Hearing above 20Khz & analog consoles.

[pan60]

Originally Posted by slipperman

Whooeeee!!!!

This thread is still kickin!!!

Cool.

I've PM'd Ethan, and hopefully we can set up a little impromptu 'field test' sometime in Sept. 2007 to see if the 20-20k bandwidth limiting device of his choice can be detected, by myself, across the 2 buss of my desk. Which, once again, has 3dB down points at 10 and 215k, if memory serves me... I dunno... something crazy like that.

Anyhoo.

Should be fun.

SM.

that sounds interesting!

[pan60]

and for the record, respect is something earned not commanded.
accomplishments do not necessarily dictate one has earned any respect.
now i do not wish to offend many of the great gearslutz here that i do respect, ( which for the most is any one willing to communicate with out talking as though they were endowed with the knowledge of the god and or gods depending on you belief ) so i think this grey headed old fart will just monitor for a bit.


i truly try to be has positive has possible, but it would seem i have allowed myself to become aggravated to do so.
very sorry if i have offended anyone

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by Jim Williams

First, most all humans cannot hear beyond 20k hz. Some can sense higher frequencies, but they are not heard, but rather felt.

I beleive that there are things that we can neither hear nor feel that afect our enjoyment of a recording. I beleive that it is possible that there are things above 20k that fall into that category.

[JohnRoberts]

Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey

I beleive that there are things that we can neither hear nor feel that afect our enjoyment of a recording. I beleive that it is possible that there are things above 20k that fall into that category.

That would be the video image of the pretty girl singier..

JR

[pan60]

their was a show on the discovery channel, ( i believe ) it was about advanced weapons.
anyway their was a gun on their that fired sound-waves at i do not remember what but it was not audible.
if you did not run for it you would start to get hot and continue to heat up to the point that you had to feel.
if i am not mistaken it was a new not lethal weapon for crowd control.
the sound wave where of a high enough frequency to cause you cells to vibrate and this caused you to get hot.
maybe some one else seen this and can remember a bit more about it.
any way it would seem clear to me that just cause you ain't hearin it don't me it ain't their.

[themaidsroom]

Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey

I beleive that there are things that we can neither hear nor feel that afect our enjoyment of a recording. I beleive that it is possible that there are things above 20k that fall into that category.

i agree
i know that the 2" 16 track
sounds different after it's been converted -
it doesn't seem to occupy as much space -
likewise with the vinyl - the new roy orbison
pressings from acoustic sounds really make
1960-1961 seem quite amazing, to my ears -
even as it approaches 50 years ago -
subjectively, "better" - many more frequencies
high and low - huge panoramic sound - i have never
heard that panorama come from a digital source



be well


- jack

[JohnRoberts]

Originally Posted by pan60

their was a show on the discovery channel, ( i believe ) it was about advanced weapons.
anyway their was a gun on their that fired sound-waves at i do not remember what but it was not audible.
if you did not run for it you would start to get hot and continue to heat up to the point that you had to feel.
if i am not mistaken it was a new not lethal weapon for crowd control.
the sound wave where of a high enough frequency to cause you cells to vibrate and this caused you to get hot.
maybe some one else seen this and can remember a bit more about it.
any way it would seem clear to me that just cause you ain't hearin it don't me it ain't their.

That sounds like infra-red... (below visible light)... It can cook you and will generally be pretty unpleasant.

JR

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by pan60

their was a show on the discovery channel, ( i believe ) it was about advanced weapons.
anyway their was a gun on their that fired sound-waves at i do not remember what but it was not audible.
if you did not run for it you would start to get hot and continue to heat up to the point that you had to feel.
if i am not mistaken it was a new not lethal weapon for crowd control.
the sound wave where of a high enough frequency to cause you cells to vibrate and this caused you to get hot.
maybe some one else seen this and can remember a bit more about it.
any way it would seem clear to me that just cause you ain't hearin it don't me it ain't their.

