Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
1 kHz missing?
I was looking at the spectrum of a song and saw that there's nothing between
about 10 kHz and 11 kHz, as if that had been chopped out. I assume it's deliberate. Why would anyone remove a 1 kHz band from the recording? |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
1 kHz missing?
On 2/8/2012 8:39 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
I was looking at the spectrum of a song and saw that there's nothing between about 10 kHz and 11 kHz, as if that had been chopped out. I assume it's deliberate. Why would anyone remove a 1 kHz band from the recording? How did it sound ? Later... Ron Capik -- |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
1 kHz missing?
On 2/8/2012 8:39 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
I was looking at the spectrum of a song and saw that there's nothing between about 10 kHz and 11 kHz, as if that had been chopped out. I assume it's deliberate. Why would anyone remove a 1 kHz band from the recording? Your spectrum analyzer probably doesn't have enough resolution to show that. What's there above 10 kHz anyway? -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
1 kHz missing?
Mxsmanic wrote in
: I was looking at the spectrum of a song and saw that there's nothing between about 10 kHz and 11 kHz, as if that had been chopped out. I assume it's deliberate. Why would anyone remove a 1 kHz band from the recording? To remove a whine (what at 60 Hz would be called a hum) in the recording. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
1 kHz missing?
On Feb 8, 8:39*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
I was looking at the spectrum of a song and saw that there's nothing between about 10 kHz and 11 kHz, as if that had been chopped out. I assume it's deliberate. Why would anyone remove a 1 kHz band from the recording? what song? Mark |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
1 kHz missing?
Mxsmanic writes:
I was looking at the spectrum of a song and saw that there's nothing between about 10 kHz and 11 kHz, as if that had been chopped out. I assume it's deliberate. Why would anyone remove a 1 kHz band from the recording? You weren't looking at an MP3, were you? All sorts of strange holes come and go in the HF, depending on the bit rate and the codec. Were you seeing information between 16K and 20K, or was it gone too? Frank Mobile Audio -- |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
1 kHz missing?
Ron Capik writes:
How did it sound ? It was a crummy mono recording of a song that I found somewhere, but I didn't notice anything unusual about it other than the generally poor quality. I do not have trained ears, though. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
1 kHz missing?
Mike Rivers writes:
Your spectrum analyzer probably doesn't have enough resolution to show that. What's there above 10 kHz anyway? It was a very obvious blank space between two frequencies, and I don't see that on other recordings, so I don't think it was the software. It looked like someone had removed it. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
1 kHz missing?
Carey Carlan writes:
To remove a whine (what at 60 Hz would be called a hum) in the recording. What sorts of things would cause a 10 kHz whine? |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
1 kHz missing?
Mark writes:
what song? I think it was "Street Life," at least that was the refrain in the lyrics. I looked it up and apparently it is by The Crusaders. The recording also showed evidence of the "loudness wars" effect that I've been reading about (which is what I was originally looking into). I've heard of bizarre copy-protection schemes that worked by removing part of the sound spectrum from a recording, and I thought it might be something like that, although I don't see how removing part of the sound would protect a recording. I remember some negative buzz about the technique many years ago, I don't know if it was ever widely used. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
1 kHz missing?
Frank Stearns writes:
You weren't looking at an MP3, were you? All sorts of strange holes come and go in the HF, depending on the bit rate and the codec. Were you seeing information between 16K and 20K, or was it gone too? Well, I stored it into a MP3 before looking at it, but I did that with some other songs before looking at them as well, and I didn't see this hole. A similar hole starts at 21 kHz, but I think I've seen that on all the samples I looked at. I extended the scale on the spectrum and the hole is actually a valley (or abyss) that is very abruptly 50 dB lower than the rest of the spectrum. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
1 kHz missing?
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
... Frank Stearns writes: You weren't looking at an MP3, were you? All sorts of strange holes come and go in the HF, depending on the bit rate and the codec. Were you seeing information between 16K and 20K, or was it gone too? Well, I stored it into a MP3 before looking at it, but I did that with some other songs before looking at them as well, and I didn't see this hole. A similar hole starts at 21 kHz, but I think I've seen that on all the samples I looked at. I extended the scale on the spectrum and the hole is actually a valley (or abyss) that is very abruptly 50 dB lower than the rest of the spectrum. Mmm..... what is the sample rate of that file? Could be some sort of aliasing. Meindert |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
1 kHz missing?
Back in the 90s (I think), I believe there was a proposal to "notch"
recordings in this way, as a form of copy protection. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
1 kHz missing?
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:21:43 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
It was a crummy mono recording of a song that I found somewhere, but I didn't notice anything unusual about it other than the generally poor quality. I do not have trained ears, though. Copied from a tape cassette played on a machine with misaligned head, peahaps? HF nulls at various frequencies are typical when that happens. -- Anahata --/-- http://www.treewind.co.uk +44 (0)1638 720444 |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
1 kHz missing?
Mxsmanic wrote:
I was looking at the spectrum of a song and saw that there's nothing between about 10 kHz and 11 kHz, as if that had been chopped out. I assume it's deliberate. Why would anyone remove a 1 kHz band from the recording? 1kHz was frequently used as the inband "advance" signal for slide projectors. Might have been something like that; could even have been a transcription error ( somebody forgot to turn the filter off ). -- Les Cargill |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
1 kHz missing?
Mxsmanic wrote:
I was looking at the spectrum of a song and saw that there's nothing between about 10 kHz and 11 kHz, as if that had been chopped out. I assume it's deliberate. Why would anyone remove a 1 kHz band from the recording? Best guess: an alias tone from digitizing due to a bias leak from a misaligned taperecorder notched out. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
1 kHz missing?
anahata writes:
Copied from a tape cassette played on a machine with misaligned head, peahaps? HF nulls at various frequencies are typical when that happens. Cool ... I didn't know that. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
1 kHz missing?
Meindert Sprang writes:
Mmm..... what is the sample rate of that file? Could be some sort of aliasing. It's a MP3 file, so 48 kHz I guess. |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
1 kHz missing?
William Sommerwerck writes:
Back in the 90s (I think), I believe there was a proposal to "notch" recordings in this way, as a form of copy protection. So I'm not imagining that. I've forgotten the details though. I think the playback equipment was supposed to look for the notch, or something. I was adamantly opposed to it, as I am opposed to anything that diminishes sound or image quality. I don't use digital watermarks for the same reason. |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
1 kHz missing?
On 2/9/2012 4:28 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
I've heard of bizarre copy-protection schemes that worked by removing part of the sound spectrum from a recording, and I thought it might be something like that, although I don't see how removing part of the sound would protect a recording. CopyCode was proposed, in about 1986, to be required by law in the US as a means of identifying a copyright recording. It worked by removing frequencies that presumably would be masked anyway, and detecting the lack of those frequencies. Congress tasked the (then named) National Bureau of Standards to test the process to determine if it was actually transparent to listeners. I participated in that test myself. I could identify the difference with and without CopyCode about 80% of the time, as could many others in my test group (we were from the local AES chapter, not that it means we were critical listeners). Congress eventually nixed it, and it was abandoned. You surely didn't hear a recording with this means of copy protection. It just plain didn't work. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
1 kHz missing?
Mike Rivers writes:
CopyCode was proposed, in about 1986, to be required by law in the US as a means of identifying a copyright recording. It worked by removing frequencies that presumably would be masked anyway, and detecting the lack of those frequencies. Congress tasked the (then named) National Bureau of Standards to test the process to determine if it was actually transparent to listeners. I participated in that test myself. I could identify the difference with and without CopyCode about 80% of the time, as could many others in my test group (we were from the local AES chapter, not that it means we were critical listeners). Congress eventually nixed it, and it was abandoned. So you saved us! You surely didn't hear a recording with this means of copy protection. It just plain didn't work. That's fine with me. I'm opposed to any copy-protection system that corrupts the data it's supposed to be protecting. |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
1 kHz missing?
Peter Larsen writes:
Best guess: an alias tone from digitizing due to a bias leak from a misaligned taperecorder notched out. That seems plausible, insofar as I can understand it. |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
1 kHz missing?
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 07:11:48 -0600, Les Cargill
wrote: Mxsmanic wrote: I was looking at the spectrum of a song and saw that there's nothing between about 10 kHz and 11 kHz, as if that had been chopped out. I assume it's deliberate. Why would anyone remove a 1 kHz band from the recording? 1kHz was frequently used as the inband "advance" signal for slide projectors. Might have been something like that; could even have been a transcription error ( somebody forgot to turn the filter off ). This wasn't a 1kHz notch but a 1kHz tone on a second track on the tape. There were a number of systems using various tones to allow multiple projector use and complex visual effects. Harry |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
1 kHz missing?
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:28:08 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
what song? I think it was "Street Life," at least that was the refrain in the lyrics. I looked it up and apparently it is by The Crusaders. The recording also showed evidence of the "loudness wars" effect that I've been reading about (which is what I was originally looking into). I've heard of bizarre copy-protection schemes that worked by removing part of the sound spectrum from a recording, and I thought it might be something like that, although I don't see how removing part of the sound would protect a recording. I remember some negative buzz about the technique many years ago, I don't know if it was ever widely used. I have the CD (1st issue from 1984) and it shows no notch. Incidently it (at least the version by the Crusaders) is full stereo and is NOT crunched at all. It was recorded in 1979 so probably started it's life as an analog recording, and a decent sounding one. So what you have has been butchered beyond belief for unknown reasons. -Steve Maki |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
1 kHz missing?
harry hall wrote:
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 07:11:48 -0600, Les Cargill wrote: Mxsmanic wrote: I was looking at the spectrum of a song and saw that there's nothing between about 10 kHz and 11 kHz, as if that had been chopped out. I assume it's deliberate. Why would anyone remove a 1 kHz band from the recording? 1kHz was frequently used as the inband "advance" signal for slide projectors. Might have been something like that; could even have been a transcription error ( somebody forgot to turn the filter off ). This wasn't a 1kHz notch but a 1kHz tone on a second track on the tape. There were a number of systems using various tones to allow multiple projector use and complex visual effects. Harry Yes. I am saying that perhaps somebody had equipment set up to notch that out. I don't remember if there was a second track or if it was simply inband ( and it probably varied from system to system ). -- Les Cargill |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
1 kHz missing?
Steve Maki writes:
I have the CD (1st issue from 1984) and it shows no notch. Incidently it (at least the version by the Crusaders) is full stereo and is NOT crunched at all. It was recorded in 1979 so probably started it's life as an analog recording, and a decent sounding one. So what you have has been butchered beyond belief for unknown reasons. I think it was off YouTube, and there are about ten million different videos of that song. |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
1 kHz missing?
Steve Maki writes:
I have the CD (1st issue from 1984) and it shows no notch. Incidently it (at least the version by the Crusaders) is full stereo and is NOT crunched at all. It was recorded in 1979 so probably started it's life as an analog recording, and a decent sounding one. So what you have has been butchered beyond belief for unknown reasons. I'd like to get the CD, although now, after what I've read of loudness wars, I'm afraid to buy a CD that may turn out to be terrible. And $20 is a lot to pay for one song. |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
1 kHz missing?
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:43:56 -0600, Les Cargill
wrote: harry hall wrote: On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 07:11:48 -0600, Les Cargill wrote: Mxsmanic wrote: I was looking at the spectrum of a song and saw that there's nothing between about 10 kHz and 11 kHz, as if that had been chopped out. I assume it's deliberate. Why would anyone remove a 1 kHz band from the recording? 1kHz was frequently used as the inband "advance" signal for slide projectors. Might have been something like that; could even have been a transcription error ( somebody forgot to turn the filter off ). This wasn't a 1kHz notch but a 1kHz tone on a second track on the tape. There were a number of systems using various tones to allow multiple projector use and complex visual effects. Harry Yes. I am saying that perhaps somebody had equipment set up to notch that out. I don't remember if there was a second track or if it was simply inband ( and it probably varied from system to system ). The original poster said that a 1kHz "notch" appeared between 10kHz and 11kHz, therefore removing at 1kHz tone bleeding from a second track could not cause this. |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
1 kHz missing?
harry hall writes:
The original poster said that a 1kHz "notch" appeared between 10kHz and 11kHz, therefore removing at 1kHz tone bleeding from a second track could not cause this. Yes. Everything betwene 10 kHz and 11 kHz was dozens of dB below the rest. |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
1 kHz missing?
harry hall wrote:
The original poster said that a 1kHz "notch" appeared between 10kHz and 11kHz, therefore removing at 1kHz tone bleeding from a second track could not cause this. Yes, but then the original poster said it had been downloaded through Youtube, so it's been through at least one generation of the most horrible perceptual encoding that can be imagined. The amazing thing isn't that some band is missing but that there is any left. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
1 kHz missing?
Scott Dorsey writes:
Yes, but then the original poster said it had been downloaded through Youtube, so it's been through at least one generation of the most horrible perceptual encoding that can be imagined. Granted, but that doesn't explain why YouTube would remove only one band of frequencies. And other videos on YouTube aren't like that. |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
1 kHz missing?
Mxsmanic wrote:
Scott Dorsey writes: Yes, but then the original poster said it had been downloaded through Youtube, so it's been through at least one generation of the most horrible perceptual encoding that can be imagined. Granted, but that doesn't explain why YouTube would remove only one band of frequencies. And other videos on YouTube aren't like that. Okay, here's an analogy. You put your head under a piledriver. It comes down, pieces of your head are torn off. Now, someone else does the same thing, in more or less the same position, but different pieces come off. That's how the encoding works. It's putting your music under a pile driver and ripping bloody gobbets of it off. However, when gets removed in one instance isn't the same as what gets removed in another instance. And, it will vary from moment to moment in the same recording. Sometimes you can look at see several bands totally eliminated. Sometimes you can see a band eliminated and replaced with a single narrowband signal, especially on the low end and high end. Depends a lot on how the encoder is set up and what parameters were picked for encoding. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
1 kHz missing?
Scott Dorsey wrote:
That's how the encoding works. It's putting your music under a pile driver and ripping bloody gobbets of it off. However, when gets removed in one instance isn't the same as what gets removed in another instance. And, it will vary from moment to moment in the same recording. Scott, am I detecting a little bit of frustration with violent intent? What do you see when I show you this ink blot? ;^) ---Jeff |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
1 kHz missing?
Mxsmanic wrote:
Scott Dorsey writes: Yes, but then the original poster said it had been downloaded through Youtube, so it's been through at least one generation of the most horrible perceptual encoding that can be imagined. Granted, but that doesn't explain why YouTube would remove only one band of frequencies. And other videos on YouTube aren't like that. Depends on the perceptual encoding, below the notch you have what remains of the music and above it you have - in my opinion, not something I can claim to be a A Fact -some white noise that is inserted to represent the treble they didn't have spare bits for. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
1 kHz missing?
Mxsmanic wrote:
Carey Carlan writes: To remove a whine (what at 60 Hz would be called a hum) in the recording. What sorts of things would cause a 10 kHz whine? AM broadcast with two channels interfering. Norbert |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Am I missing something? | High End Audio | |||
Missing? | Car Audio | |||
What am I missing? | Pro Audio | |||
Tracks on new CD missing - help | Pro Audio | |||
What am I missing? | Pro Audio |