The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Launch of Pono Studio Headphones
Old 1st April 2014
  #2041
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
Which research was this? Blind-testing vinyl against other formats is actually pretty difficult because of vinyl's unique physical properties. But I'd be shocked if someone could ABX a vinyl feed against a vinyl feed through an AD/DA pass if it were properly done.
I must have missed that test as well... seriously, I'd love to read about it.
Old 1st April 2014
  #2042
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
I totally agree but to me the problem is the packaging far more than the sound. Reading the jacket while you listen was a whole bunch of the experience. People really need to let go of their convenient and portable music concepts. It's great for fashionable background music but those aren't listeners who care about audio quality or even about getting out their wallets to buy music.
I hear you, but what was the alternative? People wanted to take their music with them and didn't like the inconvenience of having to record the vinyl to tape for the car... and stand alone tapes didn't sound good enough.

Also.. what about the size issue? CDs were a godsend for me, as I was driving long distances when they came out and thus CDs were a lot more convenient and sounded a lot better to me than cassettes (and were more reliable). Yep, even then.. most CDs still sounded better. I remember a few CDs that sounded bad... when I was in radio we would get both a CD and vinyl and sometimes the CD was terrible, but that was rare.
Old 1st April 2014
  #2043
Lives for gear
 
TREMORS's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
I totally agree but to me the problem is the packaging far more than the sound. Reading the jacket while you listen was a whole bunch of the experience. People really need to let go of their convenient and portable music concepts. It's great for fashionable background music but those aren't listeners who care about audio quality or even about getting out their wallets to buy music.
Just for a different perspective as a music consumer born in 1978.


I never had much access to vinyl or a record player growing up.
It was nearly all cassettes.
The "age of the walkman" so to speak.
CD actually gave me easier to read liner notes and larger artwork so ignoring any analog/digital factors it was an improvement in the total experience.
CD offered me a better way to "read the jacket" so to speak than cassette which I think was the dominant format for many of us in the 80's. Cassette players were in most cars and
CD players in autos still often had skipping problems and you often made a cassette copy of the CD for portability.

If anything id point to the walkman and the idea of portable music is what lead us down the road we are today versus CD specifically.
Old 1st April 2014
  #2044
Lives for gear
 
O.F.F.'s Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
i remember the discussions about what cassette sounded better. was it TDK, Maxell, Sony, etc. what about metal or chrome? seems like these discussions continue no matter the format!
At least with cassettes there was a valid reason.
The one that sounded better was the one your cassette recorder was biased for.
I used TDK SA for two reasons: My machine was adjusted for TDK and they came with this spare piece of cardboard which was the best roach material around.
Old 1st April 2014
  #2045
Here for the gear
 
bdiament's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
You claim there is a massive difference in sound, but what do you think could account for such differences? As I understand it, the performance was captured at 192 kHz (though much more likely it was captured internally with a MHz rate and decimated/filtered to 192). Then you applied SRC to get to 96, and again to 44.1....
Hi bogosort,

To be clear, I am *reporting* that *I* hear differences that I consider quite significant and that when properly done, 4x rates cross a threshold to provide results I have not yet been able to discern from the direct mic feed at recording sessions. I've never had that experience with any other recording device or even with this device when used at lower rates.

The 16/44 versions are not created from 24/96 versions so there is no "again". Each version is made separately, from the finished, mastered 24/192 version.

What do I think accounts for the differences? Much better transient response and much better dynamic response. In addition, one of the largest improvements I've noted is (surprisingly to me) in the bass, where to my ears, pitch definition seems markedly improved.

So to my mind, the bandwidth isn't about hearing supersonic frequencies, it is about improved transient response in the normal range. And wordlength is about more than noise floor or a dynamic range spec.

Try recording very low level sounds, such as the quieter parts of very dynamic music, to both a 16-bit system and a 24-bit system. If the max peak gets close to 0 dBFS, the low level sounds might be at -40. Those will be encoded with the equivalent of 8 or 9 bits on the 16-bit system and with the equivalent of 16 or 17 bits on the 24-bit system. Listen to what happens to the harmonics of instruments recorded at such low levels at both wordlengths.

Back to bandwidth for a second: One of my recordings has information (from a trumpet) up near 60 kHz. The fact that I don't know anyone that can hear anywhere near that frequency does *not* lead me to the conclusion that this frequency is not important if I'm seeking the most faithful recording possible. On the contrary, if it exists in the air during the performance, I think it only logical that the most faithful capture will include whatever exists at the performance.

But all this is just my take. I really don't understand why folks spend their time arguing about things like this on Internet fora. If one hears a difference, great. If one doesn't hear a difference, great too. Who cares? I don't. I make records the way I want to make records. I offer Soundkeeper customers the option of hearing the different versions so they can reach their own conclusions, whatever those are.

Best regards,
Barry
Soundkeeper Recordings
The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback
Barry Diament Audio
Old 1st April 2014
  #2046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nrt View Post
What killed the music industry is not mp3 but CD. All digital media have the same digital quality even DSS, which is much less attractive than vinyl. This thing will not change anything, unfortunately...
I disagree, Napster and Youtube killed the music industry along with many, many more forms of entertainment media taking up peoples time.
Old 1st April 2014
  #2047
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonwagner View Post
I disagree, Napster and Youtube killed the music industry along with many, many more forms of entertainment media taking up peoples time.
Maybe it's your music industry that got killed.

I don't see the real music industry going broke or going away any time soon. Revenue pathways are definitely shifting, but the smart players look at the big picture -- they don't just look at CD sales figures and say, "Oh, my, the music biz is dead!"

Here is an overview of the ways that real entertainment industry shot-callers view the changing markets and media paths:

2014 Media & Entertainment Industry Outlook - Deloitte CIO - WSJ

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bobbyows...-crystal-ball/

Here are miscellaneous trends and predictions from music biz honchos: http://www.billboard.com/biz/article...tions-for-2014
Old 1st April 2014
  #2048
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Maybe it's your music industry that got killed.

I don't see the real music industry going broke or going away any time soon. Revenue pathways are definitely shifting, but the smart players look at the big picture -- they don't just look at CD sales figures and say, "Oh, my, the music biz is dead!"

Here is an overview of the ways that real entertainment industry shot-callers view the changing markets and media paths:

2014 Media & Entertainment Industry Outlook - Deloitte CIO - WSJ

A Look Into The Music Industry's Crystal Ball - Forbes
OK, killed was not the right word. Massively sucked the money out of then.
Old 1st April 2014
  #2049
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonwagner View Post
OK, killed was not the right word. Massively sucked the money out of then.
Again, looking at the big picture, I can't imagine you don't recognize that the rise of the gaming industry -- which targets much the same sectors that have traditionally driven music biz revenue - would have more than some small effect here?

It's been more than a few years now since the gaming industry retail revenues overtook music biz retail.

Discretionary spending money doesn't just come from nowhere. There is a finite pool of loose change in the jeans pockets of western youth.

When a new industry rises to overtake an old industry competing for the same dollars, loss of revenue in the 'loser' industry is inevitable.


I'm NO kind of fan of piracy, stealing is wrong, whether it's a car or a bunch of ones and zeros, but it wasn't music piracy that took discretionary spending money out of young consumers' pockets.

The fact that the gaming industry gets more of consumer's retail money than music is, I would say, a bit of an 800 pound gorilla when considering these shifts in entertainment industry revenues.
Old 1st April 2014
  #2050
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Again, looking at the big picture, I can't imagine you don't recognize that the rise of the gaming industry -- which targets much the same sectors that have traditionally driven music biz revenue - would have more than some small effect here?

It's been more than a few years now since the gaming industry retail revenues overtook music biz retail.

Discretionary spending money doesn't just come from nowhere. There is a finite pool of loose change in the jeans pockets of western youth.

When a new industry rises to overtake an old industry competing for the same dollars, loss of revenue in the 'loser' industry is inevitable.


