Neil Youn's Pono music

[Tobiah]

Wikipedia says they will offer music in 24bit/192kHz format.
There has been endless debate here over whether 96kHz is better
than 44.1, most admitting that they can't hear the difference.
192kHz however, seems like blatant overkill to me.

Toby

[John Williamson]

On 09/09/2014 18:34, Tobiah wrote:
> Wikipedia says they will offer music in 24bit/192kHz format.
> There has been endless debate here over whether 96kHz is better
> than 44.1, most admitting that they can't hear the difference.
> 192kHz however, seems like blatant overkill to me.
>
>
It has its uses when you are clearing artifacts such as scratches and
noise from digital copies of vinyl and tape recordings.

Other than that, I agree with you, except that for some material with
extended HF, I would record at double the sample frequency of the item
to be published, especially now that storage is so cheap and converters
are so much better than 20 years ago.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 9/9/2014 1:34 PM, Tobiah wrote:
> There has been endless debate here over whether 96kHz is better
> than 44.1, most admitting that they can't hear the difference.
> 192kHz however, seems like blatant overkill to me.

It is, but that's one method of marketing - making you believe that
overkill is better than what's good enough for most people.

The thing they're counting on is that when you have this high fidelity
playback gizmo, you'll plop yourself down in front of your $20,000
speakers driven by a pair of $5000 single triode amplifiers and spend
half an hour paying attention to how good your investment sounds instead
of listening to the same songs through earbuds connected to your iPhone
while exercising in the gym on your lunch hour.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Tobiah wrote:
> Wikipedia says they will offer music in 24bit/192kHz format.
> There has been endless debate here over whether 96kHz is better
> than 44.1, most admitting that they can't hear the difference.
> 192kHz however, seems like blatant overkill to me.
>
> Toby

For production material, it may well be worth it.

For distribution... not so much.

--
Les Cargill

[Jay Ts[_4_]]

On Tue, 09 Sep 2014 10:34:23 -0700, Tobiah wrote:

> There has
> been endless debate here over whether 96kHz is better than 44.1, most
> admitting that they can't hear the difference.

Why please most people when you can satisfy everyone?

If you don't want to use 192 KHz, no one has a gun to your head.

> 192kHz however, seems like blatant overkill to me.

That is also a good reason to make it a standard, along with supporting
other formats, of course. If there is debate over 48 KHz vs. 92 KHz, then
why not support at least one higher than 96 KHz, just to make sure?

If you have both 96 KHz and 192 KHz available, then people can try both
to see which they prefer. Then no one needs debates by a few who make
choices for everyone.

Even if few use it, I think it's a good idea to support a standard that
no one can find fault with.

If you were driving over a bridge that said "Maximum 1 ton" in a car that
was almost a ton, would you feel as comfortable as if it said "2 tons"?
Or more?

As I see it, supporting 192 KHz is simply a good engineering practice.

[Sean Conolly]

"Tobiah" > wrote in message
...
> Wikipedia says they will offer music in 24bit/192kHz format.
> There has been endless debate here over whether 96kHz is better
> than 44.1, most admitting that they can't hear the difference.
> 192kHz however, seems like blatant overkill to me.

For distribution it is. Even if you ignore the accepted limits of human
hearing, good luck finding speakers that go two octaves over human hearing,
especially with low distortion.

But I still want to be able to record even higher than that for measuring
both the response and the harmonic distortion of gear. If there's a
prominant 3rd harmonic of a 15K sine wave, I'd like to know that to figure
out why.

Sean

[hank alrich]

Jay Ts > wrote:

> As I see it, supporting 192 KHz is simply a good engineering practice.

Based on something other than assumtions that more is automatically
better?

http://lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-sampling-theory.pdf


--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Scott Dorsey]

Jay Ts > wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Sep 2014 10:34:23 -0700, Tobiah wrote:
>
>> There has
>> been endless debate here over whether 96kHz is better than 44.1, most
>> admitting that they can't hear the difference.
>
>Why please most people when you can satisfy everyone?
>
>If you don't want to use 192 KHz, no one has a gun to your head.

Right, and I can just take my 44.1 recordings and upsample them to 192 for
sale online and nobody will ever know the difference.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 9/10/2014 8:21 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Right, and I can just take my 44.1 recordings and upsample them to 192 for
> sale online and nobody will ever know the difference.

When you do that, does it interpolate or re-sample to get the additional
sample values, or just stuff in three more samples of the same value? If
you had four samples of the same value followed by four samples of
another value, and so on, it would be a fair guess that it was
up-sampled rather than re-sampled, interpolated, or actually recorded at
the higher sample rate.



