On sampling, SACD, etc.

Things that I've found state that we don't need higher rates.

First, we have this thread from the JREF fourm on science, etc. with some
comments by one of the foremost experts on perceptual coding and thigs
digital, a fellow named Johnston:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=24526&highlight=digital+audio

Of course this was written in 2004, so ther emay be newer info or opinions
from Mr. Johnston.
I see there is someone asking for an answer to this very question, so
perhaps there will be a more up to date answer soon.


Another example:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~ssyreeni/texts/bs-over/bs-over.en.html

Based on what is known about hearing, people do not truly hear anything
beyond 25kHz. And even this is quite a conservative estimate, since it
primarily holds for isolated young adolescents. And even if some people do
hear frequencies that high, the information extracted from the ultrasonics
is very limited-there is some evidence that everything above some 16kHz is
sensed purely based on whether it is there, irrespective of the true
spectral content. As for dynamic range, research suggests that 22 bit
accuracy should cover the softest as well as the loudest of tones over the
entire audio bandwidth.

Perhaps the most straight forward reason why SACD is a bad idea is that it
is perhaps not needed at all. Blind listening tests tell the average
consumer has a fair bit of difficulty telling 24 bits at 96kHz from properly
implemented 16 bits at 44.1kHz. Considering the numerical differences
between these formats the question of whether we really need accuracy beyond
the level of CDs becomes quite acute. Quite some people with golden ears
agree that the difference is subtle. Now, the effective bit depth of DSD is
around 20 and 24/96 already has over an octave of ultrasonic bandwidth. Why
is it that by and far, the same golden ears find a great difference between
CDs and SACDs?

The favorite demonstration used to illustrate the extended frequency range
of SACD is to display what happens to a 10kHz square wave when it is
recorded on CD and SACD and then played back. The illustration consists of
four oscilloscope shots and displays how SACD produces a very close
approximation to the original square wave while the corresponding result for
CD is a considerably rounded waveform which is closer to a sine wave than a
square one. The pictures are very convincing and will probably spook quite a
number of CD owners. They are accompanied by a brief description which tells
how CD loses harmonics of the test wave from the third up and so is clearly
inferior to SACD. What is forgotten is that the second harmonic of a 10kHz
periodic waveform (which CD can handle) is at 20kHz, already at the upper
limit of hearing for adolescents. The third harmonic would be at 30kHz and
there is little evidence that people are able to hear that high under any
reasonable conditions-it's ultrasound. So is the demonstration meant for you
or for your dog?

Similarly deceptive an illustration displays a scope shot with a cycle of
something resembling a sine wave and an approximate DSD bitstream below it.
It is easy to see the mean density of the bitstream closely corresponds to
the value of the sound wave at each point in time. The text claims that
since the stored bitstream is so close to the original wave, the resulting
playback quality is superior to the one offered by PCM techniques. But what
this really aims at is convincing those people that have reservations toward
digital audio media and prefer good ol' analog. The fact is, the stored
structure of the data doesn't matter a single bit as long as the output
voltages closely follow what went in. After all, what is stored on a SACD
displays little resemblance to the pure DSD stream the data carries. What
matters is the subsequent processing and the soundness of theory behind it,
as always.



Or this one: http://www.edn.com/article/CA276213.html

One claimed benefit of high-resolution audio that likely holds no water is
the belief that high sampling rates and consequent ultrasonic frequencies
aid in precisely locating a sound source. This phenomenon, the Haas effect,
refers to the fact that the phase-that is, time-difference between when a
sound hits one ear and when it hits the other is one of two means by which
you acoustically place its source in 3-D space. (The other means is the
intensity difference you perceive between one ear and the other.) The time
difference between any two 44.1- kHz samples is approximately 23 µsec, yet
the human auditory system can resolve phase- and time-delay differences of
only a few microseconds (defined in part by the distance between an average
person's ears).

[dave weil]

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 02:22:21 GMT, > wrote:

>Perhaps the most straight forward reason why SACD is a bad idea is that it
>is perhaps not needed at all. Blind listening tests tell the average
>consumer has a fair bit of difficulty telling 24 bits at 96kHz from properly
>implemented 16 bits at 44.1kHz. Considering the numerical differences
>between these formats the question of whether we really need accuracy beyond
>the level of CDs becomes quite acute.

Except that your dude, jj says this in the very thread that you noted:

"Is 16/44 enough? Not clear, and maybe not".

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 02:22:21 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>Perhaps the most straight forward reason why SACD is a bad idea is that it
>>is perhaps not needed at all. Blind listening tests tell the average
>>consumer has a fair bit of difficulty telling 24 bits at 96kHz from
>>properly
>>implemented 16 bits at 44.1kHz. Considering the numerical differences
>>between these formats the question of whether we really need accuracy
>>beyond
>>the level of CDs becomes quite acute.
>
> Except that your dude, jj says this in the very thread that you noted:
>
> "Is 16/44 enough? Not clear, and maybe not".
>
>
Which is precisely why I also noted that the thread was from 2004, and that
maybe there was new better info.

It is certain that it is not enough if you want to do any noise shaping or
any sort of tweaking, for that you need a higher rate as has been noted
elsewhere, but it is not by any means certain or even likely that 16/44 is
insufficient for transparent playback of CD's at home.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ink.net
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 02:22:21 GMT, >
>> wrote:
>>> Perhaps the most straight forward reason why SACD is a
>>> bad idea is that it is perhaps not needed at all. Blind
>>> listening tests tell the average consumer has a fair
>>> bit of difficulty telling 24 bits at 96kHz from properly
>>> implemented 16 bits at 44.1kHz. Considering the
>>> numerical differences between these formats the
>>> question of whether we really need accuracy beyond
>>> the level of CDs becomes quite acute.
>>
>> Except that your dude, jj says this in the very thread
>> that you noted:

>> "Is 16/44 enough? Not clear, and maybe not".

> Which is precisely why I also noted that the thread was
> from 2004, and that maybe there was new better info.

It's all about how you read what JJ said.

As usual people like Weil and LeGal would like to represent what JJ said as
an indictment of 16/44. It's an article of religious faith for many that
the CD format is inherently flawed.

All I've ever said is that the standard for judging the CD standard should
be a fair unbiased listening comparison of it to a far more ideal format,
such as what you get out of a short straight piece of wire.

JJ set a very high standard that was pretty far removed from real world
recordings of music. Even at that, he had to admit that there was a decent
chance that 16/44 had not been proven to be inadequte.