I'm NO kind of fan of piracy, stealing is wrong, whether it's a car or a bunch of ones and zeros, but it wasn't music piracy that took discretionary spending money out of young consumers' pockets.

The fact that the gaming industry gets more of consumer's retail money than music is, I would say, a bit of an 800 pound gorilla when considering these shifts in entertainment industry revenues.
I said "along with many, many more forms of entertainment media taking up peoples time." Isn't that what you are talking about? By time I meant that is how they chose to spend their money dedicated towards entertainment.

And I am with you about piracy, I don't steal anything. But if people can get something for free, many will go that route and spend their money elsewhere.
Old 1st April 2014
  #2051
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonwagner View Post
Apple is buying/bought Beats Music so I look forward to that. Personally I still prefer to buy music but I know streaming is the future. With Apple offering streaming in the near future, they are just going cement their place in the music industry and things like Pono are going to have an even harder time convincing people they should pay $25 for an album.
Source?

You must have some amazing insider info. I've followed the introduction of Beats Music. (I was a MOG subscriber; it was MOG that Beats Electronics bought to serve as the seed for their very different Beats service; they'll be shutting down MOG in the near future, although they've extended its life beyond the formerly planned April 15 shutdown. I loved MOG, hate Beats. I won't be going with them, having switched to the similar but overall far superior All Access from Google.)

I've seen no evidence, credible or not, that Apple is buying Beats. In fact, many tech writers saw Beats as a 'competitor' to Apple Radio. (I don't buy that, exactly, either, since a free 'radio' service can be considered a discovery mechanism like terrestrial radio, whereas an on demand subscription service is an ownership-replacement -- but it was a meme that emerged in the coverage.)
Old 1st April 2014
  #2052
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonwagner View Post
I said "along with many, many more forms of entertainment media taking up peoples time." Isn't that what you are talking about? By time I meant that is how they chose to spend their money dedicated towards entertainment.

And I am with you about piracy, I don't steal anything. But if people can get something for free, many will go that route and spend their money elsewhere.
I'm sorry, you're right, you did mention the competing entertainment media. My bad.

We'll stand united against piracy.
Old 1st April 2014
  #2053
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
I'm sorry, you're right, you did mention the competing entertainment media. My bad.
No worries of course!
Old 1st April 2014
  #2054
Services like Netflix and Hulu are making a huge dent in peoples time spent just enjoying music too. Binge watching entire seasons/multiple seasons is really a pretty new thing and people are doing it like crazy, myself included.

It's all about being entertained and having something move you, at least for me. I binge watched Parks and Recreation and had f'ing fun time doing it. I will sit down and listen to an album start to finish too but I really love music and I feel like I am the exception in that case compared to the rest of the populace.
Old 1st April 2014
  #2055
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
I'm sorry, you're right, you did mention the competing entertainment media. My bad.

We'll stand united against piracy.
Incidentally - the gaming industry is making a difference in the music industry in other ways too. My sons have been listening to the sound tracks to these games for some time, and that particular industry pays big time for music licensing, and to composers.
Old 1st April 2014
  #2056
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bdiament View Post
Hi bogosort,

To be clear, I am *reporting* that *I* hear differences that I consider quite significant and that when properly done, 4x rates cross a threshold to provide results I have not yet been able to discern from the direct mic feed at recording sessions. I've never had that experience with any other recording device or even with this device when used at lower rates.

The 16/44 versions are not created from 24/96 versions so there is no "again". Each version is made separately, from the finished, mastered 24/192 version.

What do I think accounts for the differences? Much better transient response and much better dynamic response. In addition, one of the largest improvements I've noted is (surprisingly to me) in the bass, where to my ears, pitch definition seems markedly improved.

So to my mind, the bandwidth isn't about hearing supersonic frequencies, it is about improved transient response in the normal range. And wordlength is about more than noise floor or a dynamic range spec.

Try recording very low level sounds, such as the quieter parts of very dynamic music, to both a 16-bit system and a 24-bit system. If the max peak gets close to 0 dBFS, the low level sounds might be at -40. Those will be encoded with the equivalent of 8 or 9 bits on the 16-bit system and with the equivalent of 16 or 17 bits on the 24-bit system. Listen to what happens to the harmonics of instruments recorded at such low levels at both wordlengths.

