|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
203.51.54.111
In Reply to: RE: How many of those 4 SACDs were DSD recorded using excellent full range microphones in a REAL acoustical space? posted by Allen Wright on March 20, 2009 at 02:37:22
This appears to get to be a smaller and smaller target. It seems that you need not just a SACD player (from your comment Allen not all have the full 100kHz bandwidth?) and an SACD, you need the right SACD (how do you work out which one that is when ordering), you need to basically enjoy classical (I hate to point this out, but that is a fairly small subset of all music buyers), then you need one of the rare speakers that have output up to God knows what kHz. Can you see why this failed spectacularly to capture the public imagination?
I'm not anti SACD, I just believe it's a very limited resource for a limited number of people. I'm hopeful that hi-res downloads can offer audiophiles an opportunity to get top level playback in a hopefully wider range of music in the future. Until then, I'll continue to be happy buying the music I love on RBCD primarily and the odd SACD for novelty value.
Follow Ups:
"(from your comment Allen not all have the full 100kHz bandwidth?)"
Not all, not even some, NONE have the full specified 100kHz bandwidth.
Bandwidth doesn't seem to be a logical thing, one can hear bandwidth increases in electronics on speakers (and ears) that do not have a fraction of the same badwidth capability.
Increased bandwidth well beyond the "audioband" mostly results in more accurate redition of acoustic space, and musical tonal accuracy.
But don't askme to explain why.
Regards, Allen (Vacuum State)
Thanks for that. I'm beyond expecting there to be concrete answers for all the different aspects of musical reproduction that seem to matter. I guess what confuses me most about the high frequency aspect is that a lot speakers struggle to get above 20kHz in room so it seems to me that the extreme top end isn't even finding it's way into the listening room for me to sense or feel or whatever. I don't know, I'll leave this in the too hard basket.
Allen is right.
the resolution, bandwdith,and dyanmics are the key benifits of SACD.
If frequencies above 20 kHz produced by instruments are picked up by the recording system and stored on SACDs, then your system shall reproduce them and output through supper tweeter to the air. It is not the matter if you can hear or not those high frequencies, but it is the matter of reproduction of original tonality sound. A sound wave/tonality/”music”/signature is supposition of all the frequency components associated with, so-called “ Fourier” components – in math. Yes, all the frequencies output by you speakers through the air to hits your ears composite the original waveshapes by which your brain can identify as if same as in the air of live concert.
Yes, all the frequencies output by you speakers through the air to hits your ears composite the original waveshapes by which your brain can identify as if same as in the air of live concert.
What? That didnt make sense.
And what is this supposed to mean?
"A sound wave/tonality/”music”/signature is supposition of all the frequency components associated.............."
I think you betray a lack of understanding the theory. It seems all you do is regurgitate bits and pieces of parroted info, and it comes out all wrong.
Where have I seen that before? Hmmmm.
navman
"What? That didnt make sense."
Doubt anything from one of The three Amigos ever does.
Even if ultrasonic frequencies are reproduced, they are so directional that you would have to virtually aim each speaker at your ears with a laser, both on the horizontal and vertical plane, and then strap your head in a vice.
The sad truth is that the Three Amigos have very poor source components - Teresa's is a budget DVD player for instance - where CD replay is even poorer than SACD.
The other two Amigos are too embarrassed to even mention their sources. :0)
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
They are not as hard to detect as you pretend they are and they make a big difference in the liveliness and realism of music especially in the "feeling" of being in the presence of real live musicians. After going to a full range system up to 45kHz, I would never go back to one limited to only 20kHz. In fact Allen Wright has nearly convinced me to upgrade my system to a full 100kHz which would include removing the 50kHz filter from my SACD player and adding 100kHz super tweeters to my speakers.
"Teresa, and until you hear a SACD player with the FULL potential bandwidth of 100kHz, I say you haven't even heard SACD yet!
Regards, Allen (Vacuum State)"
I think ultrasonics is the "something missing" I always notice when listening to CDs, that is the ones that are not unpleasant to hear. That is the other reason I never took to CDs as LPs have frequency response up to 35kHz from tape and up to 50kHz if recorded Direct to Disc. I used to have the Alpha Genesis 1000II Moving Coil Cartridge whose frequency response was 10-75kHz +/- 1dB, so SACD was not the first ultrasonic format I've owned. Indeed even before SACDs there was 24/96 DVD DADs from Chesky, Classic Records and a few others. Even those show how poor CD is by comparison.
Why you still worship the frequency response and resolution limited CD format is just one of many enigma's that I can't comprehend.
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
Since you are so hung up on HOW MUCH SOMETHING COSTS. You would rather I listen to my older $1,500.00 Sony DVP-S9000ES or my older $1,695.00 Xindak SCD-2 instead of the one I like the best my $450.00 Yamaha DVD-S1800. How dare me like something inexpensive! This just shows what a elitist "monetary" aristocrat you are believing money is everything!
Anyway I love the Yamaha and you will not change that or shame me into listening to something I do not like.
Now as far as CD playback the Yamaha DVD-S1800 is supposed to be a giant killer in that as well, from a letter to the editor of Playback Magazine in which the writer compared the 1700 to the 1800, he really liked the 1800 a lot better especially on CDs, comparing them to his $2,500 Great Northern Sound modified Bel Canto DAC2. (see link below)
Why you have trouble living with the fact that many music lovers find CDs not suitable for playing music, even on $5,000 and $10,000 CD players is beyond me. You seem to be clueless why SACD was invented, why modern masters are recorded at 96kHz PCM or higher, DSD or DXD or even why people are flocking from CDs to LPs. All of this just goes right over your head.
Chris you are proof positive that trolls, such as yourself, love to attack people and their equipment because you cannot win in an honest debate.
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
Sorry to burst your bubble Teresa, but the more you pay for a component the better it usually is WHEN WELL DESIGNED.
You've had some half-decent players but nothing special, yet you feel qualified to comment on source components which are far superior to anything you have had in your system.
Of course cheaper systems and source components can be extremely musical and great to listen to, and I'd never criticise anyone for claiming that they had a great system which also happened to be reasonably priced.
The problem you have however is that you are quite specific in suggesting that your system is highly resolving, and in fact more resolving than ANY system which is capable of great CD replay - bizarre!
I can tell you knwow that if you replaced all your interconnects with the best silver, your system would make massive gains in resolution and you would realise that it was not nearly as resolving as you thought.
I am confident that here are thousands of enthusiasts out there listening to CD replay which is far more resolving than the SACD replay you are experiencing, but if you are happy with your SACDs then all well and good, I wish you well.
I notice that in the letter to Playback Magazine you link to, the guy mentions that the player is better with copper ICs to warm the sound a little; in other words, silver cables which reveal the true sonic signature of the player should not be used SO RESOLUTION is reduced by using copper.
It is obvious therefore that in a true high resolution system, the cheap Yamaha DVD player would be exposed for what it is, and so it is best used in similar priced systems which are themselves LOW RESOLUTION.
CD rolls on - the SACD caravan has a flat tyre and no spare.
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
http://www.sfu.ca/sonic-studio/handbook/Law_of_Superposition.html
He's a downer and he will bring you down if you let him.
And what you said made perfect sense to me and it does to Allen as well, as we perceive ultrasonic frequencies but they are not turned into sound but registered by the brain.
The cochlea - a spiral-shaped, fluid-filled inner ear structure; is lined with cilia (tiny hairs) that move when vibrated and cause a nerve impulse to form. These vibrate up to 80,000 times a second or 80kHz. The highest audible "sound" that can be "heard" is around 27kHz and that is when you are a teenager as you get older you start to loose upper hearing and many older adults are lucky to hear to 15kHz. But even if hearing is damaged in the audible range, in the super sonic range we usually can still respond up to the full 80kHz.
The ultrasonic frequencies are so safe from damage that many "deaf" people can now perceive speech by transposing it to the ultrasonic range. This is still in the experiment stage, but this is a very promising field of study and would have many positive benefits to mankind.
You are correct Allen has confirmed the importance of the frequencies between 50kHz - 100kHz by the removal of the 50kHz filters on SACD players thus restoring their 100kHz frequency response.
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
nt
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
"The highest audible "sound" that can be "heard" is around 27kHz and that is when you are a teenager as you get older you start to loose upper hearing and many older adults are lucky to hear to 15kHz. But even if hearing is damaged in the audible range, in the super sonic range we usually can still respond up to the full 80kHz."
Perhaps an explanation (or a reference) is in order that explains how one responds to "sounds" that cannot be "heard".
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I agree...a reference would be helpful.
Supersonic refers to speed beyond the speed of sound and really isnt related to the cochlea with regards to the mechanics of hearing on a day to day basis.
"We can still respond up to the full 80kHz" really requires a reference.
navman
Say two sound sources: A and B, both generated pure tones above 20 kHz at frequency f(A) and f(B), respectively. For most people, if you play one source at time, they will not be able to hear.
Now if you play two sources A and B at same time, then they one can hear. The superposition of f(A) and f(B) can form a wave at fundamental freq below 20 kHz. There are three parameters in each f, called amplitude, phase and frequency. For these two sources, if you vary those 6 parameters, you can hear various tones.
Now if there are 10 instruments played in the stage that output some harmonics modes above 20 kHz, that catched by mic in recording….. this is why you need your system to reproduce those higher freq modes….
Hope this is helpful.
so you are saying that 2 (or more) ultrasonic sources interact in such a way as to create an audible tone under 20 kHz.Great. I can believe that. Guess what. That audible tone will be captured by a normal microphone and will be reproduced by a normal non-ultrasonic system.
You don't need to reproduce ultrasonics at all to capture this alleged effect.
Give me low resolution or give me death!
Edits: 03/25/09
"Say two sound sources: A and B, both generated pure tones above 20 kHz at frequency f(A) and f(B), respectively. For most people, if you play one source at time, they will not be able to hear. Now if you play two sources A and B at same time, then they one can hear."
This is a plausible hypothesis. Do you know if tests like this have actually been published? It would be interesting to know how loud the test signals need to be to provoke sufficient non-linear distortion in the ear for audibility of the beat tone.
If you try tests like this, take care not to burn out your tweeters in a quest to hear something. This kept me from trying the test at any significant volume level, so I was not able to hear any beat tones, except when I artificially introduced them by mixing the two tones in one channel and deliberately introducing distortion using SoundForge.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
sorry my mistake on this test. YOu do need a lower fundmantal f.
Using a woofer as a source of f below 20kHz, say at 5 kHz. And make sure two tweeters are close enough (and paralle each other). then hear the sound tone's change as vary the paramenters of f(a) and f(b) sournces....
responding to two seperate frequencies (above 20kHz) that produce a sound wave below 20kHz is a function of the hearing apparatus operating within it's biological design. Makes sense. Also makes sense that one should have teh ability to record sound waves beyond the usual human hearing.... however this has nothing to do with hair cells in the cochlea vibrating at 80kHz. That part sounds a little fantastical, unless there is a reference.
BTW you still trolling? Register. What are you afraid of?
----------SACD trolls squel like stuck pigs.
navman
I never said people in general can hear ultrasounic... read my posts very carefully.
Regarding a reference, I already sited you some materials to read and learn. here is another one:
http://www.earthworksaudio.com/tech/world_beyond_20khz.pdf
once again at you
I never said you said "people in general can hear ultrasonic..." read my post very carefully.
On the other hand when you say "read my posts carefully" which posts are you alluding to?
-----------SACD trolls are strange shadowy trolls.
navman
nt
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
Wasnt that MC SACD teaching ultasonic theory a while back?
Gawd. You are not making sense again.
navman
We need thousands more SACD lovers to come to the Highway to shame you away from ever trolling here ever again.
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
"as we perceive ultrasonic frequencies but they are not turned into sound but registered by the brain."
Unfortunately, audio reproduction is all about how a system sounds, which is why SACD has sunk, apart from two or three die-hard enthusiasts in a rickety old caravan!
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
"Unfortunately, audio reproduction is all about how a system sounds...."
I do not think you understand the "system sounds"
the music sound waveforms consist of all the higher frequencies modes, some of them are way beyond 20 kHz. This has been known for long time. Although Sony/Phillps came up SACD extened to 100kHz products only about 10 years ago, but they started working on this way over 20 years....
Do not act like you are smarter than others...
Still LOL!
navman
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: