How many bits are really meaningful?

[fas42]

Frank, what about SACD?

Yes, SACD can hold musical information above 20kHz, but do "normal" instances of such actually have musically significant, real, not noise, information there? Perhaps Bruce can answer with a more thorough answer, but in the instances I looked at, the Redbook and hi res, SACD versions were identical; the latter just had a very high frequency, above 20kHz, noise or buzz added to the signal, which was constant along the track.

Frank

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Yes Tim, but what you can actually hear down below, in your own hearing range,
is directly affected by what's going on up there.
[It effects the audible listening range.]

How? I've yet to read an explanation of this alleged phenomenon that gave a good answer. The typical answer is overtones in the audible range, generated by super sonic fundamentals. That one certainly needs to be thought through.

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

How? I've yet to read an explanation of this alleged phenomenon that gave a good answer. The typical answer is overtones in the audible range, generated by super sonic fundamentals. That one certainly needs to be thought through.

Tim

Just ask John Atkinson, the Stereophile's editor, and a member right here at WBF.
He can certainly refer you to some great articles on this subject; and with measurements.
He's one of the ones, among others, I learned myself from.

* What I know: A high frequency range of informations is highly desirable, as it will clarify what you hear directly into the midrange audio frequency.
And the higher the distortions are rejected into that super high frequency range, the less distortion is going to effect the lower and audible range.

One word: CLARITY.

 

[NorthStar]

Yes, SACD can hold musical information above 20kHz, but do "normal" instances of such actually have musically significant, real, not noise, information there? Perhaps Bruce can answer with a more thorough answer, but in the instances I looked at, the Redbook and hi res, SACD versions were identical; the latter just had a very high frequency, above 20kHz, noise or buzz added to the signal, which was constant along the track.

Frank

I'm not an expert on audio frequency range from musical audio signals.

But somehow I do believe that in real life, ultra high audio signals exist and they help to concentrate better on what is audible to the normal human ear.

I read few articles in the past on this subject, and I'm sure your best friend can help you out; Google.

If a microphone can capture real audio events with the full 'gamme' of sounds and their harmonics,
and a machine can store it fully and properly, you'll gain access (getting closer) to the holy grail of audio ecstasy (NIRVANA).
This is the technical aspect of it; but it also helps to propulse the emotional impact in combination with the artist and his art.

I'm not a technical type of person that much; I'm more the philosophical type.
And it takes more than just technology and philosophy to create a scientific evidence.

Frank, welcome to the new world! :b

 

[fas42]

I like your philosophy, Bob, if it works for you that's what counts. But I've come at all this audio stuff from a different angle, and it's worked very well for me: "nirvana" comes when the playback system is working properly, minimal distortion at realistic sound levels and below. I've found that recordings that are a million miles from having all that high frequency information there, typically because they were made 70 years ago or older, can be brought to life if all the right "tweaking" is applied to the setup.

But that's all on hold at the moment: the poor ol' HT has been spluttering a bit lately. The same problem that visited me earlier on has come back savagely now, a rather complex all-in-one volume control chip has gone totally quiet for 3 days now, giving it a good crack across the head is not bringing it back to life, and it is just not going to be worthwhile trying to slot in a replacement chip. So a "last" try tomorrow, then consider my options: there are about 4 or 5 other sets of gear that can be brought onto line; it will be a right pain having to switch to another combination because I'll have to tweak them up to the same level as I've got now, but it's probably the sensible way to go ...

Frank

 

[NorthStar]

Frank, excuse my asking but do you do drugs?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Just ask John Atkinson, the Stereophile's editor, and a member right here at WBF.
He can certainly refer you to some great articles on this subject; and with measurements.
He's one of the ones, among others, I learned myself from.

* What I know: A high frequency range of informations is highly desirable, as it will clarify what you hear directly into the midrange audio frequency.
And the higher the distortions are rejected into that super high frequency range, the less distortion is going to effect the lower and audible range.

One word: CLARITY.

I'mmin favor of clarity, but none of that is an answer to this:
'

Yes Tim, but what you can actually hear down below, in your own hearing range,
is directly affected by what's going on up there.
[It effects the audible listening range.]

The high frequency range is desirable, so is Salma Hayek. But I can't reach her and human hearing can't hear above 20k. I don't know about the distortions argument. Do you have any links?
,
Tim

 

[fas42]

Frank, excuse my asking but do you do drugs?

Well, Bob, I could ask you the same question :b:b, but no, in the conventional sense such things have never been my cup of tea. My "drug" is having a creative, curious and investigative mind that's not scared of thinking "outside the square"; you could say one of my "heroes" is that lateral thinking chappie, de Bono.

One thing I have never, ever been interested in is following the pack; I'm happy to watch the general gaggle following the loudest, most assertive individual down the road, leaving me to work out my own solutions in my own space ...

Frank

 

[NorthStar]

How can we get John Atkinson here Tim? ...I think he can be my savior. :b

Another idea: Googling Audio - Why is it good to have a high frequency range of sound informations, way above the normal 20 kHz human audible range?

Lesse what comes out of it...

 

[NorthStar]

Thanks Frank for your honest answer! :b

I don't do drugs either, and I don't drink no more (or very rarely), and never in front of a computer.
I drink perhaps six beers, per year! ...And maybe one or four bottles of wine in that same period!

We're both very good to go then!

* As you probably noticed Frank, it is very unusual for me to be here at this time of the day (night for me). And it won't be something that you'll see frequently.

_______________________

But to be back on track; I still believe that 20 Bits is all you truly need. ...But I can be wrong too.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Frank, excuse my asking but do you do drugs?