> It is certain that it is not enough if you want to do any
> noise shaping or any sort of tweaking, for that you need
> a higher rate as has been noted elsewhere,

No, no, no. Actually you can do some very worthwhile things with noise
shaping and get well over 120 dB perceived dynamic range out of 16 bits with
noise shaping, and in the context of 44 KHz sampling.

>But it is not by any means certain or even likely that 16/44 is
> insufficient for transparent playback of CD's at home.

Point being that the system's weakest links are elsewhere - at the ends of
the recording/playback chain.

One of the ironies of life is that several people I know that have audio
systems with highly exceptional dynamic range (capable of clean, smooth
sound at 120 dB SPL and more) and listening rooms with good acoustics and
are perfectly satisfied with the CD formats bandwidth and dynamic range. One
such person is well known - Tom Nousaine.

You can say that well Tom is getting up there in years and maybe the
bandwidth of his ears is flagging. Tom frequently has lots of young visitors
such as at audio club meetings - and they are very pleased with the
available bandwidth. <watch Art and George try to spin this into another
one of their pedophile fantasies>

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote in message
> ink.net
>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 02:22:21 GMT, >
>>> wrote:
>>>> Perhaps the most straight forward reason why SACD is a
>>>> bad idea is that it is perhaps not needed at all. Blind
>>>> listening tests tell the average consumer has a fair
>>>> bit of difficulty telling 24 bits at 96kHz from properly
>>>> implemented 16 bits at 44.1kHz. Considering the
>>>> numerical differences between these formats the
>>>> question of whether we really need accuracy beyond
>>>> the level of CDs becomes quite acute.
>>>
>>> Except that your dude, jj says this in the very thread
>>> that you noted:
>
>>> "Is 16/44 enough? Not clear, and maybe not".
>
>> Which is precisely why I also noted that the thread was
>> from 2004, and that maybe there was new better info.
>
> It's all about how you read what JJ said.
>
> As usual people like Weil and LeGal would like to represent what JJ said
> as an indictment of 16/44. It's an article of religious faith for many
> that the CD format is inherently flawed.
>
Clearly not what he said.

> All I've ever said is that the standard for judging the CD standard should
> be a fair unbiased listening comparison of it to a far more ideal format,
> such as what you get out of a short straight piece of wire.
>
Seems right to me. I want to hear something played back which can't be
distiguished from whatever the source recording was. It's not reasonable to
expect any audio system to sound like a live performance, although it might
be possible with a single instrument.

> JJ set a very high standard that was pretty far removed from real world
> recordings of music. Even at that, he had to admit that there was a decent
> chance that 16/44 had not been proven to be inadequte.
>
That's what it seemed like to me, it's just that he hedged a tiny bit and
figured it might require something more, he was by no means saying it was an
absolute.

>> It is certain that it is not enough if you want to do any
>> noise shaping or any sort of tweaking, for that you need
>> a higher rate as has been noted elsewhere,
>
> No, no, no. Actually you can do some very worthwhile things with noise
> shaping and get well over 120 dB perceived dynamic range out of 16 bits
> with noise shaping, and in the context of 44 KHz sampling.
>
My understanding is that the reason 4X or X oversampling is used for
recording studios is to make sure that such shaping can be done without risk
of compromising the recording transparency.

>>But it is not by any means certain or even likely that 16/44 is
>> insufficient for transparent playback of CD's at home.
>
> Point being that the system's weakest links are elsewhere - at the ends of
> the recording/playback chain.
>
> One of the ironies of life is that several people I know that have audio
> systems with highly exceptional dynamic range (capable of clean, smooth
> sound at 120 dB SPL and more) and listening rooms with good acoustics and
> are perfectly satisfied with the CD formats bandwidth and dynamic range.
> One such person is well known - Tom Nousaine.
>

And owner of the subwoofer from Hell.

[SD]

On 3/22/2006 8:22 PM, wrote:
> Things that I've found state that we don't need higher rates.
>
> First, we have this thread from the JREF fourm on science, etc. with some
> comments by one of the foremost experts on perceptual coding and thigs
> digital, a fellow named Johnston:
> http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=24526&highlight=digital+audio
>
> Of course this was written in 2004, so ther emay be newer info or opinions
> from Mr. Johnston.
> I see there is someone asking for an answer to this very question, so
> perhaps there will be a more up to date answer soon.
>
>
> Another example:
> http://www.helsinki.fi/~ssyreeni/texts/bs-over/bs-over.en.html
>
> Based on what is known about hearing, people do not truly hear anything
> beyond 25kHz. And even this is quite a conservative estimate, since it
> primarily holds for isolated young adolescents. And even if some people do
> hear frequencies that high, the information extracted from the ultrasonics
> is very limited-there is some evidence that everything above some 16kHz is
> sensed purely based on whether it is there, irrespective of the true
> spectral content. As for dynamic range, research suggests that 22 bit
> accuracy should cover the softest as well as the loudest of tones over the
> entire audio bandwidth.
>
> Perhaps the most straight forward reason why SACD is a bad idea is that it
> is perhaps not needed at all. Blind listening tests tell the average
> consumer has a fair bit of difficulty telling 24 bits at 96kHz from properly
> implemented 16 bits at 44.1kHz. Considering the numerical differences
> between these formats the question of whether we really need accuracy beyond
> the level of CDs becomes quite acute. Quite some people with golden ears
> agree that the difference is subtle. Now, the effective bit depth of DSD is
> around 20 and 24/96 already has over an octave of ultrasonic bandwidth. Why
> is it that by and far, the same golden ears find a great difference between
> CDs and SACDs?
>
> The favorite demonstration used to illustrate the extended frequency range
> of SACD is to display what happens to a 10kHz square wave when it is
> recorded on CD and SACD and then played back. The illustration consists of
> four oscilloscope shots and displays how SACD produces a very close
> approximation to the original square wave while the corresponding result for
> CD is a considerably rounded waveform which is closer to a sine wave than a
> square one. The pictures are very convincing and will probably spook quite a
> number of CD owners. They are accompanied by a brief description which tells
> how CD loses harmonics of the test wave from the third up and so is clearly
> inferior to SACD. What is forgotten is that the second harmonic of a 10kHz
> periodic waveform (which CD can handle) is at 20kHz, already at the upper
> limit of hearing for adolescents. The third harmonic would be at 30kHz and
> there is little evidence that people are able to hear that high under any
> reasonable conditions-it's ultrasound. So is the demonstration meant for you
> or for your dog?
>
> Similarly deceptive an illustration displays a scope shot with a cycle of
> something resembling a sine wave and an approximate DSD bitstream below it.
> It is easy to see the mean density of the bitstream closely corresponds to
> the value of the sound wave at each point in time. The text claims that
> since the stored bitstream is so close to the original wave, the resulting
> playback quality is superior to the one offered by PCM techniques. But what
> this really aims at is convincing those people that have reservations toward
> digital audio media and prefer good ol' analog. The fact is, the stored
> structure of the data doesn't matter a single bit as long as the output
> voltages closely follow what went in. After all, what is stored on a SACD
> displays little resemblance to the pure DSD stream the data carries. What
> matters is the subsequent processing and the soundness of theory behind it,
> as always.
>
>
>
> Or this one: http://www.edn.com/article/CA276213.html
>
> One claimed benefit of high-resolution audio that likely holds no water is
> the belief that high sampling rates and consequent ultrasonic frequencies
> aid in precisely locating a sound source. This phenomenon, the Haas effect,
> refers to the fact that the phase-that is, time-difference between when a
> sound hits one ear and when it hits the other is one of two means by which
> you acoustically place its source in 3-D space. (The other means is the
> intensity difference you perceive between one ear and the other.) The time
> difference between any two 44.1- kHz samples is approximately 23 µsec, yet
> the human auditory system can resolve phase- and time-delay differences of
> only a few microseconds (defined in part by the distance between an average
> person's ears).
>
>

