CanJam SoCal 2018 (April 7-8, 2018) Impressions thread

First
 
Back
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
  1. XERO1
    Yep! That's pretty much what I heard with the Empyrean at the TSAV booth. I reeeally hope the final voicing is identical to that one! :fingers_crossed::pray: :o2smile:
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2018 at 1:46 AM
    jurumal and moedawg140 like this.
  2. moedawg140 Contributor
    You and me alike! :pray: :fingers_crossed:
     
    XERO1 likes this.
  3. miceblue
    These might be of interest to read about:
    Inaudible High-Frequency Sounds Affect Brain Activity: Hypersonic Effect
    https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jn.2000.83.6.3548
    Cited over 150 times by other peer-reviewed papers since its publishing; not bad at all! But, they were using custom loudspeakers, a specific model amplifier for the high-frequency content with a 0.5-150000 Hz +/- 3 dB frequency response specification, a high-frequency-capable microphone, and music content with prevalent high-frequency overtones (Gamelan). Gamelan is pretty much the single-most widely used music genre for supersonic frequency studies and is what originally got me interested in high sample-rate recordings.


    And here's another interesting paper:
    WHICH OF THE TWO DIGITAL AUDIO SYSTEMS BEST MATCHES THE QUALITY OF THE ANALOG SYSTEM?
    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.724.9314&rep=rep1&type=pdf
     
  4. sejsel
    I could then use the paper from the university, that you have kindly provided yourself, and some excerpts from it:

    "This may indicate that we do not need 100 kHz microphones and 100 kHz loudspeakers, but we do need 100 kHz capable recorders. This conclusion, based on listening to
    the audio scene captured and reproduced with microphones and loudspeakers limited to 20 kHz bandwidth, indicates that high-sampling conversion system seems to be more transparent and
    provides a higher degree of fidelity to the analog reference.
    "

    and what Tim de Paravicini sats regarding the same issue:

    "Ten years ago in Stereophile, I said that digital was never going to work well in the chosen format. Digital should use a 400 kHz sampling rate and 24-bit words. Then it will satisfy the hearing mechanism and won't have a digital sound. Digital has a "sound" purely because it is based on lousy mathematics. The manufacturers presuppose too simplistic a view of our hearing mechanism."

    Now, I won't go into dissecting this paper, how it has been done, (at least not for a moment), but what I can notice immediately can be read by anyone rather easily.

    Furthermore:

    "Our listeners also reported that when they were listening to the wider bandwidth, up to 100 kHz, of analog audio converted to digital, they would choose the low-sampling rate of digital audio as sounding more like the analog transmission. "

    100 kHz, and we were talking earlier about what in human hearing - half of this 100 khz (analog) ?
    I believe I would have chosen myself lower sampling rate of the 100kHz signal. Since the sampling is picking of the information of the original audio analog signal. After all, we (and de Paravicini) were talking about 45 - 50 - 40 Khz earlier, if I am not mistaken ?

    Well, I have not read in detail how this analogue (reference) recording was made, which can be an importan factor; after all, I have my own academia to take care of (studies) and am bogged down by it to a large extent, but - there is an analogue, and there is an analogue, even when it comes to recording it:

    "Although de Paravicini will upgrade any tape machine, his favorite is the legendary Studer C37. "It’s a good, reliable workhorse," he says. According to him, the C37 blows away everything else, even an Ampex MR70. The C37’s tube circuitry is simple, with no microprocessors to get in the way. Even before the upgrade, the C37’s specs are notable. The frequency response is rated as 20 Hz to 15 kHz, +1, -2 dB, and S/N is 75 dB (rms, weighted) at 15 ips. After de Paravicini’s modifications, the response is 7 Hz to 35 kHz, +/- 1 dB, and S/N is 90 dB!

    One happy user of a de Paravicini tape deck is Chris Rice, owner of Altarus Records, a classical label. Rice had de Paravicini modify three Studer C37s - two 1-inch and one half-inch. "The heads were custom made to Tim’s specifications," says Rice. "The mechanical modifications he did himself. He stripped the electronics out and rebuilt his own circuitry into the existing modules, doing hundreds of modifications. He uses his own EQ curve. He also provides an AC mains regenerating power supply because the machines are not quartz locked; they depend on mains frequency. By doubling the capstan diameter, Tim doubled the tape speed from 7 1/2/15 ips to 15/30 ips

    What’s the main advantage of your 1-inch analog recorder over digital recorders?

    The sound quality. My analog recorder has four times the sampling frequency! The bias frequency is 160 kHz. The magnetic-particle flow past a playback head is equivalent to a 24-hit word, which is amazing resolution.

    ................

    You've said that we experience sound down to 3 Hz, and that reproduction down to this frequency is essential. Do studio consoles go down that far?

    No. The average console has all these cumulatively rubbish electronics in it. If you cascade 10 amplifiers, each with a response down 1 dB from 20 Hz to 20 kHz, you end up with a cumulative 10 dB down from 20 Hz to 20 kHz. So you must minimize all degradation. Since I use a lot of transformers in my stuff, each transformer must be very wideband.

    Unfortunately, the average manufacturer looks at only one piece of equipment, in isolation. They quote a tape machine as having a response of 50 Hz to 15 kHz, +/- 1 dB, and say that's fine. Yes, in isolation. But not as a cumulative system. Tony Faulkner uses a mixing console of mine, full of tubes and transformers, but it's vastly flatter than most of the mixing consoles on the market.

    "

    Now, from the paper you have cited, again:


    These results seem to indicate that the ultra high-frequency content may not be necessary to reproduce audio that sounds more transparent. Supersonic content may contain noise-like artefacts that interfere with the perceived transparency of audio.

    However, to achieve a higher degree of fidelity to the live analog reference, we need to convert audio using high sampling rate even when we do not use microphones and loudspeakers having bandwidth extended far beyond 20 kHz.

    Listeners judge high sampling conversion as sounding more like the analog reference when listening to standard audio bandwidth
    .
    These results suggest that the archiving community should consider using high-sampling conversion to ensure transparency even if the recording is made with standard audio-bandwidth transducers, and when digitizing older recordings made with bandwidth-limited analog systems."

    So, first wee need to filter out the sampling rate discussion vs. the reproducing or playing (bit rate) bandwidth (or call it how you choose) of the digitized file when talking about digital audio, two well known entities.

    We can perhaps (for the moment) leave the discussion about the human perception of "hearable" sound (just for the sake of the argument) outside - just for the moment. Not that I am shying from it at all.

    Now, correct me if I am wrong, but to me there are some obvious similarities in what paper says vs. what de Paravicini says regarding the sampling quality of the analog material (whatever the analog source now is).

    Furthermore, the paper says clearly: These results suggest that the archiving community should consider using high-sampling conversion to ensure transparency
    even if the recording is made with standard audio-bandwidth transducers, and when digitizing older recordings made with bandwidth-limited analog systems."

    On one hand, you have this claim about the standard audio bandwith transducer made recordings, and on the other hand you have a person who was doing this - with the analog recordings and analog recording equipment, capturing the analog signal, (and only then being transferred to digital in some cases) :

    Although de Paravicini will upgrade any tape machine, his favorite is the legendary Studer C37. "It’s a good, reliable workhorse," he says. According to him, the C37 blows away everything else, even an Ampex MR70. The C37’s tube circuitry is simple, with no microprocessors to get in the way. Even before the upgrade, the C37’s specs are notable. The frequency response is rated as 20 Hz to 15 kHz, +1, -2 dB, and S/N is 75 dB (rms, weighted) at 15 ips. After de Paravicini’s modifications, the response is 7 Hz to 35 kHz, +/- 1 dB, and S/N is 90 dB!

    What’s the main advantage of your 1-inch analog recorder over digital recorders?


    The sound quality. My analog recorder has four times the sampling frequency! The bias frequency is 160 kHz. The magnetic-particle flow past a playback head is equivalent to a 24-hit word, which is amazing resolution."

    When you pit these statements "against" or next to each other, anyone can read what they say. No wonder his recorders have been deemed to be more true to the source by some very experienced people in the music industry using his recorder, and no wonder he goes further into saying what we need both in terms of human hearing perception (by the industry) and digitizing the audio.

    I understand that this is only the part of the discussion, for time reasons only (my own time) I have chosen to address this for the moment.

    I have not forgotten other (earlier posts) - more about that later.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2018 at 10:44 AM
  5. miceblue
    Yup, the results seem similar to what de Paravicini stated. The results from those experiments didn't state why the higher sampling rate recordings sounded better to the participants, but perhaps it's due to better transient response playback. That's something I think Rob Watts had mentioned before regarding that plus the ultra-low noise designs of his DAC products.




    Speaking of though, I heard the iSine 20 on the Qutest DAC and Gilmore Lite amp at CanJam, and I was quite impressed with it. I still prefer the iSines with the Cioher cable, but alas I don't have an iDevice to use it with. I'd have to compare it with the iSine 10 again on the same setup to get a better evaluation of the two as I had previously preferred the 10 over the 20 with the regular 3.5 mm cable. On this setup, the 20 sounded very smooth on the treble whereas it was grainier-sounding the last time I heard it on a FiiO X5 gen 3.
     
  6. Mark Up
    I felt they isolated enough. Definitely the most isolating, nowhere near what you get on noise reducing cans. Compared to the HD800S or any open back or semi open, it was significantly more isolating to my ears. These aren't cans for "the loud subway or street". Their being closed is more for those who don't want to bother someone nearby, or reduce outside noses, like televisions in the next room, a window air conditioner. In the studio where these have the most potential, it can be used both for recording (as not to bleed sound into the microphone), as they'll use much worse sounding closed cans for, and you can also mix or master on it (I would rarely say this about any headphone). It's proper low end extension is a big part of that, as well as the clear yet not hyped or peaky treble. I can't stress how the lack of midrange resonances (reflections, ringing, hollow or boxy sound) will put them above many other closed cans.
     
    miceblue likes this.
  7. miceblue
    It does have a mighty impressive sound given that it's a closed-back headphone for sure. I wonder if they tried different curvatures of glass to get its tuning just right. I don't think I've seen a headphone with a concaved earcup before.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2018 at 12:36 PM
    Mark Up likes this.
  8. greenmountain
    Higher sampling rate have a positive effect on the audible range because the artifacts of digital filters are moved further to inaudible frequencies and the transients maybe better albeit some experts deny that.
     
  9. greenmountain
    I was reading a comment that the curvature was optimsed to disperse the back reflection of the driver and absorptive materials is surrounding it.
     
  10. JabenZ
    I think in one of the interviews (maybe the audio 46 in canjamNY one) said the same thing.
     
First
 
Back
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Share This Page