On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 09:42:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 05:45:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

High quality recordings of a number of musical works, both classical
and popular, have been analyzed and found to contain substantial
content at frequencies at or near 6 Hz, and lower.

http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/Sub-...How-Low-2.html

I wouldn't consider 5 recordings with content below 10 hz to be "a
number", as most people use the term.

That would be 5 of 30 recordings listed, right? The list cited is neither
exhaustive nor is it up-to-date. Does anybody seriously think that the basic
list of 30 works formed an exhaustive list when it was made? Do they think
that no more recordings of this kind have ever been released?

That's irrelevant. You used this list as a basis for your argument. So
that's what we have to use.

Also, the Flim and the BBs album
that's noted has exactly 1 second of 5 hz - 16 hz noted, the aptly
titles "Toxic Bass" album has 1 second of 8 - 20 hz. Two of the others
have a few cannon shots over a 5 - 10 minute of time.

So, then it's resolved, there's absolutly no need to try to reproduce cannon
shots or any other sounds in the 5 Hz - 16 Hz range, even though they exist
in nature, even though they exist in live performances, even though they are
reliably perceptible and even though they exist as integral parts of
recordings. Right?

Nope. My point is that it's not nearly as pervasive as you make it out
to be.

This isn't my idea of "substantial content" at or near 6 hz.

That's a choice everybody gets to make. You can be happy with the lowest
fidelity you wish to listen to. It's your ears, your audio system, and your
enjoyment.

Your comment doesn't pertain to the previous statement.

So, I think that you're overstaing the 6 hz case quite a bit.

On top of everything else Weil, you took my claim out of context.

Here's some more context:

Furthermore, it has been found that the means generally used to
reduce or eliminate 6 Hz tones from recordings have reliably audible
effects on the rest of the recording.

The Subjective Importance of Uniform Group Delay at Low Frequencies
Author(s): Fincham, L. R.
Publication: JAES Volume 33 Number 6 pp. 436·439; June 1985
Abstract: Analog recordings always have high group delay at low
frequencies due to the combined effects of all the components in the
record/replay chain, and in particular the analog recorder. Digital
recorders now make it practical to remove much of this group delay.
It is discussed whether it is worthwhile to produce a record/replay
chain having uniform

Tube and vinyl bigots as well as many radical subjectivists are particuarly
irked by statements like these:

High fidelity is about approaching the quality of the original sound
that was recorded, as closely as possible. Eliminating musical
content, and/or intentially making alterations that adversely affect
sound quality seem to be the opposite of high fidelity.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionar...igh%20fidelity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fidelity

Radical subjectivists don't seem to like talk like this, probably because
the concept of an "original sound" is way too much like some kind of
objective standard.

And the same has been said about brickwall filters used in CD players.

Still, you yourself haven't shown any *real* data that removing said
scontent is detectable in a real-world dbt. You've given your
opinions, which are fine, but they fall under the realm of
unsubstantiated opinion.