Originally Posted by JohnRoberts

That sounds like infra-red... (below visible light)... It can cook you and will generally be pretty unpleasant.

JR

Actually I did see that show as well, I believe it was "Future Weapons" or something.

Anyway it was ultrasonic frequencies, very directional. They had 3 guys standing in a line and they "took out" the middle guy. If I remember correctly the "sound beam" (not sure that was what they called it) produced heat on the epidermis but obviously because we are talking about very short waves it didn't penetrate the body cavity. The weapon only caused intense heat to the top of the skin after getting through the clothing. Hot enough that even trained Navy Seals and other tough guys could not take more then a few seconds before their bodies took over and made them move away from the pain.

Good for crowd control or as a non lethal way make a threat back down. There was some concern for what the weapon would do if aimed at the eyes, it could cause some pretty extensive damage if I remember correctly but I have not seen the show for a few years... actually I could have all the above wrong for the same reason...



lol

[pan60]

Originally Posted by not_so_new

Actually I did see that show as well, I believe it was "Future Weapons" or something.

Anyway it was ultrasonic frequencies, very directional. They had 3 guys standing in a line and they "took out" the middle guy. If I remember correctly the "sound beam" (not sure that was what they called it) produced heat on the epidermis but obviously because we are talking about very short waves it didn't penetrate the body cavity. The weapon only caused intense heat to the top of the skin after getting through the clothing. Hot enough that even trained Navy Seals and other tough guys could not take more then a few seconds before their bodies took over and made them move away from the pain.

Good for crowd control or as a non lethal way make a threat back down. There was some concern for what the weapon would do if aimed at the eyes, it could cause some pretty extensive damage if I remember correctly but I have not seen the show for a few years... actually I could have all the above wrong for the same reason...



lol

that is the show.
you a much more accurate account then i.
and it may have been a couple of years ago not really sure it seems much more recant but i have had a handful of xanax since then.

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by JohnRoberts

That would be the video image of the pretty girl singier..

JR

And a big ol' nasty fart on the other end!

There's a whole palate of things that that affect out enjoyment. Ultimately "enjoyment" is a function of brain chemistry. That means you brain chemstiy at the starting point is relevant and if there's any shred of truth to the Oohashi fMRIs with the increased thalmic blood flow when frequencies over 20k are present, imperceptible ultrasonic frequencies may matter a lot. It depends on which juices that little walnut squirts and that's not 100% known. There's certainly some dopamine and that's a bigger deal than tape and maybe even the girl singer.

I'm sure people are familar with SSRIs. Do a search for Dopamine Reuptake Inhibitors. You tend to get two results, cocaine and amineptine, both of which are illegal. We all know about the impact of coke on the brain. Aminteptine was an anti-depressant that made people feel so good that one of the side effects one spontaneous orgasm.

If there's any aspect of audio production that increases dopamine, use it on every track and certainly mix and master with it. Pumping dopaine is fundamently the goal with every recording. It, whatever "it" may be, doesn't matter if you can hear "it" if "it" pumps more dopamine.

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by pan60

their was a show on the discovery channel, ( i believe ) it was about advanced weapons.
anyway their was a gun on their that fired sound-waves at i do not remember what but it was not audible.
if you did not run for it you would start to get hot and continue to heat up to the point that you had to feel.
if i am not mistaken it was a new not lethal weapon for crowd control.
the sound wave where of a high enough frequency to cause you cells to vibrate and this caused you to get hot.
maybe some one else seen this and can remember a bit more about it.
any way it would seem clear to me that just cause you ain't hearin it don't me it ain't their.

I saw that. I don't rememebr any of the details.

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by themaidsroom

i agree
i know that the 2" 16 track
sounds different after it's been converted -
it doesn't seem to occupy as much space -
likewise with the vinyl - the new roy orbison
pressings from acoustic sounds really make
1960-1961 seem quite amazing, to my ears -
even as it approaches 50 years ago -
subjectively, "better" - many more frequencies
high and low - huge panoramic sound - i have never
heard that panorama come from a digital source



be well


- jack

I know exactly what you mean. There are a lot of possible causes though.