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>On 9/10/2014 8:21 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Right, and I can just take my 44.1 recordings and upsample them to 192 for
>> sale online and nobody will ever know the difference.
>
>When you do that, does it interpolate or re-sample to get the additional
>sample values, or just stuff in three more samples of the same value?

If you are smart and do it properly, it interpolates and resamples, it does
not just duplicate samples. Duplicating samples will give you accurate
response in the original passband but a whole lot of weird correlated noise
above it. Properly interpolating, you get no noise above the maximum
frequency of the original recording.

>If
>you had four samples of the same value followed by four samples of
>another value, and so on, it would be a fair guess that it was
>up-sampled rather than re-sampled, interpolated, or actually recorded at
>the higher sample rate.

Just looking at a spectrum and seeing an abrupt cutoff at 22.05 kc will make
it pretty obvious what happened.... but nobody will bother.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Tobiah" wrote in message ...

> Wikipedia says they will offer music in 24bit/192kHz format.
> There has been endless debate here over whether 96kHz is
> better than 44.1, most admitting that they can't hear the
> difference. 192kHz however, seems like blatant overkill to me.

If human beings cannot hear beyond 22kHz, then 44.1kHz sampling doesn't lose
any audible information. That doesn't mean higher sampling rates aren't
desirable.

To me, 44.1kHz is slightly inferior to DSD. * Part of this might be due to
fact that musical instruments have ultrasonic components. (I'm assuming mics
capable of picking them up are used.) It's reasonable to wonder whether even
the "brick wall" filtering used blocks them sufficiently to prevent audible
aliasing artifacts.

Of course, no one has ever bothered to test this, because it's easier to
//assume// rather than experiment.

To retain any theoretical advantages of a higher sampling rate, you have to
maintain the higher rate. Down sampling requires the same sharp filtering
needed if you'd originally recorded at a lower rate.

* I can't hear above 12kHz, so the apparent loss of "quality" is something
that extends below the top octave.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
William Sommerwerck > wrote:
> To me, 44.1kHz is slightly inferior to DSD. * Part of this might be due
> to fact that musical instruments have ultrasonic components. (I'm
> assuming mics capable of picking them up are used.)

Which common high quality mics go above 22K?

--
*A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 18:21:45 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
> wrote:

>In article >,
> William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>> To me, 44.1kHz is slightly inferior to DSD. * Part of this might be due
>> to fact that musical instruments have ultrasonic components. (I'm
>> assuming mics capable of picking them up are used.)
>
>Which common high quality mics go above 22K?

Oh they all go above 22k - in a mess of peaks and troughs that you
absolutely have to get rid of.

d

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>"Tobiah" wrote in message ...
>
>> Wikipedia says they will offer music in 24bit/192kHz format.
>> There has been endless debate here over whether 96kHz is
>> better than 44.1, most admitting that they can't hear the
>> difference. 192kHz however, seems like blatant overkill to me.
>
>If human beings cannot hear beyond 22kHz, then 44.1kHz sampling doesn't lose
>any audible information. That doesn't mean higher sampling rates aren't
>desirable.

It also doesn't mean they aren't desirable. If your recording chain can
accurately record ultrasonics, you're now dumping ultrasonics into your
playback chain which increases the chance of getting distortion products
down in the audible range. Your playback chain now not only needs to be
linear across the audible range, it needs to be linear beyond it.

>To me, 44.1kHz is slightly inferior to DSD. * Part of this might be due to
>fact that musical instruments have ultrasonic components. (I'm assuming mics
>capable of picking them up are used.) It's reasonable to wonder whether even
>the "brick wall" filtering used blocks them sufficiently to prevent audible
>aliasing artifacts.

Try taking a 44.1 recording and resampling it as DSD and playing it back.
The differences between converters these days is greater than the differences
between sampling methods and rates. I have indeed heard converters that
sounded better at one rate than another, but that wasn't due to the rate
better better or worse, that was an artifact of the converter.

>Of course, no one has ever bothered to test this, because it's easier to
>//assume// rather than experiment.

Actually, some folks did a respectable test on audibility in the JAES a couple
years ago. It wasn't perfect but it was not badly conducted.

>To retain any theoretical advantages of a higher sampling rate, you have to
>maintain the higher rate. Down sampling requires the same sharp filtering
>needed if you'd originally recorded at a lower rate.

There are no theoretical advantages, though, aside from wider bandwidth.
There may well be some practical avantages, though.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Dave Plowman (News) > wrote:
>In article >,
> William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>> To me, 44.1kHz is slightly inferior to DSD. * Part of this might be due
>> to fact that musical instruments have ultrasonic components. (I'm
>> assuming mics capable of picking them up are used.)
>
>Which common high quality mics go above 22K?

