How I Learned to Stop Worrying ...

[tfarney]

"Such a Shame..........

 

then, that less than 4.5% (4Q08 - Gartner) of the global pc market belongs to Apple! That's even less than Toshiba! Despite your best efforts, Ash, it seems that 95% of us are still buying those dang, pesky, inferior PC's!

 

What is to be done with us! ;)"

 

There's nothing to be done other than help you find the right drivers and software to keep your audio bit-perfect, which is not something that Windows does on its own. I understand, however, that it isn't that hard to get Widows to do the right thing in this regard, and once you do, bit perfect is bit perfect and, IMHO, software doesn't "sound," so you should be on level ground with us Apple users (I'm not sure about eq...).

 

Well, at least until all those windows MS leaves open allow your virtual house to get so full of digital vandals, bandits and door-to-door salesmen that it is not able to function well enough to play a music file. My wife's Dell is long past that point. It's time for me to back up her files, re-set the whole thing to factory standards, and start all over again. Or, as would be much more emotionally gratifying some days, drag it out onto the lawn, beat it into fragments with a sledge hammer and go buy another Apple.

 

Tim

 

[Ashley James]

Bob

 

This is perhaps more relevant: http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/04/01/analyst-apples-us-consumer-market-share-now-21-percent/

 

Apple is also more than half the size of Microsoft and enjoying unprecedented growth. It may overtake them in a couple or three years and it is dominant in Music, Media, Video processing, Pixar productions and on and on. It is a better source for a hi fi system and home Media system and better made, better designed and easier to service than most hi end and pretty much all PCs.

 

Meanwhile there are rumours of huge job losses at Microsoft, share prices are falling (almost at the rate Apple's are rising), Vista is a flop, revenue is falling because not every Netbook comes with XP in it as Linux moves in and on and on and on. Microsoft is facing hard times because it isn't as good a product as Apple is.

 

The evidence is clear for all to see, but as is always the case, not everyone does.

 

Ash

 

We've still got two Dells to remind of the misery that computers were!

 

 

 

[Tog]

You could of course wait for windows

7 to sort out your audio but that would be a bit like waiting for Atilla the Hun to sort out his anger management issues. Apple stuff just works and as I type this onthe same Ipod Touch that I use to control my Macbook Pro which doubles as a music server streaming from my Imac which doubles as a business machine running on an Airport network that has never given me as much as five minutes grief...I can't imagine using PCs. Indeed mywork HP laptop needs constant intensive care just to stay operational and feels like it was thrown together by the village idiot.

 

No you stay with your PC..

 

Yours, in the orchard tog

 

[AV-OCD]

Ash wrote: "60-80 Hz is bass, 1.5 - 3 kHz is high treble and you won't hear much above this frequency."

 

Really? I'd consider 3KHz to be upper midrange and 13-16KHz to be high treble. And I hear plenty above 3KHz. In fact I adjusted the PEQ in my prepro up 2dB at roughly 13KHz to increase the definition of the sound at my listening seat.

 

 

 

 

[Ashley James]

Tim - I've posted this quite a few times before but here we go again.

 

Human hearing peaks up at 3 kHz (although by aged 35 the average male has lost 10 dB of this peak) and from them on it falls off till it is about 20 dB down at 20 kHz

 

Spectral analysis of music will show that only about 5% of the energy remains at 5 kHz.

 

Tweeters are 25 mm in diameter and this means they are very directional at 10-12 kHz, so put very little energy into the listening room at higher frequencies.

 

For all these reasons sound engineers tend to concentrate on up to 5 kHz for improving "clarity and sparkle".

 

There are reasons why you may hear some difference from an equaliser at 13-16 kHz, but it will be because of effects at lower frequencies. I think you'll get more satisfactory results if you experiment in the area I suggested.

 

[tfarney]

...as long as it is pointed right at me. Turn my head and it's gone. I think most of us can hear well above 3k. What is actually useful in reproducing music up there, and more importantly, in our brains, is another question.

 

Tim

 

[tfarney]

I think the voices in my head are in the 4 - 5 khz range, so that stuff is masked anyway.

