Testing audiophile claims and myths
May 28, 2015 at 7:08 AM Post #6,421 of 17,336
  Please see the reason why it is not - or ever can be enough - post # 6418, just above.
 
It is inherently limited by 44.1 kHz sampling. It has limited itself by its very own definition of Redbook.
 
It is MUCH more audible if something is missing entirely - then if there is some noise and distortion added to the correct signal. Analog does have higher distortion, lower channel separation, etc - but at least DOES reproduce (somewhat imperfectly...) what is available in live music. And, like it or not, anything limited to 20 kHz response will NEVER sound realistic - even if me ( the first to admit it - several dozens of times by now ) or (presumably) you can no longer hear pure sine wave 20 kHz signal .
 
There is digital well beyond CD - and as it begins to dawn, well beyond what analog could ever hope to achieve. And that was no slouch - up to approx 120 kHz from microphone capsule to output from the phono preamplifier - right down to the ribbon tweeter capable of response to 150 kHz.
Current state of the art crop of digital recorders ( or ADCs and DACs, if you prefer )  is roughly equalling it - and there ARE ways to get even better - where analog has reached its (un)reasonable limits.

 
How is it not realistic if its within the boundaries of established human hearing limits? You even admit to this fact in the next sentence. It can't get any realer than that. If you can't hear it, why make arguments for frequencies higher than Nyquist's?
 
May 28, 2015 at 7:24 AM Post #6,422 of 17,336
 
 
...there we go again... YOU can't hear it...YOU just say YOU can!... but you CAN hear the distortion, the wow and flutter, the background noise, the clics and pops...and so on...

Yes, those unfortunate artifacts of analog are real... - but can be brought down to bearable level.
 
EXACTLY so is its superiority over CD redbook when it comes to the correct soundstage - which CD can not match, despite lower distortion, total absence of wow and flutter, zero clicks and pops, and so on. CD lacks response over 20 kHz (for nitpickers : above 22.050 Hz ) - which is preventing it - EVER - to attain anything like decent soundstage with anything like reasonable depth of image. CD is usually as flat as a pancake, without any depth perspective - and at the very best is capable of some relief on that pancake.


I would like to see a plot of your ultrasonic recordings and at what levels frequencies above 16Khz can reach, does the Equal Loudness contours have no meaning to you?
 
 
just do this test and tell me about it...
http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/hearing.html
 
May 28, 2015 at 7:39 AM Post #6,423 of 17,336
   
How is it not realistic if its within the boundaries of established human hearing limits? You even admit to this fact in the next sentence. It can't get any realer than that. If you can't hear it, why make arguments for frequencies higher than Nyquist's?

 
Lately the argument put forward has been that the non-linearity of the ear's response engenders actual audible content due to the presence of the higher frequencies.
 
May 28, 2015 at 7:42 AM Post #6,424 of 17,336
 
   
How is it not realistic if its within the boundaries of established human hearing limits? You even admit to this fact in the next sentence. It can't get any realer than that. If you can't hear it, why make arguments for frequencies higher than Nyquist's?

 
Lately the argument put forward has been that the non-linearity of the ear's response engenders actual audible content due to the presence of the higher frequencies.


unsubstantiated argument...you mean...
 
May 28, 2015 at 7:46 AM Post #6,426 of 17,336
   
How is it not realistic if its within the boundaries of established human hearing limits? You even admit to this fact in the next sentence. It can't get any realer than that. If you can't hear it, why make arguments for frequencies higher than Nyquist's?

For  anyone's sake, who matters to you - go get yourself a good demo of  turntable fitted with an extended frequency response approx to 50 kHz cartridge (any decent MC cart today fits into this category ) vs CD - with an originally analog recording that was not brick wall filtered above 20 kHz to begin with ; with both as originally issued LP and its CD counterpart. It will convince you that you do not require hearing capability of pure sine waves  to 20 kHz in order hear/experience the difference in soudstage.
The analog should have broader/larger lateral spread than the digital - despite having less channel separation. And it should absolutely trounce CD in depth perceptive. And please DO note - I am NOT refering to"ambience" falsely added to the signal by lesser stylus tip profiles due to pinch effect producing out of phase vertical component NOT existing on record; stylus of the cartridge should have minor scanning radii equal to or less than 5 micrometers in order to avoid this type of distortion.
 
I am using turntables since my mid teens - and any one of them now in my possession  is capable of blowing the CD out of the ring with a K.O. - after only couple of seconds. 
 
If the rest of the system is up to the ta$k.  Processing the signal above 20 kHz is not - nor ever will be - cheap. But it can be kept reasonable.
 
HiRez ( for real, not upsampled CD redbook ) can do similar at MUCH lower prices .
 
Currently listening to a harpsichord recital I recorded two days ago - it has >35 dB dynamic range between 20 and 30 kHz, with usable output past 50 kHz. Harpsichord is the instrument I found to be consistently VERY active above 20 kHz - only second to a very common sound usually heard at the concert -
applause
( which IS the real sound having the most beyond 20 kHz HF content of them all - and is not something anyone can possibly say to be unfamiliar with - AND is easily replicated at home - you can clap hands, I suppose ? )
 
May 28, 2015 at 8:30 AM Post #6,429 of 17,336
 
I would like to see a plot of your ultrasonic recordings and at what levels frequencies above 16Khz can reach, does the Equal Loudness contours have no meaning to you?
 
 
just do this test and tell me about it...
http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/hearing.html

 
 
I would like to see a plot of your ultrasonic recordings and at what levels frequencies above 16Khz can reach, does the Equal Loudness contours have no meaning to you?
 
 
just do this test and tell me about it...
http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/hearing.html

I will post the plots - AFTER I get some video software to upload to YT or something. Or I could send you a few seconds of the NORMAL, not ultrasonic recordings - a microphone does not and can not have a brick filter above 20 kHz ( unless it is a leftover from the folly days when mic manufacturers were greedy enough to force you to buy a mic with ADC built in ... ) - that on paper 20 kHz only spec'd mic can - and does - go MUCH beyond that I have already explained before.
 
I am familiar with the link above - and my pure sine wave hearing capability is 13-14 kHz.
 
May 28, 2015 at 8:45 AM Post #6,430 of 17,336
   
I will post the plots - AFTER I get some video software to upload to YT or something. Or I could send you a few seconds of the NORMAL, not ultrasonic recordings - a microphone does not and can not have a brick filter above 20 kHz ( unless it is a leftover from the folly days when mic manufacturers were greedy enough to force you to buy a mic with ADC built in ... ) - that on paper 20 kHz only spec'd mic can - and does - go MUCH beyond that I have already explained before.
 
I am familiar with the link above - and my pure sine wave hearing capability is 13-14 kHz.

so...I can hear faintly the 16kHz at 0dbs and it's painfully enough... at what level are the 20's ? if you could hear them? and why would ultrasonic garbage affect us?, only in a very very painfully way....
 
glad we can't...
 
May 28, 2015 at 9:02 AM Post #6,431 of 17,336
  so...I can hear faintly the 16kHz at 0dbs and it's painfully enough... at what level are the 20's ? if you could hear them? and why would ultrasonic garbage affect us?, only in a very very painfully way....
 
glad we can't...

Noise floor of this recording is , according to Voxengo Span FFT , at - 84 dB (or so). 
 
Applause hits 20 kHz mark up to - 30 dB.
 
Harpsichord reaches up to - 40 dB @20 kHz - and some 5 dB higher at approx 16 kHz. 30 kHz is at - 60 dB or so. According to the same FFT, the peak of this recording is approx @ -12 dB - so that you have to correct the above figures if you want to have "normalized" values.
 
I have yet to hear of somebody that finds listening to the harpsichord - painful. De gustibus ... - but literally physically painful - no.
 
May 28, 2015 at 9:06 AM Post #6,432 of 17,336
  For  anyone's sake, who matters to you - go get yourself a good demo of  turntable fitted with an extended frequency response approx to 50 kHz cartridge (any decent MC cart today fits into this category ) vs CD - with an originally analog recording that was not brick wall filtered above 20 kHz to begin with ; with both as originally issued LP and its CD counterpart. It will convince you that you do not require hearing capability of pure sine waves  to 20 kHz in order hear/experience the difference in soudstage.
The analog should have broader/larger lateral spread than the digital - despite having less channel separation. And it should absolutely trounce CD in depth perceptive. And please DO note - I am NOT refering to"ambience" falsely added to the signal by lesser stylus tip profiles due to pinch effect producing out of phase vertical component NOT existing on record; stylus of the cartridge should have minor scanning radii equal to or less than 5 micrometers in order to avoid this type of distortion.
 
I am using turntables since my mid teens - and any one of them now in my possession  is capable of blowing the CD out of the ring with a K.O. - after only couple of seconds. 
 
If the rest of the system is up to the ta$k.  Processing the signal above 20 kHz is not - nor ever will be - cheap. But it can be kept reasonable.
 
HiRez ( for real, not upsampled CD redbook ) can do similar at MUCH lower prices .
 
Currently listening to a harpsichord recital I recorded two days ago - it has >35 dB dynamic range between 20 and 30 kHz, with usable output past 50 kHz. Harpsichord is the instrument I found to be consistently VERY active above 20 kHz - only second to a very common sound usually heard at the concert -
applause
( which IS the real sound having the most beyond 20 kHz HF content of them all - and is not something anyone can possibly say to be unfamiliar with - AND is easily replicated at home - you can clap hands, I suppose ? )

 
Why would this sense of depth or soundstage perception be due to the extra kHz beyond your hearing and not what's audible in the master? HF notes that are "felt" more than heard in a music passage still leave an audible imprint to anyone's ear unless its beyond human hearing limits.
 
A simple ABX test would be samples of your harpsichord recital in redbook and whatever format you feel is superior. Actually, I'd listen to them too if you provided links.
 
May 28, 2015 at 9:24 AM Post #6,433 of 17,336
   
I will post the plots - AFTER I get some video software to upload to YT or something. Or I could send you a few seconds of the NORMAL, not ultrasonic recordings - a microphone does not and can not have a brick filter above 20 kHz ( unless it is a leftover from the folly days when mic manufacturers were greedy enough to force you to buy a mic with ADC built in ... ) - that on paper 20 kHz only spec'd mic can - and does - go MUCH beyond that I have already explained before.
 
I am familiar with the link above - and my pure sine wave hearing capability is 13-14 kHz.

Why not post the long overdue study on CD Mats first? I think some folks may want to duplicate/verify that.
 
May 28, 2015 at 9:44 AM Post #6,434 of 17,336
  Why not post the long overdue study on CD Mats first? I think some folks may want to duplicate/verify that.

You honestly think he's gonna give it to us now? Red herring after red herring has been deployed, I'll be surprised if there are even any left for me to eat.
 
May 28, 2015 at 9:47 AM Post #6,435 of 17,336
  You honestly think he's gonna give it to us now? Red herring after red herring has been deployed, I'll be surprised if there are even any left for me to eat.

By then it will have turned foul and not be suitable for consumption.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

  • Back
    Top