Compressed Audio Question

[gregorio]

because what i said is what i said, and it's perfectly clear.

Agreed. It was perfectly clear you made a false statement, contradicted yourself and then tried to deflect.

switching noise coming through the ac mains.

How is that a different factor? Either there is no discernible switching noise coming through the ac mains or it’s user error (putting the sound system on an inappropriate circuit).

your experience is a sample of n=1, hardly useful science.

Try to remember that! However the ns10 mid/high freq problem was only an issue with the very first version of the ns10m, which was discontinued around 40 years ago and there are hardly any left, what’s the sample size of that, n=? And you didn’t provide any examples of tube amps not producing audible bass, so that’s n=0. Well done, really useful science!!

no. what an odd question.

Ah, deflection, more really useful science. Your the one who said you enjoyed Ella recordings without audible bass, isn’t that “hugely lower fidelity”?

G

 

[bigshot]

I'm afraid you're wrong about that. Human hearing has been extensively studied for over a century. You're trying to bend the truth to validate your beliefs about home audio.

We hear music with our ears. The brain processes what the ears hear, but that has nothing to do with fidelity. It processes perception regardless of how high the fidelity of an audio component is.

Again, I'm not talking about "enjoyment of music", I'm talking about "fidelity of hearing". The brain processing affects enjoyment, ears hear with a particular degree of fidelity.

 

[LisaShayBrown]

We hear music with our ears.

lol, really? you don't understand that the ears are simply microphones that provide a signal to the brain, and that the brain is where the music is made? you honestly don't get that?

 

[LisaShayBrown]

Agreed. It was perfectly clear you made a false statement, contradicted yourself and then tried to deflect.

it's not false just because you say it's false. in fact if you say it's false, it's probably true.

How is that a different factor? Either there is no discernible switching noise coming through the ac mains or it’s user error (putting the sound system on an inappropriate circuit).

now that's just idiocy (as anyone who's worked in a recording studio should know - why do you think those dimmers cost $200 each).

Try to remember that! However the ns10 mid/high freq problem was only an issue with the very first version of the ns10m, which was discontinued around 40 years ago and there are hardly any left, what’s the sample size of that, n=? And you didn’t provide any examples of tube amps not producing audible bass, so that’s n=0. Well done, really useful science!!

lol who said tube amps don't produce bass???

the gregorio argument formula:

someone says something
gregorio says "you said..." [something they didn't say]

Ah, deflection, more really useful science. Your the one who said you enjoyed Ella recordings without audible bass, isn’t that “hugely lower fidelity”?

G

"hugely lower fidelity" doesn't make something impossible to enjoy.

 

[bigshot]

You'll need to read what I said and define that comment better. The ears are microphones that register sound and the brain is where music is interpreted.

Recorded sound is a matter of fidelity. Sound fidelity is dependent on the ears and the fidelity of the home audio component. Music is made by artists. Appreciation of music is part of the brain processing and has nothing to do with the home audio component.

 

[VNandor]

but ears are only a small part of the system. your ears simply detect changes in air pressure.

the sound you experience is a simulation entirely created by your brain, and what the brain does with what comes in the ears is far, far from completely known.

lol, really? you don't understand that the ears are simply microphones that provide a signal to the brain, and that the brain is where the music is made? you honestly don't get that?

I find it fascinating you recognize this yet don't seem to apply this line of thinking to virtually anything you've ever posted here.

It's a bit of an oversimplification/misleading to say that the ears are just microphones that provide a signal to your brain. The ears' job (among other things) is to detect changes in air pressure and send signals to the brain but it's important to keep in mind it achieves that purpose very differently than how microphones detect air pressure and convert it to voltage so just because a statement applies to a microphone it doesn't mean that it applies to our ears as well.

 

[bigshot]

How do ears capture sound pressure differently than a microphone? Both involve a diaphragm vibrating and mechanically converting physical sound to electrical signals. Ears just use nerves instead of wires to conduct a signal.

Ears don't interpret sound. They just register it and pass the signal on to the brain for processing. A microphone doesn't interpret sound. It just coverts physical sound into electrical signals. A CD player doesn't interpret sound. It just returns the signal to physical sound. If it does that with fidelity that matches or exceeds the ability of the ears to hear sound, it's perfect. The brain has nothing to do with any of that. The brain takes it beyond just fidelity to interpretation of sound. That is a completely separate process.

 

[LisaShayBrown]

I find it fascinating you recognize this yet don't seem to apply this line of thinking to virtually anything you've ever posted here.

It's a bit of an oversimplification/misleading to say that the ears are just microphones that provide a signal to your brain. The ears' job (among other things) is to detect changes in air pressure and send signals to the brain but it's important to keep in mind it achieves that purpose very differently than how microphones detect air pressure and convert it to voltage so just because a statement applies to a microphone it doesn't mean that it applies to our ears as well.

of course it achieves that purpose very differently than microphones. that's more than a bit obvious.

you say the ears' job among other things is to detect air pressure and send signals to the brain.

what are the "other things"?

 

[LisaShayBrown]

Ears just use nerves instead of wires to conduct a signal.

crucially, the ears also use tiny bones.

 

[bigshot]

So? It uses a diaphragm made of flesh instead of one made of wax paper or mica or whatever too. Sound pressure vibrates a diaphragm. The vibration is converted to an electrical signal and passed along. That is the same whether you're talking about a microphone or an ear.

That's all mechanical and physical. It has nothing to do with processing.

 

[VNandor]

what are the "other things"?

I was thinking of our sense of balance. It is provided by the vestibular system which is a part of the inner ear. I'm almost sure the human ears can have other functions as well, I've just never learned about them because i'm not an ear doctor or an otolaryngologist.

 

[bigshot]

Well that is a separate thing from CD players and sound reproduction.

As it relates to human hearing, the ear is an analog to electrical converter. It doesn't have a brain of its own. It converts physical sound waves into signals that are processed in the brain. The processing of the brain is separate from the fidelity of the ears.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the fidelity of music involving anything beyond the physical abilities of the ears to capture sound and convert it. If you can record and play back sound with a degree of fidelity that matches or exceeds the ability of human ears to hear it, you have achieved audible transparency and "perfect sound". Sound reproduction that is able to do that is all you need. Even cheap CD players, amplifiers and other electronic home audio components are capable of that. Transducers are the only parts of the chain that aren't always up to that task.

If you want to talk about areas that could use improvement, you should be talking about headphones and speakers, not amps and DACs.

 

[LisaShayBrown]

I was thinking of our sense of balance.

yes, fair point.

I'm almost sure the human ears can have other functions as well, I've just never learned about them because i'm not an ear doctor or an otolaryngologist.

so that was "just making up stuff" then. no worries, that's par for the course here.

 

[bigshot]

The problem isn't making stuff up. It's not arguing on point. The discussions here often spiral off into tangents and irrelevant arguments are made that derail the subject actually being discussed. That's because of egos. I'm always amazed that people measure their self worth by how they appear in Internet forums.

High data rate lossy is capable of achieving audible transparency. You can have bigger file sizes and more resolution, but ears won't be able to hear it. Human hearing is finite. If you match or exceed it, you're done for the purposes of listening to Mozart on the stereo in your living room.

 

[VNandor]

so that was "just making up stuff" then. no worries, that's par for the course here.

I'm not making up anything, I'm just pointing out the fact that the ears might have other functions than "being a microphone" and providing a sense of balance.

You are the one that smugly asserted that the ears are just "simply microphones" despite the fact it works quite differently than a microphone and also having a different purpose than a microphone.