A lot of them, even the SM-57. It's down a lot compared with the 1kc nominal
level, but it's not down enough to prevent aliasing if you omit proper
filtration.

One manufacturer is selling a special microphone with flat response out to
40kc... which is fact just their normal microphone with an equalizer built
into the electronics. Which is shameful.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...
In article >,
William Sommerwerck > wrote:

>> To me, 44.1kHz is slightly inferior to DSD. * Part of this might be due
>> to fact that musical instruments have ultrasonic components. (I'm
>> assuming mics capable of picking them up are used.)

> Which common high quality mics go above 22K?

I used to own Pearl mics. All went past 20kHz, and at least one made it to
24kHz.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
In article >,
William Sommerwerck > wrote:

>> If human beings cannot hear beyond 22kHz, then 44.1kHz sampling
>> doesn't lose any audible information. That doesn't mean higher
>> sampling rates aren't desirable.

> It also doesn't mean they aren't [sic] desirable. If your recording chain
> can
> accurately record ultrasonics, you're now dumping ultrasonics into your
> playback chain which increases the chance of getting distortion products
> down in the audible range. Your playback chain now not only needs to be
> linear across the audible range, it needs to be linear beyond it.

But there's nothing "magical" about any particular bandwidth. Your amplifier
doesn't "know" it's trying to reproduce inaudible ultrasonics, and out of
spite, screws up the sound.


>> To retain any theoretical advantages of a higher sampling rate, you
>> have to maintain the higher rate. Down sampling requires the same
>> sharp filtering needed if you'd originally recorded at a lower rate.

> There are no theoretical advantages, though, aside from wider bandwidth.
> There may well be some practical avantages, though.

Which, ultimately, is the issue.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
>In article >,
>William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>
>>> If human beings cannot hear beyond 22kHz, then 44.1kHz sampling
>>> doesn't lose any audible information. That doesn't mean higher
>>> sampling rates aren't desirable.
>
>> It also doesn't mean they aren't [sic] desirable. If your recording chain
>> can
>> accurately record ultrasonics, you're now dumping ultrasonics into your
>> playback chain which increases the chance of getting distortion products
>> down in the audible range. Your playback chain now not only needs to be
>> linear across the audible range, it needs to be linear beyond it.
>
>But there's nothing "magical" about any particular bandwidth. Your amplifier
>doesn't "know" it's trying to reproduce inaudible ultrasonics, and out of
>spite, screws up the sound.

There IS something magical about 20 KHz, because we can't hear anything above
it. So if you are going to bandlimit a signal to reduce intermodulation
effects, bandlimiting it to 20 KHz is a good plan.

>>> To retain any theoretical advantages of a higher sampling rate, you
>>> have to maintain the higher rate. Down sampling requires the same
>>> sharp filtering needed if you'd originally recorded at a lower rate.
>
>> There are no theoretical advantages, though, aside from wider bandwidth.
>> There may well be some practical avantages, though.
>
>Which, ultimately, is the issue.

Maybe, but the problem is that the advantages are reduced more and more as
converters are improved. Remember the Panasonic SV3700 where you could tell
dramatic differences between 44.1 and 48 ksamp/sec recordings? Those days
are gone.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Tobiah]

> If you don't want to use 192 KHz, no one has a gun to your head.

If I'm forced to download an album of that size, then convert to
my preferred format, that's at least a pea shooter.


Sure, _support_. The way I read it, the distribution is only in 24/192.
We'll see what they end up with.

> Even if few use it, I think it's a good idea to support a standard that
> no one can find fault with.
>
> If you were driving over a bridge that said "Maximum 1 ton" in a car that
> was almost a ton, would you feel as comfortable as if it said "2 tons"?
> Or more?

Yeah, but if it was a small town 2 lane bridge and it said is supported 25
tons and it hit the town financially to build it, then there is a better way.

[geoff]

On 11/09/2014 3:02 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 9/10/2014 8:21 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Right, and I can just take my 44.1 recordings and upsample them to 192
>> for
>> sale online and nobody will ever know the difference.
>
> When you do that, does it interpolate or re-sample to get the additional
> sample values, or just stuff in three more samples of the same value? If
> you had four samples of the same value followed by four samples of
> another value, and so on, it would be a fair guess that it was
> up-sampled rather than re-sampled, interpolated, or actually recorded at
> the higher sample rate.
>
>
>


Any converter that wasn't a POS would interpolate.

geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 9/10/2014 8:45 PM, geoff wrote:
> Any converter that wasn't a POS would interpolate.

Name five and tell me how you know that they interpolate.

