[frankR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif The charts in that paper are pretty useless, they have no scale on the Y axis, there is no way of knowing how much energy there is on those harmonics...

The purpose of the article was to show guitar strings create higher frequency sound then the fundamental from high order harmonics. A relative amplitude y-axis is sufficient. It even labels it as a log scale. What’s your point?

I know they have much less energy then the fundamental. So where is the disagreement?

And you can't gloss those harmonics over as irrelevant.

What makes a C on a guitar sound different then on a piano, on a bassoon, on a clarinet, out of Celine Dion's vocal chords? It's not the fundamental, because they have the same frequency, more or less. It's those weaker harmonics!

 

[eruditass]

no, it's not the weaker harmonics, it's the stronger overtones. An overtone may or may not be an integer multiple of the fundamental, so it includes harmonics. however weaker harmonics/overtones obviously don't have as much amplitude as stronger harmonics/overtones, which play more of a role of defining an instrument. after a certain point, there is a lot less energy in the upper overtones depending on the instrument and the fundamental.

i don't see how 24bit/16bit relates to this, unless we're talking about sample rates, which are completely different. regardless, our ears really can't hear much above 20Khz, and that is a fact. most cant even hear around 20 Khz. the point of higher sample rates is to get timing down better.

 

[frankR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoomzDayz /img/forum/go_quote.gif i don't see how 24bit/16bit relates to this,

It doesn't, it's a tanget.

My argument is that high resolution audio increases fidelity of the audible frequency spectrum.

Claiming that a higher cut-off frequency is not necessary because we can't hear that high is the same as saying we don't need see the texture of her skin because we can already see the outline of her face. Higher resolution reveals finder details in the stuff you already can see, or hear.

 

[indikator]

how 24 bit output in foobar?

will it somehow interpolate the 16 bit mp3 to become better?

 

[eruditass]

Quote:

Originally Posted by frankR /img/forum/go_quote.gif It doesn't, it's a tanget. My argument is that high resolution audio increases fidelity of the audible frequency spectrum. Claiming that a higher cut-off frequency is not necessary because we can't hear that high is the same as saying we don't need see the texture of her skin because we can already see the outline of her face. Higher resolution reveals finder details in the stuff you already can see, or hear.

your analogy isn't quite accurate, you need to extend it to the limits of vision as it relates to the limits of hearing. a more accurate analogy would be you don't need put the atoms of her skin in an image because we can't see at that level. or only a certain resolution is necessary for a screen at a certain distance because the viewer only has 20/20 or worse vision. there is absolutely nothing in our inner ears that responds to anything above 20Khz. If you're counting other senses, I suppose it could be different. I can certainly accept that argument for sub bass and feeling it.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by frankR /img/forum/go_quote.gif My argument is that high resolution audio increases fidelity of the audible frequency spectrum.

I don't think anyone is arguing with you about that. We're just pointing out that the added resolution is so far down the dynamic range, you aren't going to be hearing it when you sit down in front of your stereo to listen to music.

Quote:

Originally Posted by frankR /img/forum/go_quote.gif Claiming that a higher cut-off frequency is not necessary because we can't hear that high is the same as saying we don't need see the texture of her skin because we can already see the outline of her face. Higher resolution reveals finer details in the stuff you already can see, or hear.

Yes, but you have to *blow the image up* to see the pores in the skin on the girl standing forty feet away. In an audio mix, you might need to blow up details like that, so added resolution is useful. When you are listening to a stereo, you aren't going to be able to pull up those tiny details without making the loud portions unbearably loud.

It's all relative. You need to understand the perspective.

See ya
Steve

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by frankR /img/forum/go_quote.gif The purpose of the article was to show guitar strings create higher frequency sound then the fundamental from high order harmonics. A relative amplitude y-axis is sufficient. It even labels it as a log scale. What’s your point?

If the 19th and 20th harmonics are at - 120db from the fundamental they are utterly irrelevant.

Quote:

I know they have much less energy then the fundamental. So where is the disagreement?

It is your insistence that capturing these distant low level harmonics is important.

Quote:

And you can't gloss those harmonics over as irrelevant. What makes a C on a guitar sound different then on a piano, on a bassoon, on a clarinet, out of Celine Dion's vocal chords? It's not the fundamental, because they have the same frequency, more or less. It's those weaker harmonics!

But you don't need to extend the harmonics up to 15 or 20 to tell the difference. Back in 1978 Muraoka, Yamada and Yamazaki (JAES 26) ran some experiments. They took speakers capable of rendering 40Khz, music with high frequency components of well over 30K (including moog synthesizer tweedling and cymbals crashing) plus trained audio professionals. They ran music without filtering and with filters at 14, 16 , 18 and 20K. All the filters would remove plenty of the higher harmonics known to be present in the music.

Not one person could tell the difference when the filter was at 20K to a standard 0.05 significance level, none could manage it at 18K or 16K either only at 14K did the filter make the unfiltered and filtered music differentiatiable at the 0.05 level .........for 9/32 audio pros. They concluded that a 20K filter was perfectly safe but that pragmatically 15K would probably be fine too.

 

[Crowbar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not one person could tell the difference when the filter was at 20K to a standard 0.05 significance level

Any meaning derived from this obviously depends on ability and training of the subjects. Moreover, the much more recent studies I mentioned contradict your implied claim that >20 kHz has no perceptually measurable effect.

 

[Crowbar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoomzDayz /img/forum/go_quote.gif there is absolutely nothing in our inner ears that responds to anything above 20Khz.

The studies cited above prove there is something, whether in the ears or elsewhere in the head, that DOES respond to >20 kHz. It is flippant and insulting of you to pretend things posted in this thread were not posted

Next time bother to read a thread completely before you decide to add your two cents--they might have been discredited before you even posted them, as is in fact the case here.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowbar /img/forum/go_quote.gif Any meaning derived from this obviously depends on ability and training of the subjects. Moreover, the much more recent studies I mentioned contradict your implied claim that >20 kHz has no perceptually measurable effect.

Recency really is not an issue, inaudible in 1978 is inaudible in 2008, we have not suddenly evolved better hearing in the last 30 years. Sure some listeners are better than others, but we are talking about trained audio engineers here, not Joe and Mary from the Corner shop.

The Oohashi paper has already been rendered very dubious by the discovery of the IMD effect of the two frequency ranges being played back together and te fact that nobody has ever been able to replicate it and there have been attempts tpo do this.

The Lenhardt paper relies on bone conduction - they are talking about making the brain resonate - this is a parlour trick and so tangential to the argument as to be irrelevant. For human listening without cochlear implants or direct contact with the source these frequencies are irrelevant.

 

[grawk]

Trained audio engineers are more likely to have hearing damage than the average person, I'd be willing to bet...

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by frankR /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't need to prove that the guitar is making high frequency sounds, it's in the frequency spectrum I've already shown.

Can you explain to me how it is that your frequency spectrum graph is showing data from the 16/44.1 sample that is above the Nyquist frequency, 22.05 kHz? Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the graphs.

 

[frankR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif Can you explain to me how it is that your frequency spectrum graph is showing data from the 16/44.1 sample that is above the Nyquist frequency, 22.05 kHz? Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the graphs.

Anything above 22 khz is obiously cut-off in the 16/44 audio. However, the frequency spectrum of the 24/96 (red-line) audio shows signifigant spectral power just past where the blue line ends. This is from an approxminate 10 ms sample of the guitar chord. There are others with musical training in this thread, maybe they can describe the chord being played. My guess from doodling on guitar is a C-major chord? Is that standard tunning?

I want to remind everyone, my hypothesis was not that the high resolution audio is better because of extend frequency response above ~20 khz, it's because the audible band is rendered with much increased resolution. I've posted several graphs now that successfully demonstrate this.

The point is I DO hear a difference in the high resolution audio.

The question is why? My efforts yesterday may explain why.

Those who believe there is no difference, you must think that all those audiophiles that spend money on high res. digital equipment like SACD are wasting their money; because it's impossible for them to expirence increased fidelity.

 

[Febs]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring to this graph:

 

[frankR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring to this graph:

You're wondering why the scale shows information that extends beyond 22 khz.

The 24/96 graphs also goes beyond 48 khz. The scale is incorrect?

The freeware software I used to generate my data aren't exactly scientific grade. If I can find a way to extract the audio waveform I could do much more careful analysis in a proper scientific platform.