[gregorio]

Multimiking/PCM/stereo or 5.1 is a Cadillac, where you and your family can dress up for some festive ocassion, cruising on the motorway at some leisurly speed.
Binaural - specially if it is recorded in native DSD - is a single seat F1 car

Using that analogy again, you've already demonstrated that you can't hear the difference between a tractor and a F1 car. So what are you trying to say, that binaural in DSD is a tractor? PCM is worse than a wax cylinder remember, so that would make it a bicycle or a horse rather than a cadillac wouldn't it? So now we have a horse vs a tractor, how very agricultural! See, I can play this ridiculous nonsense game too!

G

 

[gregorio]

[1] Sorry, if you did have enough experience with binaural,
[2] you would have known what exactly 44.1/16 lacks compared even to a cassette

1. Sorry you didn't have enough experience of a soundstage that you couldn't tell when it was completely reversed, numerous times!!

2. Ahh but I do know what an elephant lacks compared to a Christmas tree. You know what, this is quite fun, I'm starting to see what you get out of making up utterly ridiculous nonsense!!

G

 

[gregorio]

Hey @bigshot listen to this and then tell me it doesn't sound just like you're there, listening to the real thing:



G

 

[bigshot]

Did you listen to that string quartet video? More clams than in chowder!

Honestly, I'm getting to the point where I'm getting exhausted reading paragraph after paragraph of text that doesn't even attempt to address my questions. I refuse to be led around by the nose and fed psycho babble. I have too short of an attention span for "what ifs" and "bear with me a moments". The analogies are getting pretty strained too. All I want is people who can speak on point about subjects they know something about, while not being quite so in love with their own words. This isn't Creative Writing 101. I'll be instituting my "only read the first couple of sentences" rule again soon.

 

[gregorio]

Did you listen to that string quartet video? More clams than in chowder!

Yep, I think they'd loose in a contest with the Portsmouth Sinfonia though. Also try this one "", another all time classic! Go to youtube and read the comments, it's worth it, For example: "Is mayonnaise an instrument?" and "I'm playing this loudly while my roommate has sex."

G

 

[KeithEmo]

I'm sorry.... which fallacy was that?
The one about how, quite often, things that are "widely believed to be true" are later found to be wrong?
I've been around to hear a whole long list of things that "were obviously true"......
Until, after a little more research, someone found out that they weren't true after all.

I though it was obvious that I was being sarcastic.... of course it was predictable.
When Sony's new product was the CD, their tests managed to show that CDs were clearly superior to previous products, but were "the pinnacle of audio technology".
Then, when their new product was the SACD, their new tests showed that IT was clearly superior, and was the pinnacle of technological achievement.
Yet, for some reason, you seem to choose to believe their first test results but not their later ones.
I'm personally inclined to believe that their scientists were smart enough to figure out a test procedure to show that, whatever their new product was, it was worth buying.

And, yes, every company who sells high-res content, and every record company who gets another license fee when a re-master of any sort is sold, has a vested interest in convincing you that high-res files are better.
And, yes, every company who sells CDs, and everyone who already owns a large collection of CDs, is biased to prove that their CDs are plenty good enough (otherwise they wasted a bunch of money).
And, yes, every scientist on the entire planet is biased to run "a significant test" that "produces interesting results" - so he can get his paper published.

Of course no commercial venture or organization is going to specify audiophile equipment...
They're going to specify the cheapest equipment that will satisfy most of their customers...
(But that sounds an awful lot like what I said.)

I can't speak for "most things".....
But, more specifically, when you're testing something, your test equipment must be "better" than what you're testing... so that it doesn't obscure or just plain miss the data you're looking for.
So, for example, if you're trying to compare the distortion on two amplifiers, both of which have a THD less than 0.1%, the equipment you use for your test must have much lower than 0.1% THD to avoid obscuring the results.
Likewise, if you're hoping to determine what amount of ringing is audible on a DAC, you must start with test equipment that has less ringing than the DACs you're testing.

