[StanD]

And the reliable evidence to support the above apparently unsupported claims is exactly where?Without reliable evidence the above is just heavy breathing, bragging, pontification, speculation, you pick the uncomplementary word.I'd bet money that if you were forced to save your life by ABXing a bunch of well-made MP3s from the high resolution recordings that for this test we will make them from, there would be a whole lot of random guessing followed by the unfortunate demise of someone we all know and love but know better to take his words at face value.

Bookman doesn't require evidence, for his purposes, his imagination is sufficient.

 

[arnyk]

  XXXXXXX doesn't require evidence, for his purposes, his imagination is sufficient.

 
The phrase "Legend in his own mind" comes to mind somehow...

 

[StanD]

   
The phrase "Legend in his own mind" comes to mind somehow...

Most of his statements defy logic and yet they keep on coming. At first they were somewhat humerous, now they give me a headache. 

 

[XenHeadFi]

 
I have lurked for a bit on Head-Fi and have read my of the topics in the Sound Science subsection. I admit that I have not fully read this thread, and my points may have already been discussed in the previous pages.
 
 
The problem I have with many of these "format wars" is the lack of a suitable control. I have a good understanding of the scientific process. Here I will make an appeal to authority: I have a PhD and have published in peer-reviewed journals researching molecular biology, bioinformatics, and molecular genetics. My first thought was that the master recording would be a suitable control/reference, however, this lead me to the "elephant in the room" that I have not seen discussed.
 
I would think that one of the biggest constraints in recording is how the sounds are actually...err..recorded: the source of sound, the recording equipment and storage media. I assume that capturing the sound produced by people mechanically (playing instruments, singing, etc) is being done by a microphone. So, how good are studio microphones? Are they good enough to take advantage of a >16bit / >44.1khz waveform? I am admittedly naive in what happens during recording sessions, but to me, the weakest link is that first device, the microphone.
 
To remove the microphone, we can take "sound recording" to the other extreme, all digital, like what Wendy Carlos did and still does. With modern computational clusters and their immense processing capacity, someone could craft a digitally pure waveform of a simulated string quartet in standard seating arrangement that, potentially, should be able to take advantage of the latest greatest audio format. Technically, this is not a "sound" yet, but I ask that you can grant me this latitude in the definition. Also, the simulated instruments would have to produce suitable harmonics from 0 Hz to 384 KHz (or higher?) that will be stored in the waveform at the highest resolution format (32bit/384KHz?). Remember, this is a test of audio resolution and, at this stage, should not be limited to what is generally accepted as audible. 
 
Now transform this reference master "recording" to the different audio resolutions, all the way down to 16/44.1 and send it out as loss-less files that can support such content. I propose the venerable WAV format, which can handle up to 32 bits, 4.3 GigaHertz (~4,300,000 KHz) sample rate, and a maximum file size of 4GB. The WAV would be compressed by a suitable loss-less algorithm (LZMA/7Z/ZIP/etc). Now, we would have suitable files to test, and hopefully something that has been missing in many of these kinds of discussion, access to the unprocessed master waveform as a reference.
 
These files could also be used for other tests, not just audio resolution.

 

[icebear]

Welcome to head-fi, nice first post

I am not familiar with Wendy C. I listen acoustic music mostly, jazz and classic. I just like the sound better and prefer live recordings in a natural room with everyone playing in one session and not something stitched together from multi track tapes or even completely generated with a computer. That being said, I agree that the microphone might be the weakest link, right next to choice of microphone and placement of the same

.
 
The entire discussion about testing and finding evidence will never get us anywhere.
The relevant question is not if there is a difference (of course if you look [listen] close enough you will find differences in everything) but if the quality currently offered and the format is satisfying and convenient to use for >90% of the consumers. That is not an actual question, I guess

.
 
What's the market share of music in higher rez. format >16/44.1 ?

 

[StanD]

@XenHeadFi Wendy Carlos works with Synthesizers which do not create the same quality of harmonic nuances that are found in natural instruments. Samplers are recordings so we're back to microphones and pickups. So don't sell modern microphones and instrument pickups short. Once one has a good recording creating playable product of different formats and resolutions is what we need to do. That's doable.

 

[jcx]

microphones for recording are often chosen for their "sound" - frequency response, sensitivity, directivity all are taken into account by a pro selecting and positioning mics in a recording session
 
some vocal mics may start to roll off < 14 kHz, many more smaller condenser mics are pretty flat to around 20 kHz and one company does advertise a 50 kHz mic in its specialized "drum kit" package
 
in large performance venues for Symphonic music and others air's increasing attenuation of high frequencies rolls off very high audio frequencies before they reach the audience
 
modern close micing individual performers/instruments practice regularly captures high audio frequencies that wouldn't reach typical audience listening position
 
 
there are few suggestive controlled human listening  studies indicating the need for > 20 kHz - and some of those few have been shown to be flawed - actual "conventional audio" frequency differences were caused by the "ultrasonic" content mixing down in speaker or amplifier nonlinearities
 
so far no one is revising Psychoacousitc textbook human hearing sensitivity curves showing a steep drop by 20 kHz for the young college age populations most often tested - and age and hearing damage fairly quickly reduce most people's upper audio frequency sensitivity 

 

[XenHeadFi]

Welcome to head-fi, nice first post

I am not familiar with Wendy C. I listen acoustic music mostly, jazz and classic. I just like the sound better and prefer live recordings in a natural room with everyone playing in one session and not something stitched together from multi track tapes or even completely generated with a computer. That being said, I agree that the microphone might be the weakest link, right next to choice of microphone and placement of the same

.
 
What's the market share of music in higher rez. format >16/44.1 ?

 
Thanks! Wendy Carlos created the original TRON soundtrack from the 1980's. Whether you'll like it or not, you never know until you try. 

 (I have my guess, but I would not want to implant a bias!)
 
No idea about market share and availability, however I thought this thread is about audio resolutions. Personally, I would love to see the science of audio updated a bit from down here at the consumer level. I admit I have no idea what is cutting edge acoustical research, so maybe they are already doing this kind of stuff.
 

  @XenHeadFi Wendy Carlos works with Synthesizers which do not create the same quality of harmonic nuances that are found in natural instruments. Samplers are recordings so we're back to microphones and pickups. So don't sell modern microphones and instrument pickups short. Once one has a good recording creating playable product of different formats and resolutions is what we need to do. That's doable.

 
Yes, synths as we know them are usually pretty artificial, but what I was inferring from "computational cluster" is a full on simulation of sound. Think of digital effects in movies. Many are pure digital constructs and when successfully done, you won't even know they were there. That visual simulation (rendering) has gotten to the point where they implement both photons AND waves of light. If you can simulate waves of light, you can start thinking about waves of sound, too. Also, the "quality of harmonic nuances" is why the simulation should be carried out to an extreme level of 0 Hz to 384 KHz if possible. I'm guessing that range should encompass just about any harmonic interactions from natural instruments.
 
Also, my suggestion was a way to remove "what is a good recording?" from the test. Think of the debates that would cause! Theoretically, minor variations in attack/sustain/decay could also be simulated to make the sound more natural. Computational power is probably not the limiting factor for such a project.

 

[XenHeadFi]

 
there are few suggestive controlled human listening  studies indicating the need for > 20 kHz - and some of those few have been shown to be flawed - actual "conventional audio" frequency differences were caused by the "ultrasonic" content mixing down in speaker or amplifier nonlinearities
 
so far no one is revising Psychoacousitc textbook human hearing sensitivity curves showing a steep drop by 20 kHz for the young college age populations most often tested - and age and hearing damage fairly quickly reduce most people's upper audio frequency sensitivity 

 
So recent studies were considered flawed...a good reason not to update textbooks. However, I do think the technology is now available to test again.

 

[castleofargh]

/!\ IRONY WARNING /!\  (any flawed reasoning resembling some from a real character would be coincidental, and I'll deny it in a court of headfi justice!)
 
 
if you use 2 microphones instead of 1 for the same sound, you get twice the data. do the math, it's better quality!
dr chesky doesn't even understand the basics with his binaural records, real highres has at least 10 microphones per instrument, and you could never render all this inside 16/44-16/48!

 

[castleofargh]

 

 
there are few suggestive controlled human listening  studies indicating the need for > 20 kHz - and some of those few have been shown to be flawed - actual "conventional audio" frequency differences were caused by the "ultrasonic" content mixing down in speaker or amplifier nonlinearities
 
so far no one is revising Psychoacousitc textbook human hearing sensitivity curves showing a steep drop by 20 kHz for the young college age populations most often tested - and age and hearing damage fairly quickly reduce most people's upper audio frequency sensitivity 

 
So recent studies were considered flawed...a good reason not to update textbooks. However, I do think the technology is now available to test again.

 
you know I put myself in their shoes sometimes. if I could notice the added whatever from high sample rate, or truly could hear when a song lacks ultrasounds. oh boy! but I would go through all the existing test methods to try and get one that can prove it to the world. I'd be so exited from the idea, no way I wouldn't try everything and then some more. I would get the Guinness record for highest frequency heard, and each time I would go 2khz higher. I'd be the sergey bubka of ultrasound, breaking the world record more than 30times! I'd be famous like a kardashian without having to make a sex tape. total glory!
 
 some of the guys positive they can tell when it's not highres are pros. pros can be ignorant, pros can have a system with high IMD, and pros can have an agenda, but still they make noise on the matter so they're invested in the idea. several of those guys have the mean to test a great many things if they really wanted to. you think neil young couldn't make a campaign and get funding to show how highres is the bomb? it would take him 5 phone call and 2 tv shows.
 
so why do you suppose we do not hear much about tests on ultrasounds or the audible benefits of higher sample rates outside of 2 papers by the same japanese guy? with the first one proved to be faulty and the second one being strangely specific on the ways to get a positive result(real loud ultrasounds, and not alone but with other music, and not asking people, but looking at their brain... ) why nothing more than this?
I see a few possible reasons:
-1/ the industry knows perfectly well how things really are, just like any audiologist.
 
