[analogsurviver]

The difference between the way different bass instruments sound is due to harmonics. I'm sure you've heard lots of examples of bass that sounds like a plucked string bass with several octaves of harmonic content to the sound from the pluck all the way down to the fundamental. And I'm sure you've heard funk bands where the bass player dials out all the harmonics and plays a bass line that you feel more than hear as a melody. Harmonics are the thing that makes one instrument sound different than another.



Boy! You can say that again! When the whole jitter thing was hot, I realized that it dealt with an area of sound reproduction that I hadn't considered before. So I spent a week diving into it and researching it and I puzzled it out. At the end, I realized that I had wasted a whole week on theoretical sound that didn't exist in practice. And when it comes to timing errors, the best turntable introduces more error than the worst CD player by several orders of magnitude.

There is a tendency among high end audio salesmen to look for a theoretical problem that they can advertise that they have discovered a cure for. I'm beginning to think that RF in USB qualifies as the latest and greatest version of this. I'm getting better at asking the questions that makes it easier to spot them.



That isn't the issue on that particular album. It's just plain old different mastering on the CD than the SACD. In order to compare CD to SACD fairly, you need to find an SACD with the exact same mastering on the redbook layer. It's harder than it seems. When I was doing my listening test on this, I discovered that there were often big differences between the layers on an SACD, especially with rock albums. I found a Rolling Stones SACD where it wasn't just different mastering, the redbook layer had an old mix done for LPs and the SACD layer had a brand new digital remix. Everything about the two were different.

If someone wants to do a comparison test for themselves, I'd suggest using a Pentatone disc. They only sell SACDs, but many people who buy them don't have SACD players and only listen to the redbook layer. This means that they are not motivated to hobble the redbook layer to justify the SACD format.

When I did my test, I used this Pentatone disc, which was recorded in native DSD and has a redbook layer that is identical to the SACD layer. Neither me nor my friend who was helping me with the blind test could tell any difference between the layers.

http://www.pentatonemusic.com/stravinsky-lhistoire-du-soldat-die-deutschekammerphilharonie-bremen

One thing to keep in mind is that the CD layer is usually quieter than the SACD layer. If you don't level match carefully enough, you will think the SACD sounds better because of the volume difference.

Woodyluvr, I think what we are seeing is an absorption with the self, a hyper focus on a single topic, and the inability to treat others as people. That might not be something that's able to be changed. A little vacation will probably help.

on another subject...

As I explained before I think that spending money on things that don't matter fits under the definition of expendable income. Anyone is free to spend money on whatever they want. They can throw it in the fireplace just to watch it burn and I'd say that is their right. But you yourself know that you can't hear a difference above 256 compressed audio. Buying something more than that for purely theoretical reasons when you know that it offers no practical or aesthetic benefit is certainly unwise, and perhaps even kind of dumb. If you have expendable income, I think smart ways of spending it would be on travel, or more music, or art or literature. All of those things can enrich your life in tangible practical ways. Superfluous zeros and ones do absolutely nothing except take up space on a shelf or fill up a hard drive with digital packing peanuts. It's a waste of money and a waste of space.

Here's an analogy for you... The quality of a Christmas present isn't judged by the size of the package. I didn't realize that when I was 5 years old, but I learned that by the time I was 9!

I have - most clearly - explained that both CD and SACD layers on the disc in question ( Opus 3 CD19423 )

https://www.discogs.com/Omnibus-Wind-Ensemble-Music-By-Frank-Zappa/release/1820934

are the same mastering. Which is different from the earlier CD only release ( Opus 3 CD19403 )

https://www.discogs.com/Omnibus-Wind-Ensemble-Music-By-Frank-Zappa/release/4102340

And I said the CD and SACD layers of CD19423 do not sound equal. RBCD is just plain too slow to match the speed original analogue tape has - there is no way it can match the pulse response obtained by SACD/DSD64, which can take advantage of a superiour analogue master tape.

I do not know or claim similar for other SACDs - they may well be actually different masterings for CD and SACD layer. But NOT in the case of CD19423 !