As for jitter....
I consider actually knowing what I'm talking about to be quite relevant.....
(I was simply pointing out that, if the BBC says jitter levels below 45 nS are inaudible, then their results are either incomplete or incorrect.... most likely they simply tested one particular type at one particular frequency.)

Nice try but all you've really done is proven my point!

1. Oh good, let's start by using a tried and trusted old audiophile marketing fallacy! The truth is of course that we don't need to know everything, just a great deal about a few things, the properties of an electric current for example and in digital audio, just amplitude and time. An inconvenient truth I know, hence why audiophile marketing fallacies are so commonly used and recycled!

2. No, I wouldn't find that, I can understand (and have already explained) why you would want to make that insinuation though!

3. What's "oddly" about that? It's the exact opposite of "oddly"!! It is in fact PRECISELY in line with what I stated, baring in mind that Sony is also an audiophile manufacturer. Your statement should actually read: "Then, 100% predictably, nearly two decades later they were saying that audiophiles needed to move on to SACD...."

4. No serious commercial studio or organisation is "going to specify audiophile equipment", because it's overpriced nonsense that's typically inferior to even just decent quality pro-audio equipment! However, the BBC does specify some very high-end pro-audio equipment and it definitely does consider the MOST discerning of listeners and has done for decades.

5. No, the ADC's quality of conversion is largely irrelevant for most things. Whatever weaknesses/inaccuracies the ADC has will be the same on both recordings and therefore NOT a difference.

6. True but irrelevant, another classic old audiophile marketing tactic, thanks for playing the game!

G

Nice try but all you've really done is proven my point!

1. Oh good, let's start by using a tried and trusted old audiophile marketing fallacy! The truth is of course that we don't need to know everything, just a great deal about a few things, the properties of an electric current for example and in digital audio, just amplitude and time. An inconvenient truth I know, hence why audiophile marketing fallacies are so commonly used and recycled!

2. No, I wouldn't find that, I can understand (and have already explained) why you would want to make that insinuation though!

3. What's "oddly" about that? It's the exact opposite of "oddly"!! It is in fact PRECISELY in line with what I stated, baring in mind that Sony is also an audiophile manufacturer. Your statement should actually read: "Then, 100% predictably, nearly two decades later they were saying that audiophiles needed to move on to SACD...."

4. No serious commercial studio or organisation is "going to specify audiophile equipment", because it's overpriced nonsense that's typically inferior to even just decent quality pro-audio equipment! However, the BBC does specify some very high-end pro-audio equipment and it definitely does consider the MOST discerning of listeners and has done for decades.

5. No, the ADC's quality of conversion is largely irrelevant for most things. Whatever weaknesses/inaccuracies the ADC has will be the same on both recordings and therefore NOT a difference.

6. True but irrelevant, another classic old audiophile marketing tactic, thanks for playing the game!

G

Nice try but all you've really done is proven my point!

1. Oh good, let's start by using a tried and trusted old audiophile marketing fallacy! The truth is of course that we don't need to know everything, just a great deal about a few things, the properties of an electric current for example and in digital audio, just amplitude and time. An inconvenient truth I know, hence why audiophile marketing fallacies are so commonly used and recycled!

2. No, I wouldn't find that, I can understand (and have already explained) why you would want to make that insinuation though!

3. What's "oddly" about that? It's the exact opposite of "oddly"!! It is in fact PRECISELY in line with what I stated, baring in mind that Sony is also an audiophile manufacturer. Your statement should actually read: "Then, 100% predictably, nearly two decades later they were saying that audiophiles needed to move on to SACD...."

4. No serious commercial studio or organisation is "going to specify audiophile equipment", because it's overpriced nonsense that's typically inferior to even just decent quality pro-audio equipment! However, the BBC does specify some very high-end pro-audio equipment and it definitely does consider the MOST discerning of listeners and has done for decades.

5. No, the ADC's quality of conversion is largely irrelevant for most things. Whatever weaknesses/inaccuracies the ADC has will be the same on both recordings and therefore NOT a difference.

6. True but irrelevant, another classic old audiophile marketing tactic, thanks for playing the game!

G

 

[bigshot]

I was simply pointing out that, if the BBC says jitter levels below 45 nS are inaudible, then their results are either incomplete or incorrect.... most likely they simply tested one particular type at one particular frequency.

It really doesn't matter because I've never seen a piece of home audio equipment that has anywhere near that level of jitter. And I've never seen a cite pointing to a single home audio component that has audible levels of jitter at all.

 

[gregorio]

I'm sorry.... which fallacy was that?
The one about how, quite often, things that are "widely believed to be true" are later found to be wrong?

No, the one about how, even more often, things that are "widely believed to be true" are in fact true but are advertised to be wrong for some financial gain!

G

 

[analogsurviver]

Can you recommend a well recorded professional binaural recording with acoustic instruments? It can be an SACD. Fine. One that you own and have heard. Last call for an answer. I’ve wasted too much time on this already.

Now - BBC not professional enough for you ?

Did not care to check even for the free binaural dsd downloads from www.nativedsd.com ?

Anything from Stax binaural CD series. These are actually originally analogue tape (some of the last in the series maybe the very first digital recordings ) originally issued in Germany on LP - I would have to check for the exact name of the label in the back Bilefelder catalogue(s) . But, then again, the Germans are NOT nearly as good in using their own equipment compared to making it - and I do generally NOT recommend the "Stax" series.

Most of the binaural recordings from which excerpts have been issued on this Deutsche Gramophon LP sampler to showcase Sennheiser Unipolar electret headphones should still be available on CD - just check for the works/performers : ( Saint Saens 3 is really great ...)
https://www.discogs.com/Various-Sennheiser-Demonstration-unipolar/release/11586768

There is even a thread on head-fi on binaural recordings : https://www.head-fi.org/threads/awesome-binaural-albums.511850/
( with @pinnahertz Glen Gould recording from 1955, no less ) -
It is as sparse as it is BECAUSE binaural - searched online - would, in reality, look something like this :

"Kunstkopf" , "Kunstkopf Stereophonie", "Kunstkopf Musik Aufnahme" , etc, etc - and use Google Bablefischlator in order to read whatever you find.

https://www.amazon.de/Kunstkopf-Musik-CDs-Vinyl/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=n:255882,k:Kunstkopf

https://www.cybele.de/gesamtkatalog/3d-binaural-stereo-kunstkopf-aufnahmen

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mNlHUj1ioP_cfGLzXiTdMVOjblMoj3pmdTkwM6RgSbY/edit

THE site : https://www.scoop.it/t/binaural/p/4047274799/2015/07/08/jokan-kunstkopf-stereophonie

The above should point you in the right direction ...

 

[Phronesis]

How much time have you spend researching the thresholds of human auditory perception? Based on your comments, I suspect that you haven't spent much time at all. To me, only focusing on the equipment measurements and specs and not focusing on the context- specifically whether or not humans can hear it- is a great way to avoid the obvious truths. Humans are fallible. We have basic perception and the optimal range is pretty much a brick wall. You can't hear the unbearable unless you are waiting for some random genetic mutation to crop up like monkeys with typewriters coming up with a Shakespere play.

If you know a little bit about what humans can and can't hear, you can put measurements and specs into context. If you don't you can bend the "range of possibilities" to justify and validate whatever personal bias you want. That isn't scientific. That's why when I hear someone saying something that seems to be outside my understanding of the thresholds, I ask for an example. Show me an amp or DAC that sounds different. What SACD sounds better than redbook? Will someone please show me an Amazon link to a well recorded binaural music CD,..

The silence is deafening. This is how I can tell if people really know what they're talking about or whether they are citing monkeys with typewriter possibilities. I don't have time to wait for human evolution to advance to the next level. I want to listen to music now.

If you think that auditory perception is simply about thresholds based on simple tests, you're greatly oversimplifying how it actually works and there's no point in our attempting to discuss the topic further.

 

[bigshot]

Audibility of noise, imbalances and distortion in home audio equipment is all about thresholds. If you don't address that, you'll never be able to look at measurements and know how a component is going to sound.

I'm really not interested in discussing the philosophy of perception or how changes in the weather make us feel about being alive. I'm here in this forum because I am interested in learning new ways to apply scientific principles to achieving better performance out of my home audio equipment.

 

[bigshot]

Analogsurvivor, I asked a very simple and direct question, and for some reason you are not answering it simply and directly. I'm not interested in randomly sampling output from various labels. I don't want to be pointed in a direction or have to mine through threads full of other people's recommendations. I don't want organ music with heavy cathedral ambience muddling up the binaural effect. And I'm not interested in bleeding chunks "demonstration samplers". All I want to know is...

Do you have an orchestral or chamber music recording in your own collection that you can recommend that you think is 1) a good composition, 2) a good performance of it, and 3) a good recording in effective and realistic binaural?

 

[Phronesis]

Audibility of noise, imbalances and distortion in home audio equipment is all about thresholds. If you don't address that, you'll never be able to look at measurements and know how a component is going to sound.

I'm really not interested in discussing the philosophy of perception or how changes in the weather make us feel about being alive. I'm here in this forum because I am interested in learning new ways to apply scientific principles to achieving better performance out of my home audio equipment.

We don't need to get into philosophy of perception, but we do need to get into psychology and neuroscience of perception, if we want to be scientific and understand the issues. That's central to the question of whether there are audible differences under various circumstances. Perception needs perceivers. As has already been discussed ad nauseum even during my short time here, these questions can't be settled only by looking at gear and objective measurements.

 

[bigshot]

A simple controlled listening test will determine if something is audible or not. That is the easiest way and it doesn't even use up a lot of words doing it. The only words necessary are yes or no.

 

[analogsurviver]

Analogsurvivor, I asked a very simple and direct question, and for some reason you are not answering it simply and directly. I'm not interested in randomly sampling output from various labels. I don't want to be pointed in a direction or have to mine through threads full of other people's recommendations. I don't want organ music with heavy cathedral ambience muddling up the binaural effect. And I'm not interested in bleeding chunks "demonstration samplers". All I want to know is...

Do you have an orchestral or chamber music recording in your own collection that you can recommend that you think is 1) a good composition, 2) a good performance of it, and 3) a good recording in effective and realistic binaural?

Yes, on all 3 counts.

The only problem is that I no longer own these recordings and/or am not at liberty to distribute them to a third party. I could post 30 seconds ( or whatever is allowed according to law to pass as sampler, without infringing any rights ) - but that is, effectively, too short to demonstrate the recording properly.

My very first ever ( binaural or otherwise ) recording released commercially was of the female choir Čarnice titled "Še ptičice so snivale" ( also in a more phonetically proper version as seen in the link ) ( roughly translated: When Birds Still Dreamed ) - with arrangements of slovenian folk songs ( in numerous dialects ) by the composer Ambrož Čopi. It got issued as release with both original binaural and "translation" for loudspeaker version - as double CD. Recorded originally to a heavily modified CD-R, 12 years ago. That "translation" has been done without my presence and consent, while still frenetically searching for the best sounding device or procedure to make binaural enjoyable also on speakers. The solution did arrive eventually, but would have postponed the release of the album far too much. Here the title song of the album :



No other subsequent binaural releases with which I would be truly satisfied have been released so far - which is not to say that none are in the works or planned. The biggest issue that still needs to be worked on is the proper diferentiation of the front to back localization. Recent trend(s) in vocal music is to work with the "spatialized" choir; instead of the usual two positions of the choir in a church ( either on the choir ( organ ) or in front/behind of the altar ), the singers are dispersed across the entire floor of the church, with the conductor being in or close to the centre of the church floor. Soloist(s) ( both vocal and instrumental ) might/may be not only in the same flloor, at whatever angle from the conductor, but also displaced in vertical direction - with some compositions tailor-made to the architecture of a certain church. The position of both the choir and the solists can be, but usually is not, static - sometimes, a whole ritual ,including procession(s), is taking place - further adding to the challenge of the recording engineer.