-2/ they did try a lot of things, failed all proper tests, and would rather not tell that they just spent a month and 50people to prove  they were wrong.
 
-3/ those who can hear ultrasounds are space aliens, agencies all over the world work with the NSA and area 51. the NSA doesn't care about humans, they're tracking everybody to find the invaders! snowden is in mission for the NSA to create a cover so that aliens don't suspect a thing.  they set traps by opening a topic on ultrasounds, track online those who admit hearing something, find them and kill them! then they affect an agent that will keep pretending to be the dead alien and try to contact other aliens by means of talking about ultrasounds online and play world of warcraft.
 
I believe that covers the question as to why we don't have more tests to look for ultrasound hearing and the importance of high sample rate for the listener.

 

[StanD]

   
Thanks! Wendy Carlos created the original TRON soundtrack from the 1980's. Whether you'll like it or not, you never know until you try. 

 (I have my guess, but I would not want to implant a bias!)
 
No idea about market share and availability, however I thought this thread is about audio resolutions. Personally, I would love to see the science of audio updated a bit from down here at the consumer level. I admit I have no idea what is cutting edge acoustical research, so maybe they are already doing this kind of stuff.
 
 
Yes, synths as we know them are usually pretty artificial, but what I was inferring from "computational cluster" is a full on simulation of sound. Think of digital effects in movies. Many are pure digital constructs and when successfully done, you won't even know they were there. That visual simulation (rendering) has gotten to the point where they implement both photons AND waves of light. If you can simulate waves of light, you can start thinking about waves of sound, too. Also, the "quality of harmonic nuances" is why the simulation should be carried out to an extreme level of 0 Hz to 384 KHz if possible. I'm guessing that range should encompass just about any harmonic interactions from natural instruments.
 
Also, my suggestion was a way to remove "what is a good recording?" from the test. Think of the debates that would cause! Theoretically, minor variations in attack/sustain/decay could also be simulated to make the sound more natural. Computational power is probably not the limiting factor for such a project.

I used to work with Electronic Music Synthesizers and knew Wendy as well as when she was Walter. She used Moog Modular Series which is a Subtractive Synthesizer. The control of harmonics and envelopes with such a device is predictable but limited. Predictable meaning easy for a musician to create sounds by understanding how the different modules work and the harmonic content of waveforms. These were analog computers.

 

[XenHeadFi]

  I used to work with Electronic Music Synthesizers and knew Wendy as well as when she was Walter. She used Moog Modular Series which is a Subtractive Synthesizer. The control of harmonics and envelopes with such a device is predictable but limited. Predictable meaning easy for a musician to create sounds by understanding how the different modules work and the harmonic content of waveforms. These were analog computers.

 
Wow. In my response to you I had a bit about my thoughts on Wendy Carlos' work, but I deleted it. I really enjoyed reading her blog as it was very informative and was a history of the beginnings of digital audio as written by someone who was right there. Fascinating reading to me. Too bad it hasn't been updated since 2009. I really enjoyed Switched-On Bach; like classical is to rock, Switched-On Bach is to electronica. I also have Boston Baroque performing Bach's Brandenburg Concertos on Telarc CDs (remember when DDD was actually something audiophiles looked for?). However, I thought her Switched-On Bach 2000 hit the "Uncanny Valley" for audio, which will probably happen if someone could simulate a string quartet. Still, I think it would make for very good reference material.

 

[StanD]

   
Wow. In my response to you I had a bit about my thoughts on Wendy Carlos' work, but I deleted it. I really enjoyed reading her blog as it was very informative and was a history of the beginnings of digital audio as written by someone who was right there. Fascinating reading to me. Too bad it hasn't been updated since 2009. I really enjoyed Switched-On Bach; like classical is to rock, Switched-On Bach is to electronica. I also have Boston Baroque performing Bach's Brandenburg Concertos on Telarc CDs (remember when DDD was actually something audiophiles looked for?). However, I thought her Switched-On Bach 2000 hit the "Uncanny Valley" for audio, which will probably happen if someone could simulate a string quartet. Still, I think it would make for very good reference material.

A lot of the Electronic Music of the 60s and earlier were mostly bleeps, blops and tape splicing. Wendy took a risk of recording her renditions of classical music (OK, Baroque, Switched on Bach) and finally came out of it electronic music that normal people could enjoy as music. By the way, the oscillators on a Moog Modular Sythesizer of that day drifted like crazy so it was good to keep one's environment temperature stable.

 

[interpolate]

As featured in Clockwork Orange. William ørbit did something similar in the 90's with electronically recreating classical music.