I did a session right before I went on tour in Europe. It was an amazing band and I'd been tracking only for a two weeks. Lots of different projects and refining the tracking sounds on every session. I lost the mixing gig becuase the client mixed at home in Logic with only panning and fader move on the drums and probably simialr on everything else. It was one of my best recordings and it sounded great played back through the Radar converters. I was proud everyone was impressed, but then we decided to A/B with the tape we'd tracked to. The best description of the tape play back was "wow!". When we switched to the digital played back it sounded great, but did not have something that pushed it to "wow!".

[themaidsroom]

Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey

I know exactly what you mean. There are a lot of possible causes though.

i guess at 40...i am much more interested in the wow
i don't care about the possible causes
i'm not a scientist


be well


- jack

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by drBill

Not true. Why do you continue to insist that audio gear only carry a 20k bandwidth??

I didn't say that. I said audio gear does not need to pass more than 20 KHz to be satisfying and sound excellent. Please answer this honestly:

Do you have any CDs that you think sound absolutely fabulous, as good as it gets? If so, that proves my point because CDs are hard limited at 20 KHz.

higher frequencies cause intermodulations in LOWER audible frequencies thus affecting what we do hear.

Only if there's distortion. Otherwise there is no interaction!

Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey

Do you mean feel it physically or emotionally? What if you can't tell a difference in anyway whatsoever, but you enjoy one more than the other? Is that relevant?

How could it be that you'd enjoy one playback more than another if you can't hear any difference? Again, this kind of thinking seems more about "beliefs" and less about practical audio matters.

--Ethan

[807Recordings]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

I didn't say that. I said audio gear does not need to pass more than 20 KHz to be satisfying and sound excellent. Please answer this honestly:

Do you have any CDs that you think sound absolutely fabulous, as good as it gets? If so, that proves my point because CDs are hard limited at 20 KHz.



Only if there's distortion. Otherwise there is no interaction!



How could it be that you'd enjoy one playback more than another if you can't hear any difference? Again, this kind of thinking seems more about "beliefs" and less about practical audio matters.

edit: there was a time in my IT career people argued that best CRT only needs 70mHz refresh rate. I used to get crazy headaches and these where on the best monitors you could get at the time on my Sun Microsystem Machines. Down the road the rates went up to 120mHz and wow my headache dissapeard. I always remember one guy said if sound was video we would not put up with half the shit we do and the stereo types. From coloured cables and DACS, to people saying this is the standard.

--Ethan

I have many CDs and vinyl versions of the same music. Almost all the time the vinyl sounds more fuller. I can not say it is because of extra sound above 20kHz but I can say that the vinyl tends to be faster sounding, fuller, and more extended in the high end. When I get into SACD or DVDA I find SACD to again sound much better than the CD but still lack a certain organicness that the vinyl has.

In the studio nothing has topped the feeling of the analog tape. Sure you get tape hiss and stuff (if noticeable) but even a cassette gets on my Nakamichi Dragon gets more of the emotional content and realness than the digital versions. Don't get me wrong if I sat there and went and did a subtractive evaluation the digital would win because it seems to have more detail.

For the record when I used various convertors to capture I found the prism convertors sounded best at 192kHz as it had more of that natural flow and liquidness that vinyl and tape do so well. Less accurate? maybe but to my ears it still sounds better. BTW prism I would put in the same quality camp as Dan's stuff.

[namsabnek]

...Only if there's distortion. Otherwise there is no interaction!

I keep seeing this type of answer, but musical intervals are chock full of harmonic distortion, especially in an even-tempered environment. Maybe the board and the pre's aren't causing distortion and subharmonics, but the instruments you are recording sure are.
All kinds of musical intervals cause blatant sub harmonics. Play a minor 6th up high on any guitar. It's scary...
Ken

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by 807Recordings

Almost all the time the vinyl sounds more fuller.

