[TheSonicTruth]

Sorry, I used the wrong word. I meant sound quality, not sound fidelity. I fixed it.

I've always thought the two at least overlapped.

 

[bigshot]

Fidelity is accuracy. That is judged by measurements. Quality is how good it sounds. Judged by ear. Something can have higher accuracy but not sound any better. That was the point I was trying to make, but I typed too fast.

 

[analogsurviver]

80kHz is so far beyond "enough" I can't help you if you don't "believe" it. We've been down this road before, though, so I don't expect you to give an inch on your unsubstantiated claims.

OK - first a question for you.

What source(s) are you listening to ?

On which type of amplifiers and transducers ?

 

[bigshot]

He's right. It doesn't matter what he is listening to. You're talking about frequencies you can't hear as if they are important. And I don't need to consult your doctor to know you can't hear it... unless you aren't human?

 

[analogsurviver]

He's right. It doesn't matter what he is listening to. You're talking about frequencies you can't hear as if they are important. And I don't need to consult your doctor to know you can't hear it... unless you aren't human?

I asked HIM - @colonelkernel8 .

For a reason. Because I expect him to answer the question honestly - so that we can proceed from whatever starting point as given/specified by him.

Question for you - can you hear noise ?

 

[gregorio]

[1] And, of course, since test gear always measures "numbers", it cannot reach conclusions about what is or is not audible.
[1a] (So no test set I am aware of will EVER tell you that something "is or is not audible".)
[2] Many people seem to have an unfortunate tendency to treat values presented as a single number as if there's nothing else involved...
[2a] This assumption is totally untrue and inaccurate - and can lead to many incorrect conclusions...

1. True, test gear is designed to measure actual properties of digital audio data, an analogue electric current or sound pressure waves, not how/if we may or may not hear/perceive them.
1a. That's nonsense of course! Objective measurements of audio properties themselves (by definition) obviously will not tell you that, you need to compare the objective measurements with what is reproducible in the first place and if it is reproducible (under reasonable listening conditions), then we can compare the measurements with hearing thresholds, using common sense/logic (IE. A brain)!

2. That depends on what the numbers are. Ultimately, digital audio is just a single set of numbers (representing amplitude over time). However, both measuring equipment and human hearing/perception can derive further information from this single set of numbers. Your argument (particularly in regard to THD) appears to be based on a common audiophile fallacy, actually several fallacies. For example, the difference between measurements of actual audio properties and published equipment performance specifications (for marketing purposes). Often we can treat a single measurement as if there's nothing else involved, it depends on the value of that single measurement, which brings us back to 1a.
2a. That's because "many people" don't seem to know what hearing thresholds are, and/or are not able to apply "common sense/logic". Although to be fair, much of the audiophile industry obfuscates or lies about hearing thresholds and makes the application of common sense/logic nearly impossible for "many people". Your argument appears to be circular!

[1] In this thread, there is a marked tendency to oversimplify; world consists of only RBCD, loudspeakers and headphones have uniform or benign impedance characteristics, etc. [1a] In such a limited kindergarten playground, ...
[1b] "all cables/amplifiers/whatevers measure and sound the same" may even - within reason - hold true. And it , to a large extent, does.
[2] Step into the real world - and this house of cards gets blown away in a heartbeat. It may well be fringe examples - but they are real, as well as you can read this. And can be measured and can be heard.
[2a] It only depends how much one is willing to investigate.
[3] I am perfectly OK with the conclusion " performance of this calibre is not significant nor required in MY case/application"
[3a] - but not when trying to limit any further progress by saying that RBCD is all it will ever be required for music reproduction - not to go into lossy files.
[4] If anyone doubts this position;
[4a] ask, before or after another live concert involving acoustic drums, to be allowed to "play" ( or play for real, if you can ) a few strokes/hits on the snare, tom, kick and cymbals ... - and honestly answer yourself if ANY of the RBCD recordings played back in your home sounds even remotely as realistic.

1. Who in this thread has ever stated that the world only consists of CD and that speakers/HPs all have uniform impedance?
1a. A "limited kindergarten playground" that doesn't exist, that you've just falsely invented to push your false agenda (yet again).
1b. The actual "playground" we're in, is that of human hearing and yes, "within reason" it holds entirely true.

2. This is the self contradiction at the heart of nearly all your posts here. The "real world" you refer to is not "within reason", it is beyond reason and often so far beyond reason that it's completely ridiculous. So while it is the "real world" in the sense that it can be measured, it's a completely nonsense, fantasy world as far as what "can be heard" is concerned. Sure, we can measure 1mHz and far beyond, even into the Terra-Hertz range, but it's utter nonsense to state that it "can be heard"!! In other words, "this house of cards gets blown away in a heartbeat" ONLY if you completely ignore any sense of reason!
2a. It does indeed depend on how much one investigates and I would suggest you start by investigating the well researched/established science, especially considering what sub-forum you're in!!

