[TheSonicTruth]

c....what if it's the other end of the spectrum of causing
you violent nausea.

Lemme have 30 seconds of of 14HZ at 90db! lolol

 

[SpeakerBox]

I'd be interested in getting clarification from your opinion. Do you believe LPs can generate measurable 60khz signals? Citations say that the best reel to reel studio masters might go from 10hz-20khz. The RIAA curve's constants are 50hz, 500hz, and 2122hz (while that is slightly higher than 20khz, I assume it's still for mathematical reasons). Most people say they prefer vinyl due to distortion (IE digital being bright, and vinyl having some rolled off highs). Especially since an LP's source in the best of circumstances gets to 20khz, I can't see how 60khz wouldn't just be random.

When it comes ultra-high frequencies enhancing music, I have never seen any scientific consensus that has suggested this. I've taken neuro-anatomy and can appreciate the physiology of the brain. The main consensus I've seen is that there can be activity in the thalamus, but it's inconclusive as to any perception a person might feel. And honestly, if you're making the leap that ultra-high frequencies can add some kind of euphoria to music....what if it's the other end of the spectrum of causing you violent nausea.

What I am saying is that I believe there may be higher frequencies contained as part of transients. Fourier analysis tells us that a simple square wave contains an infinite number of frequencies when broken down into frequency components. So my question is : are there wave-forms in music that when broken down may yield similar results. Music is not a simple sine wave. As I said - I am investigating this and using CAT5E was just a starting point.

 

[bigshot]

Lemme have 30 seconds of of 14HZ at 90db! lolol

Attend a demonstration in Hong Kong and you'll be likely to experience just that! Or vacation in Havana on a US passport!

What I am saying is that I believe there may be higher frequencies contained as part of transients.

Only in purely theoretical transients... I don't think there is anything remotely like that in real world music. In Sound Science we call this "chasing down a rabbit hole". When you leave audibility behind and leave recorded music behind, you've entered a twilight zone of pure theory. It may be an interesting mental exercise, but it won't make Dark Side of the Moon sound any better in your living room. Ultimately, all that matters is what human ears can hear. Go ahead and double down over the threshold of audibility with a little headroom "just to be safe". But insisting that over two orders of magnitude makes a difference when there's a whole body of testing that says it is completely inaudible is pushing it. That sort of hoodoo plays in the rest of Head-Fi, but it doesn't fly in Sound Science. I bet it's an entertaining rant to use at cocktail parties full of drunken sound engineers though!

 

[Davesrose]

What I am saying is that I believe there may be higher frequencies contained as part of transients. Fourier analysis tells us that a simple square wave contains an infinite number of frequencies when broken down into frequency components. So my question is : are there wave-forms in music that when broken down may yield similar results. Music is not a simple sine wave. As I said - I am investigating this and using CAT5E was just a starting point.

Well previously, I mentioned I did like SACD and high res blu-ray concerts: but I think it's more that they are less likely to be compressed and are approximating studio masters. If you look at the fundamental FR of instruments, they are clearly below 20khz, and you're getting into harmonics (of which, sure you can keep going logarithmically up mathematically, but from a reproduction standpoint, I think it still diminishes). I'm no sound expert...but I've read the argument for high-res formats isn't so much realistic modeling of ultra-high frequencies, but no distortion within the audible spectrum.

 

[bigshot]

Given an apples to apples comparison between SACD and CD, within the audible range there is absolutely no difference between the two. They are waveform for waveform identical. The only advantages to SACD lie outside the range of human hearing.

 

[SpeakerBox]

Well previously, I mentioned I did like SACD and high res blu-ray concerts: but I think it's more that they are less likely to be compressed and are approximating studio masters. If you look at the fundamental FR of instruments, they are clearly below 20khz, and you're getting into harmonics (of which, sure you can keep going logarithmically up mathematically, but from a reproduction standpoint, I think it still diminishes). I'm no sound expert...but I've read the argument for high-res formats isn't so much realistic modeling of ultra-high frequencies, but no distortion within the audible spectrum.

Interesting, and I think CD/SACD have to roll off due to the low pass filter used to recover the analog signal. The only CD player I have heard that sounded half way decent to me was my old Rotel RCD-855 (God rest its soul).

 

[bigshot]

The filter on CD players is applied above your ability to hear. Every CD player I have ever owned sounds identical. I do controlled listening tests with every piece of equipment I buy to make sure it is audibly transparent.

I think you've misdiagnosed your problem. I think you have a frequency response imbalance in the high end somewhere.

 

[Davesrose]

Interesting, and I think CD/SACD have to roll off due to the low pass filter used to recover the analog signal. The only CD player I have heard that sounded half way decent to me was my old Rotel RCD-855 (God rest its soul).

It seems to me that you're referencing a component's "musicality" than actual measured specs (and something that wouldn't gain acceptance in "Sound Science"). Back when SACD didn't allow digital output, I got a high end stereo player, that also up-samples CD to 192khz. I've really liked it. When I took it to a friend's house to audition (he himself being a vinyl head), he mentioned he was unimpressed. Now that I have a receiver that handles DSD, I can also output digital DSD from a BD player. To me, it sounds more clinical than my high end player, but the digital config gives me the surround layer. I'm probably a purist when it comes to being an audiophile. I do have a vinyl collection, but it's with classic rock: back when the original masters for vinyl were better than later issues for CD. For new music, I get digital. I guess what I'd say is that any component (analog or digital) is going to have some subtle differences due to design. I have yet to see any articles that confirm there being sources that can generate pure 60khz tones.

 

[bigshot]

I compare apples to apples. I take a high data rate file and convert it to 16/44.1 and do a line level matched, direct A/B switched, blind comparison. I do the same kind of comparisons with my players and amps. It all sounds the same. If I take something over to someone else's house, or try to compare something I heard a day ago to something I'm listening to right now, I imagine differences. Those differences disappear with controlled testing. Human perception is fallible and bias has more of an impact on our judgements than any of us realize.

 

[SpeakerBox]

The filter on CD players is applied above your ability to hear. Every CD player I have ever owned sounds identical. I do controlled listening tests with every piece of equipment I buy to make sure it is audibly transparent.

I think you've misdiagnosed your problem. I think you have a frequency response imbalance in the high end somewhere.

I realize the filter is above the 20 to 20 range. Just pointing out that if there were ultra high frequencies the filter might remove some of them. With me the issue with CD is that I am probably more sensitive to harshness than most people. Always been an issue ever since I can remember. If anything my system leans towards warm due to the Pioneer and my Fisher 400.

 

[bigshot]

The harshness is probably coming from a frequency response imbalance in your room and speakers, not digital.

 

[SpeakerBox]

It seems to me that you're referencing a component's "musicality" than actual measured specs (and something that wouldn't gain acceptance in "Sound Science"). Back when SACD didn't allow digital output, I got a high end stereo player, that also up-samples CD to 192khz. I've really liked it. When I took it to a friend's house to audition (he himself being a vinyl head), he mentioned he was unimpressed. Now that I have a receiver that handles DSD, I can also output digital DSD from a BD player. To me, it sounds more clinical than my high end player, but the digital config gives me the surround layer. I'm probably a purist when it comes to being an audiophile. I do have a vinyl collection, but it's with classic rock: back when the original masters for vinyl were better than later issues for CD. For new music, I get digital. I guess what I'd say is that any component (analog or digital) is going to have some subtle differences due to design. I have yet to see any articles that confirm there being sources that can generate pure 60khz tones.

Well I did provide specs on the tweeter and cartridge. On that note - if we assume that engineers at KEF and Denon are not stupid, why do you think they would produce components with responses above 40KHZ?

 

[SpeakerBox]

The harshness is probably coming from a frequency response imbalance in your room and speakers, not digital.

Don't hear it on my VPI table. Smooth as silk.

 

[Davesrose]

Well I did provide specs on the tweeter and cartridge. On that note - if we assume that engineers at KEF and Denon are not stupid, why do you think they would produce components with responses above 40KHZ?

I thought I was already inferring it: I don't think that it's a coherent response above 40khz, but that there's chance for no distortion at 20khz.

 

[SpeakerBox]

I thought I was already inferring it: I don't think that it's a coherent response above 40khz, but that there's chance for no distortion at 20khz.

Then why make a component cable of above 40KHZ response?