Back to bandwidth for a second: One of my recordings has information (from a trumpet) up near 60 kHz. The fact that I don't know anyone that can hear anywhere near that frequency does *not* lead me to the conclusion that this frequency is not important if I'm seeking the most faithful recording possible. On the contrary, if it exists in the air during the performance, I think it only logical that the most faithful capture will include whatever exists at the performance.

But all this is just my take. I really don't understand why folks spend their time arguing about things like this on Internet fora. If one hears a difference, great. If one doesn't hear a difference, great too. Who cares? I don't. I make records the way I want to make records. I offer Soundkeeper customers the option of hearing the different versions so they can reach their own conclusions, whatever those are.

Best regards,
Barry
Soundkeeper Recordings
The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback
Barry Diament Audio
Exactly my feelings. If it doesn't make a difference to you - terrific - you don't have to spend the money to chase it.

Another two phenomena to add to your list above as to why higher sample rates sound so much better. The pre-ring of the filter: This is what I think makes a piano sound so bizarre and rubbery to me at 44.1. And then the beating of the digital filter ringing with upper harmonics of acoustic instruments. All of this is obviated by moving the filter beyond audible hearing and in a range where harmonics are very low amplitude (the higher the frequency the lower the amplitude for natural sound sources typically), and the amplitude of the ringing is reduced relative to the fundamental as the sample rate increases.

But still the naturalness of the high frequencies is what is staggeringly different to me. Room sound, cymbals, instrument timbre etc.
Old 1st April 2014
  #2057
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonwagner View Post
Services like Netflix and Hulu are making a huge dent in peoples time spent just enjoying music too. Binge watching entire seasons/multiple seasons is really a pretty new thing and people are doing it like crazy, myself included.

It's all about being entertained and having something move you, at least for me. I binge watched Parks and Recreation and had f'ing fun time doing it. I will sit down and listen to an album start to finish too but I really love music and I feel like I am the exception in that case compared to the rest of the populace.
I'm definitely NOT a binge watcher.

Back when I still had a TV, cable, and a DVR, I ended up with about 7 or 8 Lost episodes clogging up my limited space cable-DVR box and sat down on a couple of successive evenings to try to make my way through them.

Even though I started watching Lost quite enthusiastically (great look, great locale, spooky stuff), by the time I fought my way through my backlog, I was just plain over the whole thing. I caught up -- but the next season and subsequent seasons, I didn't even bother recording or watching. I still don't really know why they were on the island. If they were on the island. After a certain point I just said, who the heck cares?

I'm an inveterate watcher of my favorites -- I still love Perry Mason's B&W shows from '57-'66 (and they're now all or mostly on CBS.com, although with commercials -- wish Netflix would pick them up), but two in a row is about all I can stand, even of my faves.


Now, every once in a while I will use my on-demand subscription service to queue up 5 or 10 different versions of some classic standard song, a "Summertime," or "Lover Man," or such, by different artists and listen through -- but I'm not afraid to hit the skip button if a version disappoints or bores.
Old 1st April 2014
  #2058
Lives for gear
 
ionian's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
i remember the discussions about what cassette sounded better. was it TDK, Maxell, Sony, etc. what about metal or chrome? seems like these discussions continue no matter the format!
Chrome used to aggravate me to no end! I bought a 10 pack of BASF chrome once and the thing that bothered me about them is, for some reason, and this is only with the chrome cassettes, is that when you re-recorded over them it never fully erased what was under it. I'd re-record some new music and you could still hear the damn drums from whatever was on the tape previously coming through!

I don't miss that!

Regards,
Frank
Old 1st April 2014
  #2059
Stray points from multiple posters:

Transient response is frequency response. That is elemental.

Good call on 'if' that 60 kHz trumpet 'harmonic' exists in free air, as it might be an intermodulation distortion product from the mic or from analog circuits.


Pianos sound rubbery at 44.1 kHz to one poster. THAT is an amusing observation. I own a piano, when I recorded it to DAT (44.1, 16 bit), it sounded like the piano through the mics I was using. It didn't sound any different before transcription than after.

I listen to classical piano music often and I listen pretty much exclusively to 44.1 content. I don't hear this rubbery thing. I hear other stuff. Sometimes I clearly hear the mic placement (hearing two or more points of capture rather than one convincing stereo image) but I don't hear rubbery. Sometimes I hear the pianist breathing, the action moving, the dampers dropping. But I don't hear rubbery.

Now, if you want to talk about piano at low lossy compression bitrates, for sure, you get what I could easily label as 'rubbery.' Gummy, rubbery, underwater, all that stuff. But they don't call it lossy compression for nothing. There should be no mystery why pulling out something like 90% of the data (with a 128 kbps mp3, like those on SoundCloud streams) leaves things far less than ideal. But once you get up up to 320 kbps, most folks, even those with trained ears, can't tell the difference on most stuff.
Old 1st April 2014
  #2060
Quote:
Originally Posted by ionian View Post
Chrome used to aggravate me to no end! I bought a 10 pack of BASF chrome once and the thing that bothered me about them is, for some reason, and this is only with the chrome cassettes, is that when you re-recorded over them it never fully erased what was under it. I'd re-record some new music and you could still hear the damn drums from whatever was on the tape previously coming through!

I don't miss that!

Regards,
Frank
Do you mean 'chrome' (Type II) 'ferrichrome' (Type III, only in use for a short period) or 'metal' (Type IV)?

We used to say, friends don't let friends buy BASF.
Old 1st April 2014
  #2061
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdiament View Post
What do I think accounts for the differences? Much better transient response and much better dynamic response. In addition, one of the largest improvements I've noted is (surprisingly to me) in the bass, where to my ears, pitch definition seems markedly improved.

So to my mind, the bandwidth isn't about hearing supersonic frequencies, it is about improved transient response in the normal range.
Hi Barry, thanks for the reply. It is interesting that you hear a large improvement in the bass frequencies, which intuitively should be the least affected by higher sampling rates. Some sources claim that certain types of jitter distortion are audible in the low end and can actually contribute to a "warmer" sound; perhaps clock issues are a contributing factor?

As for any improvement in transient response, the problem is that transient response is frequency response in any linear system. They are two sides of the same coin, so if the ear cannot hear beyond 20 kHz then its transient response must be limited as well. (You might protest that the ear is a nonlinear system and so this doesn't apply, but the fact that we cannot induce nonlinear hearing affects [i.e., audible difference tones] with ultrasonics is pretty conclusive that the ear is actually linear for out-of-band frequencies.)

In short, there is precious little reason to believe that increasing bandwidth/transient response beyond that of the ear increases fidelity. On the contrary, there is very good reason to believe that nonlinearities at ultrasonic frequencies in the reproduction system (mic/amp/speakers) can cause audible distortions. Whether or not these distortions are euphonic is, of course, subjective (though one cannot reasonably argue that they represent better fidelity).

Quote:
And wordlength is about more than noise floor or a dynamic range spec.

Try recording very low level sounds, such as the quieter parts of very dynamic music, to both a 16-bit system and a 24-bit system. If the max peak gets close to 0 dBFS, the low level sounds might be at -40. Those will be encoded with the equivalent of 8 or 9 bits on the 16-bit system and with the equivalent of 16 or 17 bits on the 24-bit system. Listen to what happens to the harmonics of instruments recorded at such low levels at both wordlengths.
If bit reduction causes harmonic distortion then it hasn't been properly dithered. The mathematics of quantization (and the physics of amplitude measurement) assure us that any quantized and properly dithered signal, regardless of word length, is equivalent to the original signal plus an uncorrelated noise component; the smaller the word length, the louder the noise. Quantization with dither is no different from, for example, measuring a changing voltage across a resistor. With enough time, the resolution approaches infinite, but each individual sample is comprised of signal + noise. There is no harmonic distortion, and any sense of "more air" is illusory.