I've never actually considered this one. I figured it was either...

a) Very powerful imagination/extremely high susceptibility to expectation bias.

b) Deaf as a post and filling in the blanks with his mind (a minor twist on a, I know)

c) One of the many music lover who thinks audiophiles are ridiculous, executing the longest trolling practical joke in the history of the internet (a variation of an old guy pretending to be a hot young chick on a dating/networking site).

d) Just the opposite of what you asked; he is off his meds.



Tim

 

[Steve Williams]

I like your philosophy, Bob, if it works for you that's what counts. But I've come at all this audio stuff from a different angle, and it's worked very well for me: "nirvana" comes when the playback system is working properly, minimal distortion at realistic sound levels and below. I've found that recordings that are a million miles from having all that high frequency information there, typically because they were made 70 years ago or older, can be brought to life if all the right "tweaking" is applied to the setup.

But that's all on hold at the moment: the poor ol' HT has been spluttering a bit lately. The same problem that visited me earlier on has come back savagely now, a rather complex all-in-one volume control chip has gone totally quiet for 3 days now, giving it a good crack across the head is not bringing it back to life, and it is just not going to be worthwhile trying to slot in a replacement chip. So a "last" try tomorrow, then consider my options: there are about 4 or 5 other sets of gear that can be brought onto line; it will be a right pain having to switch to another combination because I'll have to tweak them up to the same level as I've got now, but it's probably the sensible way to go ...

Frank

we are all still waiting for that 2.4 Kw amp that you are designing Frank

 

[fas42]

or,

e) Is actually onto something ...

This last of course is very scary, so we'd better just forget it; how 'bout we just shake on that, eh?

Steve, sorry to disappoint you for the moment, but I did take Tim seriously on his comments about attempting to reverse this invidious nonsense of overuse of compression on current music, so the high power amp has been put on hold for the moment: over the last month I've been flat out working on understanding what's needed to be done to achieve a fixing of music vandalism; making pretty good progress, though just had a week where it was slow going. Hopefully in a couple of weeks I'll have some samples which give an indication of what's possible. Tim, you will be pleased: I've got a 30 sec clip of "Magic" to play with, we'll see how it comes out ...

And some other good news: the HT threw off its sulks this morning, back to life again. At the moment pumping out a new Pat Benatar CD at subjectively near PA levels, good stuff!!

Frank

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

or,

e) Is actually onto something ...

This last of course is very scary, so we'd better just forget it; how 'bout we just shake on that, eh?

Every bit as frightening, and credible, as the possibility of some unknown, unqualified guy in his basement discovering the secret of the universe, Frank. If I thought you were on to something, I'd be listening instead of poking holes in your arguments. You're not even on the right page. I'm sitting over here on the other side of the world, with a degree in English and a career in marketing and I know better than to buy your line. The engineers among us must be having a good laugh.

But hey, I've been wrong before. Send me the decompressed files of Magic.

Tim

 

[Bruce B]

But hey, I've been wrong before. Send me the decompressed files of Magic.
Tim

I'd love to hear them as well..

(waiting with baited breath.... had shrimp for dinner)!

 

[fas42]

Every bit as frightening, and credible, as the possibility of some unknown, unqualified guy in his basement discovering the secret of the universe, Frank. If I thought you were on to something, I'd be listening instead of poking holes in your arguments. You're not even on the right page.

If you'd been reading between the lines of what a number of people throw up now and again in terms of their listening experiences, you'd certainly be aware that I'm not discovering any great new secret; it's been done over and over again by others, also accidentally, and to varying degrees. The difference between them and me is that I decided a long time ago to try and understand what's going on, to really try and nail the environment and criteria that are necessary, and I'm still on that journey. Unfortunately, I've never been in the right cirumstances to throw lots of resources - time, money and personal space - at the problem ...

Now if I had qualifications in English and marketing maybe I would have a better chance of persuading you: also, as I mentioned before, you could always give me a ring ...

Frank

 

[NorthStar]

I've never actually considered this one. I figured it was either...

a) Very powerful imagination/extremely high susceptibility to expectation bias.

b) Deaf as a post and filling in the blanks with his mind (a minor twist on a, I know)

c) One of the many music lover who thinks audiophiles are ridiculous, executing the longest trolling practical joke in the history of the internet (a variation of an old guy pretending to be a hot young chick on a dating/networking site).

d) Just the opposite of what you asked; he is off his meds.



Tim

Sounds pretty much like a drug addict to me Tim! :b

* Frank, we're just having some fun, with you; no harm meant. :b

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

If you'd been reading between the lines of what a number of people throw up now and again in terms of their listening experiences, you'd certainly be aware that I'm not discovering any great new secret

Incidents of audio Satori? I've not only read of them, Frank, I've witnessed them; I've experienced them. We agree that it doesn't require remarkable equipment to achieve these breakthroughs. We disagree that the equipment is the source of the experience. I mean this in the most positive, respectful, supportive possible way, Frank -- It's all in your head. Enjoy.

Tim

 

[Ron Party]

I'm not aware of any objective proof of the audibility of those UHFs but there has been scant research in this area. There was one study purporting to show audibility but that study has never been successfully replicated and many in the scientific community have surmised the author misinterpreted the results. This study has already been discussed here at WBF over a year ago.

Dr. Olive had a great line: the only people who care about ultra high frequencies are bats and batty audiophiles.

The high frequency range is desirable, so is Salma Hayek. But I can't reach her and human hearing can't hear above 20k.

Tim

Precious!

 

[NorthStar]

Soooo, those super tweeters (50 kHz), are simply obsolete?