Thank you.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Neil Gould]

Tobiah wrote:
> Wikipedia says they will offer music in 24bit/192kHz format.
> There has been endless debate here over whether 96kHz is better
> than 44.1, most admitting that they can't hear the difference.
> 192kHz however, seems like blatant overkill to me.
>
I don't care if it's 384kHz... it won't help Neil Young's tonal quality one
byte. That, and he's far too old to hear 16kHz accurately, so this smells
like snake oil to me. ;-)
--
best regards,

Neil

[Sean Conolly]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
>> It also doesn't mean they aren't [sic] desirable. If your recording
>> chain can
>> accurately record ultrasonics, you're now dumping ultrasonics into your
>> playback chain which increases the chance of getting distortion products
>> down in the audible range. Your playback chain now not only needs to be
>> linear across the audible range, it needs to be linear beyond it.
>
> But there's nothing "magical" about any particular bandwidth. Your
> amplifier doesn't "know" it's trying to reproduce inaudible ultrasonics,
> and out of spite, screws up the sound.

Not out of spite, but in general linearity decreases as frequency increases.
Phase shift also tends to increase which can can cause instability as it
approaches 180 degrees.

I would expect that good designs would have a low pass filter to prevent
anything really weird or harmful occuring, at least those that have a high
enough slew rate for it to be a concern.

Now what do tweeters do when given a signal higher than their design
bandwidth?

Sean

[Sean Conolly]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
> Tobiah wrote:
>> Wikipedia says they will offer music in 24bit/192kHz format.
>> There has been endless debate here over whether 96kHz is better
>> than 44.1, most admitting that they can't hear the difference.
>> 192kHz however, seems like blatant overkill to me.
>>
> I don't care if it's 384kHz... it won't help Neil Young's tonal quality
> one
> byte. That, and he's far too old to hear 16kHz accurately, so this smells
> like snake oil to me. ;-)

You'll need to buy Pono Certified speakers and cables, I'm sure. An
oxygen-free power cords for the amps.

Sean

[Jay Ts[_4_]]

On Tue, 09 Sep 2014 22:02:35 -0700, hank alrich wrote:

> Jay Ts > wrote:
>
>> As I see it, supporting 192 KHz is simply a good engineering practice.
>
> Based on something other than assumtions that more is automatically
> better?

More is not automatically better, but often is in ways that are
unexpected. This happens frequently in technological development,
including electronics and especially computers.

> http://lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-sampling-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.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 06:02:09 GMT, Jay Ts > wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Sep 2014 22:02:35 -0700, hank alrich wrote:
>
>> Jay Ts > wrote:
>>
>>> As I see it, supporting 192 KHz is simply a good engineering practice.
>>
>> Based on something other than assumtions that more is automatically
>> better?
>
>More is not automatically better, but often is in ways that are
>unexpected. This happens frequently in technological development,
>including electronics and especially computers.
>
>> http://lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-sampling-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.

That paper is a very thorough treatment of the question. I very much
doubt you will find anything better.

d

[geoff]

On 11/09/2014 1:09 p.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 9/10/2014 8:45 PM, geoff wrote:
>> Any converter that wasn't a POS would interpolate.
>
> Name five and tell me how you know that they interpolate.
>
> Thank you.
>

Sound Forge and Wavelab are the only two I have direct experience of.

Nothing claiming to be even vaguely profession would have the temetiy
rto do anything but interpolate.

Surely not even the cheesiest amateur apps would have the cheek to
simmply insert 'same' samples.

geoff

[geoff]

On 11/09/2014 2:56 p.m., Neil Gould wrote:
> Tobiah wrote:
>> Wikipedia says they will offer music in 24bit/192kHz format.
>> There has been endless debate here over whether 96kHz is better
>> than 44.1, most admitting that they can't hear the difference.
>> 192kHz however, seems like blatant overkill to me.
>>
> I don't care if it's 384kHz... it won't help Neil Young's tonal quality one
> byte. That, and he's far too old to hear 16kHz accurately, so this smells
> like snake oil to me. ;-)
>


If he could actually hear how crappy his later music has been, maybe he
would have tried harder....


geoff

[[email protected]]

Tobiah wrote: "Sep 9Tobiah
Wikipedia says they will offer music in 24bit/192kHz format.
There has been endless debate here over whether 96kHz is better
than 44.1, most admitting that they can't hear the difference.
192kHz however, seems like blatant overkill to me.

Toby "

Those bit depths/resolutions do have a place: In the production environment.. But unless dogs and other animals start buying music, they are pointless as consumer carriers. 16/44.1 more than adequately accommodates the vast majority of human hearing circumstances.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>On 9/10/2014 8:45 PM, geoff wrote:
>> Any converter that wasn't a POS would interpolate.
>
>Name five and tell me how you know that they interpolate.

r8brain does because I have seen the source code. sox does also, and I
can say so for the same reason.

The AD1890 and AD1894 hardware ones do also, and you can see the description
of how they work on the datasheet. However, they use somewhat cruder filters
than some of the software solutions do.

I don't know a fifth one offhand.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Sean Conolly > wrote:
>"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
>> "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
>>> It also doesn't mean they aren't [sic] desirable. If your recording
>>> chain can
>>> accurately record ultrasonics, you're now dumping ultrasonics into your
>>> playback chain which increases the chance of getting distortion products
>>> down in the audible range. Your playback chain now not only needs to be
>>> linear across the audible range, it needs to be linear beyond it.
>>
>> But there's nothing "magical" about any particular bandwidth. Your
>> amplifier doesn't "know" it's trying to reproduce inaudible ultrasonics,
>> and out of spite, screws up the sound.
>
>Not out of spite, but in general linearity decreases as frequency increases.
>Phase shift also tends to increase which can can cause instability as it
>approaches 180 degrees.

This is generally true.

>I would expect that good designs would have a low pass filter to prevent
>anything really weird or harmful occuring, at least those that have a high
>enough slew rate for it to be a concern.

They don't necessarily, and that's where the problems occur. Which is why
if I were releasing a 96 ksamp/sec recording I would want to look carefully
on a spectrum analyzer to make sure there isn't any junk up there that
might be detrimental, if not just filter before releasing.

>Now what do tweeters do when given a signal higher than their design
>bandwidth?

Dick Pierce has a great story about this.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Neil Gould]

Jay Ts wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Sep 2014 22:02:35 -0700, hank alrich wrote:
>
>> Jay Ts > wrote:
>>
>>> As I see it, supporting 192 KHz is simply a good engineering
>>> practice.
>>
>> Based on something other than assumtions that more is automatically
>> better?
>
> More is not automatically better, but often is in ways that are
> unexpected. This happens frequently in technological development,
> including electronics and especially computers.
>
>> http://lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-sampling-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 re:
"weasel words..." etc., but did not. What did you find objectionable about
the content in this writing?
--
best regards,

Neil

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 9/11/2014 3:12 AM, geoff wrote:
> Sound Forge and Wavelab are the only two I have direct experience of.
>
> Nothing claiming to be even vaguely profession would have the temetiy
> rto do anything but interpolate.
>
> Surely not even the cheesiest amateur apps would have the cheek to
> simmply insert 'same' samples.

I should have been clearer. Any converter chip that claims 192 kHz
performance should actually produce the correct number of samples. You
answered the question relative to software (off-line) conversion. I'd
trust Wavelab and Sound Forge to do the right thing, and any honest
music supplier who offered high sample rate versions of things not
originally sampled at the high rate would probably convert them
responsibly.

But there are ways to do it wrong, and you know someone will, and won't
know it. You can't assume that just because it's not difficult for you
to find the right software or the right hardware if you're building an
up-sampling D/A converter box, that someone who thinks he knows what
he's doing won't be selling a deficient product. And the more popular
the concept gets, the more people who don't really know what they're
doing will be doing it.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[hank alrich]

Jay Ts > wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Sep 2014 22:02:35 -0700, hank alrich wrote:
>
> > Jay Ts > wrote:
> >
> >> As I see it, supporting 192 KHz is simply a good engineering practice.
> >
> > Based on something other than assumtions that more is automatically
> > better?
>
> More is not automatically better, but often is in ways that are
> unexpected. This happens frequently in technological development,
> including electronics and especially computers.
>
> > http://lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-sampling-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.

Weasel worry all you want. The man makes some of the best convertors in
the world. He knows more about this stuff than most of us.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Neil Gould > wrote:

> Jay Ts wrote:
> > On Tue, 09 Sep 2014 22:02:35 -0700, hank alrich wrote:
> >
> >> Jay Ts > wrote:
> >>
> >>> As I see it, supporting 192 KHz is simply a good engineering
> >>> practice.
> >>
> >> Based on something other than assumtions that more is automatically
> >> better?
> >
> > More is not automatically better, but often is in ways that are
> > unexpected. This happens frequently in technological development,
> > including electronics and especially computers.
> >
> >> http://lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-sampling-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 re:
> "weasel words..." etc., but did not. What did you find objectionable about
> the content in this writing?

The main problem people appear to face with that paper is that it runs
directly counter to their assumptions. No response that I have read so
far directly takes Dan on with countering, supportable information.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich > wrote:
>Jay Ts > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 09 Sep 2014 22:02:35 -0700, hank alrich wrote:
>>
>> > Jay Ts > wrote:
>> >
>> >> As I see it, supporting 192 KHz is simply a good engineering practice.
>> >
>> > Based on something other than assumtions that more is automatically
>> > better?
>>
>> More is not automatically better, but often is in ways that are
>> unexpected. This happens frequently in technological development,
>> including electronics and especially computers.
>>
>> > http://lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-sampling-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.
>
>Weasel worry all you want. The man makes some of the best convertors in
>the world. He knows more about this stuff than most of us.

The article isn't a scientific paper, it's a basic introduction to how sampling
theory works in the real world.

I'm curious what you mean, though, by "weasel words, dogma, and denial."
As an introductory tutorial it's pretty good, and if it does some handwaving
over details and proofs, that's the nature of a tutorial.

If you want proofs, I recommend "Introduction to Shannon Sampling and
Interpolation."

Note that he is going over the theory in a perfect world, and that this being
an imperfect world, we sometimes have to deal with imperfect hardware. High
rate sampling and oversampling techniques can help with this, but it's
important to know where they can help and where they can't.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

On 12/09/2014 12:20 a.m., wrote:
> Tobiah wrote: "Sep 9Tobiah
> Wikipedia says they will offer music in 24bit/192kHz format.
> There has been endless debate here over whether 96kHz is better
> than 44.1, most admitting that they can't hear the difference.
> 192kHz however, seems like blatant overkill to me.
>
> Toby "
>
> Those bit depths/resolutions do have a place: In the production environment. But unless dogs and other animals start buying music, they are pointless as consumer carriers. 16/44.1 more than adequately accommodates the vast majority of human hearing circumstances.
>


And just to think of all those great-sounding recordings made on gear
that barely had any response over17KHz !


geoff

[Jay Ts[_4_]]

On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 08:28:31 -0500, Neil Gould wrote:
> Jay Ts wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Sep 2014 22:02:35 -0700, hank alrich wrote:
>>
>>> Jay Ts > wrote:
>>>
>>>> As I see it, supporting 192 KHz is simply a good engineering
>>>> practice.
>>>
>>> Based on something other than assumtions that more is automatically
>>> better?
>>
>> More is not automatically better, but often is in ways that are
>> unexpected. This happens frequently in technological development,
>> including electronics and especially computers.
>>
>>> http://lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-sampling-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 re:
> "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. (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.)

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.

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. 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.
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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

One example I keep thinking about is in the area of scientific research.
In recent years, scientists have studied various species of animals and
found that their vocalizations have volcabulary and grammar. 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. Of course it's
possible to design and build custom equipment to do that, but it can be
prohibitively expensive, time-consuming, and beyond the capability of
many good biologists to figure out how to manage a research project that
requires it. Another issue is that there is a problem in science now
because the research results of not too long ago are being lost because
the data was recorded in weird ways that cannot be maintained. Using
industry standard data representations would help avoid that kind of
thing.

Another area is ultrasonics. 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. Maybe even
some kind of disruptive technologies or something that helps save the
world.

Years ago I learned of software-defined radio technology. A quote from
the Wikipedia article on this topic:

"Software-defined radio (SDR) is a radio communication system where
components that have been typically implemented in hardware (e.g. mixers,
filters, amplifiers, modulators/demodulators, detectors, etc.) are
instead implemented by means of software on a personal computer or
embedded system.[1] While the concept of SDR is not new, the rapidly
evolving capabilities of digital electronics render practical many
processes which used to be only theoretically possible."

At the time, I was simply amazed that someone thought of that idea. They
realized that computers had become fast enough that parts of the
electronic circuitry in radio systems could be replaced by software
driving the computer's sound card, even though the sound card was limited
to audio frequencies. This has allowed radio systems to be controlled in
new ways and do more things. If sound cards supported higher frequencies,
I wonder what more might be possible.

I think the response of some people here is "Who cares? that is another
profession, and that's their problem. It has nothing to do with this." To
head that off, I think it is very unprofessional for anyone to be so
selfish as to limit things for people in other professions, or other
people in general. I'm trying to give just one example of how I think it
would be beneficial to the world to think in terms that go beyond the
traditional pro audio profession. Audio technology is used for a lot more
than just music and voice, and those applications are important, too. I
used this example to point out that whales and dolphins talk and sing
too, and humans are only starting to appreciate the value of what they
talk and sing about. In the future, there may be many other things humans
become aware of and want to do with sound. Let's not limit ourselves.

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"

The copyright shown in the document is 2004, a full 10 years ago. The
statement was a lot more true then than it is now!

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.

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.