I don't doubt that, but most CDs are mastered differently so that alone accounts for a difference. Also, it's well known that small amounts of distortion, such as all vinyl suffers, can be a pleasing effect. I can't imagine your preference for vinyl has anything to do with an extended frequency response. Indeed, doesn't most vinyl start to roll off well before 20 KHz?

I find SACD to again sound much better than the CD but still lack a certain organicness that the vinyl has.

The word "organic" implies to me the distortion I mentioned above.

even a cassette gets on my Nakamichi Dragon gets more of the emotional content and realness than the digital versions.

There's that distortion again.

the digital would win because it seems to have more detail.

Exactly. Less distortion = more detail and more realism. And not just "seems to," but easily provable using test gear.

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

Ken,

Originally Posted by namsabnek

musical intervals are chock full of harmonic distortion, especially in an even-tempered environment.

I think you're confusing harmonic content of musical instruments with harmonic distortion added by electronic devices (and microphones and loudspeakers).

--Ethan

[807Recordings]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

I don't doubt that, but most CDs are mastered differently so that alone accounts for a difference. Also, it's well known that small amounts of distortion, such as all vinyl suffers, can be a pleasing effect. I can't imagine your preference for vinyl has anything to do with an extended frequency response. Indeed, doesn't most vinyl start to roll off well before 20 KHz?



The word "organic" implies to me the distortion I mentioned above.



There's that distortion again.



Exactly. Less distortion = more detail and more realism. And not just "seems to," but easily provable using test gear.

--Ethan

Almost the exact same mastering chain was used with our stuff. Only difference is one set of outputs went to the cutterhead and the other to capture it on CD. Even when I try stuff here I find stuff to loose some depth on the CD. I will say though as technology has improved the differences between the high resolution and CD version to become less huge.

By organic I do not mean distortion but rather how the bow hits across the strings of a cello or metalic sounds a real cymbal has when a plastic tipped drum stick hits it. CD always has that CD distortion sound. I find people way to often mistake that for clarity when its more like a clipping sound of accentuated highend. FOR some odd reason I find the higher sample rates and analog stuff gets that better. ALso another good example and believe me I have tried and reviewed many solid state amplifiers where tubes sound better is when a crowd claps or appluases. On the tubes they still sound like each individual combined to make a whole. On solid state I still find it becomes more of a white noise hash.

The science of the tube shows only one thing to support that and usually that is a simpler signal path. In theory and on paper the solid state amps should produce this better. Of course there are many areas I now preffer the solid state variety and this is only to show there are other measurements than the ones we always argue that should be factored in.

[Dan Lavry]

Originally Posted by drBill

Uh oh....tutt

Dan are you saying that no-one in pro audio design/manufacture disagrees with you on anything? That everyone who designs audio gear believes that hearing ends at 20k (or usually less.) No one disagrees with you, even in the slightest degree? Or are they wrong too?

bp

I am not saying that everyone in pro audio agrees with me. You talk about people involved in the design/ manufacturing of audio, and that alone is a problem. When 192KHz sampling "came around", it was pushed by marketing people DESPITE the opinion of most engineers. It was a way to sell new gear. In fact it "worked" for some companies. The initial rational ("more dots is better") is "sort of intuitive", but it is wrong, and anyone that does understand the technical side (Nyquist theorem), would see that. So most engineers new it was wrong, but they did not get their point across to management.

I know very many experienced and well qualified people in audio, and 100% of them agree with me that 40KHz is "way beyond the call of duty". Some of those professionals that do not need to answer to a boss state so openly. Many others in the industry, especially those that work for IC makers and gear makers that accommodates 192KHz (much of the gear today), do not wish to state so publicly, it can be a career limiting move. Working in a company one is expected to be a "team player". But many of them are my friends and colleagues, and privately, many laugh about it. The "standard joke used to be "My dog does not hear 96KHz", and it became "my parrot does not hear 192KHz". A marketing guy told me "I know we do not hear it but if it sells we will do it".

