[TwoTrack]

This one talks to DSD and minimal frequency spansL

Quote:

Why Direct Stream Digital (DSD) is the best choice as a digital audio format. In this paper, an overview of Direct Stream Digital (DSD) signal processing is given. It is shown that 1-bit DSD signals can be dithered properly, so the resulting dithered DSD stream does not contain audible artifacts in a band from 0-100~kHz. It is also shown that signal processing can be done best in a high rate, multi-bit domain. Arguments are given that the minimal frequency span needed to comply with the human auditory system is roughly 0-300~kHz. Following the signal processing, final conversion to DSD is made. It is demonstrated that Super Audio CD (SACD) is a very efficient consumer format: it is the format which, while maintaining all necessary psycho-acoustical characteristics such has high band width, filtering with wide transition bands etc, uses the least bits from the disk; hence offering the longest playing time. Paper Number: 5396 Convention: 110 (May 2001) Authors: Nuijten, Peter; Reefman, Derk Affiliation: Audio Research Group, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

 

[TwoTrack]

And we have Bob Stuart's paper in the Journal of the AES:

Quote:

Volume 52 Number 3 pp. 117-144; March 2004 What do we mean by high resolution? The recording and replay chain is reviewed from the viewpoints of digital audio engineering and human psychoacoustics. An attempt is made to define high resolution and to identify the characteristics of a transparent digital audio channel. The theory and practice of selecting high sample rates such as 96 kHz and word lengths of up to 24 bit are examined. The relative importance of sampling rate and word size at various points in the recording, mastering, transmission, and replay chain is discussed. Encoding methods that can achieve high resolution are examined and compared, and the advantages of schemes such as lossless coding, noise shaping, oversampling, and matched preemphasis with noise shaping are described. Author: Stuart, J. Robert E-lib Location: (CD JAES52) /tmp/jaes52/3/pg117.pdf

 

[anetode]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif Some papers on HF impact: There's life above 20 kilohertz! A survey of musical instrument spectra to 102.4 kHz

A few things caught my eye while reading that. The fourth citation on that page refers to a study called "High-Frequency Sound Above the Audible Range Affects Brain Electric Activity and Sound Perception". Bold claim, except it isn't, since the study's original name, when submitted to the Journal of Neurophysiology, is "Inaudible High-Frequency Sounds Affect Brain Activity: Hypersonic Effect". The change in name is significant since the original study separates the classical understanding of "sound perception" and the hypothesized "hypersonic effect". It is nonetheless interesting that although the hypersonic frequencies are not perceived as sound, they correlate with greater subjective enjoyment among the study's participants. I wonder whether the effect persists with hypersonic noise that's disharmonic or not the product of musical performance. Good news for supertweeter manufacturers! Looking forward to future studies.

As for the existence of hypersonics created by musical instruments, did anyone ever suggest otherwise

TwoTrack: I think you're missing the point of all this information you link to because you bear a tremendous self-serving bias that blinds you from any intellectually honest analysis or self-criticism. Your insults of Ethan Winer bring to mind psychological projection and childish solipsism. If you wish to actually discuss any of the studies you link to, instead of using them as a blunt weapon against screen real estate, feel free to start a thread at sound science.

 

[Shike]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif I guess it really depends on how much experience you have working with sound gear. If you have not experimented with teflon caps and the like then you have no frame of reference. If you have not recorded in hirez and compared it with 16/44 then you have no reference. If you have not A/Bed quality cables (interconnect, speaker or AC) with average ones then you have no frame of reference.

Yeah, measurements are a poor frame of reference compared to some other guy's ears and brain on a forum.

I mean . . . really?

Quote:

1. I'm not making an argument that you need to spend more to get good cables. There are several affordable silver cable options I have tested including the Pear Comice cable at $200 an interconnect. Transparent has some under $100 cables that sound nice.

Those prices are ridiculous. So when you say I don't need to spend more, you're really saying "yes you do". Also, this isn't evidence.

Quote:

2. There are AES papers which have proven the benefit. I will look for a link for you.

You have nothing till you do. Still needing evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif Some papers on HF impact: There's life above 20 kilohertz! A survey of musical instrument spectra to 102.4 kHz

The first thing you've posted that at least has some credence. It's still stuck in the "hypothesis" stage though. There was also some contradictory evidence presented . . . odds are most of the HF impact has to be transfered via the skull and not ones own hearing. The second point this brings up is that even if it is transferred and affects the brain it still isn't identifiable to those in the testing.

That link pretty much flies in the face of everything you've posted, and actually has a substantial sample size.

 

[pyramid6]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif Some papers on HF impact: There's life above 20 kilohertz! A survey of musical instrument spectra to 102.4 kHz

My understanding is that different interconnects/cables will only effect frequencies an order of magnitude above the 100k they are talking about.

 

[TwoTrack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pyramid6 /img/forum/go_quote.gif My understanding is that different interconnects/cables will only effect frequencies an order of magnitude above the 100k they are talking about.

You are mixing two different topics here...sonic differences of cables and the impact of extreme HF on sound.

 

[TwoTrack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by anetode /img/forum/go_quote.gif TwoTrack: I think you're missing the point of all this information you link to because you bear a tremendous self-serving bias that blinds you from any intellectually honest analysis or self-criticism. Your insults of Ethan Winer bring to mind psychological projection and childish solipsism. If you wish to actually discuss any of the studies you link to, instead of using them as a blunt weapon against screen real estate, feel free to start a thread at sound science.

Clearly you either did not read or understand the papers I linked to. They refute completely the quotes I posted that Ethan Winer made. And they did so in a scientific, in some cases peer-reviewed, basis.

I'm presenting strong evidence here in scientific papers yet no one has presented any evidence that Winer is right.

 

[TwoTrack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shike /img/forum/go_quote.gif Those prices are ridiculous. So when you say I don't need to spend more, you're really saying "yes you do". Also, this isn't evidence. The first thing you've posted that at least has some credence. It's still stuck in the "hypothesis" stage though.

On the first point, $100-200 is very reasonable in my opinion for an interconnect. Even budget makers often hit the $100 price point such as the Stager Silver.

On the second point, I linked to two AES papers that talk to the value of extreme (>20khz) HF. I guess you don't wish to talk to those since they don't support your point.

What evidence do you have that the papers are incorrect?

 

[TwoTrack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shike /img/forum/go_quote.gif The first thing you've posted that at least has some credence. It's still stuck in the "hypothesis" stage though. There was also some contradictory evidence presented . . . odds are most of the HF impact has to be transfered via the skull and not ones own hearing. The second point this brings up is that even if it is transferred and affects the brain it still isn't identifiable to those in the testing.

The Meyer Moran paper has been widely discredited. Most audio researchers I have met do agree with Bob Stuart that 44.1 khz is not sufficient a sampling rate. You can see much of the criticism of this paper at Audio Asylum.

The problem with most of these listening tests is that they really ultimately just test the critical listening skills of the audience, not the audible differences of two phenomena.

 

[TwoTrack]

Further reading:

It's Alive! Ultrasonic Spectra Isn't So Ultra Anymore

Quote:

A second explanation that may not necessarily have to refute the 20 kHz hearing limit entails engineering details slightly beyond the scope of this class. A well-respected high fidelity digital audio company, dCS, has published a white paper describing the engineering issues involved with reproducing high-sample rate material and standard sample rate material. Due to what is called the Gibbs phenomenon, typical sharp anti-aliasing filtering for standard 22 kHz sample rate material as is necessitated by the Nyquist theorem results in a ringing transient response. The energy contained in this transient ringing "smears" or "defocuses" the sound, impairing the ability to localise sounds. Higher sample rates mitigate this problem. dCS produces an ultra high-end upsampler and DAC that converts standard 16 bit/44 kHz CD material to interpolated 24 bits at 192 kHz, improving the sound by all subjective audiophile criteria - air, soundstage, imaging, ease - to no end. Given that there is no real information being added to the signal, the engineering explanation dCS offers gains credibility.

 

[Currawong]

Twotrack: To multiquote, click on the multiquote button

on every post you want to quote (it'll turn red)

and then click on "Post Reply" above or below all the posts. You can safely go to the next page and the forums will remember what posts you want to quote.

 

[TwoTrack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Currawong /img/forum/go_quote.gif Twotrack: To multiquote, click on the multiquote button on every post you want to quote (it'll turn red) and then click on "Post Reply" above or below all the posts. You can safely go to the next page and the forums will remember what posts you want to quote.

Thanks, I will try to do that.

 

[nealric]

Quote:

On the first point, $100-200 is very reasonable in my opinion for an interconnect. Even budget makers often hit the $100 price point such as the Stager Silver.

Not taking sides here, but you need to understand your audience. If one believes that interconnects don't make a difference, then the baseline is a $3 cable from radioshack. If one believes interconnects are meaningless, $100 is $97 of wasted money. Also consider that tons of headfiers have rigs worth $200 total (headphones + amp). An extra $100 is a huge expense for a setup like that.

 

[MadMan007]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aimlink /img/forum/go_quote.gif In F1, the inexperienced teams typically remain at the back because they're in search of the magic pill in development that will put them significantly forward. OTOH, the very experienced ones will tell you that it's about the additive effect of many small improvements combined. My point is that on the one hand, you may wish to prove that factor A makes a sonic improvement, so you isolate it for the sake of experimentation and throw it out since subjects can't reliably detect it in a particular situation. Not to mention that Factor A may come in different flavours. You do the same with 10 other factors. In frustration you throw them out claiming they have no effect. However, what about the additive effect, either simply or synergistically?? IMO, trust your ears!!! You've got to trust something in the end. It's your pocket too and your money. Winer types come and go. Some legitimate with genuine truths to impart, but so many others with misguided arguments etc. These latter ones may well do it deliberately for personal gain, but others may well be just.... misguided. His video does give food for thought but I will still insist that my SRX Cryo cable made a positive difference to my K702's. I couldn't genuinely say this about the Cardas and my HD650's. However, I still used the Cardas because of the possibility of an additive effect. Your system sounds overall better, but if you break it down and test each component, they aren't that much better than cheaper alternatives.

This is kind of funny because I started reading your post and I had a reply in mind, then you provide a perfect example of what I was going to reply with at the end!

You mention additive effects or synergy, but then go on to mention that one change (a different cable) is noticable

Most 'believers' do this too and talk about a single component causing noticable change.

 

[DayoftheGreek]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif I guess it really depends on how much experience you have working with sound gear. If you have not experimented with teflon caps and the like then you have no frame of reference. If you have not recorded in hirez and compared it with 16/44 then you have no reference. If you have not A/Bed quality cables (interconnect, speaker or AC) with average ones then you have no frame of reference.

I would no one has any frame of reference until they blind test them properly.

That is the entire point of what he is saying. This was the purpose of the story about the switch hooked up to the two amps. Telling people that things make a difference will force them to make a difference.

More experience with sound gear may be great, but if you intertwine this experience with perpetuated myths than your experience might as well be non-existent. Hell, it might even be worse, because then you can spread misinformation under veil of experience. Again I will say that I have yet to even pick a side in this debate, so don't misunderstand me. I just wanted to get more real information out of this.