SACD on Playstation 3 - what gives?!?! [Archive]

J. Nelson

February 5th 07, 05:31 PM

I recently bought a sony playstation 3. I actually don't play many
games, but I was very excited about the high-def blu-ray DVD player.
Secondarily, I was also interested in getting some of my favorite
albums on the SACD audio format.

I don't have an HDMI-equipped TV or amplifier, so I hooked it all up
to my high def TV and Denon amp and Bose 5.1 speakers with component
video cables and an optical digital audio cable.

So the blu-ray DVD player worked great, and I'm happy with it. But
then I rushed out to buy "Dark Side of the Moon" on SACD to listen to
some of this great new audio format... and it refuses to play! The
Playstation 3 just gives me the message "Use audio cable other than
digital (optical) format."

WHAT????? WTF????? My only other options for ouptput from the
playsation are HDMI - which really isn't an option, since my amplifier
and TV can't accept that input - and regular old stereo RCA audio
cables, which obviously aren't going to carry 5.1 multichannel sound.

What is going on here???? I'm hugely disappointed, and I can't
figure this out... I'm hoping this is just some silly minor glitch
that people on this message group can help me figure out. Meanwhile,
I've temporarily cancelled my pending order on amazon.com for about 20
more SACDs... thank god I didn't buy them all up front before I
figured out this problem.

Can anyone tell me whats up with this?!?!?!

William Sommerwerck

February 5th 07, 05:41 PM

It would appear that the PS3 does not support multi-ch SACD. Check the
manual.

William Sommerwerck

February 5th 07, 05:42 PM

PS: Note that you can purchase a Sony DVD player for around $200 (I think)
that does play multi-ch SACDs. Considering what the recordings cost, that's
not a bad deal.

Jay Kadis

February 5th 07, 05:44 PM

In article . com>,
"J. Nelson" > wrote:

> I recently bought a sony playstation 3. I actually don't play many
> games, but I was very excited about the high-def blu-ray DVD player.
> Secondarily, I was also interested in getting some of my favorite
> albums on the SACD audio format.
>
> I don't have an HDMI-equipped TV or amplifier, so I hooked it all up
> to my high def TV and Denon amp and Bose 5.1 speakers with component
> video cables and an optical digital audio cable.
>
> So the blu-ray DVD player worked great, and I'm happy with it. But
> then I rushed out to buy "Dark Side of the Moon" on SACD to listen to
> some of this great new audio format... and it refuses to play! The
> Playstation 3 just gives me the message "Use audio cable other than
> digital (optical) format."
>
> WHAT????? WTF????? My only other options for ouptput from the
> playsation are HDMI - which really isn't an option, since my amplifier
> and TV can't accept that input - and regular old stereo RCA audio
> cables, which obviously aren't going to carry 5.1 multichannel sound.
>
> What is going on here???? I'm hugely disappointed, and I can't
> figure this out... I'm hoping this is just some silly minor glitch
> that people on this message group can help me figure out. Meanwhile,
> I've temporarily cancelled my pending order on amazon.com for about 20
> more SACDs... thank god I didn't buy them all up front before I
> figured out this problem.
>
> Can anyone tell me whats up with this?!?!?!

Since SACDs do not employ PCM modulation, they do not output S/PDIF
digital audio. The Sony SACD player I have sends up to 6 channels of
audio out analog but nothing goes out digital.

-Jay

--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x ---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

Harry Lavo

February 5th 07, 07:26 PM

"J. Nelson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I recently bought a sony playstation 3. I actually don't play many
> games, but I was very excited about the high-def blu-ray DVD player.
> Secondarily, I was also interested in getting some of my favorite
> albums on the SACD audio format.
>
> I don't have an HDMI-equipped TV or amplifier, so I hooked it all up
> to my high def TV and Denon amp and Bose 5.1 speakers with component
> video cables and an optical digital audio cable.
>
> So the blu-ray DVD player worked great, and I'm happy with it. But
> then I rushed out to buy "Dark Side of the Moon" on SACD to listen to
> some of this great new audio format... and it refuses to play! The
> Playstation 3 just gives me the message "Use audio cable other than
> digital (optical) format."
>
> WHAT????? WTF????? My only other options for ouptput from the
> playsation are HDMI - which really isn't an option, since my amplifier
> and TV can't accept that input - and regular old stereo RCA audio
> cables, which obviously aren't going to carry 5.1 multichannel sound.
>
> What is going on here???? I'm hugely disappointed, and I can't
> figure this out... I'm hoping this is just some silly minor glitch
> that people on this message group can help me figure out. Meanwhile,
> I've temporarily cancelled my pending order on amazon.com for about 20
> more SACDs... thank god I didn't buy them all up front before I
> figured out this problem.
>
> Can anyone tell me whats up with this?!?!?!

Traditionally SACD will only play via analog cables...those good old RCA's.
If you only have two of them, then your machine only supports stereo SACD
(not multi-channel) via this conventional hookup. Your effor message meant
the machine was looking for these cables, ....OR...

It was looking for the HDMI connection. Some receivers can receive SACD
through HDMI, but this is pretty rare.

Your manual will be your best friend. Check it out thoroughly.

J. Nelson

February 5th 07, 10:12 PM

> Traditionally SACD will only play via analog cables...those good old RCA's.
> If you only have two of them, then your machine only supports stereo SACD
> (not multi-channel) via this conventional hookup.

The Playstation 3 cannot output to 5+ RCA cables and no such adaptors
are available for it. The connectors available for the PS3 are: 1)
Stereo (two) RCA connectors; 2) Optical cable, and 3) HDMI. Of
these 3 options, HDMI is not vialbe for me since my amp and TV have
no HDMI input.

> Your manual will be your best friend. Check it out thoroughly

Allow me to quote the entire text of the Playstation3 manual regarding
SACDs: "The Playstation3 can play Super Audio CDs." :-/

> Since SACDs do not employ PCM modulation, they do not output S/PDIF
digital audio.
> The Sony SACD player I have sends up to 6 channels of
> audio out analog but nothing goes out digital.
>

Wha...? SPIFF who?? Can you put that in layman's terms?

> It would appear that the PS3 does not support multi-ch SACD.

The PS3 recognizes the CD, tells me it's SACD, displays the artist
and album info on the screen, notes that the sound is in 5.1 channel
format (alongside traditional 2.0 format, if I choose,) and then
politely refuses to play it. This seems like an awful lot of useless
functionality for them to have added to be able to recognize all this
about multichannel SACD, if in the end it won't play!

Kalman Rubinson

February 6th 07, 12:18 AM

Most of the information you got is correct. For content protection,
SACD output is restricted to analog or encrypted digital. Your PS3 is
capable of analog output (stereo only) and encrypted digital (HDMI).
It is unfortunate that you did not know these restrictions before.

Kal

07 14:12:50 -0800, "J. Nelson" > wrote:

>
>> Traditionally SACD will only play via analog cables...those good old RCA's.
>> If you only have two of them, then your machine only supports stereo SACD
>> (not multi-channel) via this conventional hookup.
>
>The Playstation 3 cannot output to 5+ RCA cables and no such adaptors
>are available for it. The connectors available for the PS3 are: 1)
>Stereo (two) RCA connectors; 2) Optical cable, and 3) HDMI. Of
>these 3 options, HDMI is not vialbe for me since my amp and TV have
>no HDMI input.
>
>
>> Your manual will be your best friend. Check it out thoroughly
>
>Allow me to quote the entire text of the Playstation3 manual regarding
>SACDs: "The Playstation3 can play Super Audio CDs." :-/
>
>
>> Since SACDs do not employ PCM modulation, they do not output S/PDIF
>digital audio.
>> The Sony SACD player I have sends up to 6 channels of
>> audio out analog but nothing goes out digital.
>>
>
>Wha...? SPIFF who?? Can you put that in layman's terms?
>
>> It would appear that the PS3 does not support multi-ch SACD.
>
>The PS3 recognizes the CD, tells me it's SACD, displays the artist
>and album info on the screen, notes that the sound is in 5.1 channel
>format (alongside traditional 2.0 format, if I choose,) and then
>politely refuses to play it. This seems like an awful lot of useless
>functionality for them to have added to be able to recognize all this
>about multichannel SACD, if in the end it won't play!

Arny Krueger

February 6th 07, 02:19 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "J. Nelson" > wrote in message
> oups.com...

>> I recently bought a sony playstation 3. I actually
>> don't play many games, but I was very excited about the
>> high-def blu-ray DVD player. Secondarily, I was also
>> interested in getting some of my favorite albums on the
>> SACD audio format.

>> I don't have an HDMI-equipped TV or amplifier, so I
>> hooked it all up to my high def TV and Denon amp and
>> Bose 5.1 speakers with component video cables and an
>> optical digital audio cable.

>> So the blu-ray DVD player worked great, and I'm happy
>> with it. But then I rushed out to buy "Dark Side of the
>> Moon" on SACD to listen to some of this great new audio
>> format... and it refuses to play! The Playstation 3
>> just gives me the message "Use audio cable other than
>> digital (optical) format."

This appears to be an implementation limitation of the PS3.

The core problem is that SACD's major real-world practical advantage is to
producers of content. It protects their precious high resolution recordings
from bit-for-bit duplication by limiting the function of licensed hardware.

Don't believe anybody who tells you that a SACD signal can't be converted to
a PCM signal with equal resolution - that's a line of ignorant BS. Anybody
who knows information theory knows that the bandwidth and dynamic range of
information is not limited by the details of data formats or data types,
provided they can handle enough information.

However, it is the intent and policy of the developers and licensors of SACD
patents (Sony and Philips for example) that nobody actually implement such a
thing in a way that consumers are likely to exploit it to make their own
digital recordings.

SACD licensees *can* produce players with digital outputs, but they have to
fit into one of two categories. Either the digital output must downsample
the SACD bitstream into a far lower sample rate and/or resolution, or it
must distribute the higher-resolution bitstream in such a way that it can't
be easily recorded by consumers. It looks to me like the devlopers of the
PS3 may have decided to include *neither* feature in their product at this
time.

The good news is that the "lower resolution" digital outputs that SACD
licensees can implement in consumer gear may run as high as 48 KHz sample
rate, which is in fact subjectively indistinguishable from origional SACD
signals. Furthermore the analog outputs of a SACD device can be
re-digitized using relatively inexpensive hardware to make digital
recordings that are again indistinguishable from origional SACD signals.

Harry Lavo

February 6th 07, 06:26 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>> "J. Nelson" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>
>>> I recently bought a sony playstation 3. I actually
>>> don't play many games, but I was very excited about the
>>> high-def blu-ray DVD player. Secondarily, I was also
>>> interested in getting some of my favorite albums on the
>>> SACD audio format.
>
>>> I don't have an HDMI-equipped TV or amplifier, so I
>>> hooked it all up to my high def TV and Denon amp and
>>> Bose 5.1 speakers with component video cables and an
>>> optical digital audio cable.
>
>>> So the blu-ray DVD player worked great, and I'm happy
>>> with it. But then I rushed out to buy "Dark Side of the
>>> Moon" on SACD to listen to some of this great new audio
>>> format... and it refuses to play! The Playstation 3
>>> just gives me the message "Use audio cable other than
>>> digital (optical) format."
>
> This appears to be an implementation limitation of the PS3.
>
> The core problem is that SACD's major real-world practical advantage is to
> producers of content. It protects their precious high resolution
> recordings from bit-for-bit duplication by limiting the function of
> licensed hardware.
>
> Don't believe anybody who tells you that a SACD signal can't be converted
> to a PCM signal with equal resolution - that's a line of ignorant BS.
> Anybody who knows information theory knows that the bandwidth and dynamic
> range of information is not limited by the details of data formats or data
> types, provided they can handle enough information.
>
> However, it is the intent and policy of the developers and licensors of
> SACD patents (Sony and Philips for example) that nobody actually implement
> such a thing in a way that consumers are likely to exploit it to make
> their own digital recordings.
>
> SACD licensees *can* produce players with digital outputs, but they have
> to fit into one of two categories. Either the digital output must
> downsample the SACD bitstream into a far lower sample rate and/or
> resolution, or it must distribute the higher-resolution bitstream in such
> a way that it can't be easily recorded by consumers. It looks to me like
> the devlopers of the PS3 may have decided to include *neither* feature in
> their product at this time.
>
> The good news is that the "lower resolution" digital outputs that SACD
> licensees can implement in consumer gear may run as high as 48 KHz sample
> rate, which is in fact subjectively indistinguishable from origional SACD
> signals. Furthermore the analog outputs of a SACD device can be
> re-digitized using relatively inexpensive hardware to make digital
> recordings that are again indistinguishable from origional SACD signals.

Arny can never let the chance for an anti-SACD diatribe to go
by....especially if my name is on a post that mentions SACD.

The OP here says he can't use HDMI, which probably carries the multi-channel
signal. That is far different than saying SONY left it out. Shortsighted
of them perhaps, but explainable perhaps by considering that this is an
expensive game-playing machine for videophiles.

As far as downsampling is concerned, ask yourself this Arny: if the
downsampled signal is every bit as good as the high res signal, why is Sony
allowing that but not the high-res signal?

Arny Krueger

February 6th 07, 07:05 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "J. Nelson" > wrote in message
>>> oups.com...
>>
>>>> I recently bought a sony playstation 3. I actually
>>>> don't play many games, but I was very excited about
>>>> the high-def blu-ray DVD player. Secondarily, I was
>>>> also interested in getting some of my favorite albums
>>>> on the SACD audio format.
>>
>>>> I don't have an HDMI-equipped TV or amplifier, so I
>>>> hooked it all up to my high def TV and Denon amp and
>>>> Bose 5.1 speakers with component video cables and an
>>>> optical digital audio cable.
>>
>>>> So the blu-ray DVD player worked great, and I'm happy
>>>> with it. But then I rushed out to buy "Dark Side of
>>>> the Moon" on SACD to listen to some of this great new
>>>> audio format... and it refuses to play! The
>>>> Playstation 3 just gives me the message "Use audio
>>>> cable other than digital (optical) format."
>>
>> This appears to be an implementation limitation of the
>> PS3. The core problem is that SACD's major real-world
>> practical advantage is to producers of content. It
>> protects their precious high resolution recordings from
>> bit-for-bit duplication by limiting the function of
>> licensed hardware. Don't believe anybody who tells you that a SACD signal
>> can't be converted to a PCM signal with equal resolution
>> - that's a line of ignorant BS. Anybody who knows
>> information theory knows that the bandwidth and dynamic
>> range of information is not limited by the details of
>> data formats or data types, provided they can handle
>> enough information. However, it is the intent and policy of the
>> developers
>> and licensors of SACD patents (Sony and Philips for
>> example) that nobody actually implement such a thing in
>> a way that consumers are likely to exploit it to make
>> their own digital recordings. SACD licensees *can* produce players with
>> digital
>> outputs, but they have to fit into one of two
>> categories. Either the digital output must downsample
>> the SACD bitstream into a far lower sample rate and/or
>> resolution, or it must distribute the higher-resolution
>> bitstream in such a way that it can't be easily recorded
>> by consumers. It looks to me like the devlopers of the
>> PS3 may have decided to include *neither* feature in
>> their product at this time. The good news is that the "lower resolution"
>> digital
>> outputs that SACD licensees can implement in consumer
>> gear may run as high as 48 KHz sample rate, which is in
>> fact subjectively indistinguishable from origional SACD
>> signals. Furthermore the analog outputs of a SACD
>> device can be re-digitized using relatively inexpensive
>> hardware to make digital recordings that are again
>> indistinguishable from origional SACD signals.
>
> Arny can never let the chance for an anti-SACD diatribe
> to go by....especially if my name is on a post that
> mentions SACD.

Nahh, its all about Harry's inability to get things right.

> The OP here says he can't use HDMI, which probably
> carries the multi-channel signal. That is far different
> than saying SONY left it out.

I never said that Harry, but thanks for starting an argument with yourself!

> Shortsighted of them
> perhaps, but explainable perhaps by considering that this
> is an expensive game-playing machine for videophiles.

Doooh!

> As far as downsampling is concerned, ask yourself this
> Arny: if the downsampled signal is every bit as good as
> the high res signal, why is Sony allowing that but not
> the high-res signal?

Simple - the whole hi-rez thing is about how much wool they can pull over
people's eyes. This is just another form of that sort of thinking.

More to the point Harry - given that so many people have failed to hear any
difference due to reducing so-called high-rez files to CD format, why don't
you do some tests of your own and show us how it is done. Spare us your
463'd rendition of your love afair with that vanity paper that was published
in some soft-science periodical in Japan.

Steven Sullivan

February 6th 07, 10:31 PM

In rec.audio.pro J. Nelson > wrote:
> I recently bought a sony playstation 3. I actually don't play many
> games, but I was very excited about the high-def blu-ray DVD player.
> Secondarily, I was also interested in getting some of my favorite
> albums on the SACD audio format.

> I don't have an HDMI-equipped TV or amplifier, so I hooked it all up
> to my high def TV and Denon amp and Bose 5.1 speakers with component
> video cables and an optical digital audio cable.

> So the blu-ray DVD player worked great, and I'm happy with it. But
> then I rushed out to buy "Dark Side of the Moon" on SACD to listen to
> some of this great new audio format... and it refuses to play! The
> Playstation 3 just gives me the message "Use audio cable other than
> digital (optical) format."

> WHAT????? WTF????? My only other options for ouptput from the
> playsation are HDMI - which really isn't an option, since my amplifier
> and TV can't accept that input - and regular old stereo RCA audio
> cables, which obviously aren't going to carry 5.1 multichannel sound.

Well, HDMI is your only option, because it's the only interface on
your Playstation that could possibly pass SACD digitally. SACD (DSD)
requires HDMI 1.2 to be exact, though it can be passed
with HDMI 1.1. if it's converted to PCM first.

SACD has never been passable via the usual optical/coax digital connections.
Copy protection and all that, you know. YOu can pass the CD layer of
a hybrid SACD though.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

Harry Lavo

February 7th 07, 02:30 PM

"Chel van Gennip" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 20:05:05 +0100, Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> More to the point Harry - given that so many people have failed to hear
>> any difference due to reducing so-called high-rez files to CD format,
>> why don't you do some tests of your own and show us how it is done.
>> Spare us your 463'd rendition of your love afair with that vanity paper
>> that was published in some soft-science periodical in Japan.

You mean, Arny, the Journal of Neurophysiology? Some "soft science".

Vanity paper? Just about the most rigorous audio testing / environment I
have read about anywhere. And peer reviewed for statistical and research
integrity.

> That transients that physically can't even travel through air? Not again
> please. Let harry believe these waveforms can travel through air and that
> HE is able to hear them. It makes him happy.

Chel, you either haven't read or mis-remember through a seeming bias what
the article reported. Among the reported findings; hard physiological
readings which correlated to a very high degree with the respondents ratings
on musical realism and enjoyment. All backed up by peer-reviewed evidential
and statistical analysis. The fact that you don't believe it doesn't
automatically make it wrong.

In case anybody might be wondering who wasn't here two years ago, the
article is here: http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548

Arny Krueger

February 7th 07, 03:05 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Chel van Gennip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 20:05:05 +0100, Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>> More to the point Harry - given that so many people
>>> have failed to hear any difference due to reducing
>>> so-called high-rez files to CD format, why don't you do
>>> some tests of your own and show us how it is done.
>>> Spare us your 463'd rendition of your love afair with
>>> that vanity paper that was published in some
>>> soft-science periodical in Japan.
>
> You mean, Arny, the Journal of Neurophysiology? Some
> "soft science".

> Vanity paper? Just about the most rigorous audio testing
> / environment I have read about anywhere.

That says something about you, Harry.

The bottom line is that none of us audition recordings with $millions of
medical equipment monitoring us, and (hopefully) few of us do it while
chemicals are being shot into our veins.

> And peer reviewed for statistical and research integrity.

It's well-known that this paper was shopped around and rewritten several
times before it was published in the non-audio journal that finally accepted
it. I seem to recall that it was an AES conference paper but never passed
peer-review muster to be included in the Journal. I suspect that the IEEE
passed it by, as well.

>> That transients that physically can't even travel
>> through air? Not again please. Let harry believe these
>> waveforms can travel through air and that HE is able to
>> hear them. It makes him happy.

> Chel, you either haven't read or mis-remember through a
> seeming bias what the article reported. Among the
> reported findings; hard physiological readings which
> correlated to a very high degree with the respondents
> ratings on musical realism and enjoyment. All backed up
> by peer-reviewed evidential and statistical analysis. The fact that you
> don't believe it doesn't automatically
> make it wrong.

No, the fact that one or more prestigious and highly relevant audio-related
review boards didn't find it convincing makes it highly suspect, as do a
careful reading of the test conditions.

> In case anybody might be wondering who wasn't here two
> years ago, the article is here:

> http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548

Neatly avoiding the fact that content protection is the strongest and most
believable justification for the SACD format. AFAIK, to this day Sony has
declined to mass-market a computer DVD drive that will play SACDs, except
just now as a component of the PS3. Begs the question whether that drive and
be removed and made, err useful. ;-)

Scott Dorsey

February 7th 07, 03:50 PM

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>> In case anybody might be wondering who wasn't here two
>> years ago, the article is here:
>
>> http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548
>
>Neatly avoiding the fact that content protection is the strongest and most
>believable justification for the SACD format. AFAIK, to this day Sony has
>declined to mass-market a computer DVD drive that will play SACDs, except
>just now as a component of the PS3. Begs the question whether that drive and
>be removed and made, err useful. ;-)

This is an interesting paper, but it's got some problems. Nowhere NEAR
as bad as the problems that the Kanagawa Institute papers have, but some
big ones.

First of all, Dr. Oohashi is a contract engineer for Pioneer, and as such
is not an unbiased person.

Secondly, he is playing the samples through his own homebrew speaker system
with a horn-loaded tweeter. Because the speaker system is a one-off, it is
impossible to reproduce his results exactly. If the speaker is the same
as the ones the Kanagawa Institute got from Pioneer, they are using TAD
compression drivers and wooden horns, which are fairly clean but still have
higher IMD than a modern soft dome tweeter. Which brings is to the major
issue that even if ultrasonics are inaudible, intermodulation distortion
in the driver and horn system can cause difference products between the
ultrasonics, which will fall into the audible range and will be easy to
hear.

This isn't to say DSD recording is a bad idea. I like the way the Sony
DSD recorders sound, and I am delighted to see a distribution format which
won't allow some of the abusive processing that is currently popular for
CDs. I am strongly in favor of the SACD, whether or not ultrasonics are
perceptable or not.
--scott

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

Harry Lavo

February 7th 07, 06:22 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>> "Chel van Gennip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 20:05:05 +0100, Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>>> More to the point Harry - given that so many people
>>>> have failed to hear any difference due to reducing
>>>> so-called high-rez files to CD format, why don't you do
>>>> some tests of your own and show us how it is done.
>>>> Spare us your 463'd rendition of your love afair with
>>>> that vanity paper that was published in some
>>>> soft-science periodical in Japan.
>>
>> You mean, Arny, the Journal of Neurophysiology? Some
>> "soft science".
>
>> Vanity paper? Just about the most rigorous audio testing
>> / environment I have read about anywhere.
>
> That says something about you, Harry.
>
> The bottom line is that none of us audition recordings with $millions of
> medical equipment monitoring us, and (hopefully) few of us do it while
> chemicals are being shot into our veins.

You ignore the fact that the musical evaluations and the physiological
measurements were done in two separate sessions, although with the same
stimulus. And the environment for the musical evaluation was as relaxed and
conducive to good listening as possible. Moreover, the ratings were
protomonadic, not comparative.

>> And peer reviewed for statistical and research integrity.
>
> It's well-known that this paper was shopped around and rewritten several
> times before it was published in the non-audio journal that finally
> accepted it. I seem to recall that it was an AES conference paper but
> never passed peer-review muster to be included in the Journal. I suspect
> that the IEEE passed it by, as well.

The paper wasn't "shopped", it was presented at the AES conference. And
this was before they had completed the medical part of the evaluation, when
all they had was audio data, so it was harder for the "peers" to accept
contrarian info without some corraborating medical backup.

>>> That transients that physically can't even travel
>>> through air? Not again please. Let harry believe these
>>> waveforms can travel through air and that HE is able to
>>> hear them. It makes him happy.
>
>> Chel, you either haven't read or mis-remember through a
>> seeming bias what the article reported. Among the
>> reported findings; hard physiological readings which
>> correlated to a very high degree with the respondents
>> ratings on musical realism and enjoyment. All backed up
>> by peer-reviewed evidential and statistical analysis. The fact that you
>> don't believe it doesn't automatically
>> make it wrong.
>
> No, the fact that one or more prestigious and highly relevant
> audio-related review boards didn't find it convincing makes it highly
> suspect, as do a careful reading of the test conditions.

The only one I know of is the AES, and we have only your world that it was
submitted and rejected. It *was* presented as a paper.

>> In case anybody might be wondering who wasn't here two
>> years ago, the article is here:
>
>> http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548
>
> Neatly avoiding the fact that content protection is the strongest and most
> believable justification for the SACD format. AFAIK, to this day Sony has
> declined to mass-market a computer DVD drive that will play SACDs, except
> just now as a component of the PS3. Begs the question whether that drive
> and be removed and made, err useful. ;-)

You have your point of view, Arny. Fine, make it. But it doesn't requiring
dissing SACD at every turn just because your ox was gored over in RAHE.

Harry Lavo

February 7th 07, 06:28 PM

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>> In case anybody might be wondering who wasn't here two
>>> years ago, the article is here:
>>
>>> http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548
>>
>>Neatly avoiding the fact that content protection is the strongest and most
>>believable justification for the SACD format. AFAIK, to this day Sony has
>>declined to mass-market a computer DVD drive that will play SACDs, except
>>just now as a component of the PS3. Begs the question whether that drive
>>and
>>be removed and made, err useful. ;-)
>
> This is an interesting paper, but it's got some problems. Nowhere NEAR
> as bad as the problems that the Kanagawa Institute papers have, but some
> big ones.
>
> First of all, Dr. Oohashi is a contract engineer for Pioneer, and as such
> is not an unbiased person.
>
> Secondly, he is playing the samples through his own homebrew speaker
> system
> with a horn-loaded tweeter. Because the speaker system is a one-off, it
> is
> impossible to reproduce his results exactly. If the speaker is the same
> as the ones the Kanagawa Institute got from Pioneer, they are using TAD
> compression drivers and wooden horns, which are fairly clean but still
> have
> higher IMD than a modern soft dome tweeter. Which brings is to the major
> issue that even if ultrasonics are inaudible, intermodulation distortion
> in the driver and horn system can cause difference products between the
> ultrasonics, which will fall into the audible range and will be easy to
> hear.
>
> This isn't to say DSD recording is a bad idea. I like the way the Sony
> DSD recorders sound, and I am delighted to see a distribution format which
> won't allow some of the abusive processing that is currently popular for
> CDs. I am strongly in favor of the SACD, whether or not ultrasonics are
> perceptable or not.

Actually, Scott, the research was funded by several grants, I believe by
members of the DVD-A consortium. Sony had nothing to do with it, and if you
will recall, Pioneer was originally an exclusive DVD-A backer. Moreover, at
the time the research was done I believe he was unaffiliated with any
specific company.

As to the equipment, subsequently I found out that Oohashi has mad identical
equipment available to other researchers should they desire to replicate the
experiment, or otherwise attempt to verify. Whether anybody has taken him
up on it I do not know.

Harry Lavo

February 7th 07, 06:29 PM

"Chel van Gennip" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:30:07 +0100, Harry Lavo wrote:
>
>>> That transients that physically can't even travel through air? Not
>>> again please. Let harry believe these waveforms can travel through air
>>> and that HE is able to hear them. It makes him happy.
>>
>> Chel, you either haven't read or mis-remember through a seeming bias
>> what the article reported. Among the reported findings; hard
>> physiological readings which correlated to a very high degree with the
>> respondents ratings on musical realism and enjoyment. All backed up by
>> peer-reviewed evidential and statistical analysis. The fact that you
>> don't believe it doesn't automatically make it wrong.
>
> I just see in the report "In contrast, compared with the baseline, no
> enhancement of alpha-EEG was evident when either an HFC or an LFC was
> presented separately." And about the same results for the PET scans. As we
> may expect that the LFC signal was audible, this is a strong indication
> the used measurement technique is not suitable for measuring effects of
> sound on the brain.
>
> I see no actual provisions to avoid HF electronic fields interfering test
> results hwile measuring faint electrical signals.
>
> I do know that at normal listening distance for these instruments in
> their normal environment, the attentuation of those high frequency sound
> waves in air is between 20-40dB or higher.

You need to read the report in its entirety, and study the graphs and
tables. There is much more there than you are reacting to.

Scott Dorsey

February 7th 07, 06:35 PM

Harry Lavo > wrote:
>
>Actually, Scott, the research was funded by several grants, I believe by
>members of the DVD-A consortium. Sony had nothing to do with it, and if you
>will recall, Pioneer was originally an exclusive DVD-A backer. Moreover, at
>the time the research was done I believe he was unaffiliated with any
>specific company.

Pioneer has funded a bunch of the Kanagawa studies as well. Remember the
purpose of the Oohashi paper is ultrasonic perception in general, not
necessarily anything specific to DSD. They just happened to be using a
DSD recorder.

I claim that any such papers funded by corporations with an interest in the
results (and nobody has more financial interest in the notion of ultrasonic
perception being beneficial than the members of the DVD-A consortium) are
probably not going to be impartial, even if the authors are trying very hard
to be impartial.

>As to the equipment, subsequently I found out that Oohashi has mad identical
>equipment available to other researchers should they desire to replicate the
>experiment, or otherwise attempt to verify. Whether anybody has taken him
>up on it I do not know.

I suspect that the Kanagawa studies are made with similar speaker systems.
It's really the speaker system that makes this sort of thing very difficult
to perform accurately. We have good wideband mikes and wideband recorders,
but clean reproduction of even the audible spectrum is difficult enough.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Arny Krueger

February 7th 07, 06:42 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> You have your point of view, Arny. Fine, make it.

I did and then you went ballistic, Harry. You've gone way beyond making it
personal. Again.

> But
> it doesn't requiring dissing SACD at every turn just
> because your ox was gored over in RAHE.

Harry, when was my ox was gored on RAHE? What state of delusion are you in
when you think that? And why bring up what happened in another group years
ago here, except to muddy the waters?

Describing the established technical properties of something is *never*
disrespecting it. In fact, that's all the respect anything needs in a
technical discussion of its properties.

Bottom line Harry - my initial comments about SACD were entirely factual,
and non-personal. You've worked hard to turn the thread into a flamefest.
You've obviously spent too much time on RAO - you are beginning to act like
another Middius. ;-(

Arny Krueger

February 7th 07, 06:50 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Chel van Gennip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:30:07 +0100, Harry Lavo wrote:
>>
>>>> That transients that physically can't even travel
>>>> through air? Not again please. Let harry believe these
>>>> waveforms can travel through air and that HE is able
>>>> to hear them. It makes him happy.
>>>
>>> Chel, you either haven't read or mis-remember through a
>>> seeming bias what the article reported. Among the
>>> reported findings; hard physiological readings which
>>> correlated to a very high degree with the respondents
>>> ratings on musical realism and enjoyment. All backed
>>> up by peer-reviewed evidential and statistical
>>> analysis. The fact that you don't believe it doesn't
>>> automatically make it wrong.
>>
>> I just see in the report "In contrast, compared with the
>> baseline, no enhancement of alpha-EEG was evident when
>> either an HFC or an LFC was presented separately." And
>> about the same results for the PET scans. As we may
>> expect that the LFC signal was audible, this is a strong
>> indication the used measurement technique is not
>> suitable for measuring effects of sound on the brain. I see no actual
>> provisions to avoid HF electronic fields
>> interfering test results hwile measuring faint
>> electrical signals. I do know that at normal listening distance for these
>> instruments in their normal environment, the
>> attentuation of those high frequency sound waves in air
>> is between 20-40dB or higher.
>
> You need to read the report in its entirety, and study
> the graphs and tables. There is much more there than you
> are reacting to.

What you don't want to deal with Harry are the simple facts of the matter.
Nobody, especially you want to go to the trouble to show that SACD has any
sonic benefts or even sonic differences, that are apparent in a well-run
listening test.

While Chel pursues the relatively high attenuation of ultraonic information
in air, there's also the slight matter of their extreme directionality.
Bottom line is that we all have recorders that can properly record and
playback at sample rates up to 96 KHz and some even higher. Some of us has
had the opportunity to use microphones with flat reasponse up to 40 KHz and
above. Many of us have investigated the alleged benefits of the use of
higher sample rates and found them to be null.

Harry, when you can cite a JAES or refereed IEEE paper that contradicts what
I said about SACD in my 2/6/2007 post, please provide us with some relevant
quotes from it.

Arny Krueger

February 7th 07, 09:06 PM

"Chel van Gennip" > wrote in message

> Just one quote to show I've reached the end of the
> article: "The article must therefore be hereby marked
> "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734

> " I think that is the most clear fact in the whole article.

I never noticed that fact. This fits well with the following comments from
Scott:

"First of all, Dr. Oohashi is a contract engineer for Pioneer, and as such
is not an unbiased person."

Also:

http://www.audioasylum.com/scripts/t.pl?f=prophead&m=18681

"I don't see any measures for IMD in Oohashi, et. al., and since the high
frequency content was sent through a single tweeter, there must have been
some."
"Kaoru and Shogu did how the distortion spectra for signals sent through the
same drivers (as Oohashi used) and their absence when the were not."

"The experiment was designed to demonstrate what was already known, that
ultrasonic frequencies could not be heard and have no influence on
perception of audible sounds. When the results came out as a surprise the
designers of the test looked more closely and found it was flawed. When it
was corrected by eliminating the IM distortion caused by the ultrasonic
signal being fed to the tweeter operating in the audible range, they got the
same results everyone else did."

"This also demonstrates that even well intentioned testers make mistakes
which need to be examined by peers to be verified before they are accepted
even tentatively as true knowledge. What those who wish to advertise
products based on junk science they either won't or don't choose to test and
prove do is write a thesis with suggestive and leading statements and let
the reader's immagination run away with them drawing implied but unstated
conclusions."

Harry Lavo

February 8th 07, 02:51 AM

"Chel van Gennip" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:29:57 +0100, Harry Lavo wrote:
>
>
>> "Chel van Gennip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:30:07 +0100, Harry Lavo wrote:
>>>
>>>>> That transients that physically can't even travel through air? Not
>>>>> again please. Let harry believe these waveforms can travel through
>>>>> air and that HE is able to hear them. It makes him happy.
>>>>
>>>> Chel, you either haven't read or mis-remember through a seeming bias
>>>> what the article reported. Among the reported findings; hard
>>>> physiological readings which correlated to a very high degree with the
>>>> respondents ratings on musical realism and enjoyment. All backed up
>>>> by peer-reviewed evidential and statistical analysis. The fact that
>>>> you don't believe it doesn't automatically make it wrong.
>>>
>>> I just see in the report "In contrast, compared with the baseline, no
>>> enhancement of alpha-EEG was evident when either an HFC or an LFC was
>>> presented separately." And about the same results for the PET scans. As
>>> we may expect that the LFC signal was audible, this is a strong
>>> indication the used measurement technique is not suitable for measuring
>>> effects of sound on the brain.
>>>
>>> I see no actual provisions to avoid HF electronic fields interfering
>>> test results hwile measuring faint electrical signals.
>>>
>>> I do know that at normal listening distance for these instruments in
>>> their normal environment, the attentuation of those high frequency
>>> sound waves in air is between 20-40dB or higher.
>>
>> You need to read the report in its entirety, and study the graphs and
>> tables. There is much more there than you are reacting to.
>
> After that there remain several facts:
>
> Direct influence of electromagnetic radiation is not excluded from the
> measurements. Not even the possible exsistence of this effect was
> discussed.
>
> It is clear from the measurements that there is no relation between the
> perception of sound and the measurements: there was no difference in the
> measured resuslts with or without clearly audible sound. There was no
> discussion on the lack of relation between audible sound and measurements.

You clearly then did not read the article. There clearly was a difference
in the measured results with and without audible sound. Not only was the
relationship discussed, the statistically significant correlations were
discussed.

>
> And we still have the 20-40dB attentuation of these frequencies in air. An
> effect that was not mentioned in the whole article.
>
> Just one quote to show I've reached the end of the article: "The article
> must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18
> U.S.C. Section 1734 " I think that is the most clear fact in the whole
> article.

You are being either disingenuous or sloppy. The reference to "advertising"
is because the contents of this and other journal articles is on a website
that also provides printed copies for "page charges". The website has
absolutely nothing to do with Pioneer or any other audio company; it is
operated by the Journal of Neurophysiology and the reference clearly
indicates that the "advertising" reference refers strictly to the page
charges. Here is the section just above the list of references, in it's
entirety:

" ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the staff of the Kyoto University PET Center for valuable
contributions to this work; Dr. Yoshio Yamasaki, Waseda University, for the
use of his recently developed signal processing system; the Yamashiro
Institute of Science and Culture for recording the sound sources; Dr.
Norihiro Sadato, National Institute for Physiological Sciences, for valuable
comments on an early version of the manuscript; and Dr. Masako Morimoto,
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, for valuable technical support.

This work was supported in part by the Japan Ministry of Education, Science
and Culture, through the Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (A)
(09490031) to T. Oohashi, on Priority Areas to H. Shibasaki, and for
International Scientific Research Program (10041144) to T. Oohashi, and by
the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science through the Research for the
Future Program JSPS-RFTF 97L00201 to H. Shibasaki.

FOOTNOTES

Address for reprint requests: T. Oohashi, Dept. of KANSEI Brain Science, ATR
Human Information Processing Laboratories, 2-2 Hikaridai, Seika-cho,
Soraku-gun, Kyoto 619-0288, Japan.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the
payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked
"advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate
this fact.

Received 15 November 1999; accepted in final form 6 March 2000. "

Do you notice how blatently *commercial* this work and its sponsors were??
:-]

Harry Lavo

February 8th 07, 03:17 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Chel van Gennip" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>> Just one quote to show I've reached the end of the
>> article: "The article must therefore be hereby marked
>> "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734
>
>> " I think that is the most clear fact in the whole article.
>
> I never noticed that fact. This fits well with the following comments from
> Scott:
>
> "First of all, Dr. Oohashi is a contract engineer for Pioneer, and as such
> is not an unbiased person."
>

So, first we have a misguided (and completely untrue) reading of the
"advertising" clause by Chel (see my response to his post), conflated with
an ubsubstantiated claim by Scott, and advanced by you pretty much as a
"fact" ("they fit well" together. Since when does a wrong and a potential
wrong make a "right", Arny?

> Also:
>
> http://www.audioasylum.com/scripts/t.pl?f=prophead&m=18681
>
>
> "I don't see any measures for IMD in Oohashi, et. al., and since the high
> frequency content was sent through a single tweeter, there must have been
> some."
> "Kaoru and Shogu did how the distortion spectra for signals sent through
> the same drivers (as Oohashi used) and their absence when the were not."

They are not talking about Oohashi here, but another test ( Kaoru and
Shogu ).

But if you, as did the author of this Audio Asylum post, try to apply it to
the Oohashi test there is a slight problem.

If you read the Oohashi article carefully, in his test the horn tweeter was
part of the normal speaker. The supertweeter which was switched in and out
was a diamond-deposit dome tweeter. And if there was audible frequency
intermodulation with only this supertweeter (as claimed by the author of
this Audio Asylum post for the other test) then it would also have been
heard when the supertweeter alone was activated. It wasn't.

If intermodulation occurred only with both the main speaker and supertweeter
activated (driven by separate amplifiers to avoid electrical intermodulation
distortion) then one could rightly conclude that such frequency-derived
intermodulation is a natural function of the gamelan music that was used as
the source material, and is therefore proof that failure to reproduce the
ultrasonic frequencies reduces the naturalness and enjoyment of the playing,
which is what both the electrical brain scan and the respondents ratings
(done at separate times) seem to indicate.

> "The experiment was designed to demonstrate what was already known, that
> ultrasonic frequencies could not be heard and have no influence on
> perception of audible sounds. When the results came out as a surprise the
> designers of the test looked more closely and found it was flawed. When it
> was corrected by eliminating the IM distortion caused by the ultrasonic
> signal being fed to the tweeter operating in the audible range, they got
> the same results everyone else did."

They are not talking about Oohashi here, but the test by Kaoru and Shogu.

> "This also demonstrates that even well intentioned testers make mistakes
> which need to be examined by peers to be verified before they are accepted
> even tentatively as true knowledge. What those who wish to advertise
> products based on junk science they either won't or don't choose to test
> and prove do is write a thesis with suggestive and leading statements and
> let the reader's immagination run away with them drawing implied but
> unstated conclusions."

They are not talking about Oohashi here, but the test by Kaoru and Shogu.

It would help if you and Chel read the article and the AA posts and got your
facts straight. Instead of letting your bias take over so readily.

Arny Krueger

February 8th 07, 11:04 AM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Chel van Gennip" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> Just one quote to show I've reached the end of the
>>> article: "The article must therefore be hereby marked
>>> "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section
>>> 1734
>>
>>> " I think that is the most clear fact in the whole article.
>>
>> I never noticed that fact. This fits well with the
>> following comments from Scott:
>>
>> "First of all, Dr. Oohashi is a contract engineer for
>> Pioneer, and as such is not an unbiased person."
>>
>
> So, first we have a misguided (and completely untrue)
> reading of the "advertising" clause by Chel (see my
> response to his post),

Chel pointed out that it is you who are wrong, Harry. So much for this
alleged wrong of yours!

> conflated with an ubsubstantiated claim by Scott,

I did a little research and found that the claim is probably true. So much
for this alleged wrong of yours!

> and advanced by you pretty much as a
> "fact" ("they fit well" together. Since when does a
> wrong and a potential wrong make a "right", Arny?

Irrelevant for the reasons already stated.

>> Also:
>>
>> http://www.audioasylum.com/scripts/t.pl?f=prophead&m=18681
>>
>>
>> "I don't see any measures for IMD in Oohashi, et. al.,
>> and since the high frequency content was sent through a
>> single tweeter, there must have been some."
>> "Kaoru and Shogu did how the distortion spectra for
>> signals sent through the same drivers (as Oohashi used)
>> and their absence when the were not."

> They are not talking about Oohashi here, but another test
> ( Kaoru and Shogu ).

Yeah, Oohasi is not being talked about even through his name was mentioned
twice. What planet do you live on, Harry?

> But if you, as did the author of this Audio Asylum post,
> try to apply it to the Oohashi test there is a slight problem.

> If you read the Oohashi article carefully, in his test
> the horn tweeter was part of the normal speaker. The
> supertweeter which was switched in and out was a
> diamond-deposit dome tweeter. And if there was audible
> frequency intermodulation with only this supertweeter (as
> claimed by the author of this Audio Asylum post for the
> other test) then it would also have been heard when the
> supertweeter alone was activated. It wasn't.

Only if the identical same music was being played at the same levels, which
was not claimed. Rather, what was said was that the tweeter continued to be
played with presumably different music and possibly at a different level.

Harry Lavo

February 8th 07, 01:33 PM

"Chel van Gennip" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 03:51:52 +0100, Harry Lavo wrote:
>>> There clearly was a difference in the measured results with and without
>>> audible sound. Not only was the relationship discussed, the
>>> statistically significant correlations were discussed.
>
> Wrong, the article writes: "In contrast, compared with the baseline, no
> enhancement of alpha-EEG was evident when either an HFC or an LFC was
> presented separately." This means that when normal audio (LFC) was used,
> it was not significantly visible in the EEG. (later about the same for
> PET) Two conclusions are open: The subjects are deaf or the way of
> measuring does not show the effect of perception of sound in the brain.

It wasn't perception of sound they were measuring. It was an increase in
activity in the enjoyment centers of the brain that correlated with full
range reproduction. Obviously, producing the normal range (LFC) alone did
not include the ultrasonics, and producing the ultrasonics alone (HFC) could
not be heard. So equally obvious, neither could produce the increase in
alpha activity measured. That was a key finding of the study. What is your
point?

>
> After that the conclusion:
> "Nevertheless, the power spectra of the alpha frequency range of the
> spontaneous electroencephalogram (alpha-EEG) recorded from the occipital
> region increased with statistical significance when the subjects were
> exposed to sound containing both an HFC and an LFC,.."
> can not lead to any conclusion about the perception of sound. Especially
> if other sources of influencing measurement results, like direct
> electomagnetic radiation, are not excluded.

You jump to the conclusion that it must be due to IM in the tweeter...I've
already addressed why that is highly unlikely (and you've snipped that). It
is much more likely that if there are IM products produced when both the
regular and ultrasonic speakers are in use, then it is "natural" IM produced
by the Gamelan. You've snipped that portion of my previous post.

>
>>> Just one quote to show I've reached the end of the article: "The
>>> article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance
>>> with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 " I think that is the most clear fact in
>>> the whole article.
>>
>> You are being either disingenuous or sloppy. The reference to
>> "advertising" is because the contents of this and other journal articles
>> is on a website that also provides printed copies for "page charges".
>
> Wrong: This article is "advertising" because the author payed the journal
> for publication in the journal.
>
> I think we better stop the discussion about this "Snake Oil
> advertisement" here, as this discussion leads nowhere.

Fine by me. You will recall this all started by my (presumably helpful)
response to the OP that the multichannel SACD was carried on the HDMI output
of the PS3. It was Arny who started the OT veer by his gratuitous attack on
SACD, followed by your gratuitous attack on me for previously calling the
Oohashi study to the attention of the group. Lets let it rest.

Harry Lavo

February 8th 07, 01:41 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> "Chel van Gennip" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Just one quote to show I've reached the end of the
>>>> article: "The article must therefore be hereby marked
>>>> "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section
>>>> 1734
>>>
>>>> " I think that is the most clear fact in the whole article.
>>>
>>> I never noticed that fact. This fits well with the
>>> following comments from Scott:
>>>
>>> "First of all, Dr. Oohashi is a contract engineer for
>>> Pioneer, and as such is not an unbiased person."
>>>
>>
>> So, first we have a misguided (and completely untrue)
>> reading of the "advertising" clause by Chel (see my
>> response to his post),
>
> Chel pointed out that it is you who are wrong, Harry. So much for this
> alleged wrong of yours!

Chel is right only if you ignore the rules of logic as pointed out in my
reply to him.

>
>> conflated with an ubsubstantiated claim by Scott,
>
> I did a little research and found that the claim is probably true. So much
> for this alleged wrong of yours!

But of course you can't be bothered to cite that "little research" for
credibilities sake?

>
>> and advanced by you pretty much as a
>> "fact" ("they fit well" together. Since when does a
>> wrong and a potential wrong make a "right", Arny?
>
> Irrelevant for the reasons already stated.

Your conclusion is based on a house of cards.

>>> Also:
>>>
>>> http://www.audioasylum.com/scripts/t.pl?f=prophead&m=18681
>>>
>>>
>>> "I don't see any measures for IMD in Oohashi, et. al.,
>>> and since the high frequency content was sent through a
>>> single tweeter, there must have been some."
>>> "Kaoru and Shogu did how the distortion spectra for
>>> signals sent through the same drivers (as Oohashi used)
>>> and their absence when the were not."
>
>> They are not talking about Oohashi here, but another test
>> ( Kaoru and Shogu ).
>
> Yeah, Oohasi is not being talked about even through his name was mentioned
> twice. What planet do you live on, Harry?

The study referred to was Kaoru and Shogu...the author of the post asserted
it might also be true of Oohashi, thus the mention. Please read and
comprehend, rather than simply attacking, Arny.

>
>> But if you, as did the author of this Audio Asylum post,
>> try to apply it to the Oohashi test there is a slight problem.
>
>> If you read the Oohashi article carefully, in his test
>> the horn tweeter was part of the normal speaker. The
>> supertweeter which was switched in and out was a
>> diamond-deposit dome tweeter. And if there was audible
>> frequency intermodulation with only this supertweeter (as
>> claimed by the author of this Audio Asylum post for the
>> other test) then it would also have been heard when the
>> supertweeter alone was activated. It wasn't.
>
> Only if the identical same music was being played at the same levels,
> which was not claimed. Rather, what was said was that the tweeter
> continued to be played with presumably different music and possibly at a
> different level.

A presumption to get you off the hook, Arny? More proof you never really
read or assimilated the Oohashi work. They used only the same Gamelan
recording for all their work and at identical levels to the full test. The
article documents all this.

Arny Krueger

February 8th 07, 02:01 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

>You will recall this all started by my
> (presumably helpful) response to the OP that the
> multichannel SACD was carried on the HDMI output of the
> PS3.

Researching the topic, I find that this is true, but you need a decoder (or
receiver) with a HDMI 1.3 input to process the SACD multichannel output of
the PS3.

The Sony STR-DA5200ES ($1200-1400) appears to be such a device. I'm sure
everybody wants to run right out and buy one.

BTW, the thread is now monumentally OT for RAP.

Other formats that the PS3 apparently supports:

Dolby Digital 5.1 Ch
DTS 5.1 Ch
AAC
Linear PCM 2 Ch 44.1
Linear PCM 2 Ch 88.2
Linear PCM 2 Ch 48
Linear PCM 2 Ch 96
Linear PCM 5.1 Ch 44.1
Linear PCM 5.1 Ch 88.2
Linear PCM 5.1 Ch 48
Linear PCM 5.1 Ch 96
Linear PCM 5.1 Ch 192
Linear PCM 7.1 Ch 44.1
Linear PCM 7.1 Ch 88.2
Linear PCM 7.1 Ch 48
Linear PCM 7.1 Ch 96
Linear PCM 7.1 Ch 192

> It was Arny who started the OT veer by his
> gratuitous attack on SACD,

Totally a figment of Harry's paranoid imagination.

> followed by your gratuitous
> attack on me for previously calling the Oohashi study to
> the attention of the group.

It's just paid-for PR by SACD consoritum consultants with known flaws,
published under the guise of scientific research.

Scott Dorsey

February 8th 07, 02:45 PM

Harry Lavo > wrote:
>
>So, first we have a misguided (and completely untrue) reading of the
>"advertising" clause by Chel (see my response to his post), conflated with
>an ubsubstantiated claim by Scott, and advanced by you pretty much as a
>"fact" ("they fit well" together. Since when does a wrong and a potential
>wrong make a "right", Arny?

It's true, I didn't substantiate that claim. But it's true, and you can
ask him at the next AES show yourself.

>> "I don't see any measures for IMD in Oohashi, et. al., and since the high
>> frequency content was sent through a single tweeter, there must have been
>> some."
>> "Kaoru and Shogu did how the distortion spectra for signals sent through
>> the same drivers (as Oohashi used) and their absence when the were not."
>
>They are not talking about Oohashi here, but another test ( Kaoru and
>Shogu ).

I believe this is one of the Kanagawa studies?

>But if you, as did the author of this Audio Asylum post, try to apply it to
>the Oohashi test there is a slight problem.
>
>If you read the Oohashi article carefully, in his test the horn tweeter was
>part of the normal speaker. The supertweeter which was switched in and out
>was a diamond-deposit dome tweeter. And if there was audible frequency
>intermodulation with only this supertweeter (as claimed by the author of
>this Audio Asylum post for the other test) then it would also have been
>heard when the supertweeter alone was activated. It wasn't.

How were ultrasonics being kept out of the horn tweeter? That would be
more apt to be my worry as far as possible nonlinearity issues go.

>If intermodulation occurred only with both the main speaker and supertweeter
>activated (driven by separate amplifiers to avoid electrical intermodulation
>distortion) then one could rightly conclude that such frequency-derived
>intermodulation is a natural function of the gamelan music that was used as
>the source material, and is therefore proof that failure to reproduce the
>ultrasonic frequencies reduces the naturalness and enjoyment of the playing,
>which is what both the electrical brain scan and the respondents ratings
>(done at separate times) seem to indicate.

It's possible that beat products are formed in our ears which result in
audibility of combinations of ultrasonic notes. But that is not an excuse
to allow beat products to be formed in the speaker system, because the
products produced may not be the same.

The thing is, this is a really, really hard thing to test. However, it
is possible that IIR filtering may make things a little bit easier in
that we can now create stimulus signals whose sub-20KC material is not
affected by the process of filtering out the super-20KC material. We have
wideband and linear microphones and recorders already; the systems used
by Oohashi in that regard are probably sufficient. The speaker system is
still the bottleneck, as it always has been in all audio systems since the
beginning.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Harry Lavo

February 8th 07, 09:09 PM

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Harry Lavo > wrote:
>>
>>So, first we have a misguided (and completely untrue) reading of the
>>"advertising" clause by Chel (see my response to his post), conflated with
>>an ubsubstantiated claim by Scott, and advanced by you pretty much as a
>>"fact" ("they fit well" together. Since when does a wrong and a potential
>>wrong make a "right", Arny?
>
> It's true, I didn't substantiate that claim. But it's true, and you can
> ask him at the next AES show yourself.

I guess the issue is: was it true at the time this research was done, or is
the association now because of a shared interest in the subject?

>
>>> "I don't see any measures for IMD in Oohashi, et. al., and since the
>>> high
>>> frequency content was sent through a single tweeter, there must have
>>> been
>>> some."
>>> "Kaoru and Shogu did how the distortion spectra for signals sent through
>>> the same drivers (as Oohashi used) and their absence when the were not."
>>
>>They are not talking about Oohashi here, but another test ( Kaoru and
>>Shogu ).
>
> I believe this is one of the Kanagawa studies?

I just don't know.

>
>>But if you, as did the author of this Audio Asylum post, try to apply it
>>to
>>the Oohashi test there is a slight problem.
>>
>>If you read the Oohashi article carefully, in his test the horn tweeter
>>was
>>part of the normal speaker. The supertweeter which was switched in and
>>out
>>was a diamond-deposit dome tweeter. And if there was audible frequency
>>intermodulation with only this supertweeter (as claimed by the author of
>>this Audio Asylum post for the other test) then it would also have been
>>heard when the supertweeter alone was activated. It wasn't.
>
> How were ultrasonics being kept out of the horn tweeter? That would be
> more apt to be my worry as far as possible nonlinearity issues go.

They used separate amplifiers and speakers with specific high-pass and
low-pass filters designed to avoid this effect...they crossed over at about
24khz IIRC.

>
>>If intermodulation occurred only with both the main speaker and
>>supertweeter
>>activated (driven by separate amplifiers to avoid electrical
>>intermodulation
>>distortion) then one could rightly conclude that such frequency-derived
>>intermodulation is a natural function of the gamelan music that was used
>>as
>>the source material, and is therefore proof that failure to reproduce the
>>ultrasonic frequencies reduces the naturalness and enjoyment of the
>>playing,
>>which is what both the electrical brain scan and the respondents ratings
>>(done at separate times) seem to indicate.
>
> It's possible that beat products are formed in our ears which result in
> audibility of combinations of ultrasonic notes. But that is not an excuse
> to allow beat products to be formed in the speaker system, because the
> products produced may not be the same.

I believe they did their best to eliminate that.

>
> The thing is, this is a really, really hard thing to test. However, it
> is possible that IIR filtering may make things a little bit easier in
> that we can now create stimulus signals whose sub-20KC material is not
> affected by the process of filtering out the super-20KC material. We have
> wideband and linear microphones and recorders already; the systems used
> by Oohashi in that regard are probably sufficient. The speaker system is
> still the bottleneck, as it always has been in all audio systems since the
> beginning.

Their early work was stymied by equipment issues; certain hardware
manufacturers custom built equipment for them to use in this testing (late
'90's). Some of it has subsquently hit the market (diamond-crystal
supertweeters, for example).

Arny Krueger

February 8th 07, 09:23 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> Some of it has
> subsquently hit the market (diamond-crystal
> supertweeters, for example).

Who is currently making and selling diamond crystal supertweeters?

Harry Lavo

February 8th 07, 10:46 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>
>> Some of it has
>> subsquently hit the market (diamond-crystal
>> supertweeters, for example).
>
> Who is currently making and selling diamond crystal supertweeters?

Here are four for starters. Claimed frequency response 70khz - 100khz.

http://www.soniccraft.com/Drivers/Accuton/d206.htm

http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=2743

http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/205marten/

http://www.avalonacoustics.com/revu-au-dia2.html

Scott Dorsey

February 8th 07, 10:54 PM

Harry Lavo > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>> Harry Lavo > wrote:
>>>
>>>So, first we have a misguided (and completely untrue) reading of the
>>>"advertising" clause by Chel (see my response to his post), conflated with
>>>an ubsubstantiated claim by Scott, and advanced by you pretty much as a
>>>"fact" ("they fit well" together. Since when does a wrong and a potential
>>>wrong make a "right", Arny?
>>
>> It's true, I didn't substantiate that claim. But it's true, and you can
>> ask him at the next AES show yourself.
>
>I guess the issue is: was it true at the time this research was done, or is
>the association now because of a shared interest in the subject?

That I cannot answer. Nor can I answer what the real association between
Pioneer and the Kanagawa studies really is.

I _think_ the Kanagawa studies are using the same speaker system that Oohashi
is, and I am _sure_ they are using the same supertweeter.

>They used separate amplifiers and speakers with specific high-pass and
>low-pass filters designed to avoid this effect...they crossed over at about
>24khz IIRC.

But how sharp? People seem to think that if you have a fourth-order crossover
at a particular frequency that there won't be anything above the cutoff point
in the woofer and nothing above in the tweeter, when in fact a fourth order
filter really isn't the brickwall folks imagine, and signals can often be
audible even at low levels.

>> It's possible that beat products are formed in our ears which result in
>> audibility of combinations of ultrasonic notes. But that is not an excuse
>> to allow beat products to be formed in the speaker system, because the
>> products produced may not be the same.
>
>I believe they did their best to eliminate that.

The Oohashi paper does not mention much in that direction, unfortunately.

>> The thing is, this is a really, really hard thing to test. However, it
>> is possible that IIR filtering may make things a little bit easier in
>> that we can now create stimulus signals whose sub-20KC material is not
>> affected by the process of filtering out the super-20KC material. We have
>> wideband and linear microphones and recorders already; the systems used
>> by Oohashi in that regard are probably sufficient. The speaker system is
>> still the bottleneck, as it always has been in all audio systems since the
>> beginning.
>
>Their early work was stymied by equipment issues; certain hardware
>manufacturers custom built equipment for them to use in this testing (late
>'90's). Some of it has subsquently hit the market (diamond-crystal
>supertweeters, for example).

Oh, the supertweeter is easy. It's the integration that is hard.

It's interesting to compare the Tannoy Ellipse for instance... you can
clearly hear a difference with the supertweeter covered, even with
material sampled at 44.1 ksamp/sec that can surely have no ultrasonic
content. To my ears, it sounds better with the supertweeters covered too,
but then I like the old Magnepans which start dropping at 16KC...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Harry Lavo

February 8th 07, 11:24 PM

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Harry Lavo > wrote:
>>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>>> Harry Lavo > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>So, first we have a misguided (and completely untrue) reading of the
>>>>"advertising" clause by Chel (see my response to his post), conflated
>>>>with
>>>>an ubsubstantiated claim by Scott, and advanced by you pretty much as a
>>>>"fact" ("they fit well" together. Since when does a wrong and a
>>>>potential
>>>>wrong make a "right", Arny?
>>>
>>> It's true, I didn't substantiate that claim. But it's true, and you can
>>> ask him at the next AES show yourself.
>>
>>I guess the issue is: was it true at the time this research was done, or
>>is
>>the association now because of a shared interest in the subject?
>
> That I cannot answer. Nor can I answer what the real association between
> Pioneer and the Kanagawa studies really is.

Below is the relevant section discussing the equipment/crossovers (BTW, it
does mentioned that Oohashi designed the speakers for Pioneer, so I guess he
had a least done contract work for them previously. My apologies for
questioning you on it.

"Most of the conventional audio systems that have been used to present sound
for determining sound quality were found to be unsuitable for this
particular study. In the conventional systems, sounds containing HFCs are
presented as unfiltered source signals through an all-pass circuit and
sounds without HFCs are produced by passing the source signals through a
low-pass filter (Muraoka et al. 1978; Plenge et al. 1979). Thus the audible
low-frequency components (LFCs) are presented through different pathways
that may have different transmission characteristics, including frequency
response and group delay. In addition, inter-modulation distortion may
differentially affect LFCs. Therefore it is difficult to exclude the
possibility that any observed differences between the two different sounds,
those with and those without HFCs, may result from differences in the
audible LFCs rather than from the existence of HFCs. To overcome this
problem, we developed a bi-channel sound presentation system that enabled us
to present the audible LFCs and the nonaudible HFCs either separately or
simultaneously. First, the source signals from the D/A converter of Y.
Yamasaki's high-speed, one-bit coding signal processor were divided in two.
Then, LFCs and HFCs were produced by passing these signals through
programmable low-pass and high-pass filters (FV-661, NF Electronic
Instruments, Tokyo, Japan), respectively, with a crossover frequency of 26
or 22 kHz and a cutoff attenuation of 170 or 80 dB/octave, depending on the
type of test. Then, LFCs and HFCs were separately amplified with P-800 and
P-300L power amplifiers (Accuphase, Yokohama, Japan), respectively, and
presented through a speaker system consisting of twin cone-type woofers and
a horn-type tweeter for the LFCs and a dome-type super tweeter with a
diamond diaphragm for the HFCs. The speaker system was designed by one of
the authors (T. Oohashi) and manufactured by Pioneer Co., Ltd. (Tokyo,
Japan). This sound reproduction system had a flat frequency response of over
100 kHz. The level of the presented sound pressure was individually adjusted
so that each subject felt comfortable; thus the maximum level was
approximately 80-90 dB sound pressure level (SPL) at the listening position.
"

Source: The Journal of Neurophysiology Vol. 83 No. 6 June 2000, pp.
3548-3558 "Inaudible High-Frequency Sounds Affect Brain Activity: Hypersonic
Effect" Authors: Tsutomu Oohashi,1,2 Emi Nishina,3 Manabu Honda,4,5
Yoshiharu Yonekura,4,6 Yo****aka Fuwamoto,7 Norie Kawai,8,9 Tadao Maekawa,10
Satoshi Nakamura,6 Hidenao Fukuyama,4 and Hiroshi Shibasaki4

> I _think_ the Kanagawa studies are using the same speaker system that
> Oohashi
> is, and I am _sure_ they are using the same supertweeter.
>
>>They used separate amplifiers and speakers with specific high-pass and
>>low-pass filters designed to avoid this effect...they crossed over at
>>about
>>24khz IIRC.
>
> But how sharp? People seem to think that if you have a fourth-order
> crossover
> at a particular frequency that there won't be anything above the cutoff
> point
> in the woofer and nothing above in the tweeter, when in fact a fourth
> order
> filter really isn't the brickwall folks imagine, and signals can often be
> audible even at low levels.

Well, the above quote gives it to you indirectly.

>
>>> It's possible that beat products are formed in our ears which result in
>>> audibility of combinations of ultrasonic notes. But that is not an
>>> excuse
>>> to allow beat products to be formed in the speaker system, because the
>>> products produced may not be the same.
>>
>>I believe they did their best to eliminate that.
>
> The Oohashi paper does not mention much in that direction, unfortunately.
>

It seems to me viz the above quote that they did. They specifically mention
eliminating IM as a design goal.

>>> The thing is, this is a really, really hard thing to test. However, it
>>> is possible that IIR filtering may make things a little bit easier in
>>> that we can now create stimulus signals whose sub-20KC material is not
>>> affected by the process of filtering out the super-20KC material. We
>>> have
>>> wideband and linear microphones and recorders already; the systems used
>>> by Oohashi in that regard are probably sufficient. The speaker system
>>> is
>>> still the bottleneck, as it always has been in all audio systems since
>>> the
>>> beginning.
>>
>>Their early work was stymied by equipment issues; certain hardware
>>manufacturers custom built equipment for them to use in this testing (late
>>'90's). Some of it has subsquently hit the market (diamond-crystal
>>supertweeters, for example).
>
> Oh, the supertweeter is easy. It's the integration that is hard.

Can't argue with that.

>
> It's interesting to compare the Tannoy Ellipse for instance... you can
> clearly hear a difference with the supertweeter covered, even with
> material sampled at 44.1 ksamp/sec that can surely have no ultrasonic
> content. To my ears, it sounds better with the supertweeters covered too,
> but then I like the old Magnepans which start dropping at 16KC...

I only heard them in a very noisy both at the AES two years ago, but to me
they sounded very good (as they should for that price).

J. Nelson

February 12th 07, 09:09 PM

> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >You will recall this all started by my
> > (presumably helpful) response to the OP that the
> > multichannel SACD was carried on the HDMI output of the
> > PS3.
>
> Researching the topic, I find that this is true, but you need a decoder (or
> receiver) with a HDMI 1.3 input to process the SACD multichannel output of
> the PS3.
>
> The Sony STR-DA5200ES ($1200-1400) appears to be such a device. I'm sure
> everybody wants to run right out and buy one.
>
> BTW, the thread is now monumentally OT for RAP.
>
> Other formats that the PS3 apparently supports:
>
> Dolby Digital 5.1 Ch
> DTS 5.1 Ch
> AAC
> Linear PCM 2 Ch 44.1
> Linear PCM 2 Ch 88.2
> Linear PCM 2 Ch 48
> Linear PCM 2 Ch 96
> Linear PCM 5.1 Ch 44.1
> Linear PCM 5.1 Ch 88.2
> Linear PCM 5.1 Ch 48
> Linear PCM 5.1 Ch 96
> Linear PCM 5.1 Ch 192
> Linear PCM 7.1 Ch 44.1
> Linear PCM 7.1 Ch 88.2
> Linear PCM 7.1 Ch 48
> Linear PCM 7.1 Ch 96
> Linear PCM 7.1 Ch 192

Thank you, this is the information I was looking for. So, the one
question I have remaining is this: Since my amp can't take an HDMI
input, and I'm not eager to blow a ton of cash on a new HDMI-
compliant amp... is there any comparatively cheap way, via usage of
a special conversion cable, inexpensive converter box, etc., that I
can take the PS3's HDMI SACD signal, and convert it to the
multichannel analog signal that my receiver is capable of utilizing?