3. Clearly that's not true, just another self-contradiction! "MY (our) case/application" is that of human hearing but you are NOT "perfectly OK" with that. Your "case/application" appears to be the hearing of some other creature, presumably some fantasy/alien creature because not even animals on this planet known for their high-freq hearing (such as dogs, certain bats and dolphins) can hear 1mHz as far as I'm aware!
3a. I'm perfectly fine with limiting progress to what is humanly possible and don't see the need for a limit applicable to some hypothetical alien species ... but that's just me! Maybe if I get abducted by aliens (with ultrasonic hearing) I'll change my mind?

4. Such as - any sane person?
4a. Huh? Why would I want a CD to sound like a real acoustic drumkit when the engineers/musicians have spent days deliberately making the drumkit sound nothing like an acoustic drumkit? Are you talking about an alien drumkit? Do aliens even play drumkits?

I've always thought the two at least overlapped.

They can, sometimes, in certain regards but there's no direct correlation.

OK - first a question for you. What source(s) are you listening to ?

Ultimately, human ears. What are you using?

G

 

[TheSonicTruth]

Question for you - can you hear noise ?

YES, a lot of noise - on THIS THREAD!!

 

[TheSonicTruth]

It only depends how much one is willing to investigate. And, above all - LISTEN. I am perfectly OK
with the conclusion " performance of this calibre is not significant nor required in MY case/application" -
but not when trying to limit any further progress by saying that RBCD is all it will ever be required for
music reproduction - not to go into lossy files.

If anyone doubts this position; ask, before or after another live concert involving acoustic drums, to be
allowed to "play" ( or play for real, if you can ) a few strokes/hits on the snare, tom, kick and cymbals ... -
and honestly answer yourself if ANY of the RBCD recordings played back in your home sounds even
remotely as realistic.

That's because stuff is done in mixing and in post to the recordings of those drums!

AS: Do you not realize that digital - CD specifically and digital audio as a whole - does nothing to the captured sound? PEOPLE do - with effects processing, at every stage of the album-making process!

For crying out loud listen to some Chesky or GRP label stuff, and not Billboard Hot 100 releases, which have had so much CRAP done to them that they bear next to no resemblence to the sound of the initial studio sessions.

 

[analogsurviver]

That's because stuff is done in mixing and in post to the recordings of those drums!

AS: Do you not realize that digital - CD specifically and digital audio as a whole - does nothing to the captured sound? PEOPLE do - with effects processing, at every stage of the album-making process!

For crying out loud listen to some Chesky or GRP label stuff, and not Billboard Hot 100 releases, which have had some much CRAP done to them that they bear next to no resemblence to the sound of the initial studio sessions.

Oh dear... do yourself a favor and actually take a drumstick in your arm and "play" with the drumkit for say 30 seconds... and THEN come back again with "CD does nothing to sound" mantra.

Chesky is way above average ( Bob Katz, IIRC ) and , to a lesser extent, so is GRP ( I'll have to check who has been doing few releases I own ) . Billboard is something to which I have , at least consciously , never listened to - even for a second.

But no Chesky release I have ever heard did not have the directness of a well done binaural - or not nearly to the extent of which dispensing with ALL unecessary mumbo jumbo in the signal path can provide.
Prior to turning making and marketing binaural, Chesky has been perhaps the most outspoken critic of binaural in general. Citing each and every (admittedly real ) disadvantage they could possibly find... - only to quietly delete the pages devoted to this topic on their website a few years later, hopping on the binaural train.

Things done in post on most commercially released, particularly digitally recorded or digitally remastered recordings ... less talked about, the better.

For my taste, the best commercially released recordings are either on Proprius or Opus3 ( analog tape master, mainly classical and jazz ) - or, when hitting with the biggest calibre, direct to disk recordings on Miller & Kreisel label done by Ken Kreisel. Here a few demo moments : https://www.kreiselsound.com/downloads_1.php
Somewhere in between or around here I would place work by Kavi Alexander on Water Lilly Acoustics.

More mainstream ( mainstream as in using more than ultimately minimalistic miking setup ) would come Keith Johnson of Reference Recordings and most of what is available on Telarc. They both are musically satisfying and of course, way above average - but still do not provide that ultimate realism.

A little further back go excellent recordings once back in the day for Harmonia Mundi - FRANCE !!!! ( and not sister German or Italian labels ). Coinciding with the very best vintage ever for lacquer disks for cutting analogue record masters - second half of the 1970s. Pryral from Asnieres, France ( Paris suburb ).

