ralphp@optonline said:

And where do we draw the line when purely subjective experience is being used as a marketing tool?

Click to expand...

I draw the line when they start trying to tell other people what they'll hear.

se

hapster said:

PM sent, willing to buy some wondercoat, how much would a bottle cost?

Click to expand...

Save your money. Wonder Coat sucks. My Magic Coat is far superior.

se

ralphp@optonline said:

 
 
if you have a musical piece with the lowest volume being 1 db above total, dead silence (which is really not possible except out in space)

Click to expand...

 
Oooo I think you might be on to something...we must start recording in space!!!!
 
In all seriousness though, the sampling rate conundrum is the most interesting I think.  For two reasons:
 
1.  There seem to be differing opinions about whether the higher sampling rates are destructive or not.  One camp says they are destructive for the reasons mentioned in the article, another says that, in fact, sampling at the higher rates will push aliasing, artifacts, etc outside of the audible range thus improving audio quality. Which is basically the totally opposite of the other camp which basically says it creates aliasing and artifacts inside the audible range.
 
2.  When a trumpet or cymbal is heard live, the frequencies we cannot hear are in fact still present and hitting our bodies. Ergo, it may be more 'natural' sounding if these inaudible frequencies are included even if we cannot hear them.  Plus it could preserve high order harmonics that would otherwise be absent and although we cannot hear them, they could affect the waveform and provide a slightly different sound (perhaps in a similar way that the exact same note played through a tube amp and a solid state amp will have a different color to the sound)
 
I didnt bother clicking the article link but I am assuming it is the same one I read a month or so ago...and there was at some point a comparison to a videophile who wants great Microwave, IR, UV, X-ray and gamma performance from his TV or something.  Even says to use an IR remote in pitch black to see if you can see it (you cant...obviously..)
 
This is a broken argument.  Why?  Have you ever hung out around infrared light?  That you cant see?  Yeah, that light is friggin hot, and you feel its presence although you cannot see it.  So yeah, if during a desert scene in a movie your TV started putting off IR light to simulate the same heat you would feel in the desert; would this not be even more immersive and 'accurate'?  I vote yes. Similarly, we cannot see UV light, but we can see its effects when it hits that UV artwork.  If, during a black light scene in a movie, that UV light was to emit from the TV and hit your UV poster would this also not feel more accurate and realistic?  Again I vote yes.  This whole 'we cant see it so it doesnt matter' argument is a little lost on me because we use IR and UV all the time during our lives and NOTICE quite obviously that they are present.  So if we have the ability to preserve these effects then why not?  (disclaimer:  yeah you could get cancer or something, meh, thats not the point now is it!)
 
Does this correlate to audio?  Probably.  They are both electromagnetic waves after all.  Although, in theory, it would also likely be much less obvious than with the light.
 
About bit depth:
 
Recording in space aside.... (come see me in 15-30 years, hopefully Ill have a studio up there by then lol)
 
If mastering in 24 bit and distributing in 16 bit helps lower the noise created during mixing and editing then mastering in 32 bit and distributing in 24 bit would only seem to increase this effect and hopefully provide an even cleaner sounding track.  This I dont think is really a debate.  I think that would be a fact.
 
 Now the question is, would that same 32 bit master, sound the same in 16 bit release as it did in 24?  Im not sure, but I would think (especially with using clever techniques that may or may not exist yet) that the extra bit depth could be used specifically for the eliminate noise.  Something like having a large dynamic gap between the music and noise.  For example, use 18 bits for the music and 4 for noise and 2 for the gap:  loudest noise level at 00000F and have the quietest music be at 00003F and obviously the highest music level at FFFFFF.  I have no idea if thats even possible or if it would have any affect but hey its at least some food for thought.  
 
Basically what I am saying is that it could have some positive effects that we only just now able getting to a point in hardware to be able to realize and to simply brush it off as being at inaudible frequencies or saying that a recording studio cant even get quiet enough to make use of the bit depth is a bit naive and kind of like saying "color tv?  why would anyone in the world want that?" or "HDTV?  why would someone want that?  you are just going to see a lot more pores and wrinkles on that older actress you thought was smoking hot.."
 