 

[james444]

I've been trained to not click through things unless I know what I'm clicking them for. Did this test involve ultrasonic frequencies in recordings of music? If you have a quote involving that, I would be very interested. Just cut and paste me a paragraph involving that. I've done considerable googling on this subject and I'm looking for evidence that it is necessary for recorded music playback. using normal speakers or headphones and consumer audio equipment.

Ha, I'll give you credit for admitting you didn't even bother to read the evidence I linked in the post you replied to. But as a result, you're completetly barking up the wrong tree... it's obvious that you also missed my subsequent post:

Just for the record, I'm not advocating that ultrasonic frequencies have any practical merit in audio reproduction. But there seems to be some scientific evidence that they can be perceived / "heard" via bone conduction.

So, for the last time, my post was simply a reply to gregorio's question:

... where's your significant evidence for 20kHz not being an upper limit for human hearing?

No more, no less. Not a word about "perceived sound fidelity" or "necessity for recorded music playback". Just "upper limit for human hearing". Hope I could clarify that for you.

 

[bigshot]

Just to let you know, James. If you start out your post with an argumentative snarky comment I won't read the rest of it at all. This one is a case in point. I'm not required to read and respond to anything here. I choose to read the posts that have useful information and remain respectful.

If someone has really done an A/B switched, line level matched, blind comparison of SACD and CD, then they know what the first question about the testing procedures would be...

 

[bigshot]

Well, as you say, it's all relative, although I'd be almost equally unhappy with a system that had a lowpass at 5Khz as 10.

Try it and see. I've done lots of playing around ducking out each of the octaves using an equalizer and 10-20kHz is a lot less important than you might think. We listen to sound without the upper octave all the time on TV and the radio and in the car and none of us complains. I think the importance of the various octaves is directly related to how well we can hear them.

 

[Zapp_Fan]

Try it and see. I've done lots of playing around ducking out each of the octaves using an equalizer and 10-20kHz is a lot less important than you might think. We listen to sound without the upper octave all the time on TV and the radio and in the car and none of us complains. I think the importance of the various octaves is directly related to how well we can hear them.

I'm pretty familiar with what it would sound like. It would be a pretty obvious deficiency either way, which is why it would make me equally dissatisfied. It's hard to listen to something when it has a distracting flaw like that. I mean losing the top octave is obviously not as bad as losing two octaves, but it's still bad.

 

[bigshot]

It really isn't that obvious. The top octave is quite subtle. Next time you have something racked up in a sound editing program, try it. I think you'll be surprised. It's a continuum. I'm not saying that stuff above 10kHz is inaudible or useless, I'm just saying that of the 9 octaves humans can hear, that one is the least important to the reproduction of music. There's almost no fundamentals up there. Only a few harmonics. And none of it can be discerned as pitch. All it amounts to is a little bit of air on the top end of cymbals.

I looked at youtube to see if I could find an example, but everyone has videos with tones, none with music.

 

[castleofargh]

here is where I stand right now:
+ we shouldn't reject audibility above 20khz as we have some kids who notice 22khz or even higher just fine and that alone disproves the notion that nobody is hearing ultrasounds.
- just because we can find some dude somewhere who can notice something under specific conditions with specific test signal, doesn't mean we have to suddenly make everything for that dude. I wouldn't necessarily mind such a world, but if we go there, I have a long list of demands I want to put above ultrasounds in music. even in audio that wouldn't be at the top of my list.


+ I see zero issue with having high res tracks, if someone wants it, he buys it. that's obviously not what is being discussed here.
- the desire for something, the feeling that it matters, and an actual change in the experience from having it. all 3 can happen without any change in what we're really hearing. that's a fact, so I have an issue with people who think any of those 3 situations is proof that the extra frequencies have to be there to make an audible difference. I believe the notion of high res is a potent source of subjective improvement, but I have yet to see convincing evidence(or experience myself) that actual ultrasounds have much of anything to do with it.

 

[bigshot]

The next step of advancement in audio fidelity is going to be audio processing, not more data and bigger files.

 

[Zapp_Fan]

It really isn't that obvious. The top octave is quite subtle. Next time you have something racked up in a sound editing program, try it. I think you'll be surprised. It's a continuum. I'm not saying that stuff above 10kHz is inaudible or useless, I'm just saying that of the 9 octaves humans can hear, that one is the least important to the reproduction of music. There's almost no fundamentals up there. Only a few harmonics. And none of it can be discerned as pitch. All it amounts to is a little bit of air on the top end of cymbals.

I looked at youtube to see if I could find an example, but everyone has videos with tones, none with music.

Just tried it, we're going to have to agree to disagree, I think putting a steep lowpass at 10khz sounds pretty awful. Sure, no fundamentals or lower harmonics are lost, but if there are any vocal fricatives or cymbals or anything like that, the effect is dire and obvious. This is a matter of opinion, but if you could listen to music lowpassed there without feeling motivated to fix it, that would be pretty amazing to me.

 

[bigshot]

Now try ducking out other octaves and compare. This kind of dire isn't as dire as between 880 and 1760 or between 1760 and 3250. I think you'll find that the octaves from 20 to 40 and 10kHz to 20kHz are the least dire of all of them. Like I say, it's all relative. I'm not saying that taking it out doesn't affect the sound. I'm saying it affects the sound less than any other audible octaves. This is because our hearing is less discerning at the outside edges of our hearing range.

 

[Steve999]

Well, as you say, it's all relative, although I'd be almost equally unhappy with a system that had a lowpass at 5Khz as 10.

But the important thing to remember is that harmonics make up almost the ENTIRE character of a musical tone, I mostly wanted to echo your point along those lines.

Can't agree with you there. Massive difference between cutting off at 5khz as opposed to 10khz. Upper reach of piano is 4k and we've got harmonics a little above that are essential to hear the character of what's going on. And 5khz low-pass will kill the drums. IMHO.

Based on my experimentation and understanding and reading I am going to kind of split the difference between the two of you--low pass around 14 khz and I think anything you miss would be negligible. IMHO. &etc. Actually I think it's more like 12-13khz but I'm bumping it up to 14 khz for a little margin for error and a little less room for argument.

As to the essential point, agreed, and even moreso than I thought after some experimentation this weekend--the tone and character of an instrument depends enormously on harmonics. It's a piece of understanding an learning that would fit extremely well in the toolkit of any hi-fi enthusiast or anyone who is interested in reproduction of music. Musicians are just going to play the damn instrument and try to get it to sound good but recording and reproduction complicate things enormously.

 

[Glmoneydawg]

20 to 40hz in particular,while impressive sounding/feeling seems musically insignificant.While 10khz to 20khz seems to to add that last bit of space and ambiance it certainly isn't the difference between enjoying and not enjoying a piece of music.Good music is enjoyable on car stereos,clock radios,crappy computer speakers ect.Btw youtube is brickwalled at 15khz and i don't hear any complaints.

 

[Steve999]

20 to 40hz in particular,while impressive sounding/feeling seems musically insignificant.While 10khz to 20khz seems to to add that last bit of space and ambiance it certainly isn't the difference between enjoying and not enjoying a piece of music.Good music is enjoyable on car stereos,clock radios,crappy computer speakers ect.Btw youtube is brickwalled at 15khz and i don't hear any complaints.

I think with what I call young people music 27-40 hz is very much a part of it, you just can't discern the pitch, but that feeling has worked its way into our music in several genres, and is an element of what is greatly enjoyed, if and when it's reproduced. (Old man with subwoofer who likes to check out young people music speaking here.)

[Edit--went down to 27 hz since a lot of keyboards are going to reach down there.]

With old people music not so much.

 

[bigshot]

20 to 40hz in particular,while impressive sounding/feeling seems musically insignificant.

That may be because the music you were listening to didn't have much content in that range. 20Hz to 40Hz is mostly present in hip hop and organ music. Not so much in classic rock or top 40.

 

[Glmoneydawg]

I think with what I call young people music 35-40 hz is very much a part of it, you just can't discern the pitch, but that feeling has worked its way into our music in several genres, and is an element of what is greatly enjoyed, if and when it's reproduced. (Old man with subwoofer who likes to check out young people music speaking here.)

With old people music not so much.

My speakers/room are reasonably flat down to 20hz..the only time i appreciate it is when i'm setting up my bass section and playing my setup frequency sweep.