Above may explain why I am completely untouched by never ending re-releases of - say - Canned Heat or Pink Floyd or Yes or... ( insert whatever you fancy here ) - either in digital form or in recent wave of vinyl remasters. Here, I might be doing injustice to some remastering engineers who really tried their best to squeeze more music from the masters - but only as far as musical content is concerned. There is no way any analog tape now old 4 decades or more can contain better preserved information than a first stamper pressed record - and, as far as I know, except in cases where original tapes have for any reason become unavailable, there are VERY FEW re-releases made from the actual vinyl record.

Recently admitted fire in 2008 in Universal Studios https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/11/magazine/universal-fire-master-recordings.html
that destroyed many analog master tapes may mean there will be more of this "genre" in the future.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

Things done in post on most commercially released, particularly
digitally recorded or digitally remastered recordings ...
less talked about, the better.

"digitally recorded" or "digitally remastered" have nothing to do with it.

It's how much or how little post-processing, and what types, are done that matters - not whether that processing is done in the digital or analog realm.

The most important things are composition, venue used, performance, and session techniques - what gets captured in the first place, and also choices made at the mix and mastering stages of the project. Not what format(analog or digital) the processing and/or delivery takes place in.

 

[analogsurviver]

"digitally recorded" or "digitally remastered" have nothing to do with it.

It's how much or how little post-processing, and what types, are done that matters - not whether that processing is done in the digital or analog realm.

The most important things are composition, venue used, performance, and session techniques - what gets captured in the first place, and also choices made at the mix and mastering stages of the project. Not what format(analog or digital) the processing and/or delivery takes place in.

Digitally recorded or digitally mastered - if PCM is concerned - IS the very staring point that allows opening the digital processing pandora box.

Best processing is no processing - either in digital or analog domain.

But even after all the processing, final delivery "container" still matters.
IF the processing has not been too heavy, reducing any difference from the capabilities of delivering method to an afterthought.

I agree the most important things are composition, venue used, performance and session technique in particular. I call that combined "initial recording" - because "master" can mean so many different things to so many different people.
If that initial recording is really done well, all post can be reduced to is splitting various portions of different takes of the same piece of music - no other processing whatsoever required.

That is the also the only way to natively record in DSD. It gives the sonic quality similar to that of direct to disk analog record, while still allowing for pauses longer than just few brief seconds between songs/movements and, of course, possibility to record each song/movement separately in time - and not entire side of the record ( approx up to 20 minutes per side ) in one go as mandatory in direct to disk.

However, the spirit of the performance is best preserved by recordings in one go - that's why direct to disk (live by very definition) and other live recordings regardless of the type are at the same time both loved and hated - depending on what one wants or expects from a recording in the first place.

 

[bigshot]

I honestly don’t think he can help it.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

I honestly don’t think he can help it.

In reference to??

 

[TheSonicTruth]

But no Chesky release I have ever heard did not have the directness of a
well done binaural - or not nearly to the extent of which dispensing with ALL unecessary
mumbo jumbo in the signal path can provide.

Binaural is a spatial miking format. The effects of a binaural miking session on the sound of a performance can be recorded to digital or analog. No significant difference(other than natural compression on the analog tape side) in the original recorded capture.

Things done in post on most commercially released, particularly digitally
recorded or digitally remastered recordings ... less talked about, the better.

It's the same major TYPES of processing in digital as in analog: tonal, spatial, dynamics. Just in digital realm, more powerful. Think of it as nuclear!

Billboard is something to which I have , at least consciously , never listened to - even
for a second.

By 'Billboard' I just meant more or less anything that has spent a lot of time in the upper half of any music chart - 'Pop' music, 'Top Forty', AC, CHR, etc. That stuff is the most heavily processed music of all. Increasingly more so, in the last twenty years, than during the prior fifty.

 

[KeithEmo]

Sometimes I can't figure out if you're deliberately being obtuse - or if you're just being comical.

On my first point....
First you claim "it's nonsense of course"... then you say I'm right.
(Which, to me, is confusing.)
My point was simple - and you seem to be agreeing with it.
No test measurement will ever describe the amount of distortion as "audible" or "inaudible"....
Test measurements are always presented as numerical results.... and concepts like "audible" or "inaudible" are virtually always human opinions or conclusions.
Therefore........
You will rarely if ever receive a test report listing "distortion" or "noise" as being "audible" or "inaudible"..... (unless someone in marketing edited the report).
Therefore, I would appreciate it if people would stop and saying things like "the measured distortion was inaudible".
(That statement is a lie. At best, the measured distortion was some number, which that person believes or has concluded is inaudible.)