 

What was that?

 

No. I will not. No! You put the panties on your head you sicko!

 

Oh...no head. I forgot. Sorry.

 

Tim & Friends

 

[Ashley James]

Up till now most questionable hi fi practice has been described as BS, but this moves up a few octaves to BG (Bat Guano). They communicate at these higher frequencies.

 

[mpmct]

FWIW ...

 

http://digital-recordings.com/hearing-test/www-ht-pro/ht_help_p.html

 

 

 

[AV-OCD]

Ash wrote: "There are reasons why you may hear some difference from an equaliser at 13-16 kHz, but it will be because of effects at lower frequencies."

 

I know for certain that I'm not hearing "effects at lower frequencies", not in the 3-5K range anyway. I use audio analysis software and a calibrated microphone to measure the effects of the filters I set, and the 13KHz filter I use does not extend below 9K. I experimented with the EQ in iTunes to make the rough adjustments by ear for a while (which included frequencies as low as 2KHz for the treble) and then later confirmed through measurements and more listening the best place for me to set the filters. It was only after weeks of listening that I found that the 10KHz + range was what would improve the definition of the sound without inducing excess sibilance on vocals or an overly bright sound.

 

[BobH]

You forgot to mention, in all of that gushing enthusiasm for the Golden Delicious of the computer world, that they also come with an optical output - sadly lacking in most pc's - essential for their use with certain types of speakers.

 

Yours with my microsofted bits completely squished above 3khz,

 

[Tog]

My cat cat hear frequencies well above or is it below 5erhrtz (or is it below) and claims that when he is staring into space he is really running a range of complex spacial calculus problems through his head to check for errors.

 

I had always avoided the Itunes EQ having been brainwas...sorry told that all sane audiophiles switch off all extraneous devices to make sure that nothing messes with the mojo..sorry again er ... sound quality. For years I have been switching off everything, EQ, soundcheck, lights, central heating and electric curling tongs. Then one day I forgot all that good advice, left the hall light on, left the kettle to boil and messed with a live bootleg recording (legally acquired) of Death Cab for Cutie by fiddling with EQ...and hey presto it sounded a bit better.

 

Incidentally I hear that Apple may bring out an WQ to adjust tracks for earwax..a problem some of us suffer from.

 

Yours, eerily tog

 

[Tog]

My cat cat hear frequencies well above or is it below 5erhrtz (or is it below) and claims that when he is staring into space he is really running a range of complex spacial calculus problems through his head to check for errors.

 

I had always avoided the Itunes EQ having been brainwas...sorry told that all sane audiophiles switch off all extraneous devices to make sure that nothing messes with the mojo..sorry again er ... sound quality. For years I have been switching off everything, EQ, soundcheck, lights, central heating and electric curling tongs. Then one day I forgot all that good advice, left the hall light on, left the kettle to boil and messed with a live bootleg recording (legally acquired) of Death Cab for Cutie by fiddling with EQ...and hey presto it sounded a bit better.

 

Incidentally I hear that Apple may bring out an WQ to adjust tracks for earwax..a problem some of us suffer from.

 

Yours, eerily tog

 

[AV-OCD]

I've got some great mental images of you're cat sitting in the dark doing heavy math calculations.

 

Don't fear the EQ!

 

- Tim

 

[Ashley James]

AV-OCD

Are able to use your equipment to measure the Amplitude Response of the music you are playing? If so you'll see that what there is at 5 kHz is about 5% as loud as there is at 250 Hz or middle C.

The point I'm making is that there almost nothing to equalise at 13 kHz.

Bob

The Optical digital output on Tog's Apple allows him to connect to his Cyrus DacX too. It's the preferred digital connection because it avoids electrical connection to a computer chassis

Posted by my iPod

Ash

 

[BobH]

I'll be as gentle as I can - you're cat cat is actually thinking '***k you, matey* - I'm afraid it's what they do. Cats cats are incapable of thinking anything else, when it comes to human beings. Just look into their eyes, man, pure malevolence, evil incarnate!

