[gregorio]

[1] G - enough of that, please. We are both describing the same thing from different perspective - and it is getting tiring you latching to any word I do put wrong here and there.
[2] You are also - quite a bit - overconfident of what can and can not happen in real musical event
[3] I DID MANAGE TO FIND ALMOST PERFECT SQUARE WAVE ALIKE SIGNALS IN MUSIC FROM LP.
[4] those astonishingly close to square waves occur on this ORIGINAL DIRECT TO DISK recording
[5] The instrument(s) that can produce such almost square wave like signals ( of course, no such thing as PURE square wave in real music ) are usually brass (groups) - big band jazz or similar.
[6] It is amusing that the instrument that produces the purest sine wave like signal is also from the brass family - french horn ... - almost pure sine wave, with very little (if any at all ) harmonics.
[7] If an almost square wave looking signal can be recorded to an analog record in real time ( record cutter having flat response max to approx 27 kHz, depending on the cutter head model )

1. I tell you what, I'll stop refuting your nonsense if you stop posting it! And, I tell you what's really tiring, is the fact that your "wrong words" are not "here and there", they are here, there, in between here and there and almost everywhere else, which is why almost every fact/assertion you make is nonsense.
2. Evidence or it's nonsense/trolling.
3. Evidence or it's nonsense/trolling.
4. Evidence or it's nonsense/trolling.
5. Evidence or it's nonsense/trolling.
6. Evidence or it's nonsense/trolling.
7. Evidence or it's nonsense/trolling.

The rest of your post was just rambling and irrelevant. You STILL haven't bothered to learn the very basics about square waves or about digital audio, so most of the above points are irrelevant anyway. What's the rise time of a 20kHz sine wave? Are you going to assert that rise time can't be perfectly captured at CD sample rate? And, what has rise time got to do with channel sync/phase in PCM anyway?

G

 

[pinnahertz]

Oh... - anyone can do that.

Please do it then!

The catch is HOW does it sound. In case of IEMs, the transducers are at fixed position relative to the actual ear drum as possible. With other headphone types, all it takes is not to move the headphones on your head while comparing files with different lags - or the same file upsampled to different sampling rates.

Please state the calculated worst-case equivalent acoustic path length difference so we can all see exactly how much or little we need to move our heads to accomplish the same path length difference.

Provided that PCM chain actually has a time delay between the channels to begin with.

The claim you make "sounds" like "all PCM has channel timing differeces that make all PCM inadequate for binaural recording." Is that correct?

And I will give you a VERY easy test to try it for yourself - and you WILL hear how audible and disturbing this rise time ( or whatever you want to call it ) lag is - and how detrimental to the reproduction it really is.

It's a shame someone making such a specific claim can't differentiate between the definitions of rise time and interchannel delay.

I have been struggling to get it right my whole analogue life. Once you something you fought for long enough take for granted, you want to keep it - period. After you've heard it right, it will be really hard to settle for less.

If anything is preventing being both channels really in sync - well, it won't be doing that for long - not at my place !

I've tracked interchannel time errors for quite a few decades as well, just in at different context. I cannot accept that your obcession for micro-second channel timing precision would lead you to reference analog tape, in particular cassettes.

Now, about that acoustic path length difference, and its effect on binaural recording and reproduction....

 

[analogsurviver]

@pinnahertz : found the files. The whole lot of square wave photos amounts to slightly above 1.5 GB - with the PCM "troublemakers" just below 500 MB. If you wish, I can send you the whole lot over wetransfer - and you choose to use whatever you find interesting.

Or, I upload the most representative photos - say 44.1 and 192 kHz sampling and DSD128 to some third party fotosharing sites - your choice.

 

[gregorio]

[1] After you've heard it right, [2] it will be really hard to settle for less.

I nearly missed this beauty!

1. BUT, you've ALREADY PROVED that you cannot "hear it right"! You know that just ignoring that fact doesn't stop it from existing?
2. Essentially then, you'll settle for pretty much anything because there pretty much isn't anything "less" than cassette tape and a soundstage that reverses and jumps all over the place every 15 seconds!

G

 

[pinnahertz]

@pinnahertz : found the files. The whole lot of square wave photos amounts to slightly above 1.5 GB - with the PCM "troublemakers" just below 500 MB. If you wish, I can send you the whole lot over wetransfer - and you choose to use whatever you find interesting.

Or, I upload the most representative photos - say 44.1 and 192 kHz sampling and DSD128 to some third party fotosharing sites - your choice.

Your choice, just do it so all can see them. That's either a ton of images or they need to be compressed to a practical size. Don't forget to include full test documentation.

 

[analogsurviver]

Please do it then!
Please state the calculated worst-case equivalent acoustic path length difference so we can all see exactly how much or little we need to move our heads to accomplish the same path length difference.
The claim you make "sounds" like "all PCM has channel timing differeces that make all PCM inadequate for binaural recording." Is that correct?

It's a shame someone making such a specific claim can't differentiate between the definitions of rise time and interchannel delay.

I've tracked interchannel time errors for quite a few decades as well, just in at different context. I cannot accept that your obcession for micro-second channel timing precision would lead you to reference analog tape, in particular cassettes.

Now, about that acoustic path length difference, and its effect on binaural recording and reproduction....

First, I want to reply that not ALL of the PCM is affected by interchanel delay - IF that is the correct definition. But it CAN appear under certain conditions and combinations of both software and hardware.

In case this error of interchannel delay does develop, it is a considerable obstacle for the binaural recording.

I merely stated that this interchannel delay in PCM - if it occurs - amounts to exactly the rise time of the PCM at any given sampling rate. So, for 20 kHz BOTH the rise time is 14 or so microseconds AND the interchannel delay is the same 14 or so microseconds. I did not equate or confuse the two one for another. From the first pic from the scope you would be clearly able to see exactly what is the problem with interchannel delay with SOME of the PCM. I did state where was the first stage at which I have seen it gone wrong - and will do whatever the amount of tests required in order to find if and when and under which conditions it can or does happen again.

What I am trying to prove here has most likely been the reason why the MQA has been born in the first place. I have NOT been listening to MQA for serius, I did not flush my DACs with new firmware that allows for MQA - yet. Because I would really like to come to the bootom of this PCM interchannel delay ( see - learning to use the correct expression ) .

Well, I can not help IF I have been fortunate enough to score such a high performing cassette deck - selected among > 10 units, some of which would probably confirm your poor expectation for the medium. I obviously knew what I have been looking for - haven't I ? And, I did mention I can measure the said cassete deck - didn't I ?

You have not mentioned video cassete recorder with a single letter - because you must know what I did state regarding the channel sinchronization - errr, interchannel delay - to be 100% true.

Remember, regarding the worst case acoustic path length difference, you have been - repeatedly - "pulling me by the tongue" ( as is colloquial expression for trying to get an answer from a person that would rather NOT give a straight answer - knowing that an honest answer could never please the one who is asking ... ).

OK, I will punch the numbers - and this answer you will remember - for life.

Because it CAN be - literally - the difference between life or death in real world.

 

[analogsurviver]

Your choice, just do it so all can see them. That's either a ton of images or they need to be compressed to a practical size. Don't forget to include full test documentation.

Will upload the most representative and state exactly how the photos have been obtained. Full "path".

By a similar time tomorrow, probably earlier.

 

[analogsurviver]

I nearly missed this beauty!

1. BUT, you've ALREADY PROVED that you cannot "hear it right"! You know that just ignoring that fact doesn't stop it from existing?
2. Essentially then, you'll settle for pretty much anything because there pretty much isn't anything "less" than cassette tape and a soundstage that reverses and jumps all over the place every 15 seconds!

G

Sorry, you are doing it again. Latching to the thing most likely to support your position - in this case, the cassette. I am sorry if you have such poor experience with cassettes - but Technics RS-AZ 6/7 does nothing of a kind you state. Walking in a room where either "6" or "7" is playing, you would NEVER recognize it - at least not immediately - that it is cassette and not some other source. Prior to having known the said machines, cassette was nothing but something portable I can run around with it and still make some kind of recording - and this includes a few Nakamichi models, but not the 700/1000/Dragon class.