Arny,

Have you done any ABX tests comparing CD to SACD to DVD-A? The average
human can't hear sounds over 20Khz so I think the CD is perfect.
Production quality and recording quality are much more important. As we
move to hard disk music storage (for me FLAC) why would I want to
increase my storage space needs if it doesn't result in better sound?

SD

[SD]

On 3/22/2006 8:22 PM, wrote:

[snip]

>
> The favorite demonstration used to illustrate the extended frequency range
> of SACD is to display what happens to a 10kHz square wave when it is
> recorded on CD and SACD and then played back. The illustration consists of
> four oscilloscope shots and displays how SACD produces a very close
> approximation to the original square wave while the corresponding result for
> CD is a considerably rounded waveform which is closer to a sine wave than a
> square one. The pictures are very convincing and will probably spook quite a
> number of CD owners. They are accompanied by a brief description which tells
> how CD loses harmonics of the test wave from the third up and so is clearly
> inferior to SACD. What is forgotten is that the second harmonic of a 10kHz
> periodic waveform (which CD can handle) is at 20kHz, already at the upper
> limit of hearing for adolescents. The third harmonic would be at 30kHz and
> there is little evidence that people are able to hear that high under any
> reasonable conditions-it's ultrasound. So is the demonstration meant for you
> or for your dog?
>


Square wave? Do any natural sounds have square waves? Isn't that what
blows speakers?

[snip]

SD

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>One of the ironies of life is that several people I know that have audio
>systems with highly exceptional dynamic range (capable of clean, smooth
>sound at 120 dB SPL and more) and listening rooms with good acoustics and
>are perfectly satisfied with the CD formats bandwidth and dynamic range. One
>such person is well known - Tom Nousaine.


120 dB SPL?????

"I see deaf people.........."

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

[Howard Ferstler]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ink.net
>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 02:22:21 GMT, >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Perhaps the most straight forward reason why SACD is a
>>>>bad idea is that it is perhaps not needed at all. Blind
>>>>listening tests tell the average consumer has a fair
>>>>bit of difficulty telling 24 bits at 96kHz from properly
>>>>implemented 16 bits at 44.1kHz. Considering the
>>>>numerical differences between these formats the
>>>>question of whether we really need accuracy beyond
>>>>the level of CDs becomes quite acute.
>>>
>>>Except that your dude, jj says this in the very thread
>>>that you noted:
>
>
>>>"Is 16/44 enough? Not clear, and maybe not".
>
>
>>Which is precisely why I also noted that the thread was
>>from 2004, and that maybe there was new better info.
>
>
> It's all about how you read what JJ said.
>
> As usual people like Weil and LeGal would like to represent what JJ said as
> an indictment of 16/44. It's an article of religious faith for many that
> the CD format is inherently flawed.

I have been away for months, and do not plan on coming back
for many more. Anyway, I just dropped in to see what is
going on and am floored as I have been many times in the
past when dropping back by to see that this debate about CD
sound (and other RAO inanities) continues to rage.

Heck, why in the world cannot the debaters giving you a hard
time just do a serious DBT and get it over with? Oops,
doing that would end the "debate" and the people involved
would then not have anything to do.

Good luck to you, Arny. Frankly, I do not know why you hang
around this group, but I suppose it has to do with you
needing to keep your name out there for economic reasons. Me
and my name? Well, as a "retired" audio writer I am happy as
hell to no longer have to worry about my status or assorted,
tweako tempest in teapot audio controversies.

Again, good luck. You'll need it.

Howard Ferstler

[Bret Ludwig]

SD wrote:
<<snip>>


>
> Have you done any ABX tests comparing CD to SACD to DVD-A? The average
> human can't hear sounds over 20Khz so I think the CD is perfect.

Just goes to show you are not all that smart.

> Production quality and recording quality are much more important. As we
> move to hard disk music storage (for me FLAC) why would I want to
> increase my storage space needs if it doesn't result in better sound?

The CD is not perfect, nothing is. But the consequence of 44 kHz
sampling is that 22 kHz is athe absolute limit. If you go shopping for
osciloscopes they will tell you you want five to ten times the
bandwidth, ideally, of the fastest fundamentals you want to view.

The CD is IDEAL therefore for audio at 2.2 to 4.4 kHz. Voice
grade-telco-bandwidth is 3 kHz with a 300 Hz low rolloff. Actually, CD
does a good job probably to 12-16 kHz which is why a lot of classic pop
and 50s rock sounds very good on properly mastered CDs, but the upper
partials of classical instrumentation seem sometimes to suffer by
contrast to very good LPs. Even though we all concede that LP has a
lower nominal bandwidth than CD, it is a rolloff and there is no
brickwall to speak of. Plus which many good LPs are mastered at half
speed so the cutter head never has to deal with much over 10 kHz.

I am not here to conduct an anti-CD jihad or to state LP is a ideal
medium. CDs are convenient, cheap to reproduce, home duplicatable
medium, you put them in your car or a carryable CD player, boom box,
whatever. There are some very good sounding CDs and no one disputes
this. LP is in the big scheme of things not all that wonderful. But the
fact is the highbit optical digital disk has some very real potential
advantages the most obvious to me is that you are at 20 kHz a long way
from that brick wall.

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>>One of the ironies of life is that several people I know that have audio
>>systems with highly exceptional dynamic range (capable of clean, smooth
>>sound at 120 dB SPL and more) and listening rooms with good acoustics and
>>are perfectly satisfied with the CD formats bandwidth and dynamic range.
>>One
>>such person is well known - Tom Nousaine.
>
>
> 120 dB SPL?????
>
> "I see deaf people.........."
>
>
>
Just because you have the capability, doesn't mean you listen at that level
constantly.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 05:35:01 GMT, > wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 02:22:21 GMT, > wrote:
>>
>>>Perhaps the most straight forward reason why SACD is a bad idea is that it
>>>is perhaps not needed at all. Blind listening tests tell the average
>>>consumer has a fair bit of difficulty telling 24 bits at 96kHz from
>>>properly
>>>implemented 16 bits at 44.1kHz. Considering the numerical differences
>>>between these formats the question of whether we really need accuracy
>>>beyond
>>>the level of CDs becomes quite acute.
>>
>> Except that your dude, jj says this in the very thread that you noted:
>>
>> "Is 16/44 enough? Not clear, and maybe not".
>>
>>
>Which is precisely why I also noted that the thread was from 2004, and that
>maybe there was new better info.

So why quote it in the first place? If THIS can be wrong or off-base
simply because it's less than 2 years old, then the rest of it could
very well be wrong as well. Face it, you're just doing more
cherry-picking again.

>It is certain that it is not enough if you want to do any noise shaping or
>any sort of tweaking, for that you need a higher rate as has been noted
>elsewhere, but it is not by any means certain or even likely that 16/44 is
>insufficient for transparent playback of CD's at home.

Well, that statement implies that it's not any means certain or even
likely that 16/44 is *sufficient* for transparent playback of CDs at
home.

[George M. Middius]

Poor Harold Ferstler confesses his lifelong addiction to stupidity.

> Good luck to you, Arny. Frankly, I do not know why you hang
> around this group

Jeez, Harold, it's for the same reasons you do (or did). The lesser reason is
that he gets laughed at too hard on the technical forums. Krooger, like you,
has to try to flaunt his tiny bits of technical knowledge among people who
don't give a crap about it.

The primary reason is Mr. ****'s incurable masochism, just like yours was.
You remember how you used to have to get your humiliation online in a virtual
form, right? Of course, now that you have your six-figure inheritance, you
can indulge yourself with a flesh-and-blood dominatrix. What does she scream
as she's whipping you, Clerkie? "File those books RIGHT, bitch!" <smack!> Or
"Did you forget to ink the date stamp AGAIN?" <wham!> We can only
speculate...





--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

[Sander deWaal]

> said:


>>>One of the ironies of life is that several people I know that have audio
>>>systems with highly exceptional dynamic range (capable of clean, smooth
>>>sound at 120 dB SPL and more) and listening rooms with good acoustics and
>>>are perfectly satisfied with the CD formats bandwidth and dynamic range.
>>>One
>>>such person is well known - Tom Nousaine.


>> 120 dB SPL?????

>> "I see deaf people.........."


>Just because you have the capability, doesn't mean you listen at that level
>constantly.


I measured the SPL in my listening room during * normal * listening.
It hovers around 80 dB, with peaks of no more than 90.
With 2 x 2 Maggies of 84 dB/w/m each which makes for 90 dB/w/m in
total, that means that my amplifiers have to deliver less than 1 watt
on average at a distance of 1 meter for both channels.

Normally, I listen at a distance of 3 meters from the speakers, so I
could still even use a 300B SET to satisfy my SPL needs.

Anything over 90 dB SPL @ 1 m is almost deafening loud to me.
At the SR company I work for, we have some line array systems that are
capable of >110 dB in a wide beam.
Even when wearing earplugs, I ran away screaming when they were tested
shortly at near full power (2500 watts of total amplifier power, per
side).
That was at a distance of 20 meters..........

How anyone could even * think * about having a sound system in the
home that is capable of going 10 dB and more above those ear-bleeding
levels, is totally beyond me.

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

[Harry Lavo]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> > said:
>
>
>>>>One of the ironies of life is that several people I know that have audio
>>>>systems with highly exceptional dynamic range (capable of clean, smooth
>>>>sound at 120 dB SPL and more) and listening rooms with good acoustics
>>>>and
>>>>are perfectly satisfied with the CD formats bandwidth and dynamic range.
>>>>One
>>>>such person is well known - Tom Nousaine.
>
>
>>> 120 dB SPL?????
>
>>> "I see deaf people.........."
>
>
>>Just because you have the capability, doesn't mean you listen at that
>>level
>>constantly.
>
>
> I measured the SPL in my listening room during * normal * listening.
> It hovers around 80 dB, with peaks of no more than 90.
> With 2 x 2 Maggies of 84 dB/w/m each which makes for 90 dB/w/m in
> total, that means that my amplifiers have to deliver less than 1 watt
> on average at a distance of 1 meter for both channels.
>
> Normally, I listen at a distance of 3 meters from the speakers, so I
> could still even use a 300B SET to satisfy my SPL needs.
>
> Anything over 90 dB SPL @ 1 m is almost deafening loud to me.
> At the SR company I work for, we have some line array systems that are
> capable of >110 dB in a wide beam.
> Even when wearing earplugs, I ran away screaming when they were tested
> shortly at near full power (2500 watts of total amplifier power, per
> side).
> That was at a distance of 20 meters..........
>
> How anyone could even * think * about having a sound system in the
> home that is capable of going 10 dB and more above those ear-bleeding
> levels, is totally beyond me.
>

It gives him bragging rights. It is also fitting, as he earns his living
these days testing auto sound systems for manufacturers. Including, I
suppose......boom, boom, de boom,boom auto systems.

[Steven Sullivan]

SD > wrote:
> On 3/22/2006 8:22 PM, wrote:

> [snip]

> >
> > The favorite demonstration used to illustrate the extended frequency range
> > of SACD is to display what happens to a 10kHz square wave when it is
> > recorded on CD and SACD and then played back. The illustration consists of
> > four oscilloscope shots and displays how SACD produces a very close
> > approximation to the original square wave while the corresponding result for
> > CD is a considerably rounded waveform which is closer to a sine wave than a
> > square one. The pictures are very convincing and will probably spook quite a
> > number of CD owners. They are accompanied by a brief description which tells
> > how CD loses harmonics of the test wave from the third up and so is clearly
> > inferior to SACD. What is forgotten is that the second harmonic of a 10kHz
> > periodic waveform (which CD can handle) is at 20kHz, already at the upper
> > limit of hearing for adolescents. The third harmonic would be at 30kHz and
> > there is little evidence that people are able to hear that high under any
> > reasonable conditions-it's ultrasound. So is the demonstration meant for you
> > or for your dog?
> >


> Square wave? Do any natural sounds have square waves? Isn't that what
> blows speakers?


Clarinets produce square*ish* waves.


___
-S
"Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?" - soundhaspriority

[Ruud Broens]

> wrote in message
hlink.net...
:
: "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
: ...
: > "Arny Krueger" > said:
: >
: >>One of the ironies of life is that several people I know that have audio
: >>systems with highly exceptional dynamic range (capable of clean, smooth
: >>sound at 120 dB SPL and more) and listening rooms with good acoustics and
: >>are perfectly satisfied with the CD formats bandwidth and dynamic range.
: >>One
: >>such person is well known - Tom Nousaine.
: >
: >
: > 120 dB SPL?????
: >
: > "I see deaf people.........."

that reference may fall on deaf ears, in a higher sense,
you may note
;-)
Rudy
"We all sleep in a single subroutine".
btw thanks for admitting you're doing a review of all those
old daffy VHS tapes, on sat mornings

I'm not Arny, so you'd have to ask him aobut any ABX tests of teh various
formats, but I believe he would tell you that some have been done but not by
him and they came back as no difference for the people who participated.


"SD" > wrote in message
...
> On 3/22/2006 8:22 PM, wrote:
>> Things that I've found state that we don't need higher rates.
>>
>> First, we have this thread from the JREF fourm on science, etc. with some
>> comments by one of the foremost experts on perceptual coding and thigs
>> digital, a fellow named Johnston:
>> http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=24526&highlight=digital+audio
>>
>> Of course this was written in 2004, so ther emay be newer info or
>> opinions from Mr. Johnston.
>> I see there is someone asking for an answer to this very question, so
>> perhaps there will be a more up to date answer soon.
>>
>>
>> Another example:
>> http://www.helsinki.fi/~ssyreeni/texts/bs-over/bs-over.en.html
>>
>> Based on what is known about hearing, people do not truly hear anything
>> beyond 25kHz. And even this is quite a conservative estimate, since it
>> primarily holds for isolated young adolescents. And even if some people
>> do hear frequencies that high, the information extracted from the
>> ultrasonics is very limited-there is some evidence that everything above
>> some 16kHz is sensed purely based on whether it is there, irrespective of
>> the true spectral content. As for dynamic range, research suggests that
>> 22 bit accuracy should cover the softest as well as the loudest of tones
>> over the entire audio bandwidth.
>>
>> Perhaps the most straight forward reason why SACD is a bad idea is that
>> it is perhaps not needed at all. Blind listening tests tell the average
>> consumer has a fair bit of difficulty telling 24 bits at 96kHz from
>> properly implemented 16 bits at 44.1kHz. Considering the numerical
>> differences between these formats the question of whether we really need
>> accuracy beyond the level of CDs becomes quite acute. Quite some people
>> with golden ears agree that the difference is subtle. Now, the effective
>> bit depth of DSD is around 20 and 24/96 already has over an octave of
>> ultrasonic bandwidth. Why is it that by and far, the same golden ears
>> find a great difference between CDs and SACDs?
>>
>> The favorite demonstration used to illustrate the extended frequency
>> range of SACD is to display what happens to a 10kHz square wave when it
>> is recorded on CD and SACD and then played back. The illustration
>> consists of four oscilloscope shots and displays how SACD produces a very
>> close approximation to the original square wave while the corresponding
>> result for CD is a considerably rounded waveform which is closer to a
>> sine wave than a square one. The pictures are very convincing and will
>> probably spook quite a number of CD owners. They are accompanied by a
>> brief description which tells how CD loses harmonics of the test wave
>> from the third up and so is clearly inferior to SACD. What is forgotten
>> is that the second harmonic of a 10kHz periodic waveform (which CD can
>> handle) is at 20kHz, already at the upper limit of hearing for
>> adolescents. The third harmonic would be at 30kHz and there is little
>> evidence that people are able to hear that high under any reasonable
>> conditions-it's ultrasound. So is the demonstration meant for you or for
>> your dog?
>>
>> Similarly deceptive an illustration displays a scope shot with a cycle of
>> something resembling a sine wave and an approximate DSD bitstream below
>> it. It is easy to see the mean density of the bitstream closely
>> corresponds to the value of the sound wave at each point in time. The
>> text claims that since the stored bitstream is so close to the original
>> wave, the resulting playback quality is superior to the one offered by
>> PCM techniques. But what this really aims at is convincing those people
>> that have reservations toward digital audio media and prefer good ol'
>> analog. The fact is, the stored structure of the data doesn't matter a
>> single bit as long as the output voltages closely follow what went in.
>> After all, what is stored on a SACD displays little resemblance to the
>> pure DSD stream the data carries. What matters is the subsequent
>> processing and the soundness of theory behind it, as always.
>>
>>
>>
>> Or this one: http://www.edn.com/article/CA276213.html
>>
>> One claimed benefit of high-resolution audio that likely holds no water
>> is the belief that high sampling rates and consequent ultrasonic
>> frequencies aid in precisely locating a sound source. This phenomenon,
>> the Haas effect, refers to the fact that the phase-that is,
>> time-difference between when a sound hits one ear and when it hits the
>> other is one of two means by which you acoustically place its source in
>> 3-D space. (The other means is the intensity difference you perceive
>> between one ear and the other.) The time difference between any two 44.1-
>> kHz samples is approximately 23 µsec, yet the human auditory system can
>> resolve phase- and time-delay differences of only a few microseconds
>> (defined in part by the distance between an average person's ears).
>>
>>
>
> Arny,
>
> Have you done any ABX tests comparing CD to SACD to DVD-A? The average
> human can't hear sounds over 20Khz so I think the CD is perfect.
> Production quality and recording quality are much more important. As we
> move to hard disk music storage (for me FLAC) why would I want to increase
> my storage space needs if it doesn't result in better sound?
>
> SD
>
> ---
> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude EVA]
>

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 05:35:01 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 02:22:21 GMT, > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Perhaps the most straight forward reason why SACD is a bad idea is that
>>>>it
>>>>is perhaps not needed at all. Blind listening tests tell the average
>>>>consumer has a fair bit of difficulty telling 24 bits at 96kHz from
>>>>properly
>>>>implemented 16 bits at 44.1kHz. Considering the numerical differences
>>>>between these formats the question of whether we really need accuracy
>>>>beyond
>>>>the level of CDs becomes quite acute.
>>>
>>> Except that your dude, jj says this in the very thread that you noted:
>>>
>>> "Is 16/44 enough? Not clear, and maybe not".
>>>
>>>
>>Which is precisely why I also noted that the thread was from 2004, and
>>that
>>maybe there was new better info.
>
> So why quote it in the first place? If THIS can be wrong or off-base
> simply because it's less than 2 years old, then the rest of it could
> very well be wrong as well. Face it, you're just doing more
> cherry-picking again.
>

That yo choose to misinterpret the written word is not my problem.

>>It is certain that it is not enough if you want to do any noise shaping or
>>any sort of tweaking, for that you need a higher rate as has been noted
>>elsewhere, but it is not by any means certain or even likely that 16/44 is
>>insufficient for transparent playback of CD's at home.
>
> Well, that statement implies that it's not any means certain or even
> likely that 16/44 is *sufficient* for transparent playback of CDs at
> home.
>
That you misinterpret the written word is not my problem.

[dizzy]

Bret Ludwig wrote:

> The CD is not perfect, nothing is. But the consequence of 44 kHz
> sampling is that 22 kHz is athe absolute limit. If you go shopping for
> osciloscopes they will tell you you want five to ten times the
> bandwidth, ideally, of the fastest fundamentals you want to view.

Sorry, but that's really ignorant. Yes, the bandwidth of 'scopes needs to
be high-enough to see waveforms accurately, for example a 1kHz square wave
is (of course) made up of the 1kHz fundamental plus all the odd haromics
going up to infinity, so insufficient bandwidth will "round off" the
displayed waveform.

People using 'scopes want to know what really there! But to your ears,
anything over about 20kHz is a "DON'T CARE".

You CANNOT hear >22kHz, buddy. You CANNOT hear the difference between a
10kHz sine wave and a 10kHz square wave, because you CANNOT hear the
30kHz, 50kHz, etc harmonics.

> The CD is IDEAL therefore for audio at 2.2 to 4.4 kHz.

Nope. It's pretty much ideal up to 20kHz+.

You do realize that the accuracy of a playback system is easily measured,
right? It's ***VERY EASY*** to set up experiments with a 'scope and show
the need for the bandwidth multiplier you spoke of. It's also ****VERY
EASY*** to set up experiments to show that CD is damn near perfect up to
20kHz+.

[dizzy]

SD wrote:

>> The favorite demonstration used to illustrate the extended frequency range
>> of SACD is to display what happens to a 10kHz square wave when it is
>> recorded on CD and SACD and then played back. The illustration consists of
>> four oscilloscope shots and displays how SACD produces a very close
>> approximation to the original square wave while the corresponding result for
>> CD is a considerably rounded waveform which is closer to a sine wave than a
>> square one. The pictures are very convincing and will probably spook quite a
>> number of CD owners.

A stupid, ignorant gimmick designed to fool ignorant customers.

Obviously, SACD has more bandwidth. But you CAN'T HEAR IT.

[dizzy]

Steven Sullivan wrote:

> Clarinets produce square*ish* waves.

The harmonics of which that are above 20kHz or so are not missed when not
recorded, because your ears don't respond to those frequencies.

[Steven Sullivan]

dizzy > wrote:
> Steven Sullivan wrote:

> > Clarinets produce square*ish* waves.

> The harmonics of which that are above 20kHz or so are not missed when not
> recorded, because your ears don't respond to those frequencies.

I know. But he asked.


___
-S
"Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?" - soundhaspriority

[Bret Ludwig]

dizzy wrote:
> SD wrote:
>
> >> The favorite demonstration used to illustrate the extended frequency range
> >> of SACD is to display what happens to a 10kHz square wave when it is
> >> recorded on CD and SACD and then played back. The illustration consists of
> >> four oscilloscope shots and displays how SACD produces a very close
> >> approximation to the original square wave while the corresponding result for
> >> CD is a considerably rounded waveform which is closer to a sine wave than a
> >> square one. The pictures are very convincing and will probably spook quite a
> >> number of CD owners.
>
> A stupid, ignorant gimmick designed to fool ignorant customers.
>
> Obviously, SACD has more bandwidth. But you CAN'T HEAR IT.

There used to be a popular demo done with a function generator, an
oscilloscope, a true RMS meter, a selectable lowpass filter, and a
sound system that demonstrated that you could hear the difference
between a sawtooth and a square wave, I think, even though when you
switched the lowpass filter in to the scope you couldn't see it either,
with the voltmeter agreeing the levels were perfectly matched. It was a
more elaborate demo of Rupert Neve's, I think, where he just switched
the function knob on a generator after mathematically showing you
should not be able to hear the difference.

Organ tuners are able to work successfully into old age when most of
them are severely attenuated in their treble hearing response. They
can't hear the fundamental, but they can hear the beat notes with a
lower pitch. That's also why old people used to think they were
psychic, or kids thought they were, when they KNEW the kids had a TV on
somewhere in the house. The old sets had a high pitched whine from
capacitors and the flyback at somewhere over 13 kHz that a lot of kids
could hear (drove me nuts: girls typically were even more affected) but
(a lot of) adults couldn't quite. When there were other sounds present
they could tell "something wasn't right" and sure enough, the kids were
watching TV when they were supposed to be in bed.

Bottom line, effects out of band that cannot be heard directly can be
inferred from actions in-band. Vinyl and tape have rolloff, but not a
brick wall. You want a fair bit of room under the brick wall, and
preferably rolloff at a lower slope before you get there.

[Fella]

wrote:
> Things that I've found state that we don't need higher rates.
>


The very sentence you start this thread with says it all, actually.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message


> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
> ...

>> How anyone could even * think * about having a sound
>> system in the home that is capable of going 10 dB and
>> more above those ear-bleeding levels, is totally beyond
>> me.

120 dB at 10 Hz cleanly reproduced simply isn't all that loud.

The threshold of hearing at 10 Hz is no less than 60-70 dB.

People are subjected to 120-130 dB+ at 10 Hz when they drive their cars at
70 mph with the windows down, or in a convertable.

> It gives him bragging rights. It is also fitting, as he
> earns his living these days testing auto sound systems
> for manufacturers. Including, I suppose......boom, boom,
> de boom,boom auto systems.

It can sound really good, and yes, more realistic.

[[email protected]]

Harry Lavo wrote:
> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > said:
> >
> >
> >>>>One of the ironies of life is that several people I know that have audio
> >>>>systems with highly exceptional dynamic range (capable of clean, smooth
> >>>>sound at 120 dB SPL and more) and listening rooms with good acoustics
> >>>>and
> >>>>are perfectly satisfied with the CD formats bandwidth and dynamic range.
> >>>>One
> >>>>such person is well known - Tom Nousaine.
> >
> >
> >>> 120 dB SPL?????
> >
> >>> "I see deaf people.........."
> >
> >
> >>Just because you have the capability, doesn't mean you listen at that
> >>level
> >>constantly.
> >
> >
> > I measured the SPL in my listening room during * normal * listening.
> > It hovers around 80 dB, with peaks of no more than 90.
> > With 2 x 2 Maggies of 84 dB/w/m each which makes for 90 dB/w/m in
> > total, that means that my amplifiers have to deliver less than 1 watt
> > on average at a distance of 1 meter for both channels.
> >
> > Normally, I listen at a distance of 3 meters from the speakers, so I
> > could still even use a 300B SET to satisfy my SPL needs.
> >
> > Anything over 90 dB SPL @ 1 m is almost deafening loud to me.
> > At the SR company I work for, we have some line array systems that are
> > capable of >110 dB in a wide beam.
> > Even when wearing earplugs, I ran away screaming when they were tested
> > shortly at near full power (2500 watts of total amplifier power, per
> > side).
> > That was at a distance of 20 meters..........
> >
> > How anyone could even * think * about having a sound system in the
> > home that is capable of going 10 dB and more above those ear-bleeding
> > levels, is totally beyond me.
> >
>
> It gives him bragging rights.

Of course it does, it means he has a real HIGH FIDELITY audio system,
capable of realistic volume levels for anything he chooses to play. It
also means he can get the maximum reality from whatever he plays.

It is also fitting, as he earns his living
> these days testing auto sound systems for manufacturers. Including, I
> suppose......boom, boom, de boom,boom auto systems.

You make that sound like a bad thing. At least he writes about the
reality of what the gear does instead of the wishful thinking and
floobydust kind of crap one might find in some rag like TAS.

[Sander deWaal]

"Ruud Broens" > said:


>: > "I see deaf people.........."

>that reference may fall on deaf ears, in a higher sense,
>you may note
>;-)
>Rudy
>"We all sleep in a single subroutine".
>btw thanks for admitting you're doing a review of all those
> old daffy VHS tapes, on sat mornings


Still waiting for the complete StarTrek Enterprise on DVD.
Mediamarkt still doesn't carry it......... ;-(

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

[[email protected]]

Sander deWaal wrote:
> > said:
>
>
> >>>One of the ironies of life is that several people I know that have audio
> >>>systems with highly exceptional dynamic range (capable of clean, smooth
> >>>sound at 120 dB SPL and more) and listening rooms with good acoustics and
> >>>are perfectly satisfied with the CD formats bandwidth and dynamic range.
> >>>One
> >>>such person is well known - Tom Nousaine.
>
>
> >> 120 dB SPL?????
>
> >> "I see deaf people.........."
>
>
> >Just because you have the capability, doesn't mean you listen at that level
> >constantly.
>
>
> I measured the SPL in my listening room during * normal * listening.
> It hovers around 80 dB, with peaks of no more than 90.
> With 2 x 2 Maggies of 84 dB/w/m each which makes for 90 dB/w/m in
> total, that means that my amplifiers have to deliver less than 1 watt
> on average at a distance of 1 meter for both channels.
>
> Normally, I listen at a distance of 3 meters from the speakers, so I
> could still even use a 300B SET to satisfy my SPL needs.
>

We have similar normal listening patterns and the distance from my
listening position to the speakers is 9.5 feet. The SPL figure you
gave is for 'normal listneing,' but thea's noit how I listen when home
alone and I don't ahve to worry about upsetting the wife and kids.

On rock music the norm is more like 90dB.

> Anything over 90 dB SPL @ 1 m is almost deafening loud to me.

Do you have a subwoofer?

> At the SR company I work for, we have some line array systems that are
> capable of >110 dB in a wide beam.
> Even when wearing earplugs, I ran away screaming when they were tested
> shortly at near full power (2500 watts of total amplifier power, per
> side).
> That was at a distance of 20 meters..........
>
> How anyone could even * think * about having a sound system in the
> home that is capable of going 10 dB and more above those ear-bleeding
> levels, is totally beyond me.
>

You're forgetting how much power it takes to get low bass. :-)
-
>
> - Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

[Sander deWaal]

" > said:


>> Anything over 90 dB SPL @ 1 m is almost deafening loud to me.

>Do you have a subwoofer?


I'm still in the process of building one, with the Adire 12D4 12 inch
driver. My dad offered to do the woodwork, but he's too stubborn to
admit that he's probably getting too old to do things like that.
I should pick up the material next time I visit my folks...........

I'll be driving it with 2 leftover Yamaha amplifier PCBs, which are
capable of 300 watts each in 4 ohms.
I'm leaning forward to try the Hypex UcD 400 though, being pretty
close to the source these days I should be able to get them for a
reduced price.

I know that when subs come in the picture, power requirements are a
bit different.


>> How anyone could even * think * about having a sound system in the
>> home that is capable of going 10 dB and more above those ear-bleeding
>> levels, is totally beyond me.


>You're forgetting how much power it takes to get low bass. :-)


I didn't forget that, but I was assuming full range SPL.
You'd need *huge* amps and many, many drivers to reach that SPL in
your home...............

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

[[email protected]]

Sander deWaal wrote:
> " > said:
>
>
> >> Anything over 90 dB SPL @ 1 m is almost deafening loud to me.
>
> >Do you have a subwoofer?
>
>
> I'm still in the process of building one, with the Adire 12D4 12 inch
> driver. My dad offered to do the woodwork, but he's too stubborn to
> admit that he's probably getting too old to do things like that.
> I should pick up the material next time I visit my folks...........
>
> I'll be driving it with 2 leftover Yamaha amplifier PCBs, which are
> capable of 300 watts each in 4 ohms.
> I'm leaning forward to try the Hypex UcD 400 though, being pretty
> close to the source these days I should be able to get them for a
> reduced price.
>
> I know that when subs come in the picture, power requirements are a
> bit different.
>
>
> >> How anyone could even * think * about having a sound system in the
> >> home that is capable of going 10 dB and more above those ear-bleeding
> >> levels, is totally beyond me.
>
>
> >You're forgetting how much power it takes to get low bass. :-)
>
>
> I didn't forget that, but I was assuming full range SPL.
> You'd need *huge* amps and many, many drivers to reach that SPL in
> your home...............
>
> --
>
Is Sonotube not available there? Much better for subwoofers and
cheaper as well, not a lot of wood work involved and could probably be
knocked in a 2 days allowing for glue to dry well. Smaller foot print
as well as no worry about bracing.

[Sander deWaal]

" > said:


>Is Sonotube not available there? Much better for subwoofers and
>cheaper as well, not a lot of wood work involved and could probably be
>knocked in a 2 days allowing for glue to dry well. Smaller foot print
>as well as no worry about bracing.


I don't know, actually.
I got the Adire fairly cheap, and I don't think there's any need for
more than 12 inch in my listening room.

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

[dave weil]

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 23:45:12 GMT, > wrote:

>>>> "Is 16/44 enough? Not clear, and maybe not".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Which is precisely why I also noted that the thread was from 2004, and
>>>that
>>>maybe there was new better info.
>>
>> So why quote it in the first place? If THIS can be wrong or off-base
>> simply because it's less than 2 years old, then the rest of it could
>> very well be wrong as well. Face it, you're just doing more
>> cherry-picking again.
>>
>
>That yo choose to misinterpret the written word is not my problem.

No, your problem is picking and choosing what you want to consider.
You're the one who brought his post into the discussion and yet you
completely ignore one of his statements.

>>>It is certain that it is not enough if you want to do any noise shaping or
>>>any sort of tweaking, for that you need a higher rate as has been noted
>>>elsewhere, but it is not by any means certain or even likely that 16/44 is
>>>insufficient for transparent playback of CD's at home.
>>
>> Well, that statement implies that it's not any means certain or even
>> likely that 16/44 is *sufficient* for transparent playback of CDs at
>> home.
>>
>That you misinterpret the written word is not my problem.

Pretty hard to "misinterpret" "Is 16/44 enough? Not clear, and maybe
not". This is coming from someone who has done more systematic dbts in
the digital domain that either you or Arnold Krueger combined.

[[email protected]]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> " > said:
>
>
>>Is Sonotube not available there? Much better for subwoofers and
>>cheaper as well, not a lot of wood work involved and could probably be
>>knocked in a 2 days allowing for glue to dry well. Smaller foot print
>>as well as no worry about bracing.
>
>
> I don't know, actually.
> I got the Adire fairly cheap, and I don't think there's any need for
> more than 12 inch in my listening room.
>
>
Not saying there is, but with an 18 inch or whatever sized tube you choose
you get a very small footprint, almost no wood work except for endcaps, and
the advantages of the cylinder not needing any additional bracing, PLUS
optimum internal volume can be met easily, as can port length.

If the 12D4 Shiva has the same T/S parameters as the 12D8 that I have,(only
they didn't call it that back then as they only had 12" Shiva's) then the
best bass will be achieved from a 143L enclosure.
This will get you down to 18 Hz with room loading, according to their own
info.

You can go smaller and still get very acceptable bass into the mid to low
20's, or are you planning for a sealed enclosure?

Had I not already had a cabinet on hand and I was starting a sub from
scratch, the tube looks most attractive, when considering all factors, not
the least of which is low weight and strength compared to a regular box..
Check out the Adire forums and you will find many different implementations
and there is participation from the owner and head honcho. Or you can just
google sontube subwoofers and find some very cool stuff.

One of the RAHE regulars used to have a pair of Adire subs but got rid of
them when he got his Linkwitz Orion system.

[Sander deWaal]

" > said:


>Not saying there is, but with an 18 inch or whatever sized tube you choose
>you get a very small footprint, almost no wood work except for endcaps, and
>the advantages of the cylinder not needing any additional bracing, PLUS
>optimum internal volume can be met easily, as can port length.


I'll look into this, thanks.
However, I already have everything sawed, so I'll try the simple box
first.


>If the 12D4 Shiva has the same T/S parameters as the 12D8 that I have,(only
>they didn't call it that back then as they only had 12" Shiva's) then the
>best bass will be achieved from a 143L enclosure.
>This will get you down to 18 Hz with room loading, according to their own
>info.

>You can go smaller and still get very acceptable bass into the mid to low
>20's, or are you planning for a sealed enclosure?


I calculated 130 liters, closed box.
Q is a little lower than recommended.

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

[[email protected]]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> " > said:
>
>
>>Not saying there is, but with an 18 inch or whatever sized tube you choose
>>you get a very small footprint, almost no wood work except for endcaps,
>>and
>>the advantages of the cylinder not needing any additional bracing, PLUS
>>optimum internal volume can be met easily, as can port length.
>
>
> I'll look into this, thanks.
> However, I already have everything sawed, so I'll try the simple box
> first.
>
>
>>If the 12D4 Shiva has the same T/S parameters as the 12D8 that I
>>have,(only
>>they didn't call it that back then as they only had 12" Shiva's) then the
>>best bass will be achieved from a 143L enclosure.
>>This will get you down to 18 Hz with room loading, according to their own
>>info.
>
>>You can go smaller and still get very acceptable bass into the mid to low
>>20's, or are you planning for a sealed enclosure?
>
>
> I calculated 130 liters, closed box.
> Q is a little lower than recommended.
>
Adire used to have a paper on their website with 3 subwoofer designs for the
Shiva, the largest being a 141.48 Liter downfiring (as were all of their
designs) box tuned to 22 Hz IIRC that combined with room gain gave response
down to 18Hz, so your box is probably right in the ballpark. There are
several Shiva based designs up on the web if you decide to take a look at
how some other folks did it, especially with the tubes.

Good luck.

[Sander deWaal]

" > said:


>> I calculated 130 liters, closed box.
>> Q is a little lower than recommended.


>Adire used to have a paper on their website with 3 subwoofer designs for the
>Shiva, the largest being a 141.48 Liter downfiring (as were all of their
>designs) box tuned to 22 Hz IIRC that combined with room gain gave response
>down to 18Hz, so your box is probably right in the ballpark. There are
>several Shiva based designs up on the web if you decide to take a look at
>how some other folks did it, especially with the tubes.


I used Win ISD for the calculations, and they seem to be about right
for the 12D4.


>Good luck.


Thanks, I'll need it (flowers can be sent to a yet to be determined
hospital) ;-)

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

[fogdog]

wrote:
> Things that I've found state that we don't need higher rates.
>

I don't want to believe that humanity has created the best possible
recordable audio 20 years ago with the introduction of the cd.