A stereo 24bit 96KHz album in flac format takes up only about 1 GB. That
is not a lot anymore.

If anyone wants to continue to argue that we should continue to use
smaller files for efficiency, I just don't want to hear it. It will just
remind me of when Bill Gates proclaimed that no one would ever need more
than 640KB of main memory. (I had already needed megabytes years before
that!)

Fortunately, the rest of the computer industry continued to develop. 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. I don't agree
with everything Neil has to say, but I do agree that it's time to move
things forward.

I really don't see what anyone would have anything against the pono. If
you don't think you need it, can't you just ignore it? Even if the pono
takes over the market, it still plays mp3s and CD-quality files, or you
can save some money and use technology that supports only that. I'm
confident that CD and mp3 quality will continue to be available to
satisfy people who don't want anything more.

In general, even if the current 24/96 and 24/192 formats seem silly, why
not just allow them to exist and watch as people experiment with them to
see if they are good for anything practical? Even if they are not, the
explorations may later lead to something cool.

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.

(I know this was long, but I realized that I wasn't putting enough time
and attention into my posts again, and I was messing up. I hope this
helps clarify my position and doesn't cause too much trouble.)

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Jay Ts wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 08:28:31 -0500, Neil Gould wrote:
<snip>
>
> "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.
>
> 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.
>

But the 20-20kHz limit is not a theory, it is a normative assumption.
It's a pretty well empirically teste3d normative assumption. Getting
beyond it will be a big project. Nobody's done that yet.

> 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.
> 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.
>
> 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.

But that's just a conjecture - as you say, we kinda don't know.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with guardband, so long
as cost isn't an issue.

> 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.
>

This is true.

> 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.
>

I have lowpassed stuff @ 10Khz and listened to what's left. It isn't
pretty :) Of course, that's a goofy thing to do and for
all I know what I heard was artifacts from the filtering.

I really should translate that to a couple octaves down and see what it
sounds like.

The human ear does 1000Hz best for semi-physics reasons - we mainly
evolved hearing for .... predation and defense purposes, but then we
laid language on it.

Distorting and bandlimiting speech may improve intelligibility. So the
4-5 octaves above 1000 Hz are very likely about all we'll ever get.
Anything beyond that is likely an evolutiuonary process.

My understanding is that animals that hear beyond 20Khz don't have
what *we* would call *hearing* in that range. It's either "for"
echolocation or sometimes young animals pinging their mothers.

And that the dividing line is ( very curiously ) always 20 KHz.

<snip>
> Years ago I learned of software-defined radio technology. A quote from
> the Wikipedia article on this topic:
>
> "Software-defined radio (SDR) is a radio communication system where
> components that have been typically implemented in hardware (e.g. mixers,
> filters, amplifiers, modulators/demodulators, detectors, etc.) are
> instead implemented by means of software on a personal computer or
> embedded system.[1] While the concept of SDR is not new, the rapidly
> evolving capabilities of digital electronics render practical many
> processes which used to be only theoretically possible."
>
> At the time, I was simply amazed that someone thought of that idea. They
> realized that computers had become fast enough that parts of the
> electronic circuitry in radio systems could be replaced by software
> driving the computer's sound card, even though the sound card was limited
> to audio frequencies. This has allowed radio systems to be controlled in
> new ways and do more things. If sound cards supported higher frequencies,
> I wonder what more might be possible.
>

SDR isn't primarily about using soundcards. Indeed, there are
"Raspberry Pi" type SDR kits available now.

Because it's RF, you really want the physical frequency well out of the
audible range - but SFAIK, it's the IF that's in the "soundcard" range -
the signal is then translated - mixed - to an RF band.

> I think the response of some people here is "Who cares? that is another
> profession, and that's their problem. It has nothing to do with this." To
> head that off, I think it is very unprofessional for anyone to be so
> selfish as to limit things for people in other professions, or other
> people in general. I'm trying to give just one example of how I think it
> would be beneficial to the world to think in terms that go beyond the
> traditional pro audio profession. Audio technology is used for a lot more
> than just music and voice, and those applications are important, too. I
> used this example to point out that whales and dolphins talk and sing
> too, and humans are only starting to appreciate the value of what they
> talk and sing about. In the future, there may be many other things humans
> become aware of and want to do with sound. Let's not limit ourselves.
>

So what has happened is that hardware specialized to SDR is emerging.

> 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"
>
> The copyright shown in the document is 2004, a full 10 years ago. The
> statement was a lot more true then than it is now!
>

In a way.

> 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.
>

I don't think that's all that realistic, really. The cost shear between
100 mbit stuff and 1 GBit stuff is pretty profound - even if you have a
1 GBit NIC on your computer, you won't see sustained
throughput rates of 1 GBit on it and you probably can't afford the sort
of networking equipment that provides 1 GBit sustained throughput from
node to node.

A joke has been that it takes 1 GBit stuff to get 100 MBit performance.

You can get FIOS (maybe) and it has astounding speed. But that will be
more likely used to provide more and more channels.

> 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.
>

Yep.

> A stereo 24bit 96KHz album in flac format takes up only about 1 GB. That
> is not a lot anymore.
>

It's still a lot.

<snip>

> In general, even if the current 24/96 and 24/192 formats seem silly, why
> not just allow them to exist and watch as people experiment with them to
> see if they are good for anything practical? Even if they are not, the
> explorations may later lead to something cool.
>

I'd personally have no objections to it at all. I no longer
buy or even much listen to music.

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.

I am a Neil Young fan, but sometimes he does Doc Brown things, and this
looks like one. I find it endearing.
I'm not gonna laugh at a guy who's trying to be a bit of a renaissance
man. But his comments lead us to think maybe he's not that
grounded in the theory.

But God bless him for his efforts - like you say, who knows? But
the golden age of big music is probably past us. Once, Berry Gordy
was able to move Motown to LA to escape the trap of singles, but ...
they're baaaack.

> 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.
>

So 20KHz is not an absolute limit. It's a normative limit. So ... yep.

I will be unlikely to ever buy it.

> (I know this was long, but I realized that I wasn't putting enough time
> and attention into my posts again, and I was messing up. I hope this
> helps clarify my position and doesn't cause too much trouble.)
>

--
Les Cargill

[PStamler]

On Thursday, September 11, 2014 7:09:47 PM UTC-6, 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.

The engineer was Geoff Emerick.

I've met both Mr. Emerick and Mr. Neve, and can round out the story a little. Neve (the company) had just delivered a new console, and Mr. Emerick heard one of the channels sounding different from the others. Mr. Neve pulled the module, and found that a termination resistor for one of the transformers had been left out, producing a resonance around 50kHz. He installed the resistor, and the channel worked right.

But that doesn't prove that Mr. Emerick can hear things happening at 50kHz. Leaving out that terminating resistor would very likely disrupt the channel's frequency response below 20kHz, and would certainly cause that channel's phase response to be different from that of a properly-made channel, probably well into the audio range.

So the event doesn't necessarily prove that Mr. Emerick (or other people) can hear things happening around 50kHz -- not when those things can also affect response within what is conventionally considered the audio band. What it does show, I suspect, is that Geoff Emerick has really excellent abilities for hearing things within the audio band.

But we knew that...

Peace,
Paul

[Sean Conolly]

"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

[geoff]

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

[geoff]

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

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Neil Gould]

"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/lavry-sampling-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 re:
> > "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

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 9/11/2014 9:09 PM, Jay Ts wrote:

>>>> http://lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-sampling-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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

[hank alrich]

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/tracks/GreatBaltimoreFire128k.mp3
http://tinyurl.com/k83mnxu

Complete, 192Kbps.mp3 (3.6Mb) standard
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/tracks/GreatBaltimoreFire192k.mp3
http://tinyurl.com/k2bc35l

Complete, 320Kbps.mp3 (6.0Mb) better
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/tracks/GreatBaltimoreFire320k.mp3
http://tinyurl.com/kgqra7x

1:20 Clip, 16-bit/44.1kHz.wav (12.0Mb) CD
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/tracks/GreatBaltimoreFireClip16bit4
4kHz.wav
http://tinyurl.com/kofn8qm

1:20 Clip, 24-bit/96kHz.wav (39.4Mb) DVD-A
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/tracks/GreatBaltimoreFireClip24bit9
6kHz.wav
http://tinyurl.com/k3bvsjq

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[hank alrich]

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

[Neil Gould]

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

[Neil Gould]

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

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Neil Gould]

"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

[Neil Gould]

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

[geoff]

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

[geoff]

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

[geoff]

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

[William Sommerwerck]

"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.

[William Sommerwerck]

"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.

[William Sommerwerck]

"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.

[Scott Dorsey]

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.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[PStamler]

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

Peace,
Paul

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

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

[William Sommerwerck]

> Who first discovered the Nyquist sampling theory?

It is implicit in Fourier analysis.

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

[Ralph Barone[_2_]]

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...

[Ron C[_2_]]

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
--

[Neil Gould]

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

[PStamler]

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

[William Sommerwerck]

"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.

[hank alrich]

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

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

(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

[hank alrich]

Les Cargill > wrote:

> (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.

Maybe. I suspect specially designed preamps might be needed, built
around sortaconductors.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic