[haloxt]

LFF, you are a good man. I used to have no hope for the recording industry but you have restored my faith in mankind.

 

[LFF]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haloxt /img/forum/go_quote.gif LFF, you are a good man. I used to have no hope for the recording industry but you have restored my faith in mankind.

LOL! Thanks, but as I said - my course of action with clients in unorthodox. I have to "school" them on certain topics of sound engineering first before I do what I do. I haven't lost a job yet and 99.9% of my feedback has been positive.

Moreover, I don't charge them an arm and leg to get a good master done. I try to be flexible with their requests but my main goal is to provide an awesome sounding master without hurting their pocketbooks. Exceptional quality at an exceptional price. You can't argue with that.

 

[Acix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LFF /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not really. Sure you can apply a number of DSP's, but the results will still be bad. Crap in = crap out. This is where I differ from most mastering engineers. If the client wants his master to be brickwalled or compressed to hell to sound good on laptop speakers then I send them elsewhere. I won't do that no matter what the pay is. I know I could do it to match any commercial recording out there, but I just won't contribute to the loudness wars. In fact, before I do any work I specifically tell them that I do "audiophile" masters and that I will not over-compress nor over-limit nor use excessive (if any at all) noise reduction. Just so they understand, I send them the youtube link in my signature. I know my approach is unorthodox but if I'm going to do something - then I'm going to do it right. So far...so good. Like I said before, I rarely get complaints.

Hehehe...The link to youtube is a joke! The Mastering processes have nothing to do with this clip on youtube.

 

[LFF]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acix /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hehehe...The link to youtube is a joke! The Mastering processes have nothing to do with this clip on youtube.

I hope everyone here knows your joking.

 

[haloxt]

I'd like you two professionals' opinions on something I've been wondering about. Have you guys ever heard about the supposed benefit of inaudible frequencies? Does it really improve listening pleasure as some studies have suggested? And if so, is there a conceivable way to fake ultrasound content on 44.1khz sample rate music while still achieving the supposed benefit of ultrasounds, either by applying DSP or some really crazy modding to headphones?

I know psychoacoustics isn't you guys profession, but I think it's a very interesting topic and you guys probably have a lot of experience with listening to music without 22khz freq max, and you guys have the tools to test something like this, which makes me wonder if ultrasounds can be faked and still have the same effect:

Quote:

From an authentic view of human auditory physiology, it is not straightforward to explain the neuronal basis of the hypersonic effect characterized by the fact that HFCs showed significant physiological and psychological effects on listeners only when presented with audible sounds'...

http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548

 

[Acix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LFF /img/forum/go_quote.gif I hope everyone here knows your joking.

LMAO..."school" them down, and then up.

 

[Publius]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haloxt /img/forum/go_quote.gif Inaudible High-Frequency Sounds Affect Brain Activity: Hypersonic Effect -- Oohashi et al. 83 (6): 3548 -- Journal of Neurophysiology

Note that this paper is quite controversial: its results have not been reproduced; questions have been made about their test setups; there are allegations of journal-shopping (it was allegedly declined from other journals). Search for "Oohashi" at head-fi and hydrogenaudio for the whole mess.

 

[melomaniac]

just talked about the Rolling Stone article on loudness wars to class, and played a few clips. seems like it may have convinced a few... but not enough of them.

 

[haloxt]

Music bands are kids' parents today, how can you convince them they've done wrong?

 

[gregorio]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haloxt /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'd like you two professionals' opinions on something I've been wondering about. Have you guys ever heard about the supposed benefit of inaudible frequencies? Does it really improve listening pleasure as some studies have suggested? And if so, is there a conceivable way to fake ultrasound content on 44.1khz sample rate music while still achieving the supposed benefit of ultrasounds, either by applying DSP or some really crazy modding to headphones?

I can answer some of this for you. There is no realiable scientific evidence to suggest there is anything about higher frequencies (>22kHz) which can be directly heard or appreciated. However, >22kHz frequency content can modulate with other frequencies and create effects lower down which can be heard. In general this isn't a problem as it mostly occurs with acoustic instruments which are usually recorded as an ensemble and therefore the affected lower frequencies are captured as part of the recording anyway. It's more likely to be a potential problem when multi-track recording where the instruments only interact during the mixing process. It has to be said though that there is no scientific evidence of this actually being a noticable problem, although there is some anecdotal evidence to suggest it's a possibility under certain circumstances. Sorry to be a little non-commital but I don't think you will find too many experienced professionals who are willing to put their neck on the line and say there is definitely no impact of frequencies higher than 22k under any circumstances. However, I believe most experienced audio professionals would probably say they believe that higher than 22k frequencies have little, if any, noticable impact on music recordings.

There are tools (aural exciters) which can artificially add harmonics above the recorded material. However, any frequencies above about 20kHz are automatically removed when working at 44.1kFs/s. There is no way to fake higher than about 20k material when working with a 44.1k sample rate.

G

 

[haloxt]

When I said DSP on 44.1khz I mean some really crazy DSP inside the source/dac that'll take 44.1khz and add ultrasounds into it.

Higher than 24khz may be inaudible, but what happens to my headphone drivers when they try to play it? Won't it affect its ability to play the audible frequencies etc. And by modding headphones I mean making the earcups so screwed up that they can produce ultrasounds when only 22khz max is coming from the drivers. Why, you might ask? I don't know, just wondering if Ultrasone headphones are called Ultrasone for such a reason

.

 

[Acix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haloxt /img/forum/go_quote.gif When I said DSP on 44.1khz I mean some really crazy DSP inside the source/dac that'll take 44.1khz and add ultrasounds into it. Higher than 24khz may be inaudible, but what happens to my headphone drivers when they try to play it? Won't it affect its ability to play the audible frequencies etc. And by modding headphones I mean making the earcups so screwed up that they can produce ultrasounds when only 22khz max is coming from the drivers. Why, you might ask? I don't know, just wondering if Ultrasone headphones are called Ultrasone for such a reason .

Yes...in my experience the Ultrasone PL-650 easily holds 22khz as well as the K702.
With the right SS amp, like the Phonitor, it will be more easy to notice the differences.

The SPL Phonitor FR extend from 10Hz to 200kHz (-3dB).
K-702 extend from 10 to 39,800 Hz.
Pro-900 from 6-42000Hz.
Sony MDR-SA5000 from 6 Hz to 110000 kHz.

 

[LFF]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acix /img/forum/go_quote.gif LMAO..."school" them down, and then up.

 

[Acix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LFF /img/forum/go_quote.gif

I try the up first...

 

[LFF]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acix /img/forum/go_quote.gif I try the up first...

Please elaborate.