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')

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.

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.

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

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?

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

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

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

It has been my experience that the ultrasonic information is inaudible

By definition.

Kal

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. That is rather unlikely
to be a good thing.


Since you asked.



--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

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.

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