Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Living Stereo frequency response
Now that Living Stereo is on SACD the question arises. What is the
frequency response of these old tapes? Do they take advantage of the extended response of the SACD (not that these old ears could hear it anyway)? Also, how about the Living Presence Mercury recordings? I know that the center channel might be an advantage but I am not talking about that. ---MIKE--- In the White Mountains of New Hampshire (44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580') |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Living Stereo frequency response
Being they are on old tape with old tube tape recorders and tube mikes on
many recordings, I wouldn't think the response would be very high. I wouldn't think you'd hear much above 15 khz. Some of the newer recordings may be better, but I don't think they taxed the system. The mikes probably never went above 20 khz. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Living Stereo frequency response
the important thing is that the sound be great in the audible range.
most digital sounds better at high frequencies below 20K on high sampling rates. all that ultrasonic information is not nearly as important. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Living Stereo frequency response
all that ultrasonic information is not nearly as important.
It has been my experience that the ultrasonic information is inaudible but still a contributor to the overall color of the sound. Now the question becomes whether or not that is always a good thing. Any thoughts? Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Living Stereo frequency response
On 2 Feb 2006 00:28:58 GMT, wrote:
It has been my experience that the ultrasonic information is inaudible By definition. Kal |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Living Stereo frequency response
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Living Stereo frequency response
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Living Stereo frequency response
Steven Sullivan writes:
wrote: all that ultrasonic information is not nearly as important. It has been my experience that the ultrasonic information is inaudible but still a contributor to the overall color of the sound. Now the question becomes whether or not that is always a good thing. Any thoughts? If ultrasonics are contributing to 'overall color' it's because they're causing audible-range distortion in the output of one of the devices in the signal chain. "Even when using high-quality electroacoustic equipment that does not produce nonlinear distortion products, we still hear difference tones that are produced by the nonlinearity of our hearing system." [1] That is rather unlikely to be a good thing. Indeed not, which raises the possibility that supertweeters might actually _degrade_ the perceived sound... Andrew. [1] E. Zwicker and H. Fastl, "Psychoacoustics: Facts and Models", Springer-Verlag, 2nd ed, 1999. P277. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Living Stereo frequency response
If ultrasonics are contributing to 'overall color' it's because they're
causing audible-range distortion in the output of one of the devices in the signal chain. That is rather unlikely to be a good thing. And: How did you come up with that experience? If it's inaudible, how can it affect the sound? OK... here goes: Harmonics. Have you ever experienced a signal that goes slowly from audible to inaudible up the spectrum? Then back? On the way back down, you will likely start to grit your teeth just before you actually perceive the sound consciously. The difference between Middle A played on a piano, a clarinet, or a violin, or a sine-wave generator is a matter of harmonics... color. That color could also be defined as "audible range distortion", as only the sine-wave generator is making a "true" Middle A. Only we happen to like the 'distortion' added to the simple sine-wave by the vibrations of the various strings or reed(s). My question-for-discussion is how far up the spectrum should our speakers respond so as to get the closest to full color of the sound produced? And if this is important, this would naturally push back the the recording equipment, microphones, etc. etc.. Consider that if only the information we can actually hear directly is at issue, most of us would be happy with speakers flat to about 16kHz (or less) as we are 'out of it' most of the rest of the way anyway. And the highest not possible on a piano has the fundamental frequency of 4186Hz (27.5Hz at the bottom). Organs commonly go higher (and lower) but not by much. Violins in the hands of a skilled player can go inaudible, but that is an exercise in virtuosity. To test this theory, if you have an octave-equalizer, try cutting the highest band by about 6dB with some solo instruments such as harpsichord or trumpet, or cello. Do this with the pre-amp set in the mono position and cut only one channel (if you can) at a time, then both. Note the quite-noticeable difference in color even though most of the effect is at the inaudible end of the spectrum. In some cases, with some speakers and some recordings it is *just* noticeable even at 3dB of cut. I am not necessarily saying that the effect is necessarily bad, good, or indifferent. I am asking whether or not anyone else has noticed... Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Living Stereo frequency response
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Living Stereo frequency response
"Andrew Haley" wrote in message
... Steven Sullivan writes: wrote: all that ultrasonic information is not nearly as important. It has been my experience that the ultrasonic information is inaudible but still a contributor to the overall color of the sound. Now the question becomes whether or not that is always a good thing. Any thoughts? If ultrasonics are contributing to 'overall color' it's because they're causing audible-range distortion in the output of one of the devices in the signal chain. "Even when using high-quality electroacoustic equipment that does not produce nonlinear distortion products, we still hear difference tones that are produced by the nonlinearity of our hearing system." [1] That is rather unlikely to be a good thing. But it may be a very natural thing. Since it also occurs in nature, our ear/brain system would be expecting it and seeing it as "natural". It's absence may be "unnatural" regardless of its intrinsic coloration. Indeed not, which raises the possibility that supertweeters might actually _degrade_ the perceived sound... I'd suggest you think hard about the implications, rather than just passing off a facile judgement. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Just for Ludovic | Audio Opinions | |||
Note to Trevor | Audio Opinions | |||
common mode rejection vs. crosstalk | Pro Audio | |||
Transient response of actively filtered speakers | Tech |