterexample, and that incident was enough to change my thinking. I'd say "So what?" I'm waiting for higher resolution realtime brain scanning technology and other things that probably haven't been invented yet, and until then, I don't put much faith in listening tests. But listening is what it's all about. You can't dance to a brain scan. If you want real time high resolution music, go to a concert. In the meantime, I think it's best to design for the possibility that the current assumptions may be wrong, and include support for higher frequencies. How far do you want to go? Lavry accepts 2x (96 kHz) sample rate as a reasonable hedge against the future, and something that can be done well now. This would allow the guy who claims that he has heard 30 kHz to hear it. There are tweeters that can handle 30 kHz just fine. Me, I'm with Dan, being skeptical of the value of 4x sample rate. His reason relates to the difficulty of doing it really well. Mine is just practical. I don't listen to music so attentively that it would change my experience. And I think I represent the majority of listeners. The lunatic fringe audiophiles (there was a group in San Francisco who actually called themselves that) will always have the toys available to play with. I was watching videos with Rupert Neve recently, and in one he told a story about a recording engineer who complained about a fault in just one channel of the studio's Neve console. Mr. Neve went in to investigate, at first found nothing, but then studied more and found a fault at about 50 KHz in that channel. After fixing the circuit, the engineer was satisfied. Oy! The console owner wasn't hearing 50 kHz, he was hearing 50 kHz mixing with other frequencies and generating frequencies coming out that didn't go in. It was broken. It was fixed. Then it sounded good. There was an anecdote about Mr. Neve demonstrating that people could hear supersonic frequencies by having people listen to a 10 kHz sine wave followed by a 10 kHz square wave (square waves are made of odd harmonics, so there's plenty of 30 kHz there) and they could hear a difference. What he didn't compensate for is that the square wave had more energy at 10 kHz than the sine wave, and it was the difference in volume that they were hearing. Mr. Neve's response to the incident was to improve his circuit designs, and extend the frequency response to 120 KHz It can't hurt, in an analog world, but of course everything above half the sample rate must be cut off to prevent aliasing, which is roughly the digital equivalent of the 50 kHz mixing with something else and generating a new frequency. Another reason I don't like the quote is that it assumes a lot about things like musical instruments and sound reproduction equipment. Maybe someone tomorrow will invent a microphone and speaker that can accurately reproduce sound at much higher frequencies. Who knows? Why wait? There are microphones and speakers that can reproduce frequencies above 20 kHz right now. The real point is that the standards for digital recording, processing and distribution have the effect of setting the status quo. We deal with this in a lot of things, not just sound. The popular manufacturers make what they think people will buy, or, what they want them to buy. They don't make what isn't going to sell very well. But if you look in the right places and spend enough money, you can have your supersonics. Once a standard is set, everything in the future is limited by it. Oh, yeah? For a long time, there was a "standard" that was a 64 kbps MP3 file. We had CDs at that time, and they have always been available to those who were willing to give up some convenience. Now you can put "CD quality" files on your iPhone, but the popular choice is still to have more songs at lower quality, because that's what fits in the available memory, and now that memory is getting filled up with video. I just heard a piece on the radio this morning relating to the new U2 "free" album release - people were waking up and finding this was automatically downloaded to their phones (I don't know how that part works) and now they're cramped for file space. So rather than set the standard to a minimum, isn't it better to have them set higher? Not necessarily, for everyone, Better that we have multiple standards (as we do now) and let the customers choose the best alternative for them rather than having a higher standard shoved down their throats when the majority will hear no benefit from it. I keep thinking that if sound cards were commonly available that had good support for high frequencies, some clever nerds might create some cool new applications for it. Any garden variety sound card can produce 20 kHz, and tiny speakers are better at reproducing high frequencies than low frequencies. Remember a few years back when school kids, who it's commonly recognized have better high frequency hearing than their older teachers, were using a gimmick for their phones that replaced the normal sound when a text message arrives with a very high frequency one that the kids could hear at their desk, but that the teacher couldn't hear across the room, so they could read the message instead of paying attention in class. Technology to the rescue! Another quote: "Sampling at 192KHz produces larger files requiring more storage space and slowing down the transmission. Sampling at 192KHz produces a huge burden on the computational processing speed requirements" That's two quotes, but, depending on your concept of "huge," are both correct. If not for economic and political limitations, by all rights in the USA today we should commonly have at least 1 Gbit/sec Internet connections by now, with more on the way. The technology is all there, and there's plenty of speed above that. All it takes is money. Also, I read in the news recently that Western Digital announced a 10 TB hard drive, and Seagate announced an 8 GB model. Drives of 1 TB or more are now commonly available and inexpensive. You know what the problem with that is? You can't buy a reasonably sized disk drive any more. Drive capacity is growing faster than the need for it right now, but it'll catch up. But in the mean time, instead of losing a few hundred songs if your 20 GB hard drive takes a dump, you'll lose the ten thousand songs (at low resolution, because that's what you got) you put on a 1 TB drive when it takes a dump. But conveniently, when all your songs come in 192 kHz uncompressed format, you'll be back to just a few hundred songs on a 1 TB drive - though by then you won't be able to buy anything smaller than a 5 TB drive. There's a law named for somebody in the computer business that says that storage requirements will grow to fill the available storage. How does this help the world, other than by making your old disk drive obsolete, the manufacturer can sell you another one. (I know this was long You wore me out. -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
On 9/12/2014 9:19 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
Oy! The console owner wasn't hearing 50 kHz, he was hearing 50 kHz mixing with other frequencies and generating frequencies coming out that didn't go in. It was broken. It was fixed. OK, I probably stand corrected on this (old memory, you know). Could have been the result of an unterminated transformer ringing and not a steady 50 kHz whistle coming through the channel. Still, the problem wasn't that the producer was hearing 50 kHz. -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
Jay Ts wrote:
I was watching videos with Rupert Neve recently, and in one he told a story about a recording engineer who complained about a fault in just one channel of the studio's Neve console. Mr. Neve went in to investigate, at first found nothing, but then studied more and found a fault at about 50 KHz in that channel. After fixing the circuit, the engineer was satisfied. This is more anecdotal "evidence" that proves nothing, but I think it's significant, and I wish I knew more of what happened. I think things like this should be followed up on more to discern more about what's happening. For that to happen, people must get beyond the dogma that people can't hear anything above 20 KHz. Jay, Mr. Neve is rightly revered for his work. His is also a human, and hence, fallible. This story has been debunked many times. The oscillation in that circuit was at 50KHz, but the consequences thereof include folding distortion back down into the known humanly perceivable audio band. Mr. Neve's response to the incident was to improve his circuit designs, and extend the frequency response to 120 KHz (I'm looking at his current designs to get that number, since I don't remember what he said in the video). Meanwhile, Dan Kennedy's original Great River MP2 is and was from the gitgo flat and clean to 100KHz. Again, if something is going to pass signal up there it had better pass it cleanly or there will probably be audible consequences. I don't think we know all we will eventually know about our hearing, and I agree wtih you that it is important not to dismiss out of hand that which seems to counter theory developed from what we understand up to this point in time. I think it is very important to look deeply into claims that appear to offer evidence of super-aural hearing, because in those I have seen examined there is a very logical explanation that does not involve anything extraordinary. I saw in one of the Pono videos where Neil Young was saying how our other technology has advanced, but digital audio is stuck, and if anything (because of mp3s) has gotten worse in the same time period. Is it peculiar enough that he claims the technology hasn't advanced by assuming the technology's state of being is friggin' MP3's? If that's the state of the tech, what's going to run Pono? Give me a logical break here, please. The problem he seeks to address is not with the technology available for audio recording. It is with the distribution technology at its core, because right now the burden of streaming you my album in 24/96 (and yes, I think it sounds better than at 16/44/1) is considerable. From where I am typing right now it would be out of the question. In Chattanooga TN we could do it easily. I don't agree with everything Neil has to say, but I do agree that it's time to move things forward. Please don't mistake by Devil's Advocacy for a lack of care. When we mastered Carry Me Home, we spent money on Jerry Tubb's services to come away with an array of masters for various formats. (Perspective: the bill for all audio delivered for replication was just under $3500.00. Of that, I spent nearly $1100.00 on mastering. I put our money where my mouth is. g) I didn't just run home with the 16/44 master, load it into iTunes or Logic and turn it into MP3. Interested parties may audition one of the songs in all those formats. Give some consideration to the file sizes. The CD and VD-A clips are but half the song, for obvious reasons. 320Kbps full song = 6MB; _half_ the song @ 24/96 = almost 40Mb.) The Great Balitmore Fire in the size/resolution of your choice: Complete, 128Kbps.mp3 (2.4Mb) common http://armadillomusicproductions.com...reFire128k.mp3 http://tinyurl.com/k83mnxu Complete, 192Kbps.mp3 (3.6Mb) standard http://armadillomusicproductions.com...reFire192k.mp3 http://tinyurl.com/k2bc35l Complete, 320Kbps.mp3 (6.0Mb) better http://armadillomusicproductions.com...reFire320k.mp3 http://tinyurl.com/kgqra7x 1:20 Clip, 16-bit/44.1kHz.wav (12.0Mb) CD http://armadillomusicproductions.com...FireClip16bit4 4kHz.wav http://tinyurl.com/kofn8qm 1:20 Clip, 24-bit/96kHz.wav (39.4Mb) DVD-A http://armadillomusicproductions.com...FireClip24bit9 6kHz.wav http://tinyurl.com/k3bvsjq -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
On 9/12/2014 9:19 AM, Mike Rivers wrote: Oy! The console owner wasn't hearing 50 kHz, he was hearing 50 kHz mixing with other frequencies and generating frequencies coming out that didn't go in. It was broken. It was fixed. OK, I probably stand corrected on this (old memory, you know). Could have been the result of an unterminated transformer ringing and not a steady 50 kHz whistle coming through the channel. Still, the problem wasn't that the producer was hearing 50 kHz. Right, and that's why in the analogue world the behaviour of systems above 20 KHz is important. In the digital world we can eliminate signals above 20 KHz which greatly reduces the number of issues that we have to contend with. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
Neil Gould wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: There _is_ an audiophile record market. It's small, and sad to say the customer base that follows it is made up of the people who statistically are least likely to have ultrasonic hearing. Yes, that market does exist. The various periodicals and catalogs that pandered to it were a frequent source of comedic relief for me. But, it exists and it can be lucrative. Sure. Just ask Crutchfield! ;-D Unfortunately, it is not large enough a market to support the musical genre that the participants in that market prefer. Well, that's the thing. Let's say you're doing a conventional ADD recording, mastering on a tape machine and mixing to a digital recorder. In this day of automation, why NOT just make two mixes at different rates for release? The internet has made it possible to release on multiple digital formats at the same time for minimal extra cost. It's not like the days when stores had to stock both LP and CD and pay twice the tax on inventory on hand. If you're recording digitally to begin with you start having some more difficult worries about your tracking sample rates, but that's the kind of decision that they hire producers for. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
Mike Rivers wrote:
There have been a number of listening experiments conducted over the years, some of which have demonstrated that listeners can hear a difference when presented with music containing frequencies above 20 kHz, and others can't. But nobody has yet satisfactorily proven that the experience of listening to music with supersonic content is really enhanced, not just detectable. One explanation that Boyk suggested was that we don't actually hear the supersonic frequencies, but that they interact with other frequencies and generate frequencies that we can hear that wouldn't be present without the supersonics. Some would call that intermodulation distortion. Others would call this intermodulation a real part of a particular sound. http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
On 9/12/2014 11:31 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In the digital world we can eliminate signals above 20 KHz which greatly reduces the number of issues that we have to contend with. There you go again . . cutting out some important part of the music. -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neil Gould wrote: It sounds like your objections are not really based on the content in the article, but to the realities of audio recording and reproduction. Although I can appreciate your attraction to such abstract possibilities, I have a greater appreciation for the practicalities of good design and the reality of the purpose for recording music. But I think Jay does make a valid point that, were all other things equal, it would be better to shoot for wider bandwidth reproduction. The problem is that all other things aren't equal and that there are disadvantages as well as advantages to that wider bandwidth. Scott, you've given the same message as I, just using different words. In short, I can appreciate Jay's reasoning, but also understand why "all things audio" are not as he envisioned. Recordings wouldn't exist to the extent they do if someone wouldn't buy them, and the sales volume necessary to support the industry is not rooted in reaching theoretical boundaries of human perception. There _is_ an audiophile record market. It's small, and sad to say the customer base that follows it is made up of the people who statistically are least likely to have ultrasonic hearing. Yes, that market does exist. The various periodicals and catalogs that pandered to it were a frequent source of comedic relief for me. But, it exists and it can be lucrative. Sure. Just ask Crutchfield! ;-D Unfortunately, it is not large enough a market to support the musical genre that the participants in that market prefer. -- best regards, Neil |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 9/12/2014 9:19 AM, Mike Rivers wrote: Oy! The console owner wasn't hearing 50 kHz, he was hearing 50 kHz mixing with other frequencies and generating frequencies coming out that didn't go in. It was broken. It was fixed. OK, I probably stand corrected on this (old memory, you know). Could have been the result of an unterminated transformer ringing and not a steady 50 kHz whistle coming through the channel. Still, the problem wasn't that the producer was hearing 50 kHz. Chances are good that whatever the console owner was listening to -- e.g. headphones or speakers -- couldn't reproduce a 50kHz signal anyway. The more useful monitoring tools don't, and I wouldn't want to monitor music with the special headsets used for hearing tests! ;-) -- best regards, Neil |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
On 9/12/2014 11:31 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote: In the digital world we can eliminate signals above 20 KHz which greatly reduces the number of issues that we have to contend with. There you go again . . cutting out some important part of the music. If I were going to be spending my time trying to get response outside of the audible band that is accurate and clean but does not contain noise, I would spend a lot more of my effort on the stuff below 20 Hz than the stuff above 20 KHz. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Neil Gould wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: There _is_ an audiophile record market. It's small, and sad to say the customer base that follows it is made up of the people who statistically are least likely to have ultrasonic hearing. Yes, that market does exist. The various periodicals and catalogs that pandered to it were a frequent source of comedic relief for me. But, it exists and it can be lucrative. Sure. Just ask Crutchfield! ;-D Unfortunately, it is not large enough a market to support the musical genre that the participants in that market prefer. Well, that's the thing. Let's say you're doing a conventional ADD recording, mastering on a tape machine and mixing to a digital recorder. In this day of automation, why NOT just make two mixes at different rates for release? _A_DD?!? Why compromise like that? The internet has made it possible to release on multiple digital formats at the same time for minimal extra cost. It's not like the days when stores had to stock both LP and CD and pay twice the tax on inventory on hand. If you're recording digitally to begin with you start having some more difficult worries about your tracking sample rates, but that's the kind of decision that they hire producers for. I have no issue with the production or release formats for material, really. Do what you want. I jumped in to this disussion based on Jay's notion that there was something awry with the Lavry primer, and found his rationale that disregarded the practical matters involved in design and production to be curious. -- best regards, Neil |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Mike Rivers wrote: On 9/12/2014 11:31 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote: In the digital world we can eliminate signals above 20 KHz which greatly reduces the number of issues that we have to contend with. There you go again . . cutting out some important part of the music. If I were going to be spending my time trying to get response outside of the audible band that is accurate and clean but does not contain noise, I would spend a lot more of my effort on the stuff below 20 Hz than the stuff above 20 KHz. Heck, I'd be happy if folks spent a bit more time on the stuff between 15 - 20 kHz. At this point, it seems to be almost completely disregarded, based on the amount of seriously clipped material I hear. -- best regards, Neil |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
On 9/12/2014 2:13 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Well, to some extent Lavry's primer also disregards a lot of that, because implementation issues may argue for higher sample rates of converters even if higher rate storage isn't necessary. But, it's the purpose of a primer to disregard implementation issues because that's not what it's about. I don't know if it was in this particular publication, but at one time, probably close to 10 years ago now, Lavry was talking about that capacitors weren't good enough to make an accurate 4x A/D converter at the time, so he was going to stick with 2x until he could make a 4x converter that sounded better than his current products. There's not much point in making something that there's not much point in listening to. He has a couple of 4x D/A converters but I'm not sure if he makes a 4x A/D yet. Dan is both honest and pricey enough so that he isn't going to make a 192 kHz A/D just to put the label on it if he isn't convinced that it's an improvement over his 96 kHz products. -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
On 12/09/2014 11:34 p.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
But... it's possible some people may hear ultrasonics. I could hear up to 22 KHz when I was a child. That's why they chose 44K1 - 50Hz leeway ;-) geoff |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
On 13/09/2014 1:07 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neil Gould wrote: It sounds like your objections are not really based on the content in the article, but to the realities of audio recording and reproduction. Although I can appreciate your attraction to such abstract possibilities, I have a greater appreciation for the practicalities of good design and the reality of the purpose for recording music. But I think Jay does make a valid point that, were all other things equal, it would be better to shoot for wider bandwidth reproduction. The problem is that all other things aren't equal and that there are disadvantages as well as advantages to that wider bandwidth. Like pumping 50KHz into a tweeter that can't reproduce it can actually end up producing other nasty **** instead. geoff |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
On 13/09/2014 3:35 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
There _is_ an audiophile record market. It's small, and sad to say the customer base that follows it is made up of the people who statistically are least likely to have ultrasonic hearing. \And many of the 'gains' are so subtle that they are swamped by the effect of moving one's head an inch or two.... geoff |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
"geoff" wrote in message
... Like pumping 50KHz into a tweeter that can't reproduce it can actually end up producing other nasty **** instead. Prove it. Remember that these ultrasonic components are relatively low in level. |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
"geoff" wrote in message
... And many of the 'gains' are so subtle that they are swamped by the effect of moving one's head an inch or two... The sound of my system does not noticeably change when I move my head. People theorize and theorize and theorize -- and they have absolutely no evidence to prove or disprove what they claim. |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
But, there _is_ absolutely no reason to save anything above 20kHz. Try it for yourself... take a recording, bandlimit it to 20kHz, and listen. Do you hear a difference? Can you say that benefit is an improvement? I rarely disagree with Scott on anything. This is an exception. If you cascade enough stages with a 100kHz bandwidth, you'll wind up with less than 20kHz bandwidth, and a lot of phase shift. Generally speaking, it's better to design systems with broad tolerances. Until someone proves otherwise, I consider wideband reproduction to be like chicken soup -- it couldn't hurt. The real worry is that, because there IS content above 20 KHz, the additional recording bandwidth will be accurately recording it, but the reproduction system will not accurately reproduce it and will produce audible beat products from the inausible ultrasonics. In this case, the additional bandwidth is /degrading/ the sound and not improving it. This assumes amplifiers and/or speakers have sufficient IM in the ultrasonic region to produce audible beats. This is easy to test. Has anyone done so? Of course not, because it costs money to run good tests, but nothing to speculate. (Cary Grant once said something insightful about this.) This argument has been applied in reverse to human hearing -- that non-linearities in the ear generate IM products that we hear "live", but not from band-limited recordings. Again... it's possible some people may hear ultrasonics. I could hear up to 22 KHz when I was a child. he 20 KHz line is not a hard and fast limit. If you can hear it, it's not ultrasonic. I could hear to 22kHz in 1970. Currently I'm not much better than 10kHz. In the meantime, I think it's best to design for the possibility that the current assumptions may be wrong, and include support for higher frequencies. The problem is that you cannot support higher frequencies without /also/ degrading the signal in other ways, so you have to pick and choose what converter attributes are going to give you the best gain. What is your evidence for these degradations actually occurring? The _problem_ was not a 50 KHz aberation, the problem was an unterminated transformer. Agreed. I will say that there _are_ good arguments for extending frequency response of analogue systems, because in the analogue world if you want response that is very flat across a narrow passband the easiest solution is usually to extend the response well above that passband. But what is creating the benefit isn't that you have extended the 3dB point from 20 KHz to 120 KHz, the benefit is because in the process you have extended the 0.1dB point from 5 KHz to 25 KHz. As I pointed out above. I don't see how to have it both ways -- other than using a brick-wall filter with constant group delay at every processing stage. I would be in favor of extended HF response if we could just get extended HF response without any downside and without any side effects, because in that case it may or may not have any benefit but it certainly could do no harm. The problem is that the extended bandwidth is apt to do harm on playback, and it requires sacrifices in converter design that may do harm in recording. Then simply have a switchable filter in the playback system. Remember Gordon Holt's "dynamic subtlety suppressor"? I thought of a way to make one, though its lack of market potential kept me from building one. Given that most listeners desire euphony rather than accuracy, now is perhaps the time. One final note about the Sampling Theory For Digital Audio article: I have nothing against the Nyquist Theorem, pure mathematics, or how the author explained it. My problem is with the limited thinking in the audio industry, and too many times, I've seen that article used to support and maintain that dogma. I think that is inappropriate; that's all. I think my negative statements earlier were more about that than anything in the article itself. The Nyquist theorem tells us the sampling rate needed to avoid losing information. It tells us nothing about the audible effects of the surround circuitry needed to make a sampling system work properly. |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message m... Like pumping 50KHz into a tweeter that can't reproduce it can actually end up producing other nasty **** instead. Prove it. That's a pretty easy thing to do. Hell, putting 15 KHz into dome tweeters produces plenty of nasty beat products as it is. Remember that these ultrasonic components are relatively low in level. Are you sure? That's the big question, right there. If you were to accurately record a string quartet, for instance, the ultrasonic components would be nearly as loud as the audible ones. Fiddles have a _lot_ of ultrasonics, it's not just triangles. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... But, there _is_ absolutely no reason to save anything above 20kHz. Try it for yourself... take a recording, bandlimit it to 20kHz, and listen. Do you hear a difference? Can you say that benefit is an improvement? I rarely disagree with Scott on anything. This is an exception. If you cascade enough stages with a 100kHz bandwidth, you'll wind up with less than 20kHz bandwidth, and a lot of phase shift. IF you do that in the analogue world. In the analogue world, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, you need to have extended frequency response in order to get accurate response across the audible range. But... the digital world is not like that, and that's a thing that we can all use to our advantage. The real worry is that, because there IS content above 20 KHz, the additional recording bandwidth will be accurately recording it, but the reproduction system will not accurately reproduce it and will produce audible beat products from the inausible ultrasonics. In this case, the additional bandwidth is /degrading/ the sound and not improving it. This assumes amplifiers and/or speakers have sufficient IM in the ultrasonic region to produce audible beats. This is easy to test. Has anyone done so? Of course not, because it costs money to run good tests, but nothing to speculate. (Cary Grant once said something insightful about this.) Speakers sure have sufficient IM in the ultrasonic range to produce audible beats, because they have sufficient IM in the audible range to produce audible beats. Speakers are the real problem here, amplifiers are more or less a non-issue. This argument has been applied in reverse to human hearing -- that non-linearities in the ear generate IM products that we hear "live", but not from band-limited recordings. Again... That certainly is the case at very high levels and it's part of the reason why some of the rock folks are so fond of mild clipping distortion; it mimics the sound of the ear overloading and makes things sound louder than they really are. I'm not sure that this is a good thing that we want to model but it would be a really interesting thing to try and measure accurately. Let me look and see if anyone has done this. The problem is that you cannot support higher frequencies without /also/ degrading the signal in other ways, so you have to pick and choose what converter attributes are going to give you the best gain. What is your evidence for these degradations actually occurring? So far just subjective listening tests on converters. There are a bunch of converters out there that sound better at 44.1 than at 96 ksamp/sec and there are lots of them that have more measurable clocking errors at the higher rate. I'm not saying that there aren't ALSO converters that sound better at 96 ksamp/sec than 44.1 but I have not encountered one. It's the job of the production engineer to take the equipment that design engineers produce and figure out how to use that equipment to make good recordings. (What is a good recording? That's the producer's job to figure out.) If a given piece of equipment sounds better configured one way than another, by all means the production engineer should be using it in that way. I would be in favor of extended HF response if we could just get extended HF response without any downside and without any side effects, because in that case it may or may not have any benefit but it certainly could do no harm. The problem is that the extended bandwidth is apt to do harm on playback, and it requires sacrifices in converter design that may do harm in recording. Then simply have a switchable filter in the playback system. If I had control over the customer's playback systems, by all means I would do that, because it would solve all of these problems. But then, with that in place, there would be no reason to use high sample rate systems at all. One final note about the Sampling Theory For Digital Audio article: I have nothing against the Nyquist Theorem, pure mathematics, or how the author explained it. My problem is with the limited thinking in the audio industry, and too many times, I've seen that article used to support and maintain that dogma. I think that is inappropriate; that's all. I think my negative statements earlier were more about that than anything in the article itself. The Nyquist theorem tells us the sampling rate needed to avoid losing information. It tells us nothing about the audible effects of the surround circuitry needed to make a sampling system work properly. This is true. It's the job of the design engineer to take the stuff that information theorists have done and make a device that the production engineer enjoys using. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
While we're here...who first discovered the Nyquist sampling theory?
Peace, Paul |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:32:17 -0700 (PDT), PStamler
wrote: While we're here...who first discovered the Nyquist sampling theory? Nyquist's landlady. He'd left it under a cushion on the settee. d |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
Who first discovered the Nyquist sampling theory?
It is implicit in Fourier analysis. |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
PStamler wrote:
While we're here...who first discovered the Nyquist sampling theory? Is this like asking who is buried in Grant's tomb? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
On 9/13/2014 1:32 PM, PStamler wrote:
While we're here...who first discovered the Nyquist sampling theory? Shanon, who is also buried in Grant's Tomb -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 9/13/2014 1:32 PM, PStamler wrote: While we're here...who first discovered the Nyquist sampling theory? Shanon, who is also buried in Grant's Tomb Now that's funny! Not to very many people, but still... |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
On 9/13/2014 10:05 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote: On 9/13/2014 1:32 PM, PStamler wrote: While we're here...who first discovered the Nyquist sampling theory? Shanon, who is also buried in Grant's Tomb Now that's funny! Not to very many people, but still... Seems Grant's Tomb may be rather crowded. ;-) ;-) == Later... Ron Capik -- |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
Scott Dorsey wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote: "geoff" wrote in message ... Like pumping 50KHz into a tweeter that can't reproduce it can actually end up producing other nasty **** instead. Prove it. That's a pretty easy thing to do. Hell, putting 15 KHz into dome tweeters produces plenty of nasty beat products as it is. Remember that these ultrasonic components are relatively low in level. Are you sure? That's the big question, right there. If you were to accurately record a string quartet, for instance, the ultrasonic components would be nearly as loud as the audible ones. Fiddles have a _lot_ of ultrasonics, it's not just triangles. One trend that I've noticed is that HF content is being over-emphasized* in a lot of recent recordings, and the results are seldom pleasant because of the naturally occuring beat frequencies between instruments. It makes me wonder how many recording engineers can actually hear that material. By "over-emphasized", I don't necessarily mean that the HF is boosted, though in some of my recent purchases it does sound that way. In years past, that content was rolled off, either by mic choice or during mastering. This goes to the heart of the notion that just because the technology makes something possible, the result will be beneficial. In my experience, that is often not the case. -- best regards, Neil |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
On Saturday, September 13, 2014 12:17:28 PM UTC-6, Scott Dorsey wrote:
PStamler wrote: While we're here...who first discovered the Nyquist sampling theory? Is this like asking who is buried in Grant's tomb? Well, that's the intent. But the sampling theory normally attributed to Nyquist (1928) was also developed by Edward T. Whittaker (1915), Karl Kupfmuller (1928, published 1931), Vladimir Kotel'nikov (1933 - later he worked on radar scans of Venus), J. M. Whittaker (1935 -- don't know if he was related to Edward), H. Raabe (1939), Dennis Gabor (1946 -- he also developed holography and won a Nobel for it) and Claude Shannon (1949). All independently, as far as I can tell. Peace, Paul |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
"Jay Ts" wrote in message ...
Another reason I don't like the quote is that it assumes a lot about things like musical instruments and sound reproduction equipment. Maybe someone tomorrow will invent a microphone and speaker that can accurately reproduce sound at much higher frequencies. Who knows? I think if the industry standards don't support using them, that would really suck. Let's not make assumptions about the future based on things from the past. Condenser mics and planar speakers (EM and electrostatic) can easily get well-past 20kHz. This has been true for years. The real point is that the standards for digital recording, processing and distribution have the effect of setting the status quo. Once a standard is set, everything in the future is limited by it. So rather than set the standard to a minimum, isn't it better to have them set higher? Captain Obvious speaks! Many animals have the ability to make and perceive sounds with frequencies above 20 KHz, and if scientists want to study them, they will need equipment that supports frequencies much higher than humans can hear. B&K has made ultrasonic lab microphones for decades. |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Jay Ts" wrote in message ... Another reason I don't like the quote is that it assumes a lot about things like musical instruments and sound reproduction equipment. Maybe someone tomorrow will invent a microphone and speaker that can accurately reproduce sound at much higher frequencies. Who knows? I think if the industry standards don't support using them, that would really suck. Let's not make assumptions about the future based on things from the past. Condenser mics and planar speakers (EM and electrostatic) can easily get well-past 20kHz. This has been true for years. The real point is that the standards for digital recording, processing and distribution have the effect of setting the status quo. Once a standard is set, everything in the future is limited by it. So rather than set the standard to a minimum, isn't it better to have them set higher? Captain Obvious speaks! Many animals have the ability to make and perceive sounds with frequencies above 20 KHz, and if scientists want to study them, they will need equipment that supports frequencies much higher than humans can hear. B&K has made ultrasonic lab microphones for decades. To 100Khz even decades ago, but the noise figures there are not generally suitable for recording work. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Youn's Pono music
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Neil Young | Audio Opinions | |||
Neil Levenson | High End Audio |