Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Sean Conolly Sean Conolly is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 638
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Neil Gould Neil Gould is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 872
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Neil Gould Neil Gould is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 872
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Neil Gould Neil Gould is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 872
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Neil Gould Neil Gould is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 872
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Neil Gould Neil Gould is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 872
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
PStamler PStamler is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 882
Default Neil Youn's Pono music

While we're here...who first discovered the Nyquist sampling theory?

Peace,
Paul
  #70   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Neil Youn's Pono music

Who first discovered the Nyquist sampling theory?

It is implicit in Fourier analysis.
  #72   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Ralph Barone[_2_] Ralph Barone[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 85
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Ron C[_2_] Ron C[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 253
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Neil Gould Neil Gould is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 872
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
PStamler PStamler is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 882
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Les Cargill[_4_] Les Cargill[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,383
Default Neil Youn's Pono music

(hank alrich) wrote:
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.


I am thinking this could be an arrangement technique for Cage's 4:33.

--
Les Cargill
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Neil Young Bret L Audio Opinions 2 January 14th 10 04:15 PM
Neil Levenson Jenn High End Audio 0 May 25th 05 12:54 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:25 AM.

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

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"