[Don Hills]

If the truth may be told, you do approach others on the forum as if they are of a lesser intelligence than you, who must then be taught a lesson by you. ...

I think he doesn't suffer fools gladly.

 

[ralphp@optonline]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exciter_%28effect%29
 
"An exciter (also called a harmonic exciter or aural exciter) is an audio signal processing technique used to enhance a signal by dynamic equalization, phase manipulation, harmonic synthesis of (usually) high frequency signals, and through the addition of subtle harmonic distortion."
 
Gee I wonder how that word "equalization" sneaked in there?

 

[gregorio]

If the truth may be told, you do approach others on the forum as if they are of a lesser intelligence than you, who must then be taught a lesson by you.

 
If the truth really were told, then there would be no need for me to correct or refute it, would there?
 
G

 

[Baxide]

A famous line in a famous movie goes like this; "The truth? You can't handle the truth".
But more importantly, when the poster becomes the topic, then there is nothing else to add to that discussion.

 

[gregorio]

Originally Posted by ralphp@optonline /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
"An exciter (also called a harmonic exciter or aural exciter) is an audio signal processing technique used to enhance a signal by dynamic equalization, phase manipulation, harmonic synthesis of (usually) high frequency signals, and through the addition of subtle harmonic distortion."
 
Gee I wonder how that word "equalization" sneaked in there?

 
Gee, I wonder how the words "phase manipulation" and "harmonic synthesis" sneaked in there? And, I don't know how the word "equalisation" sneaked in there, an actual Aural Exciter only uses phase manipulation and harmonic synthesis, not EQ!
 
G

 

[ralphp@optonline]

   
Gee, I wonder how the words "phase manipulation" and "harmonic synthesis" sneaked in there? And, I don't know how the word "equalisation" sneaked in there, an actual Aural Exciter only uses phase manipulation and harmonic synthesis, not EQ!
 
G

Regardless, the Aural Exciter is an audio signal process, which means that it is processing the signal after the recording has been made. Once the audio signal is created during the recording process whatever is captured during the recording is fixed - in other words and as I stated earlier, if there is not enough cymbal then one boosts the high end - all the high end, not just the cymbals unless the cymbals were recorded on an entire separate track - highly unlikely since cymbals are part of the drums.
 
Based on this principle I wonder how MQA is going to "fix" a fully digital recording since there would no analog master available to run through the super duper MQA magic analog to digital converter.

 

[gregorio]

 
Regardless, the Aural Exciter is an audio signal process, which means that it is processing the signal after the recording has been made. Once the audio signal is created during the recording process whatever is captured during the recording is fixed - in other words and as I stated earlier, if there is not enough cymbal then one boosts the high end - all the high end, not just the cymbals unless the cymbals were recorded on an entire separate track - highly unlikely since cymbals are part of the drums.

 
Again, you are confusing the recording process with the mastering process. Once the instruments/tracks have been recorded they can be changed completely independently of any other instrument/track. In the mastering process all those recorded tracks have been mixed together and cannot be unmixed. However, there may still be the possibility of processing certain individual elements. Cymbals for example produce high freq transients so a gate to a processor could be opened just for the HF and just for the duration of those transients and although you would still be processing all the HF in mix, the cymbal transients will dominate over all/most other elements in the mix for those instants when the gate is open, effectively giving the ability to process the cymbals independently. There are a number of routinely used mastering tricks/techniques available to effectively isolate and process individual or limited numbers of elements in the mix. Which of those tricks/techniques MQA employs and how intelligently we don't yet know.
 
The main point I was addressing however was your repeated assertion that EQ is the only process which can be applied during mastering/re-mastering. That assertion is incorrect and, it's certainly not "simply misinformed" to point out that it's incorrect, it was "simply misinformed" to make that assertion in the first place!
 
G

 

[ralphp@optonline]

   
Again, you are confusing the recording process with the mastering process. Once the instruments/tracks have been recorded they can be changed completely independently of any other instrument/track. In the mastering process all those recorded tracks have been mixed together and cannot be unmixed. However, there may still be the possibility of processing certain individual elements. Cymbals for example produce high freq transients so a gate to a processor could be opened just for the HF and just for the duration of those transients and although you would still be processing all the HF in mix, the cymbal transients will dominate over all/most other elements in the mix for those instants when the gate is open, effectively giving the ability to process the cymbals independently. There are a number of routinely used mastering tricks/techniques available to effectively isolate and process individual or limited numbers of elements in the mix. Which of those tricks/techniques MQA employs and how intelligently we don't yet know.
 
The main point I was addressing however was your repeated assertion that EQ is the only process which can be applied during mastering/re-mastering. That assertion is incorrect and, it's certainly not "simply misinformed" to point out that it's incorrect, it was "simply misinformed" to make that assertion in the first place!
 
G

I'm confused - these gates are what if not EQUALIZATION? Please clearly explain to poor, ignorant me how these gates are NOT a form of equalization. Thanks!
 
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"

 

[gregorio]

 
I'm confused - these gates are what if not EQUALIZATION? Please clearly explain to poor, ignorant me how these gates are NOT a form of equalization. Thanks!

 
A "gate" is simply a device (software or hardware) which opens, allowing a signal to pass or closes and does not allow the signal to pass. Typically a gate is used to open and close an additional path/routing to another processor and some processors have a gate built in. Again typically, a gate is triggered to open upon exceeding a user definable amplitude threshold and stays open for a user definable amount of time and/or until the amplitude falls below that threshold.
 
A gate has nothing to do with EQ! I just don't get your preoccupation with EQ to the utter exclusion of all the other miriad types of processing available/possible.
 
G

 

[ralphp@optonline]

   
A "gate" is simply a device (software or hardware) which opens, allowing a signal to pass or closes and does not allow the signal to pass. Typically a gate is used to open and close an additional path/routing to another processor and some processors have a gate built in. Again typically, a gate is triggered to open upon exceeding a user definable amplitude threshold and stays open for a user definable amount of time and/or until the amplitude falls below that threshold.
 
A gate has nothing to do with EQ! I just don't get your preoccupation with EQ to the utter exclusion of all the other miriad types of processing available/possible.
 
G

Got it! Thank you.

 

[L8MDL]

Is MQA DOA?
by John Siau

http://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/163302855-is-mqa-doa

 

[Baxide]

Isn't that what we are debating? We don't really need a link to the views of someone else outside of head-fi. I am sure that there is enough knowledge taking part in this thread to match or even surpass that of the authors of such pieces.

 

[castleofargh]

  Isn't that what we are debating? We don't really need a link to the views of someone else outside of head-fi. I am sure that there is enough knowledge taking part in this thread to match or even surpass that of the authors of such pieces.

you don't react to a link to Lavorgna's lucid dreams 2 pages ago, but you react like this for Siau and what is IMO a very reasonable article? I'm confused.

 

[Baxide]

I am quite happy to read what others have contributed towards the thread, without having to comment on their own conclusion and reasoning. But to drag an outside link into it where the writer cannot be challenged by anyone with an opposing view is attempting to give the external view a higher level of credibility. That's IMHO is not a genuine way to conduct a discussion. It's one's personal view and opinion of the subject that matters. Not the opinion of a non-participant.

 

[L8MDL]

My apologies for the post. I didn't realize this was such an elitist thread.