I am not saying that Hi-Res is the real deal either, Im just playing devils advocate so we can have a proper debate discussion rather than all jumping on our fanboy bandwagons and saying junk like "oh yeah i totally hear a massive difference between 96 and 192" or "no way man it sounds the same to me",  that just isnt productive and gets nobody anywhere.  
 
Notto mention most of our hearing is quite damaged in one way or another for one reason or another...
 
Those darn kids have those text message tones that their teachers and parents cant hear...so would a 2 year old have a better chance at spotting differences?  Hell yeah one would!  But, they are two, not exactly the most articulate or experienced bunch are they?  So it would be pretty hard to test that too.  
 
Basically the only real way to know is to record in space with best possible equipment, master in 64/768, publish in 32/384, let a 3-5 year old who has been raised with the sole goal of not damaging his or her ears listen to it through the worlds greatest source/dac/amp and phones also in space.  
 
And who knows?  With all the genetic data we are generating and with the advances in bioengineering, maybe before too long we can splice some dog or bat into our DNA and actually be able to hear these frequencies.  So perhaps we will all be able to hear past 20 kHz in the future. Maybe then it will be the obvious choice?
 
Ill shut up now

comradedylie said:

   
About bit depth:
 
Recording in space aside.... (come see me in 15-30 years, hopefully Ill have a studio up there by then lol)
 
If mastering in 24 bit and distributing in 16 bit helps lower the noise created during mixing and editing then mastering in 32 bit and distributing in 24 bit would only seem to increase this effect and hopefully provide an even cleaner sounding track.  This I dont think is really a debate.  I think that would be a fact.
 
 Now the question is, would that same 32 bit master, sound the same in 16 bit release as it did in 24?  Im not sure, but I would think (especially with using clever techniques that may or may not exist yet) that the extra bit depth could be used specifically for the eliminate noise.  Something like having a large dynamic gap between the music and noise.  For example, use 18 bits for the music and 4 for noise and 2 for the gap:  loudest noise level at 00000F and have the quietest music be at 00003F and obviously the highest music level at FFFFFF.  I have no idea if thats even possible or if it would have any affect but hey its at least some food for thought.  
 
Basically what I am saying is that it could have some positive effects that we only just now able getting to a point in hardware to be able to realize and to simply brush it off as being at inaudible frequencies or saying that a recording studio cant even get quiet enough to make use of the bit depth is a bit naive and kind of like saying "color tv?  why would anyone in the world want that?" or "HDTV?  why would someone want that?  you are just going to see a lot more pores and wrinkles on that older actress you thought was smoking hot.."

Click to expand...

I know you're joking about the recording in space thing, but I hope you understand why that isn't possible. I'll give you a clue, it isn't something we can fix with technology.
 
As mentioned before, the advantages in recording and mixing with a higher bit depth is that tracks can be made louder without raising the noise floor (digital). However there will always be the noise floor of the room, and in the most perfect room you'll have the noise floor of the microphone and recording equipment. Assuming a suitable mastered track, there should at least be one part that hits (or nearly hits) full scale. So to need more than 16 bits for playback there would have to be a part so quiet you'd struggle to hear it, unless you turned it up so loudly that the loud section was physically painful. Sure, you can use the argument of getting the noise of the digital noise floor as low as possible, but there's no point going further when, as said above, there are so many other noise floors to worry about.

kraken2109 said:

  I know you're joking about the recording in space thing, but I hope you understand why that isn't possible. 

Click to expand...

Isnt possible yet.
 
Humans couldnt do almost any of things that we can now, say 10,000 years ago.  
 
Humans couldnt do most of the things we do on a regular basis, 3,000 years ago.
 
Humans couldnt do many of the things we take for granted today, 300 years ago.
 
Hell we couldnt even record digital music 100 years ago, now look at us go!
 
Give it time, my friend, give it time.  

comradedylie said:

If mastering in 24 bit and distributing in 16 bit helps lower the noise created during mixing and editing then mastering in 32 bit and distributing in 24 bit would only seem to increase this effect and hopefully provide an even cleaner sounding track.  This I dont think is really a debate.  I think that would be a fact.

Click to expand...

Disclaimer: I enjoyed most of your very amusing post and I am not trying to attack you. So with that said let me sharpen my sword
 
The bigger, larger, higher, etc. is better argument is one that audiophiles fall for each and every time and most of the time it is just not true. Increasing from 24 bit to 32 bit would not change anything expect for the advertising copy, as in "all our recordings are done in 32 bit, while almost everyone else is still using 24 bit". Just as a super tweeter which is capable of reproducing sound up to 40kHz does not sound any better than a tweeter which only goes to 20kHz.
 
The bigger is better believe has lead to 2" thick power and speaker cables, 500 watt/channel amps etc. as manufacturers know that people will fall for "bigger is better" every time.
 
A quick slightly off topic aside: speaking of high resolution video I find myself laughing at the recent push for 4k video. Laughing because more often than not, when I go to a friend or relative's house I find them watching a stretched standard definition channel on their giant HDTV - even when the same channel is available on a high definition channel. Point is most people don't know and don't care. The same can be said for our little discussion going on here - most people, as in 99% or so, will gladly listen to music on Pandora, streamed at 64k AAC+ - so who are we kidding with this high resolution nonsense?

comradedylie said:

  Isnt possible yet.
 
Humans couldnt do almost any of things that we can now, say 10,000 years ago.  
 
Humans couldnt do most of the things we do on a regular basis, 3,000 years ago.
 
Humans couldnt do many of the things we take for granted today, 300 years ago.
 
Hell we couldnt even record digital music 100 years ago, now look at us go!
 
Give it time, my friend, give it time.  

Click to expand...

Except for the fact that sound waves require a medium, like air or water, to travel though.....now and forever.

comradedylie said:

  Ergo, it may be more 'natural' sounding if these inaudible frequencies are included even if we cannot hear them.

Click to expand...

 
Good job! The "ergo" nearly completely covered up the circular logic!

astropin said:

 
Except for the fact that sound waves require a medium, like air or water, to travel though.....now and forever.

Click to expand...

We also need air to breathe up there.  I imagine if we solve the air to breathe problem, the having no medium to hear sound in would not really be an issue.  
 
Im thinking geosynchronous orbiting air balloon room type thing =)
 
 
Quote:

ralphp@optonline said:

 
The bigger, larger, higher, etc. is better argument is one that audiophiles fall for each and every time and most of the time it is just not true. Increasing from 24 bit to 32 bit would not change anything expect for the advertising copy, as in "all our recordings are done in 32 bit, while almost everyone else is still using 24 bit".

Click to expand...

 
Yeah Im totally with you there man, marketing is really evil stuff.  CD quality recordings using 32 bit -- who cares? But if you are producing 24 bit music it would make sense to mix in 32 bit.  Same as it made sense to mix in 24 bit for 16. Right?   Just seems that you would always want to mix at a higher bit rate than the music you are trying to produce.  On the other hand, we are already debating that 24 bits is more dynamic range than we need, so the necessity to mix in 32 bit could be smoke and mirrors since the junk would already be at low enough volume.  I am not a music producer, I do not claim to have any more than a rudimentary knowledge of mixing and mastering.  Just trying to extend the same logical strategies we use for CD res to hi-res
 

bigshot said:

   
Good job! The "ergo" nearly completely covered up the circular logic!
 

Click to expand...

Well I hope you are referring to the fact that I said inaudible frequencies that we cannot hear.  Which isnt exactly circular logic, just poor use of adjectives.  Unless something else in there was circular (I sure hope not!).
 
 More or less I am referring to the audio version of the incandescent light vs fluorescent light vs sunlight phenomenon.  Basically humans feel more comfortable and our bodies respond much better to incandescent lighting because they generate heat and a more sun-like color whereas the fluorescent lights contain much more blue light and generate less heat. The miniature suns (Tommy Edison bulbs) cause a more natural reaction from our body than the fluorescents.  Thats why being in the office or hospital feels so uncomfortable. (amongst other reasons sure...)
 
Not totally sure that it applies to audio, but theres no reason to say that it wouldnt.  If that extra stuff isnt there, it just isnt as accurate of a reproduction so perhaps it doesnt sound as true to life as it could if it were there.  I hope that isnt circular  

ralphp@optonline said:

 
And where do we draw the line when purely subjective experience is being used as a marketing tool?
 
If I believe that my audio system sounds 100 times better (remember it's purely subjective so I can assign a subjective numerical value to just how much better my audio system sounds) after I coat all the contact points in Wonder Coat (a proprietary mixture that I developed, but which is actually just plain tap water mixed with some liquid soap) that would be fine so long I am not trying to sell anyone else some Wonder Coat.
 
Now what if I now am trying to sell Wonder Coat and the only proof can I offer is my purely subjective experience - again not a problem so long as everyone knows that Wonder Coat's magic is purely subjective.
 
And finally, what if I am now trying to sell Wonder Coat and instead of clearly stating that Wonder Coat's magic is purely subjective I frame it so that it appears that Wonder Coat's magic is based on hard science (similar to the HDTracks marketing that was quoted earlier) - would this be okay? And I'm not referring to whether or not it would be morally or legally okay but to whether or not someone else has the right to call bulls*#t on my claims.
 
In other words it is the turning of what is purely an individual's subjective experience/belief into a marketing tool (complete with quasi-scientific mumbo-jumbo - think any cable advertisement copy) that I believe we should be able to call BS on and rightfully demand hard, scientifically valid and repeatable proof.
 
And guess what? There is no hard, scientifically valid and repeatable proof that 24 bit audio and sampling rates over 48k offers anything other than purely subjective improvements, which is why I am calling BS on HDTracks and their paid friends in the publishing world.

Click to expand...

The absence of evidence for an occurrence  does not constitute evidence of absence.  E.g. the 'all swans are white' inductive reasoning example which held fine as a probabilistic 'proof' until some naturally black swans were discovered.  Which is why I call any categoric claim (you prudently kept 'subjective' in your statement) such as regarding the bitrates as premature and at best probabilistic using the knowledge now at our disposal.  Probabilistic models, even when extremely developed, are problematic because they typically imply the acceptance of a number of elements which may turn out to be based on quicksand if more data becomes available. 
 
Of course, the above does not mean that someone claiming that there are benefits gets a free pass:  it's up to the claimant to provide evidence and in this case as well as with cables etc therein lies the difficulty for them of course.  I have no problems with them peddling their stuff as long as that's made clear.

comradedylie said:

  Well I hope you are referring to the fact that I said inaudible frequencies that we cannot hear.

Click to expand...

 
No it was the whole idea that inaudible frequencies can make music sound better. How are they going to sound at all when they're inaudible?!
 
By the way, there have been studies that have shown that super-audible frequencies have absolutely no impact on sound quality. In fact, music doesn't really contain any, because the only musical instruments capable of producing them are cymbals and triangles, and in those, auditory masking from lower harmonics totally obliterates the ones in the upper range of hearing. Inaudible frequencies would be doubly inaudible!
 
Here is a "for instance" for you... This is an Apple Lossless file of a digital recording of Bach. The first half is the recording as it appears on the CD. The second half is just the frequencies above 12kHz.
 
http://www.vintageip.com/test/freqresponsetest.m4a
 
Silence... Yes, there isn't even anything above 12kHz in a lot of music, much less above 20kHz...

bigshot said:

   
No it was the whole idea that inaudible frequencies can make music sound better. How are they going to sound at all when they're inaudible?!
 
By the way, there have been studies that have shown that super-audible frequencies have absolutely no impact on sound quality. In fact, music doesn't really contain any, because the only musical instruments capable of producing them are cymbals and triangles, and in those, auditory masking from lower harmonics totally obliterates the ones in the upper range of hearing. Inaudible frequencies would be doubly inaudible!
 
Here is a "for instance" for you... This is an Apple Lossless file of a digital recording of Bach. The first half is the recording as it appears on the CD. The second half is just the frequencies above 12kHz.
 
http://www.vintageip.com/test/freqresponsetest.m4a
 
Silence... Yes, there isn't even anything above 12kHz in a lot of music.

Click to expand...

"video will not play because file is corrupt"

It's not a video. It's an Apple Lossless file. Play it in iTunes.

Bigshot, I think you need to use a steeper filter. When I look at it in SPAN, I can see you also trimmed off some response below 15khz.
 
Not that I don't get your point and all about high frequencies. Though perhaps try a test just removing those higher frequencies instead?

I used the 1/3 octave graphic EQ in Sound Forge and cut everything but the last three sliders 3 x -20dB. I could do the inverse, just cutting the top end, but there wouldn't be any audible difference.