 

Do you not have a 'Loudness' button on the front of your radiogram? Much better solution to the earwax problem, so I'm told.

 

[Tog]

So, here's the thing, Jake (my cat) tells me the look in his eye may not be love. However, since most intelligent mammals other than man regard love as an archaic concept this is not a problem. Instead the look he gives me is one of enlightened self interest mixed with the need for a good healthcare plan.

 

It is mutually beneficial arrangement since I get free pest control and he gets subsidized dental treatment.

 

In addition BobH may be interested to learn that Jake can hear no appreciable difference between coaxial or toslink, regards jitter as an irrelevance to most modern dacs and people who use PCs as masochists.

 

He also has a mate called Smudge who believes that the orbital coordinates of the Hubble telescope may be out by as much as 0.00452 kel.

 

yours, with an adoring moggy tog

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BobH]

Even my dog knows it's 00453kel. Are you sure your cat has taken into account the calculated deviance required for moon jitter? Ha! Thought not!

 

And as for your ridiculous assertion that PC Users are masochists, well, I never heard anything so....... Oh, alright then. Just this one, though. No more.

 

[AV-OCD]

Ash wrote: "Are able to use your equipment to measure the Amplitude Response of the music you are playing? If so you'll see that what there is at 5 kHz is about 5% as loud as there is at 250 Hz or middle C."

 

Yes, I have this capability, but it's been a while since I've done this. I seem to recall fairly regular content up to 10 - 13K. In fact, now that I think about it, I remember distinctly seeing peaks in the response at 10K when monitoring a particularly sibilant recording. When I have some time to set up my test gear, I'll give it another go across a range of music and report back.

 

[Ashley James]

Tim

 

The highest note a violin can produce is 3.2 kHz and some very large Organs have a Dog Whistle in them that goes off at just over 8 kHz. So, apart from Cymbals that do produce broad band noise, only harmonics and overtones remain above 3 kHz and if you measure the amplitude response of most music, you see only that about 5% of the energy remains at say, 5 kHz and virtually nothing by 10 kHz. However Pop record producers did go mad with EQ when CD arrived and all sorts of funny mixes appeared, some of which got past mastering engineers. Therefore you may find recordings with lots of HF in them, but they shouldn't be regarded as the norm.

 

Ears do not have a flat amplitude response, they too, peak up at 3 kHz and then roll off, they are down a massive 20 dB by 20 kHz. So the music is getting less loud, your ears less sensitive and the chances of hearing anything from a now very directional tweeter reduced to less than zilch.

 

However your ears are very sensitive indeed at 3 kHz where you probably have a passive crossover producing 1% distortion and where the sound of your amp may be harsh. Worse still you may have one that suffers from high levels of high frequency distortion, both Harmonic and intermodulation and even poor channel separation. If you do and you EQ at high frequencies, you may well hear the result at much lowers ones.

 

I hope this explanation makes sense and shows where best to apply EQ if it's needed.

 

Ash

 

[AV-OCD]

I get where you are coming from Ashley. I'm familiar with the Fletcher / Munson loudness curves, I know how directional a 1" tweeter can get above 10K, and I know that there are no musical fundamentals above 3-4K, yet . . . my ears tell me that a boost at 13K does bring more treble definition to the music, and my measurements confirm that there is no affect on the frequency response below 9K with my digital PEQ filters engaged.

 

My speakers use a high 5K crossover point to keep crossover distortion out of the midband and my amp is state of the art Class A/B design with wide bandwidth, very low distortion and excellent channel separation. It even operates in pure Class A mode for the first 30 watts. So I don't think that the amp and the speaker's crossover factor much into me being able to hear a boost at 13K.

 

I should mention though, that I was mainly after an increase in the clarity of cymbals, chimes, bells and all things that shimmer, twinkle, and sparkle . . . and I got it . . . with a boost between 9K and 16K.

 

Have you used the iTunes EQ to boost just the 16KHz band? A 3 to 6dB boost at 16KHz while listening to music is quite easy for me to hear, which according to you, should not be audible.

 

[tfarney]

I decided to test this thing out. I loaded up a really high quality recording with oodles of high-frequency overtone content (Chocktaw Hayride from Allison Krause & Union Station Live), and started messing with the EQ in iTunes.

 

Now mind you, this will do nothing to test the directionality of high frequency information, because I was listening to headphones. I'm a bit surprised; I can hear the 16khz slider. I can't hear it until I get to a 9 db boost, but I can hear it.

 

I tried a couple of more acoustic recordings, but without all the high frequency zing of dobros, mandolins and banjos -- A couple of cuts of acoustic guitar and voice from Kelly Joe Phelps and some Van Morrison. Nothing. Not even when given the full 12db boost. Didn't even augment Kelly Joe's sibilance. But with just the right recording, something is there.

 

Tim

 

[AV-OCD]

Tim -

 

I know that you've stated that you can only hear up to 14.5KHz, which may leave you wondering why you can hear the 16K slider in iTunes at all. Just thought I would mention that the bottom end of the 16K filter extends to roughly 12K, maybe a little lower. With a 9dB boost at 16K, you were probably up at least 3dB at 12K, which may have been what you were hearing rather than 16K. Either way, you heard something, "way up there".

 

I should mention that I listen to a lot of Pop, R&B, and Electronic music, so maybe this is why I find it pretty easy to hear changes when EQing the highest frequencies.

 

If you've got the time and interest, put in a close-mic'd female vocal track and play with the 8KHz slider. It should be pretty easy to hear affects on sibilance / breath and even some of the tone of the voice.

 

- The Other Tim ;-)

 

[AV-OCD]

Ash, according to several on-line sources, there are some common reasons to EQ as high as 16KHz.

 

From The Audio Engineer's Handbook: "The 6kHz to 16kHz range controls the brilliance and clarity of sounds. Too much emphasis in this range, however, can produce sibilance on the vocals."

 

http://www.digitalprosound.com/2002/03_mar/tutorials/mixing_excerpt1.htm

 

According to "RecordingEQ.com"

10KHz

1. Increase to brighten vocals.

2. Increase for "light brightness" in acoustic guitar and piano.

3. Increase for hardness on cymbals.

4. Reduce to decrease "s" sound on singers.

 

15KHz

1. Increase to brighten vocals (breath sound).

2. Increase to brighten cymbals, string instruments and flutes.

3. Increase to make sampled synthesizer sound more real.

 

http://www.recordingeq.com/Subscribe/tip/tascam.htm

 

According to the chart on the web site below, there are all sorts of harmonics that extend up to 16K.

http://www.dak.com/reviews/Tutorial_frequencies.cfm

 

[Max]

In the UK very clever tone controls were designed by Peter Baxendell and Quad and I believe the BBC used them. They were intended to correct differences in the way records sounded before widespread adoption of the RIAA curve. Peter's ideas were much copied and admired, however because circuits then had so much distortion, you could immediately hear some deterioration in sound quality if they were used. I remember in recording studios that on an SSL console, if the button to engage EQ was pressed, the character of the hiss from the Monitors changed!

 

Peter Baxandall designed the standard 'treble & bass' tone controls, providing cut & boost using a single knob for each band. I believe this circuit was designed in the early '50s, and subsequently became almost universal. The Quad 22 & 33 used these tone controls, together with a low-pass filter designed by PJ (Walker). This had switchable cutoff frequency and variable slope. It was intended not so much to reduce surface noise, as to filter out the distortion products produced from LPs at high frequencies by spherical styli. Both control units had exchangeable pickup equalisation modules to suit different pickups & recording characteristics.

 

I believe the 'tilt' control that first appeared on the 44 was also Peter Baxandall's original idea. By this time, eliptical styli & RIAA equalisation were universal, so the filtering was progressively simplified starting with the 34.

 

The tilt control was designed to compensate for over-bright or dull recordings. The bass control on the 44 & 34 was designed to equalise the in-room response of small loudspeakers: the shape of the boost & cut equalisation curves were each different from the Baxandall bass control. They used switches, not a variable control.

 

Max