Be it as it may, the MAIN claim has always been that DSD is inherently free from interchannel delay - and PCM is NOT. What I am trying to prove is to establish exactly under which conditions and which combinations of both software and hardware this interchannel delay in PCM does occur - and what could be done in order to prevent it. Remember, although I am an outspoken proponent of DSD, that does not mean I want the PCM to be or remain a failure bigger than inherently necessary; on the contrary, by exposing its weaknes(es) I want to make it better in the end.

NEVER FORGET THAT I AM PRO MUSIC FIRST, TECHNOLOGY SECOND.
Played on whatever medium that can support sound in a way people can have satisfaction from, no matter how imperfect. Given a choice, I will, of course, tend towards the more accurate one.

Neither the DSD or PCM - even if PCM is delayed between channels - do not jump all over the place every 15 seconds.
And, although not accurate to anything the level of digital, a really good cassete also maintains its interchannel delay ( azimuth in cassette speak ) FAR better than it has been your experience. -
while offering better frequency/phase response above 20 kHz than any 44.1/16 PCM machine - which HAS to resort to brick filtering. And that is what really counts with binaural..

Now *think* how accurate frequency and phase response DSD256 can offer - and interchannel delay is NEVER even an option.

 

[bigshot]

An example that probably many people can relate to is subconsciously processed background music in a supermarket. If you'd question me right after leaving one of these shops, I couldn't for the life of me say for sure, wherher they had music on or not, because I've been consciously focussing on gathering things in my shopping cart. Yet there's ample research showing that this (subconsciously processed) background music has a significant effect on our shopping habits.

The other day I was in a market and they were playing a muzak version of The Ramones' "I Wanna Be Sedated". I listen to background music because it's really quite funny sometimes.

 

[bigshot]

I like how easy it is to derail a thread. Someone throws out something completely irrelevant and wrong that they made up on the spot. People start answering it with chopped up answers that don't convey the context at all. Rinse and repeat. Pretty soon everything is like verbal scrambled eggs!

I guess since no one is talking about the best way to discern the difference between two similar sound samples, that means that we've all agreed that the best way to do that is a blind, direct A/B switched, line level matched listening test. And that if you are going to put any credence into claims by any individual, a person who does controlled tests is much more likely to be correct than someone who depends on uncontrolled subjective impressions.

If we all agree on that, you can put a bow on top of this thread and call it done, because that is the whole point of the first post in this thread.

Goodnight, Gracie.

 

[Malfunkt]

On a short-hike with @slankoe I mentioned the recent discussion of the topic of 'binaural' on this thread with regarding the discussion surrounding binaural.

I think both of us were a bit amused/perplexed. When binaural is done properly it is so incredibly "obvious, life-like and amazing "! ? No? Maybe for some perhaps not or less so.

But, please, understand. I am more amazed! For myself, the some of the recordings I listen to can very much be truly and 'holographic binaural'.

Edited for bloat:

So here is the challenge.

Approach this academic. And again for fun.

I'm putting the following forward as benchmarks for attainable gear and a consistent way of recording and mastering binaural / stereo media.

1) Do you have a Focal Utopia or HD800*?

2) download http://www.naturespace.org/ to your iOS or Android phone. It is free but yes is funded with App in purchases. The app has been around for a decade and supported.
3) purchase (yes, for the cost of coffee!) one of the paid tracks 'Hansel and Gretel', just start with this one.
4) sit in quite environment - some ambient natural noise can even be helpful.

I guess, for a number of reasons the effect may work better for others or not at all. For myself it works well. Of course, like any recording, it is an emulation. It requires our engagement.

 

[gregorio]

[1] Sorry, you are doing it again. Latching to the thing most likely to support your position - in this case, the cassette.
[2] Be it as it may, the MAIN claim has always been that DSD is inherently free from interchannel delay - and PCM is NOT.
[3] What I am trying to prove is to establish exactly under which conditions and which combinations of both software and hardware this interchannel delay in PCM does occur - and what could be done in order to prevent it.
[4] although I am an outspoken proponent of DSD, that does not mean I want the PCM to be or remain a failure bigger than inherently necessary ...
[5] NEVER FORGET THAT I AM PRO MUSIC FIRST, TECHNOLOGY SECOND.
[6] Given a choice, I will, of course, tend towards the more accurate one.
[7] Neither the DSD or PCM - even if PCM is delayed between channels - do not jump all over the place every 15 seconds.

1. No, you're doing it again and I told you I will continue to refute your nonsense! And why should cassette support my position, you claimed cassette is more accurate than PCM to support your position. That is of course nonsense, support your claim with evidence or you are trolling! While we're at it, you're ignoring all the questions and requirement of evidence in post #4981 to back up your other claims. I take it you don't have any and are therefore admitting you're trolling.

2. Support that claim with evidence or you're trolling.

3. I have used all the main pro ADCs and pro DAWs over the last 20+ years. Prism, Digidesign/Avid, Apogee and others and all the main software, ProTools, Logic, Sadie and Cubase/Nuendo. This accounts for probably more than 95% of all commercial music recordings during that period and none of it had even the slightest "inter-channel delay", as predicted by the way they work!

4. Evidence that PCM is a failure or you're trolling.

5. You haven't demonstrated that you know anything about pro music or the technology!

6. I'm confused, would that be cassettes or VHS tapes or maybe vinyl? By the way, you haven't covered two tins cans connected by a piece of string yet, is that better than PCM too?

7. How would you know, you've already demonstrated that you cannot tell when the soundstage jumps all over the place every 15 secs or so?

Again, answer the questions, present your evidence or you're TROLLING!

G

 

[bigshot]

After striking out with analoguesurvivor, I am back on my quest...

For myself, the some of the music I listen to can very much be truly and 'holographic binaural'.

I would like to hear some holographic binaural recordings of acoustic instruments like strings and brass and woodwinds. Would you please post a link to a binaural CD that is 1) good music, 2) a good performance and 3) well recorded in holographic binaural? I'll buy it and listen to it and come back and let you know what I think. Thanks

By the way, I have Oppo PM-1s, which are in the same general quality level as HD-800s, so there should be no problem with me hearing the effect.

 

[pinnahertz]

First, I want to reply that not ALL of the PCM is affected by interchanel delay - IF that is the correct definition. But it CAN appear under certain conditions and combinations of both software and hardware.

Thats not what you implied at all. It is vital that you present facts and scale the degree to reality.

In case this error of interchannel delay does develop, it is a considerable obstacle for the binaural recording.

Again, rather than making alarmist statements, be specific. Every technical problem must be evaluated by impact and degree. That's not what you are doing!

I merely stated that this interchannel delay in PCM -

What I am trying to prove here has most likely been the reason why the MQA has been born in the first place. I have NOT been listening to MQA for serius, I did not flush my DACs with new firmware that allows for MQA - yet. Because I would really like to come to the bootom of this PCM interchannel delay ( see - learning to use the correct expression ) .

Ah, there it is: MQA. No, MQA doesn't fix interchannel delay.

Well, I can not help IF I have been fortunate enough to score such a high performing cassette deck - selected among > 10 units, some of which would probably confirm your poor expectation for the medium. I obviously knew what I have been looking for - haven't I ? And, I did mention I can measure the said cassete deck - didn't I ?

So you've cherry-picked a good deck and a good tape. The medium as a whole fails your interchannel delay requirements completely, and many times worse if you interchange tapes between different decks!

You have not mentioned video cassete recorder with a single letter - because you must know what I did state regarding the channel sinchronization - errr, interchannel delay - to be 100% true.

I don't care how good interchannel delay is in s format fatally hobbled in other ways. Your use of it is unique, non-standard, incompatible with anyone else, not directly editable, a dead format...you need more?

Remember, regarding the worst case acoustic path length difference, you have been - repeatedly - "pulling me by the tongue" ( as is colloquial expression for trying to get an answer from a person that would rather NOT give a straight answer - knowing that an honest answer could never please the one who is asking ... ).

Its simple math. How could anyone not be pleased with the correct answer!

OK, I will punch the numbers - and this answer you will remember - for life.

Because it CAN be - literally - the difference between life or death in real world.

OMG!

 

[bigshot]

He's making stuff up and throwing in as many red herrings as he can to divert the conversation. He only cares about the destination. He doesn't care how he gets there. I might think he was a troll, but he doesn't seem organized enough to troll. I think he's like that Swedish guy who wrapped his whole stereo system in tin foil.