On my second point....
THD specifies TOTAL harmonic distortion... which means "the sum of all the harmonic distortion added to together".
However, every frequency has an infinite number of harmonics, and the simple THD spec fails to specify how much of each harmonic is present.
THD is simply the sum... or TOTAL... of an infinitely long list of possible types of discortion erach of which may be present in various quantities.
(And it's relatively obvious to most people that different harmonics are both more or less audible and more or less unpleasant than others.)
Even beyond that, most "THD" measurements are actually "THD + noise", and most modern results are reported as such... but older mesaurements were not.
(They were, however, produced by nulling out the desired frequency, and measuring the total of everything that remained - which actually included harmonic distortion, other types of distortion, and just plain noise.)
However, the net result of all this is that two things that have "the same THD measurement" may have very different types of distrotion whose audibility may also be very different.
(And, if you believe that "two things with the same amount of THD will always sound the same" then you are incorrect.)

It's also worth noting that THD was a useful measurement specifically for analog equipment - where it was one of the two predominant types of distortion present - and often the most audible one.
However, digital equipment, including DACs and ADCs, are prone to types of distortion that are NOT "either THD, or IM distortion, or noise"...
(For example, the characteristic sidebands caused by jitter are neither THD or IM distortion, and must either be identified separately, or - less accurately - lumped together under "noise".)

I'm afraid we really have passed the point where "everything about how something sounds" can be said in two or three simple numbers.
(My apologies to those who would prefer to live in a world where that was still believed to be true.)

1. True, test gear is designed to measure actual properties of digital audio data, an analogue electric current or sound pressure waves, not how/if we may or may not hear/perceive them.
1a. That's nonsense of course! Objective measurements of audio properties themselves (by definition) obviously will not tell you that, you need to compare the objective measurements with what is reproducible in the first place and if it is reproducible (under reasonable listening conditions), then we can compare the measurements with hearing thresholds, using common sense/logic (IE. A brain)!

2. That depends on what the numbers are. Ultimately, digital audio is just a single set of numbers (representing amplitude over time). However, both measuring equipment and human hearing/perception can derive further information from this single set of numbers. Your argument (particularly in regard to THD) appears to be based on a common audiophile fallacy, actually several fallacies. For example, the difference between measurements of actual audio properties and published equipment performance specifications (for marketing purposes). Often we can treat a single measurement as if there's nothing else involved, it depends on the value of that single measurement, which brings us back to 1a.
2a. That's because "many people" don't seem to know what hearing thresholds are, and/or are not able to apply "common sense/logic". Although to be fair, much of the audiophile industry obfuscates or lies about hearing thresholds and makes the application of common sense/logic nearly impossible for "many people". Your argument appears to be circular!



1. Who in this thread has ever stated that the world only consists of CD and that speakers/HPs all have uniform impedance?
1a. A "limited kindergarten playground" that doesn't exist, that you've just falsely invented to push your false agenda (yet again).
1b. The actual "playground" we're in, is that of human hearing and yes, "within reason" it holds entirely true.

2. This is the self contradiction at the heart of nearly all your posts here. The "real world" you refer to is not "within reason", it is beyond reason and often so far beyond reason that it's completely ridiculous. So while it is the "real world" in the sense that it can be measured, it's a completely nonsense, fantasy world as far as what "can be heard" is concerned. Sure, we can measure 1mHz and far beyond, even into the Terra-Hertz range, but it's utter nonsense to state that it "can be heard"!! In other words, "this house of cards gets blown away in a heartbeat" ONLY if you completely ignore any sense of reason!
2a. It does indeed depend on how much one investigates and I would suggest you start by investigating the well researched/established science, especially considering what sub-forum you're in!!

3. Clearly that's not true, just another self-contradiction! "MY (our) case/application" is that of human hearing but you are NOT "perfectly OK" with that. Your "case/application" appears to be the hearing of some other creature, presumably some fantasy/alien creature because not even animals on this planet known for their high-freq hearing (such as dogs, certain bats and dolphins) can hear 1mHz as far as I'm aware!
3a. I'm perfectly fine with limiting progress to what is humanly possible and don't see the need for a limit applicable to some hypothetical alien species ... but that's just me! Maybe if I get abducted by aliens (with ultrasonic hearing) I'll change my mind?

4. Such as - any sane person?
4a. Huh? Why would I want a CD to sound like a real acoustic drumkit when the engineers/musicians have spent days deliberately making the drumkit sound nothing like an acoustic drumkit? Are you talking about an alien drumkit? Do aliens even play drumkits?

They can, sometimes, in certain regards but there's no direct correlation.

Ultimately, human ears. What are you using?

G