Quote:
Back to bandwidth for a second: One of my recordings has information (from a trumpet) up near 60 kHz. The fact that I don't know anyone that can hear anywhere near that frequency does *not* lead me to the conclusion that this frequency is not important if I'm seeking the most faithful recording possible. On the contrary, if it exists in the air during the performance, I think it only logical that the most faithful capture will include whatever exists at the performance.
There's a few problems with this "capture it all" approach. Most importantly, the vast majority of extant audio production and reproduction equipment was designed for the nominal 20 to 20k bandwidth. Trying to push quadruple bandwidth signal through these analog circuits introduces a very large uncertainty: do any of us have any idea how our gear responds to arbitrary ultrasonic energy? I'd imagine a significant percentage of gear simply filters out anything above 20k (so what's the point of trying to store it, then?), but this really is a best case scenario. While we can try to sweep ultrasonic sines through our gear looking for problems, who knows what frequency and what amplitude will drive an op amp in some compressor to oscillate? There is a very real chance that some of our gear will exhibit intermittent, unpredictable, out-of-spec behavior.

As it stands now, the scientific evidence suggests that ultrasonic information is not a factor in music appreciation. Why then should we accept all the inconveniences and potential problems of quad bandwidth formats? If research eventually shows that ultrasound is a factor (and it can only ever be a subtle factor), then we can establish new standards for everything. But right now we haven't solved all the issues with 20 to 20k production/reproduction, especially with regards to transducers. Let's get speakers than can do a convincing job of 20 to 20k reproduction before we worry about reproducing ultrasonics, eh?

Quote:
But all this is just my take. I really don't understand why folks spend their time arguing about things like this on Internet fora. If one hears a difference, great. If one doesn't hear a difference, great too. Who cares? I don't. I make records the way I want to make records. I offer Soundkeeper customers the option of hearing the different versions so they can reach their own conclusions, whatever those are.
The reason people get riled up is because we're all too aware of how powerful the market can be. If 192k was just your thing, some might raise their eyebrows or shrug their shoulders but like you say, it wouldn't matter. But when celebrities start clamoring for 192k and manufacturers spend all their R&D on "high resolution" audio and we start seeing signs of being dragged into quad bandwidth la-la land because of a "more is better" mindset, well . . .

Incidentally, I don't think you mentioned which SRC you used for downsampling.
Old 1st April 2014
  #2062
Lives for gear
 
ionian's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Do you mean 'chrome' (Type II) 'ferrichrome' (Type III, only in use for a short period) or 'metal' (Type IV)?

We used to say, friends don't let friends buy BASF.
Wow...that's brushing some rust off my memory! I want to say it was Metal Type IV but I could remember it saying "BASF Chrome" on the cassette. It was the white cassette label with the dark blue stripe on the label with the logo in silver.

I remember buying the 10 pack because it came with this silver, foam lined cassette case. I guess the marketing worked on me! haha

Frank
Old 1st April 2014
  #2063
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
Hi Barry,

<SNIP>

But when celebrities start clamoring for 192k and manufacturers spend all their R&D on "high resolution" audio and we start seeing signs of being dragged into quad bandwidth la-la land because of a "more is better" mindset, well . . .

Incidentally, I don't think you mentioned which SRC you used for downsampling.
192 = la-la land!?!

If I hear the difference and you don't, this doesn't mean it is la-la land. I don't understand this.
Old 1st April 2014
  #2064
Quote:
Originally Posted by ionian View Post
Wow...that's brushing some rust off my memory! I want to say it was Metal Type IV but I could remember it saying "BASF Chrome" on the cassette. It was the white cassette label with the dark blue stripe on the label with the logo in silver.

