[gregorio]

 
[1] And although I don't have the technical expertise/understanding that some here do, something intuitively and innately didn't sound right about synths having a limited dynamic range vs acoustic instruments.
 
[2] Is it safe to say now that EDM does not benefit any less or any more than other music genres from Hi-Res, since all Hi-Res is outside human audibility?

 
1. Most of audio is fairly intuitive, PROVIDING you have a fairly reasonable technical understanding of it! If you don't, there are quite a few things in modern audio which can appear completely counter-intuitive. The "synths" typically used in EDM do indeed have inherently limited dynamic ranges (!) and even on those EDM tracks which employ true synthesisers, they are used with a very limited dynamic range. Also, modern electronic music genres took off in the 1990s and was at least as much, if not more reliant on samplers than on synths. The Akai S1000 was almost ubiquitous at one time, it had a max sampling rate of 44.1kHz but was commonly used at a rate of 22.05kHz and had a max bit depth of 16bit, which means in practice the raw samples were typically 8-12 bit.
 
2. It's "safe to say" that EDM does not AUDIBLY benefit any more or less than any other genre from hires but not so safe to say just "benefit" on it's own without the qualification of "audibly". Furthermore, as mentioned, EDM started with many of it's elements at particularly low bit and sample rates and even today the use of "low-fi" processors (processors which deliberately reduce bit and/or sample rates) is pretty much restricted to EDM and other related electronic sub-genres. So of just about all music genres, EDM would have the least to gain from hires.
 
G

 

[VNandor]

   
 If it's limited, it's because of practical reasons specifically chosen by EDM creators, not because the synths themselves are inherently limited.
 

This is exactly what I tried to say, except I pointed out that it's not true for all synths.

inherently limited.  
Is it safe to say now that EDM does not benefit any less or any more than other music genres from Hi-Res, since all Hi-Res is outside human audibility?

I would say so. However if we made the (most likely wrong) assertion that Hi-Res is not outside of human audibility EDM still wouldn't practically benefit from it because no EDM producers use synths in a way it would produce Hi-Res content. But this shouldn't be attributed to the synths limitations exclusively, since some synths can do that.

  You certainly did that.
Yes, I had not considered the case of a software synth. You proved me wrong.
You certainly did that.
Not possible, so I never expected you to.
Yes, you've proven your point. Now place that point within the confines of reality, and we're good.

Great, we agree on this.
 
Quote:

   
2. Samplers and syths have restricted dynamic ranges and frequency ranges compared to many acoustic instruments or groups of acoustic instruments. Hires digital audio formats allows the recording of those frequencies produced by acoustic instruments which are beyond the limits of standard res. Whereas with EDM there is generally nothing beyond the frequency limit of standard res to capture/record.

 Again, to put in context what I've said, this is what bothered me. The conclusion is right (192kHz sampling rate won't change a thing in edm) but the causation is not or at least not always. (edm usually doesn't have anything beyond 22kHz due to the synths' and samplers' restrictions.) The parts in bold.
 
EDM wouldn't contain frequencies beyond 22kHz even if it was released in 192kHz because synths are pretty much never used to create ultrasonic content despite the fact some of them actually can do it.
 
 
@pinnahertz
To demonstrate the dynamic range of a synth, I created an automation clip that goes from the lowest possible value to the highest and linked it to a synth's volume. After rendering this project (in 24bit) I had to amplify the quiet part by ~130dB to be as loud as the loud part. The amplification was done by audacity's amplify function. I think I should note that the amplified signal was distorted quite a bit. I think this implies that a synth's dynamic range can be as much as 130dB. Which in practice means that I can either create so quiet signals it won't be heard ever, or I can create signals so loud it makes people to go deaf in a couple of seconds.
Unfortunately, I don't own all the software synths that ever existed so it might be fair to imply not all software synths can do this.
 
 
 

 

[gregorio]

[1] Again, to put in context what I've said, this is what bothered me. The conclusion is right (192kHz sampling rate won't change a thing in edm) but the causation is not or at least not always. (edm usually doesn't have anything beyond 22kHz due to the synths' and samplers' restrictions.) The parts in bold.  
[2] To demonstrate the dynamic range of a synth ...

 
1. You can't "put in context what you've said", if it's in response to an out of context statement that I've made! I've given a specific example in my previous post, of probably the most widely used sampler in commercial electronic music (throughout the 90's and early 00's) was indeed very restricted (often to just 22.05kS/s) and the "synths" were limited to 44.1 or 48kS/s and small dynamic ranges as well.
 
2. No one is questioning the potential dynamic range of some true synthesisers. What you've demonstrated could be applied to almost anything. An electric guitar for example has a dynamic range from little more than the un-resonated twang of a string, up to 130dBSPL. However, it's never actually played with that dynamic range; in say a stadium gig with the guitar at 130dBSPL no one, not even the guitarist himself would hear just a string twang! Despite this potentially massive dynamic range, in practical usage, the electric guitar probably has the smallest dynamic range of any instrument in a rock band! To a slightly more limited extent, the same is true of many acoustic instruments as well! You can get well over 130dBSPL out of a trumpet but it's full dynamic range is (virtually) never employed because of tonal quality and/or balance considerations. As an audio engineer (and consumer), I'm not interested in what instruments can theoretically achieve, I'm only interested in what they actually achieve during performance.
 
G

 

[VNandor]

Whatever. I've shown the theoretical limits of a synth that's being used by at least a few edm producers nowadays. I've also noted how these limits are way beyond of what's practically needed. At this point I have nothing else left to say.

 

[pinnahertz]

  Whatever. I've shown the theoretical limits of a synth that's being used by at least a few edm producers nowadays. I've also noted how these limits are way beyond of what's practically needed. At this point I have nothing else left to say.

16//44 is way beyond what is practically needed for most music.
 
I have a device on my workbench right now that could generate an audio signal with harmonics up to 40mHz. I has a VCF input.  I could, theoretically, use it to make music.
 
So what?
 
None of this is relevant to the discussion.   The question was, "Could EDM benefit from high res?" The answer is no. 

 

[gregorio]

  Whatever. I've shown the theoretical limits of a synth that's being used by at least a few edm producers nowadays.

 
Again, you were very keen that what you stated was taken in context and apparently just as keen to take what I stated out of context!
 
If we close mic almost any acoustic instrument we'll get at least some content above the Nyquist point of 44.1kS/s. Therefore, just about any genre of music which employs acoustic instruments is likely to theoretically benefit hires. With EDM on the other hand, the vast majority contains nothing above 22.05kHz to start with and much/most of the EDM ever produced is restricted by the instruments (samplers/synths) themselves. I'm sure there are at least some exceptions, EDM tracks which employ instruments capable of higher than 22.05kHz and even some tracks where the synths have actually been used to create ultrasonic freqs. But in general these tracks are in the minority or tiny minority as opposed to genres which include acoustic instruments, where almost every one of them would likely contain ultrasonic freqs.
 
Therefore, my statement that EDM is a genre which would benefit from hires the least is, in general, correct! And, as using instruments in EDM which are actually incapable of >22.05kHz is common, then it's also fair to say that it's due, in general, to the restrictions of those instruments (samplers and synths)!
 
G

 

[LazyListener]

   
Again, you were very keen that what you stated was taken in context and apparently just as keen to take what I stated out of context!
 
If we close mic almost any acoustic instrument we'll get at least some content above the Nyquist point of 44.1kS/s. Therefore, just about any genre of music which employs acoustic instruments is likely to theoretically benefit hires. With EDM on the other hand, the vast majority contains nothing above 22.05kHz to start with and much/most of the EDM ever produced is restricted by the instruments (samplers/synths) themselves. I'm sure there are at least some exceptions, EDM tracks which employ instruments capable of higher than 22.05kHz and even some tracks where the synths have actually been used to create ultrasonic freqs. But in general these tracks are in the minority or tiny minority as opposed to genres which include acoustic instruments, where almost every one of them would likely contain ultrasonic freqs.
 
Therefore, my statement that EDM is a genre which would benefit from hires the least is, in general, correct! And, as using instruments in EDM which are actually incapable of >22.05kHz is common, then it's also fair to say that it's due, in general, to the restrictions of those instruments (samplers and synths)!
 
G

Depends on what you mean by "benefit."  I thought we'd already established that Hi-Res does not benefit EDM less or more than any other genre when it comes to what's audible (even though I'm not entirely convinced of this). I've been reading that some soft synths and plugins do benefit from recording at hi-res due to processing overhead, anti-aliasing, etc. resulting in a better (clearer, smoother, less grainy) sounding final product.  Read more in link below.
 
Some acoustic instruments do generate ultrasonics, but depending on the recording process, post-processing, and final intended distribution, those ultrasonics may or may not end up in the final product.  Same thing with synthesizers.  Synths are purpose built instruments, limited by processing power of hardware.  There are soft synths capable of hi-res, and PCs fast enough to run them at hi-res.  In many ways, synthesizers are less limited than acoustic instruments.  They're just as capable in terms of dynamic range and ultrasonics, if not more so.  So EDM producers do have "instruments" capable of hi-res and ultrasonics at their disposal.  It's the EDM producers' personal choices that are imposing these "limits" on the genre, not the instruments themselves, when it comes to Hi-Res.  Also, the vast amount of music EDM producers distribute will be in the form of compressed digital audio or CD,neither of which benefit audibly from Hi-Res, so it's no surprise that most probably choose not to use Hi-Res synths.  As I mentioned earlier, some apparently do believe that using high sample rates helps in processing, anti-aliasing, yielding a better (as defined earlier, since you have a habit of quoting people out of context) sounding final product.
 
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/927226-top-edm-producers-who-work-high-sample-rates.html

 

[LazyListener]

   
1. Most of audio is fairly intuitive, PROVIDING you have a fairly reasonable technical understanding of it! If you don't, there are quite a few things in modern audio which can appear completely counter-intuitive. The "synths" typically used in EDM do indeed have inherently limited dynamic ranges (!) and even on those EDM tracks which employ true synthesisers, they are used with a very limited dynamic range. Also, modern electronic music genres took off in the 1990s and was at least as much, if not more reliant on samplers than on synths. The Akai S1000 was almost ubiquitous at one time, it had a max sampling rate of 44.1kHz but was commonly used at a rate of 22.05kHz and had a max bit depth of 16bit, which means in practice the raw samples were typically 8-12 bit.
 
2. It's "safe to say" that EDM does not AUDIBLY benefit any more or less than any other genre from hires but not so safe to say just "benefit" on it's own without the qualification of "audibly". Furthermore, as mentioned, EDM started with many of it's elements at particularly low bit and sample rates and even today the use of "low-fi" processors (processors which deliberately reduce bit and/or sample rates) is pretty much restricted to EDM and other related electronic sub-genres. So of just about all music genres, EDM would have the least to gain from hires.
 
G

1.  Still don't see how synths used in EDM have inherently limited dynamic range.  Let's stick to what's used today, not years or decades ago.  The fact that they may be used with a limited dynamic range is obvious.  Limits are imposed all the time in the creative process, EDM or any other music creation.
 
2.  So we agree that EDM does not audibly benefit from Hi-Res.  Neither do other genres.  So how does EDM inaudibly benefit from Hi-Res, if at all?
 
     I don't see use of "low-fi" processors used in electronic music creation as an explanation or reason for why EDM would have the least to gain from Hi-Res.  Thought we agreed that Hi-Res benefits (or it doesn't) all genres equally.

 

[LazyListener]

   
Little example from my musician's life:
Evening our band cool play music with great sound. After repetition we turn off apparatus.
Next morning we turn on apparatus. Began play, but sound was far not so good as yesturday. Warming of apparatus changed nothing.
It happened several times.
 
I suppose, what we hear (or think that hear) may be placed in our head. In evening we had big energy inside and sound was better for us. Morning, we havn't good mood. And sound was worse for us.
 
Real devices loss information anyway. But as ideal (reference point) I consider zero changes.
 
 
I meant "unchanged signal" as identical by waveform. [Input signal]-[Output signal]=Zero.
 
Ideal measurement this identity may be applied for digital signals only. If be more exact in integer format only.
 
For analog signal we limited by precision of measurement tools.

Totally agree.  Many factors outside of the listening equipment itself MAY affect how it sounds to us at any given time.  However, in my case with the PM-3 headphone and Skrillex songs, this music sounded very different, much more detailed than I had heard it on many other headphones before.  I even had several headphones at home at the same time and compared back to back with PM-3, over several days (and nights).  My "hearing" didn't change based on any of these factors you mentioned.  The PM-3 sounded supremely detailed with Skrillex every time.
 
Agreed, in terms of digital signal, it's a stream of zeroes and ones that can be easily measured at input and output, and compared, to see if it's unchanged.

 

[LazyListener]

   
1. Yes. Seep sine. Or fixed sine via step. Better way sequientially.
For measurements, other cup should be muted acoustically. Electrical disconnection may cause changes in electrical scheme of headphome and cause changing of measurement results.
 
Measured headphone cup shouls be isolated from foreign environment. As example, placed in acoustic isolated anechoic box/room.
 
In headphome cup need insert stub with microphone. I suppose, as the stub may be used ear model from materials what same to human head (there may be different detalization, including modeling skin and bones, or integrated acoustic response).
 
I'm not headphone manufacturer. I talk, how I would do it.
 
 
2. Music it is kit of sines at different frequencies.
 
Quality defined, how provided transfer 1 sine at 1 frequency.
If it provided with distortions, in music you will have these distortions too.
 
 
Music too complex signal for estimation of audio device. We can't decode results.
 
3. There also other details, like intermodulations (you mentioned "interacting with one another.").
But how it will interact defined by measurements in points #3 and #4 from my previous post.

Ahh yes, intermodulations.  This is sound waves of various frequencies interacting with one another?  I'm sure this has a huge impact on the amount of detail we hear.  I can see how up until the point where sound is produced, measurements are relatively easy.  However, once sound waves are generated and start interacting with their environment and with themselves, things get a lot more complicated when it comes to testing/measuring.  And this is even before the sound waves hit our ears, at which point all bets are off.

 

[LazyListener]

   
2. Samplers and syths have restricted dynamic ranges and frequency ranges compared to many acoustic instruments or groups of acoustic instruments. Hires digital audio formats allows the recording of those frequencies produced by acoustic instruments which are beyond the limits of standard res. Whereas with EDM there is generally nothing beyond the frequency limit of standard res to capture/record. Now whether we can hear or be audibly influenced by those frequencies that some acoustic instruments produce beyond the 22kHz limit of standard res is another question, the answer to which IMO is "no". But purely from the point of accuracy (rather than audibility) EDM and other electronic genres benefit the least from hires.
 
4. Because your use of the term "high resolution" was incorrect. "High resolution" is a term with the specific meaning of digital audio formats which exceed CD format. That meaning is was I was therefore responding to, not your incorrect use of it to describe the performance of your headphones.
 
4a. No, it's definitely true! Recording is essentially converting one form of energy into another form (acoustical energy into electrical energy) and then converting that electrical energy into another form of energy (or a digital encapsulation of that energy) for storage and then reversing that process for reproduction. How could we perform any of these conversion processes if we can't measure what we're converting from or what we're converting to? Audio recording is a well established technology (science + engineering), no magic involved!
4b. Of course we're talking about recordings, what else is it that you're listening to on your headphones?
4c. No I'm not saying that, what I'm saying is that your question (and my, your or anyone else's answer to it) is completely irrelevant! Maybe there is something that that science cannot explain or measure but if there is, it doesn't exist in the recordings to which you're listening because recording is a technology and can only contain what is explained and measurable!
 
5. Really, have you never heard of marketing? The WHOLE POINT of marketing is to create biases and in addition to the marketing of the specific product, there is also the longer term marketing of the company itself, it's brand-name/reputation relative to other similar companies selling. In addition to this, there are other even longer term pre-conditioning biases, for example the expectation that a far more expensive product (headphone) has superior performance compared to a cheaper one. There is no doubt that your perception is influenced by biases but there are also differences between headphones well within the limits of audibility, so it's impossible to say how much of your observation/opinion of your headphones is based on actual audible factors and how much is based on figments of your perception. However, just to re-iterate, I was responding to your use of "high resolution" in regards to certain digital audio formats, which would have necessitated your observations/opinions of differences being due solely to figments of your perception.
 
G

 
2.  "Whereas with EDM there is generally nothing beyond the frequency limit of standard res to capture/record."  That's because electronic music isn't recorded, it's created electronically.  There is no recording (capture of sound waves) with electronic music, like there is with acoustical music.  Whether or not electronic music contains something "beyond the frequency limit of standard res" is entirely up to the producer.  It comes down to creative choice.
 
4.  I may have used the term "high resolution" incorrectly at first, but I quickly posted that in my case I was referring to the resolution of headphones.
 
4a/b/c.  It appears you missed the broad context of what I was saying.  Recording is one thing, like you mentioned.  But hearing is something different altogether.  Not everything recorded is heard the same way by all.  In fact, it's probably heard differently by each person.  On top of that, there's the process of reproducing a recording, and every device model (speaker, headphone) reproduces sound differently.  So even before you get to the subjective hearing aspects, you have devices that each provide a different interpretation/presentation of the recording.
 
5.  All familiar with the marketing aspects you mention.  Still, IMO, it was wrong of you to jump to the conclusion that what I heard was due to marketing.  A good objectivist should focus on objective explanations and rule those out first before mentioning possible subjective explanations.  FYI, price did not influence me.  It's a $400 headphone and I thought several less expensive ones I tried back to back sounded better overall.  Brand did not influence me.  Don't have a particularly high or low regard for Oppo.  Looks did not influence me.  PM-3 looked nice, well made, good materials, yet still finished several slots down in the sound quality dept.  Planar magnetic driver did not influence me.  Also tried the HE400S planar magnetic and Skrillex didn't sound particularly special with them.  PM-3 did sound super detailed with those Skrillex tracks, unlike the other headphones, but like I said before, too dry and analytical overall with poor soundstage.  FYI, I really don't put much value on most marketing crap like how a headphone looks.  My focus is sound and comfort.  I know price is not indicative of sound quality.  While I do respect certain brands like Sennheiser, AKG, and Beyerdynamic, due to their decades of expertise in sound capture and reproduction, I've heard headphones I don't like from each of them.  So based on all that, I'd say it's more likely some objective aspects of the PM-3 were responsible for making Skrillex tracks sound "high resolution" to me, not some silly marketing tactic.
 
Again, I did mention that I was referring to resolution of headphones early on, even before your post I believe.  Water under the bridge.  Let's move on.

 

[LazyListener]

  I'm confused by what is meant by a "fast synth". I listened to some Skillex, I don't hear anything I would describe as "fast" other than many notes being played quickly. 
Sure, the headphones presentation complimented what you like about the music, most likely in simple frequency response though. The results of the physical nature of the construction of headphones is always a difference in performance. But when you add to that perception bias, that's when you get what you think you are hearing.
First of all, "faster" is a term being misapplied to a particular set of listener observations. In reality the term implies something to do with speed. Speed and FR are inseparable when you include amplitude (as you must). If you change speed, you change response for a given amplitude. Once you increase speed such that response and amplitude within the audio band are no longer modified (by speed being too slow), it no longer affects the signal being presented.  More likely what you're referring to is transient response, measured by damping and overshoot.  That's somewhat related to high frequency response, but is more complex, and not simply a "speed" issue, though many misidentify it as such.
 
The planar magnetic folks tout those drivers as being detailed and "fast".  They actually use the terms.  " ...planar magnetic diaphragm moves faster and with far greater accuracy to the input signal."--from Audeze.  Now, what do you think you'll hear if you read all of that and bought the headphones?  Moreover, is it true?  Turns out, yes, some of the planar magnetics show good transient response with minimal overshoot and good damping.  But, so do many dynamics.  In fact, when you look at tests of both you'll see remarkably similar transient response in some cases.  Some IEM designs actually beat the PMs in terms of overshoot and damping (oh, and price). 
 
But the big differences are, and always have been, Frequency Response.  

This is probably the most useful response I've gotten on this question of how awesome Skrillex sounded with the PM-3.  (Not to say other responses haven't been useful.  They have.  I learned a lot.)
 
Yes, I mean notes being played quickly.  Skrillex has some high frequency fairly fast riffs.  With the PM-3, I was hearing more individual notes and texture within these riffs, compared to other headphones I've heard them on.  I'm sure frequency response had something to do with it, but I highly doubt EQing other cans to a similar FR would provide the same result.
 
Transient response.  Yes, I mentioned this in my earlier posts, but was told I was using incorrect or subjective terminology.  I was guessing that the planar magnetic driver design allowed for a faster transient response, hence the increased amount of fine detail in fast riffs.  You say that some dynamic drivers have similar transient response, but that's only some.  Maybe I've never heard a dynamic driver with the "speed" of the PM-3's planar magnetic driver.
 
I tend to ignore what manufacturers state about their headphones (in one ear, out the other).  All I care about is the sound (and comfort).

 

[LazyListener]

  Wow. That's what you got? He did nothing of the kind.
 
The only thing proven was that certain synths, under certain very specific (atypical and non-musical) settings can product ultrasonic content.
 
That's it. That's all.

In earlier posts, he showed how synths are also not inherently limited in dynamic range, just like they are not limited in producing ultrasonics.  Inherently, synths are only limited by the creative minds used to write their software, and the processing power of the hardware they run on, both of which are continually evolving.  Please don't mention human audibility (that's a given).

 

[VNandor]

 
In earlier posts, he showed how synths are also not inherently limited in dynamic range, just like they are not limited in producing ultrasonics.  Inherently, synths are only limited by the creative minds used to write their software, and the processing power of the hardware they run on, both of which are continually evolving.  Please don't mention human audibility (that's a given).

I mentioned that in practice, it doesn't mean that producing music at so high sampling rate is possible.
 
For some reason, when I played that square wave my CPU load reached ~50% or so and this is only one synth doing one very basic thing. It caused my computer to lag, and I heard clicks and pops every sec or so. Of course I could still render it but I couldn't play it in real time (without the mentioned problems). Granted, producers will have better hardware than I but producing music involves a lot of processing. I don't think it's possible to have a combination of hardware and software that let's you to do the whole producing in 192kHz. At least not yet. They aren't (always) inherently limited but practically, they always are, to some extent.

 

[Yuri Korzunov]

  However, in my case with the PM-3 headphone and Skrillex songs, this music sounded very different, much more detailed than I had heard it on many other headphones before.

 
Of course, difference may be audible each time. I suppose, it depend on value of difference.