Quote:
Yes, the dynamic range you cite is about correct. When listening/recording "normal" piano music. I was really taken by surprise just how loud or hard the piano can be played for real - about two years ago when recording a piece by a modertn compser that is extremely seldom performed due to the extreme demands on the part of the pianist.
Exceptions prove the rule.
Quote:
It is so demanding that the pianist refused to play it for me in order to set the recording levels right during the rehearsal. I did adjust for about - 4 dBFS ( please note when recording DSD, there is no brick wall at 0 dB as with PCM, there is yet 3 dB headroom over 0 dBFS available without objectionable distortion ) - in effect, giving me 7 dB headroom above anything played at the rehearsal.
Every recording engineer I know leaves at least 10 to 12 dB headroom from the highest peak to 0 dBFS. Granted, you couldn't adjust for the extremely loud part, but in that case you should have added even more headroom, maybe 20 dB.. instead you went for 7 dB???
Quote:
Come the concert ... all peak LEDs turned red ! When trying to ressurect that piece, a guesstimate of about + 8 dB was made, according to the general trend seen on the computer ...
Is there a proper recording of that piece? What's the name of it? It's kinda funny how it is performed "extremely seldom" and that there probably is no proper recording.. I'm not saying your story isn't true or is, but I cannot be sure. (See my signature for anecdotal evidence.)
Quote:
Regarding high frequency overtones - I might well have said upper midrange overtones. There are numerous mechanisms to distort the sound of the piano, from microphone through all amplification to the end transducer, be it headphone or speaker.
Ok, that's a different matter which I agree with. But some headphones can reproduce square waves (and some electronica tracks make use of them) very well. I'd argue that these tracks are a lot more demanding than the sound of a piano, having very low crest factors and lots and lots of bass.
Quote:
Please note that commercially available CDs which I assume you have used to measure their dynamic range, were subject to mastering, with further losses of fidelity along the way. The first to suffer is the dynamic range.
But I also checked the ones you suggested in #7 and no, the dynamic range is not greater. It's mostly in the ~40 to 50 dB range. I also checked some high-res "audiophile HD" files..
Quote:
Level of overtones ABOVE 20 kHz, which is accepted as high frequency limit of hearing of humans, is really minuscule - but it does make the difference. I guess it is on average below 1 % in amplitude vs "main sound" - but is the same as salt in soup - totally without it is soup not tasty for most people, too salted is undegestible.
Why is every analogy I encounter on this forum flawed? Salt is a very basic ingredient. Missing salt is like a roll-off at 10 kHz.
Let me try another analogy: the overtones above what is audible (an optimistic ~20 kHz) are like the decorative things at the edge of the plate that you do not eat.
Quote:
It is this extension above 20 kHz that allowed analog to survive and return in ever bigger numbers - CD just would not allow for the correct presentation of recorded acoustics, for which correct phase and therefore frequency response is mandatory - CD with the brick wall filtering above 20 kHz is inherently uncapable of doing it.
No it is the FUD spread about digital audio by analog equipment manufacturers/advocates to keep it alive. Or all the distortions/noises analog equipment adds to the sound that some people like / are used to (they call it "warmth"). There are many more reasons, but audio quality or high-fidelity isn't one of them as much as vinyl lovers would like to tell us otherwise.
It's funny that you mention phase and frequency response. The lowpass filter in DACs has
linear phase. The frequency response is absolutely flat from at least 20 Hz to 20 kHz, unlike vinyl where "Frequency deviations of 5-10 dB or greater are not uncommon in the 20 kHz range for many records." and "playback of ultrasound frequencies is still not guaranteed" for a plethora of reasons. And btw, the filter has to attenuate stuff at and above 22.05 kHz, not at 20 kHz.
Quote:
If you do not believe me - try it by yourself. If you want to improve the quality of your bass, the right thing to do, provided your woofers are at least respectable in the first place, is to add - supertweeter. Of course, you have to feed it with a source that extends above 20 kHz - ruling out the CD. With analog and emerging high resolution digital supporting frequency response above 20 kHz, it does make sense - just check the catalog of Tannoy, for example; they would not be offering supertweeters if there were no fire behind this smoke, they have far too good reputation to jeopardize it by someone calling them just greedy for offering supertweeters for nothing but profit to themselves and no gain to the buyers.
This is a pretty weak argument. Denon sells an "audiophile ethernet cable" for $500 that is a measly 1.5m long. I guess I do not need to mention that most of these ridiculous products are targetet at "engrained" audiophiles, not pro-audio/studios ... They are not jeopardizing their reputation by serving a small but highly profitable segment. There actually doesn't have to be an audible gain to the buyers, bias and placebo effects are strong enough to justify such purchases. It even works for companies that sell cheap cables at crazy prices.
Do you have any independently confirmed ABX tests to link to that show the effect of supertweeters? I read somewhere that the high-frequency noise can cause distortions in the audible frequency range, but this sounded more like a hypothesis than anything else.
Also, by adding such a supertweeter you also have to add another crossover, causing possible audible phase and frequency response distortion. Ouch!
Quote:
It is funny how people think that an audio device will sound sharper/harsher if it has more extended frequency response. Exactly opposite is true - the more extended the rsponse, the more naturally rounded "nothing to comment upon" sound emerges. Want proof ? Go to the
http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html
You can download the same music in multitude of formats/resolutions. The best you can do at home is to listen to DSD download played on DSD recorder or DSD DAC - no DXD devices commercially available that are known to me. And you can proceed from there to PCM - from 192/24 to lower resolutions.- at least they had it available not so long ago.
Or go to Linn Records http://www.linnrecords.com/linn-downloads.aspx and download various PCMs of the same piece of music - from 192/24 down to the MP3 - you can play these with foobar2000 - and hear the difference for yourself. The lower the resolution, the sharper/harsher the sound.
I've looked at the 2l test files years ago, and did again today. DXD or DSD, I've tried both. If you subtract a resampled to 44.1 kHz file from the high sample-rate file and look at the remaining signal, there are a couple of things to note:
- the rms amplitude of the remaining signal is extremely low, some files showed about -80 dB average to below -100 dB minimal
- even if these remaining signal components were in the range of audible frequencies, they would be masked big time
- except for a few blips of weird noise, it is just white noise ... *pfffffffffffffffffffffffft* (made audible by shifting the frequencies)
I don't trust Linn anymore, after they've published differently mastered files of the supposedly same track (44.1/16 and 24/96 as far as I can remember) for people to hear the difference between the
formats. Jeez, even the waveforms showed clearly visible differences.