On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 10:08:09 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
dave weil wrote:
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.
If you take that view, then deal with the fact that 17% of the recordings
listed had content below 10 Hz.
Yes. This is about .000000000001% of *all* recordings.
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 absolutely 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.
How pervasive did I make it out to be. Are we going to duel to the death
over hedge words?
"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".
To me, that sounds like a good quantity of recordings with A LOT of
close to 6 hz content.
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.
Sure it does. The choice to not reproduce sounds below some frequency is a
day-in, day-out choice. People doing audio production do it all the time.
People make this choice implicitly when they make choices about their audio
system.
That doesn't have anything to do with my statement that I didn't think
that your list offered "a number of works" which had "substantial
amounts" of near 6 hz content.
So, I think that you're overstating 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
particularly 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 intentionally 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.
Except for one little thing - evidence of reliable perception of the related
audio content is more than a little lacking. You rant about DBTs. Anybody
who wants to can do relevant DBTs that show that brickwall-type filters are
sonically innocuous down to about 16 KHz, even with musical and natural
sounds that are rich in ultrasonic content.
You still haven't posted *your* proof about what you say about the
audibility (or perceivability if you will) of the 6 hz range. And,
since many people can hear 16 kHz content, are you saying that *they*
shouldn't be allowed to hear unvarnished 16 kHz content?
Still, you yourself haven't shown any *real* data that removing said
content is detectable in a real-world dbt.
Weil, if you want to duel to the death over hedge words, be my guest. I'm
not playing.
I see. Dbts are now "hedges". OK. I fully expect you not to demand
them in the future then.
You've given your
opinions, which are fine, but they fall under the realm of
unsubstantiated opinion.
Only because you Weil, have chosen to ignore 100% of the evidence that has
been presented to support it. Again, that's a choice you get to make. AES
papers apparently mean nothing to you.
Nothing you've posted from AES here addresses the issues that we're
discussing.
Compendiums of related facts from independent sources apparently mean nothing to you.
Hey, just playing by the rules that you've established. There are
*plenty* of "related facts from independent sources" that talk about
the audibility of *all sorts* of things like cables, etc. It's
verifiability that's at issue here.
Relevant PCABX
listening tests that anybody can do for themselves apparently mean nothing
to do. You're the perfect nihilist!
You haven't posted the results of *any* such tests of musical
recordings that feature close to 6 hz content.