As I stated before, when we talk about the audible range, the expectation (and proper thing to do) is to pass it all intact, that includes not just frequency information, but also phase information, so the analog is often opened wider for that reason. I do not think that Rupert Nieve said we hear 50KHz. He found out that in order to “pass” audio; he needed to use some wide bandwidth parts. If I recall correctly, it was about using a wider band transformer. That is no different then me saying that phase linearity often calls for wider analog bandwidth, which does not mean we hear higher, it means we need to be sure that the signals in our range of hearing are handled properly.

I do not know everyone, and I do not communicate with everyone, but I do know very many professionals in many key positions in the design / manufacturing of audio. If I make a list of them, and weed out those with commercial interests, then I get 100% agreement that we do not hear 40KHz, nor do we hear 30KHz. And then, if I take those WITH commercial interests in promoting wider bandwidth, most of them do agree with me in private what they will not state in public.
Of course a few that are very connected to the “wider and faster developments”, mostly “ear types” (without strong technical background) will never back down. If you are a famous ear that proposed 192KHz to an IC or a work station maker, and later realized that “more dots buys you nothing” and that “narrow impulse” is just another way to say “wider bandwidth” (and visa versa), you would not want to admit such an error, would you….

Obviously, I am not going to disclose the names of those that do not wish to stand up to their companies. But I can tell you that just a few month ago, a number of well respected engineers in the Pro Audio group (internet communication) stated, one after the other, that 60Khz or near it, is the best sampling rate (that means 30KHz audio).

You seem to try and turn the issue into who agrees with Dan Lavry, and who does not agree. It is NOT about agreements or disagreements, it is about WHAT THE FACTS ARE. And it is up to those that claim that we need to extend the bandwidth to show it. And the way to show it is by repetitive double blind ABX tests. So far, the few tests that I am aware of show the opposite to the claim.

Say one claims to have psychic powers. I would not care how many people choose to believe it. I would want some repeated demonstration of such powers. This is the equivalent to a double blind ABX...

Also, you seem to try and make it into Dan Lavry says it is not so, others say it is. In fact, I said a lot more then "yes" or "no". I brought in some technical information to back what I say (phase linearity, intermod and more). Obviously, I am just throwing in short phrases regarding issues that will take hours to explain, but I did more then just state a "yes" or a "no", and you seem to "write it off".

I would be very glad to see other highly qualified people come here and present what they know (which is not just an "opinion"), but few will come here, ready to put out energy, and end up dealing with so much nonsense.

The few with connections to the big companies that tried to promote 192KHz, had thier arguments shot down, one argument after the other. They started with"more dots is better", contradicting a fundumental law of math and physics. Then came the "narrow impulse" which is "another word" for bandwidth, and the bandwidth is limited by the ear (thus wider impulse). Then there were a bunch of arguments about how bad anti aliasing filters are (though we live in a world of upsampling and oversampling for around 17 years). Then came the "hearing transients" crowed, useing audio test material containing much low frequencies, then there was the latancy argument - (nothing to do with hearing high, and at 1msec per foot, a few usec is not an acoustic problem).... and so on.

I stood up and shot those arguments one by one. It was easy to win the argumets. I did not have the likes of Dr. Rich Cabot, or Bob Adams, and other very high caliber audio people confronting me. These high caliber people, already know that our dogs do not hear 96KHz...

Regards
Dan Lavry

[JBLpro4645]

Doesn’t this frequency have a very narrow wavelength of less than a half an inch, so I think is nuts unless you’re a bat!!!

[drBill]

Originally Posted by Dan Lavry

You seem to try and turn the issue into who agrees with Dan Lavry, and who does not agree. It is NOT about agreements or disagreements, it is about WHAT THE FACTS ARE.

No Dan, what it's about is you saying that you have cornered the market on all the facts - that you have all the knowledge, and that those that disagree with your facts are flat out wrong. As best as I can tell from your posts, you leave no room in your (or my) world for new knowledge or technicological advancement into areas that many of us believe we cannot currently fully explain. It doesn't take much research to look back at science and find that traditionally, scientists feel that they have it all figured out......only to have technology and knowledge advance to the point where they have to abandon their "theories" that they originally proported as facts. Case in point? Once upon a time, the world was flat.

So.....what will you say if science or technology advances to the point when you are proven wrong? Oh wait, I forgot, no room in this universe for that.

[NLP]

E pur si muove!

[JohnRoberts]

Dan is a big boy and can speak for himself. This thread is starting to resemble dueling banjos...

Engineering design is based on striving to know what can be known, and properly applying that. In different areas you often get a sense for whether a technology, or understanding of a mechanism is mature or incomplete. As I've previously suggested IMO the study of the mechanics of hearing is mature and well explored. The understanding of how we post process this band limited data is also well explored but IMO less completely understood.

I expect us to learn more about our meat computer, but it can't process information that doesn't exist in the raw data.

Ad hominum attacks, and circuitous logic do not diminish the veracity of points well made, and well argued.

JR

[drBill]

Originally Posted by JohnRoberts

Dan is a big boy and can speak for himself. This thread is starting to resemble dueling banjos...

Engineering design is based on striving to know what can be known, and properly applying that. In different areas you often get a sense for whether a technology, or understanding of a mechanism is mature or incomplete. As I've previously suggested IMO the study of the mechanics of hearing is mature and well explored. The understanding of how we post process this band limited data is also well explored but IMO less completely understood.

I expect us to learn more about our meat computer, but it can't process information that doesn't exist in the raw data.

Ad hominum attacks, and circuitous logic do not diminish the veracity of points well made, and well argued.

JR

John, it's not an attack on my part. I'm here to learn, pure and simple. I have an "artist" mentality, I'll admit it. I've been professionally involved full time for over 20 years in an art form called "music" that in our current technological state, requires both sides of the brain to make it happen. I make no statements that I am right or that others are wrong. I've learned a lot from this thread.

In addition to lots of technical stuff, the one thing that has been strongly reinforced in my mind is the fact that we just do not know all there is to know.

There are those who feel the need to study, organize, master the facts and put all their currrently available knowledge into a nice manageable box so that they can completely master it and wrap their minds around it. These are not the ones to ultimately break new ground. They are organizers, not innovators. And there's nothing wrong with that. The world needs them just as badly as it needs innovators.

I just hate it that those who have a more "open box" philosophy and experience and believe that there is more to learn and discover are being marginalized as "inexperienced", "kooks", "illogical" or just plain "stupid" by those with a "closed box" philosophy who arrogantly believe that they know all there is to know and who believe that current science "backs them up completely" and will never advance past current theories.

But I guess it's always been this way since the beginning of time. In fact, history is replete with examples. "Mature" theories have fallen by the wayside many times. Maturity is no guarantor. Time is the ultimate arbitrator and ultimately will be the decider, but we'll all most likely be gone by then. So in the meantime......can't we all just get along while we're still here??? A little tip of the hat and acknoledgement to those who think outside the box and a little respect for those who study and box themselves in???

So....the question remains for all of us :

Are you IN or OUT?

bp

[Dan Lavry]

Originally Posted by drBill

No Dan, what it's about is you saying that you have cornered the market on all the facts - that you have all the knowledge, and that those that disagree with your facts are flat out wrong. As best as I can tell from your posts, you leave no room in your (or my) world for new knowledge or technicological advancement into areas that many of us believe we cannot currently fully explain. It doesn't take much research to look back at science and find that traditionally, scientists feel that they have it all figured out......only to have technology and knowledge advance to the point where they have to abandon their "theories" that they originally proported as facts. Case in point? Once upon a time, the world was flat.

So.....what will you say if science or technology advances to the point when you are proven wrong? Oh wait, I forgot, no room in this universe for that.

No it is not about personalities, it is not about Dan Lavry. And while you ignored ALL that I said in the last post about THE MAJORITY OF QUALIFIED PEOPLE being in agreement with me, this is NOT THE ISSUE HERE EITHER.

The issue is that some times ago, it was decided based on much experimentation that high fidelity (all that the ear can hear) is 20-20KHz. Those that have an issue with it are OBLIGATED to come up with REPITABLE DOUBLE BLIND ABX TESTS to show that 20-20KHz is not enough. They are also OBLIGATED to show HOW HIGH the ear can hear in as precise terms as possible (how many HZ).

A few attempts to do some listening, and most of them were NOT DOUBLE BLIND ABX TESTS show the OPOSITE.

That is what it is about, and trying to paint me as some inflexible character is nothing but a DIVERSION from the question how high can you really hear (not how high you wish for it to be).

I have no respect for the on going attempts to DIVERT the conversation away from OBJECTIVE LISTNING to tainting me the person. It is a dirty trick to try and kill the messenger.

The massage is: Virtually all the informed and qualified engineers in audio know darn well that we do not hear way up there at 100Khz or 40KHz, that it is closer to 20KHz. But as you said, knowledge in general can change as we learn more. NOT ALL knowledge changes. Chances are that we do not see X rays, and that 1+1 = 2, and that we do not hear much above 20KHz.

So your on going repetition of the fact that knowledge changes does not buy you points. Much of the knowledge does not change.

But yes, science was wrong in many cases, and it is evolving. But knowledge does not evolve just because someone expresses their unfounded speculations on an internet sight. What will it take?

It will take a Repeatable series of DOUBLE BLIND ABX LISTNING TESTS.

And regarding the massager - I was one of the first to go to 96KHz, way before commercially availability of AD and DA IC's, and digital audio receivers.
Later on, when the AD's and DA IC's came out (but with no digital audio transceivers yet), the competitors were wrongly arguing the benefits of dual wire 96KHz transmitters and receivers. I went the distance, making a 96KHz DA for scratch (no IC) and with single wire interface... That takes a lot of know-how and hard work!
Why I was open minded to 88.2-96KHz? At the time, the report of that test from Japan came out, and I took it at face value that we need to allow for almost 30KHz. I did not wait to see that the test was repeatable. I saw that the region near 20KHz was "very tight", so I wanted a little headroom.

I AM OPEN MINDED to RESULTS of ABX testing, and I am COMITTED to the findings of such tests. But this is a TWO WAY STREET. So far, we hear in the low 20KHz at most, until new tests show that present conclusion is wrong. If tests could show that we hear 40KHz, we already have gear for that today.

So the issue is about finding how high we hear, and I do not particularly appreciate you trying to change it by painting me in negative light. Doing so and in a persistent manner is showing you at a negative light.

Dan Lavry

[drBill]

Originally Posted by Dan Lavry

No it is not about personalities, it is not about Dan Lavry. And while you ignored ALL that I said in the last post about THE MAJORITY OF QUALIFIED PEOPLE being in agreement with me, this is NOT THE ISSUE HERE EITHER.

The issue is that some times ago, it was decided based on much experimentation that high fidelity (all that the ear can hear) is 20-20KHz. Those that have an issue with it are OBLIGATED to come up with REPITABLE DOUBLE BLIND ABX TESTS to show that 20-20KHz is not enough. They are also OBLIGATED to show HOW HIGH the ear can hear in as precise terms as possible (how many HZ).

A few attempts to do some listening, and most of them were NOT DOUBLE BLIND ABX TESTS show the OPOSITE.

That is what it is about, and trying to paint me as some inflexible character is nothing but a DIVERSION from the question how high can you really hear (not how high you wish for it to be).

I have no respect for the on going attempts to DIVERT the conversation away from OBJECTIVE LISTNING to tainting me the person. It is a dirty trick to try and kill the messenger.

The massage is: Virtually all the informed and qualified engineers in audio know darn well that we do not hear way up there at 100Khz or 40KHz, that it is closer to 20KHz. But as you said, knowledge in general can change as we learn more. NOT ALL knowledge changes. Chances are that we do not see X rays, and that 1+1 = 2, and that we do not hear much above 20KHz.

So your on going repetition of the fact that knowledge changes does not buy you points. Much of the knowledge does not change.

But yes, science was wrong in many cases, and it is evolving. But knowledge does not evolve just because someone expresses their unfounded speculations on an internet sight. What will it take?

It will take a Repeatable series of DOUBLE BLIND ABX LISTNING TESTS.

And regarding the massager - I was one of the first to go to 96KHz, way before commercially availability of AD and DA IC's, and digital audio receivers.
Later on, when the AD's and DA IC's came out (but with no digital audio transceivers yet), the competitors were wrongly arguing the benefits of dual wire 96KHz transmitters and receivers. I went the distance, making a 96KHz DA for scratch (no IC) and with single wire interface... That takes a lot of know-how and hard work!
Why I was open minded to 88.2-96KHz? At the time, the report of that test from Japan came out, and I took it at face value that we need to allow for almost 30KHz. I did not wait to see that the test was repeatable. I saw that the region near 20KHz was "very tight", so I wanted a little headroom.

I AM OPEN MINDED to RESULTS of ABX testing, and I am COMITTED to the findings of such tests. But this is a TWO WAY STREET. So far, we hear in the low 20KHz at most, until new tests show that present conclusion is wrong. If tests could show that we hear 40KHz, we already have gear for that today.

So the issue is about finding how high we hear, and I do not particularly appreciate you trying to change it by painting me in negative light. Doing so and in a persistent manner is showing you at a negative light.

Dan Lavry

Dan, you just don't seem to get it. I'll chalk that up to confusion in internet delivery or my inability to communicate in a written fashion and not face to face. I said it before and I'll say it again - I HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH YOUR MATH OR PRODUCTS. Somewhere not too long ago, I said something to the fact that I agreed with you on 85% of what you said, and maybe the other 15% I just don't understand since I'm not as informed as you in these matters. You definately know your stuff. On that I won't disagree one iota. However, your delivery method, your "my way or the highway" and interpersonal skills left a very sour taste in my mouth - and if I may be so bold - in the mouths of others. I'll leave it at that. I have no products to sell, so if you think I'm a right brained kook, it's no skin off my back. IMO, this deviation from the topic is unfruitful for you, me and everyone else reading this thread.

I think it all boils down to this:

Discussion
Experimentation has shown that the two different sides, or hemispheres, of the brain are responsible for different manners of thinking. The following table illustrates the differences between left-brain and right-brain thinking:

Left Brain

Logical
Sequential
Rational
Analytical
Objective
Looks at parts


Right Brain

Random
Intuitive
Holistic
Synthesizing
Subjective
Looks at wholes

Most individuals have a distinct preference for one of these styles of thinking. Some, however, are more whole-brained and equally adept at both modes. In general, schools tend to favor left-brain modes of thinking, while downplaying the right-brain ones. Left-brain scholastic subjects focus on logical thinking, analysis, and accuracy. Right-brained subjects, on the other hand, focus on aesthetics, feeling, and creativity.




We need both personalities for the world to move forward don't you think? I think it's pretty obvious which side we each fall on don't you? So....




Bill

[Jules]

Please agree to disagree and we can proceed..

Thank you

Jules
GS admin

[drBill]

Originally Posted by Jules

Please agree to disagree and we can proceed..

Thank you

Jules
GS admin

No problem here Jules! I'm good with that. thumbsup



bp

[pan60]