I remember buying the 10 pack because it came with this silver, foam lined cassette case. I guess the marketing worked on me! haha

Frank
I was greatly disappointed to find BASF cassettes were as bad as they were. But, you know, same thing with Ampex; terrible cassettes. (And then just terrible QC on their ADAT S-VHS tapes and DAT tapes at the end before they 'spun off' the magnetic tape operation and changed the branding to Quantegy. A sad decline. I found myself buying TASCAM and Maxell instead.)
Old 1st April 2014
  #2065
Here for the gear
 
bdiament's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
...Good call on 'if' that 60 kHz trumpet 'harmonic' exists in free air, as it might be an intermodulation distortion product from the mic or from analog circuits....
Hi theblue1,

Not at the level the spectragram shows, unless the mics or analog circuits have 1000% distortion. ;-}

Why leave out the possibility that there was information that high as part of the real output from the instrument? (My mics are flat to 40 kHz so is isn't outlandish to expect some pickup a bit higher than that if it is really there.)

Seriously, check out the spectrum of a real trumpet some time. It isn't the only instrument that puts out considerable harmonic information well above 20 kHz.

As to the sound of a piano at 44.1k. If my mics sounded like that, I wouldn't be very happy with them. But the key here is that, as I've always found, different folks have different sensitivities to different aspects of sound. If it sounds good to you at 44.1k and you don't hear an improvement at higher rates (or don't want to use the larger storage space required), stay with 44.1k and don't worry about storage space or track counts.

Best regards,
Barry
Soundkeeper Recordings
The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback
Barry Diament Audio
Old 1st April 2014
  #2066
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Getting rid of lower midrange mud improves both bass and transient response. Real world 44.1 recording and processing causes that mud. If you've got $5000 a channel converters, not so much but the real world stuff has that problem with lower midrange opaqueness that using higher sample rates solves.

It isn't about recording bat calls. It's about maintaining pristine audio below 20kHz.
Old 1st April 2014
  #2067
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkorten View Post
192 = la-la land!?!

If I hear the difference and you don't, this doesn't mean it is la-la land. I don't understand this.

or...

could this be...

AD-HOMINEM!
Isn't it kind of misguided -- not to mention really rather c.s. -- to wave the ad-hominem flag when someone is calling a concept into question?
Old 1st April 2014
  #2068
Gear Nut
 

BTW bogosort - humor aside

My son had his buddy over from Music School (U of M) graduating this year came to the city looking for potential job prospects. My son wanted him to hear LPs so he sat down in front of my stereo system. Listened to some LPs he had CDs of and other. Turned to me, forlorn as he has only heard CDs all his life and said to me... "It's not fair." He felt he arrived too late on the scene for the good sound.

Next time he comes over, I'll take him through the HD digital comparisons.
Old 1st April 2014
  #2069
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Isn't it kind of misguided -- not to mention really rather c.s. -- to wave the ad-hominem flag when someone is calling a concept into question?
Sorry was meant as a joke. I will edit and remove in case the police are watching...
Old 1st April 2014
  #2070
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdiament View Post
Hi theblue1,

Not at the level the spectragram shows, unless the mics or analog circuits have 1000% distortion. ;-}

Why leave out the possibility that there was information that high as part of the real output from the instrument? (My mics are flat to 40 kHz so is isn't outlandish to expect some pickup a bit higher than that if it is really there.)

Seriously, check out the spectrum of a real trumpet some time. It isn't the only instrument that puts out considerable harmonic information well above 20 kHz.

As to the sound of a piano at 44.1k. If my mics sounded like that, I wouldn't be very happy with them. But the key here is that, as I've always found, different folks have different sensitivities to different aspects of sound. If it sounds good to you at 44.1k and you don't hear an improvement at higher rates (or don't want to use the larger storage space required), stay with 44.1k and don't worry about storage space or track counts.

Best regards,
Barry
Soundkeeper Recordings
The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback
Barry Diament Audio
Oh, I'm not suggesting that that 60 kHz content was necessarily IMD, just that that was a distinct possibility, given the info in your post. I well understand that trumpets have 'naturally occuring' harmonics that go quite high. I also understand that we can't hear what we can't hear and that ultrasonic content can, indeed, produce IM distortions in both mechanical devices like mics and speakers as well as in analog circuits which are not strictly linear, and, of course, that the top octave of any listener's hearing is perceptually devoid of timbral content by the very nature of aural perception.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump