Sound Stage - Is it all in the timing?

[sandyk]

Chris

 

128 MP3 is irritating to listen to on a good system. It sounds so bad, it's not even worth to bother with sound stage discussion. - One and a half

Does he have hearing damage too, or is he simply far more discerning than some ?

 

I have previously linked to the C.A. thread below. There is a good explanation as to how Mega Poop 3 works, and it's side effects..

 

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/analysis-what-goes-missing-when-you-make-mp3-files-15121/

[crisnee]

Chris

 

 

Does he have hearing damage too, or is he simply far more discerning than some ?

 

I have previously linked to the C.A. thread below. There is a good explanation as to how Mega Poop 3 works, and it's side effects..

 

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/analysis-what-goes-missing-when-you-make-mp3-files-15121/

 

Alex, please read my posts more carefully. I am always referring to high bit rate mp3 in them (320 kb or extreme VB).

 

As to whether he has hearing damage, I haven't the vaguest idea; but with low bitrate mp3 the questions I'm asking aren't relevant because the defects of said mp3s are much more easily perceived.

 

Try a little sense of humor young fella and consider that with an open mind there might be something very interesting to be learned here.

 

Chris

[crisnee]

Peter,

 

I have Magnepan speakers, the 12's. They have some interesting sound stage characteristics.

 

I sometimes sit almost between them on the floor (they're raised about 5") while doing some stretching. The sound is very interesting from there. It doesn't seem to come from the speakers although I'm very near them* but rather from a few feet in front of me, which is a few feet behind the speakers. In a sense the sound stage all though odd is more palpable from there then from my listening position.

 

*When I say near I mean they are at most a foot in front of my ears and two feet to either side of me pointed forward, not at me.

 

Anyway, that experience has caused me to experiment with their positioning as they image so very differently than other speakers I've owned.

 

Chris

[sandyk]

Try a little sense of humor young fella

 

I did, but it went right over your head !

I have had a gutful of .mp3 since way back when FM Stereo from the Sydney commercial stations first commenced initial test programs with lovely, relatively uncompressed stereo. I gave up on listening to them, and put a very nice Pioneer FM stereo tuner back in the cupboard after they started using .mp3 carts to permit unattended operation after hours.

Perhaps you whippersnappers have been brain washed into accepting increasingly poor, highly compressed audio ?

 

Alex

[PeterSt]

Accurate to what?.....what's the reference?

 

Ah, that an easy one to forget to explain ...

 

Sounds silly, but maybe it's the best explained by referring to "bit perfect" ? Not that it is is exactly that what I mean, but anyway a simple technical accuracy. Say 1:1 (source to speaker). That doesn't need a reference either because it is actually simple math. It's only that so many "things" are involved that 1:1 is not achievable, so now it comes down to the closest to 1:1.

[a mile of digital filtering issues should be at this place in the text]

 

When all those inter-related phase angle relationships are preserved all works best. Now think about the remaster and what all is done to "improve" compared to the original; Nothing is consistent now any more and this is why it stops "working". "Working" is not only a moth which doesn't want to fly any more, but it's the whole experience as well. The being there. That is, I don't know of many remasters which are for the better and I instantly know when I accidentally picked one. They don't "work" (apart from being bass heavy and what all not).

 

Accuracy as such goes so much further than we can imagine for results and you can't imagine at what detail (micro) level it operates. Remember, for me this all started out by creating that software (XXHighEnd) to indirectly influence the DAC for jitter. All noise related and how to minimize it or give it different patterns.

 

I have examples of tracks which at first played like the others, and which at some stage suddenly changed into a ridiculously "over-halled" track that fills the room from back to forth of which you are 100% sure that this can't have been intentional. But at the mixing etc. it could not be heard what was actually put in / made of it.

 

Today (and really not since all that long) almost all 70's music is behaving like that but in a different and better behaving way. There they did not destroy (or knew how to) and all what happened was a transfer from analog means to CD.

Don't confuse this with the hall kind of sound from the mid 60's (up to 71-72 or so) - that was (poor) recording devices used.

[crisnee]

RE having a sense of humor...

 

I did, but it went right over your head !

 

Alex

 

Yup, I guess it did, and it's still up there somewhere.

 

Chris

[mayhem13]

Alex,

 

I was just ribbing you about the MP3 thing, after all you made up the name it stood for. I forget what it was, but it was a good one I thought. Something like Mighty Pissy Threesome. What was it? Poop was in there I think.

 

Anyway, I'm actually very interested as to why some people can't stand it (mp3) while others don't mind it or can't hear a difference (I'm always referring to high bitrate mp3). It just doesn't make sense to me that something of interest isn't going on there. I've been thinking of starting a topic on that subject but can't think of a good way to do it without inviting all kinds of crap commentary.

 

Its occurred to me that it might have something to do with hearing damage (not the kind that aging brings on--lowering of sensitivity to high frequency), but something more like your industrially damaged hearing.

 

I've been thinking about it for some time (please don't laugh too loud or throw insults my way). One of the things Mp3 does is delete some info/sound that is supposed to be hidden by other sounds, transients and whatever. Now what if one doesn't hear those primary sounds as well because of the hearing damage; perhaps one now better hears the sounds that were mangled by the Mp3 deletion that were meant to be unheard?

 

Alex, I'm not sensitive about Mp3, I'm sensitive about the attitude around it and the folks that state they "know" what others should do/hear/see etc.

 

Chris

 

Sorry Chris, you'll likely never get an air of acceptance of high bitrate MP3 here on CA regardless of the fact that 99% of its opponents won't be able to identify the Redbook counterpart in a properly level matched blind listening test. And forget about some here acknowledging their hearing handicaps.......not gonna happen. Even though my livelihood consisted of 'listening' for 20+ years! my inability to hear the difference in USB cables and Hi bitrate files is often attributed to some kind of hearing deficiency or a lack of a more resolving playback system. Go figure?

 

Sometimes, particularly in very complex music, less can actually be more and preferred. We see this often in compressed HD video transfers where people prefer the smoother image of a compressed 1080p M4v over it's grainy BD master.

[PeterSt]

Peter,

 

I have Magnepan speakers, the 12's. They have some interesting sound stage characteristics.

 

I sometimes sit almost between them on the floor (they're raised about 5") while doing some stretching. The sound is very interesting from there. It doesn't seem to come from the speakers although I'm very near them* but rather from a few feet in front of me, which is a few feet behind the speakers.

 

Chris, That makes me think you are stretching behind the speakers, but I don't think that is the case ?

 

Anyway, maybe you read in my forum (but could be close to a year ago) that I experienced the same. Maybe that is why you are telling it now - but not important.

 

I just picked up something from the floor and noticed similar. This was in the stage the sound of Windows 8 did not want to work and I refused to adjust my speakers to that. All "phase behavior" related, and those working with W8 all complained about it one way or the other.

 

Since that occasion I know how important the height of the picture is. Well, of course it has been always, but when you feel that with your head 50cm from the floor all comes together so to speak, there must be some serious issues somewhere or otherwise you'll get them yourself (lay on the floor while listening from now on ;-).

 

When that occurred I used horn speakers, so quite the opposite of your Maggies. Still that happened, but probably more focused on some frequency range or something. But generally, this is all interaction with the ceiling. Maybe the fact that my ceiling is just hard and the floor carpeted does a few things (inconsistent "reflections" and how that comes together again - so ceiling reflections stay in-tact for "accuracy" while floor reflections smear and the both meet again in some middle).

 

In my case (or the W8 case) - and ever refusing to move my speakers because it looked like a wrong way to solve things which always were OK, in the end this was solved by software. Just make it "better" again. But here it was actually Windows 8 doing that, that in my perception being more accurate so the other "computer sh*t" start to overwhelm (for noise and much more which *is* part of this subject ... but it all takes so much explanation).

 

In your case it is very hard for me to give directions and although you could try to tilt the speakers somewhat, probably this is not going to help enough because the lower part of the speaker will hardly change its angle to the floor (relative angles won't change when looking upward to the speaker, but the lower part is more direct hence the upper part radiates more downwards because of the diffusion (this could be the wrong word, but think "spread"). So what should help better is place the speakers on some more stand (like 4" already can do wonders). If feasible of course.

 

On a side note and to see maybe better what happens :

When I have horns (mid-high) on the ear level, the sound is not coherent enough for L/R integration and besides that the stage is too low positioned (like the level my ears are and I think this is too low). When I now lower my head for 3ft all comes together for and coherency and stage height. This is all not strange stuff I think. However, when I place this horn more up, so I listen in the same normal position as before, the same thing happens. And THIS is what we should think about, because this is not so obvious already because it is harder to try (who does ?).

In my view this means that it is not just room reflections (mainly ceiling-floor) that don't work out at wrong speaker height - or better, I am from the league that things this should not matter at all - but that it is the relation of the sound source and where YOU listen. If we could envision math to work this out, but put to words, this would be my words about it :

 

My room is 3m (9ft) high. I myself am 1.86 with my ears hopefully some 15cm lower, so at 1.71. Now I sit down on a bar stool which will drop my ear height another 21 cm. So now at 1.50. This 1.50 has a relation to the 3.00 and obviously this is in the middle. That this is the middle is not important, but comes handy when thinking "math".

Analogously to the Left/Right distance story, now the speakers need to be above this 1.50 in order to position the stage more high than my 1.50 listening level. Just think beaming angles to see that. So speaker at 1.50 and stage will be at 1.50 and speaker at 1.60 and stage will be at 1.70 or so (relate the distance).

But also : Put the speaker at 1.40 and sound *should* be at 1.30 or so, but now something goes wrong between the hard ceiling and soft floor. So, sound does not drop so much because reflections from the ceiling remain more direct (and even somewhat more early because of no damping) and becomes fuzzy at the same time because the soft floor reflections *do* weigh in. Mind you, this is also inconsistent because no (reflected) phase angle will relate any more to each other although our brain will be able to interpret the damping floor. What I'm saying is : make the floor soft as well and all will work much better (make floor hard the same).

 

Please notice that this is just my usual reasoning and nothing really scientific although my experimenting with that Local Positioning System (really made with ultra sound for proto) tells a LOT. For example, have a small plant in the way of a normally on-wall reflection of a beam and positioning would not work there just because the small plant confuses (reflects earlier now than the "intended" wall).

 

In the case of large radiators all is different to begin with because it anticipates coherency "by reflection". Let's say it is due to make massive orchestral sound because floor and ceiling reflections are bound to mix on to the path to your ears and do so with small time delay between the direct sound and the reflected sound which fuzzes but also implies the massiveness.

This can better be viewed from the side wall reflections subject because you can hardly deal with that because no matter what the reflections will be there. Compare this with directional horns and how those reflections can be avoided or emphasized (I do the latter). This in itself is worth a topic alone because of the implications and desired or undesired effects (and we had one over at Phasure a couple of weeks back).

 

 

Of course all this doesn't tell a thing about the absolute best staging and it even doesn't bring much news. But I think it is good to slowly learn how things really work which at least for me is helpful. Example of that : The speakers I now own have the height as mentioned and they were explicitly build like that for the reasons mentioned. And it works (out) 100%. That this also works out for the briefly mentioned off-axis listening (elsewhere in this thread - Van der Steen and Jud) is a quite different reason to make them this height, because now you are forced to listen off axis always when listening from a normal chair.

But as you can see I now dive into again another important subject so let that be for now (the subject really *is* huge).

 

Peter

[sandyk]

Incidentally, and further to my gripe about lowering standards. In my career with Telstra (PMG Dept. originally I was able to hear great >15kHz bandwidth program feeds through Chatswood Telephone Exchange for the national broadcaster ( A.B.C)

The ABC too was eventually dumbed down to 10kHz then later on 9kHz like so many other countries . That then necessitated the use of notch filters at 9kHZ to stop the annoying heterodynes. These days, A.M. radio is mainly talk back radio and often only 5kHz bandwidth audio.

Is it any wonder that I get pissed off by dramatically reduced audio standards over the years ? They probably used panels of deaf old E.E.s using blind tests to prove that nobody could hear the differences before implementing the changes !

Now we have Digital Radio using bit rates as low as 64kBs .

[crisnee]

Peter said

"Chris, That makes me think you are stretching behind the speakers, but I don't think that is the case ?

 

Anyway, maybe you read in my forum (but could be close to a year ago) that I experienced the same. Maybe that is why you are telling it now - but not important..."

 

No, my head is in front of the speakers, but just slightly. But I wasn't talking about when my head was on the floor, rather when I was sitting up--on the floor.

 

And I don't remember your comments, so no that's not why I mentioned it. I just found it rather interesting and possibly related to the nature of the Maggies, their literal transparency.

 

Also, I'm not complaining about the sound stage from my normal position. It's fine, just not quite as visceral. It just made me want to experiment with speaker position as other speakers (smallish monitors like Titus Triangles and others) that I've owned had completely different characteristics as to sound stage. The Triangles imaging-wise, were very very good when set-up right (for me).

 

I'm just answering the beginning of your post here. It'll take me another day to read the rest of it.

 

Chris

 

 

[crisnee]

Now we have Digital Radio using bit rates as low as 64kBs .

 

I've seen/heard lower than that, 48 kbs. It's ugly.

 

Chris

[PeterSt]

This is a Scatter I had in mind for yesterday, but t needed some more preparing posts; by now I think it has become more of a real subject.

 

One of that preparing post was my (for this post) necessary mentioning of the 0.0000 degree phase angle difference between left and right I utilize. Please remember, you will not be able to do that because it is special electronics.

 

A next part of the preparation is the necessity to mention my special speakers for "some" attribute : bass directivity;

Speakers are open baffle horns, where "horn" of the bass section (3x 15") is a wave guide. Now envision this :

 

When the speakers are sufficiently toed out the bass is super airy and it really will be beyond your imagination. But what does "airy" mean in this situation ? well, that bass from left and right speaker BUT from a same instrument is totally separated. This is how the 0.0000 Phase Angle difference is important, because it is THUS not that doing this.

Now watch out :

 

When the speakers are only slightly more toed in (think now directly pointed to you instead of something like 5 degrees out) the "hole" in the middle the airiness otherwise implies - disappears and gets coherent.

So it needs that toe-in ?

I wonder.

 

What should be happening is that I allow the separate "waves" to mix and because they mix albeit with apparent minute (time ?) difference, the both (L/R) smear and now get coherent. Yes, nice, but what is not the same should not sound the same. I mean, if "not mixing" can prove that it is not the same, then nothing should be done to make that the same, no matter it feels coherent ow without hole in the middle now.

But far more importantly : nothing "works" any more. And I think it is not difficult to point out that when "super airy" is in order, the removal of that will be perceived as "does not work".

 

To be clear about what we are talking about : at any low audible frequency this happens so; Speakers go straight to 19Hz (+/-0.5dB).

 

But now think;

Since this happens for all kinds of music, so also live jazz recordings and also two-mic recordings, where was this upright bass ? was it dead in the middle ? for all what I listened to ? Not likely. Very unlikely actually. This thus means that no bass is in any middle, but microphones are (ehh, obviously bit of course think 2 mics in "stereo" position). This now means that the sound of the bass does not arrive at the same time at the left and right mic, and this should mean that this just can be perceived.

 

Intermezzo :

I have put up the quest far more often, but chances are not all that high that you will perceive a low frequency sound from one speaker only anyway. So, most of us are used to perceive basses from the middle and or think they always are, or think bass is not directional enough to let it happen otherwise. I said "most of us", with already referring to the Alpha who can do this too.

Anyway, when you perceive the basses from the middle, this little post is not for you and already there MP3 starts to be different ...

 

To be clear because it could be confusing : The bass I am talking about for this subject *is* perceived from the middle, but "just not". This is how the wave cycles from it for the left and the right speakers just don't leave at the same time, and while the, say, coherent sound comes from the middle all right, the time difference of the both wave cycles is audible.

I think or hope it will be obvious that air as such widens the stage. And if not, think of low frequency cycles not leaving at the exact same time for L/R just make the L/R speaker separately audible, and instead of a sound from the middle a mere sound from the speaker is created. And so a stage becomes the width of the speaker distance.

This is all put quite black and white (stage can also be wider than the speaker distance) but it is to give the idea.

 

Now MP3;

 

What I also told about in one of these preparing posts is that I know of no converter which is able to not imply time delay between the channels. Don't ask me how it is done and how foolish it seems, but when I put a test signal through any "filtering means", there is no 0.0000 phase angle difference any more.

Of course you understood how phase angle difference actually is plane time difference and of course you grasped the idea about the bass in this very topic.

 

And now it should also become apparent how MP3 receives the wider sound stage, if we only can believe in the "fact" (???) that for MP3 encoding it is even more difficult to keep left and right the same for the time domain because of its way more difficult/strange process.

But disclaimer : As I said in the post concerned yesterday : I never measured MP3 test signals (but maybe should by now).

 

Superfluously, for me this "staging" of MP3 is so obvious that it would allow me to I think 100% discern MP3 from lossless just by means of this staging. And, name this staging "phasing" and we're more close to the subject I think.

 

This is how it happens to me, with the 0.0000 difference as the base for lossless.

This will not happen to you (unless NOS1 involved), and you could call it funny that this time difference between the speakers is your share to begin with, and playing MP3 only changes that difference to some (?) more. Next, if you don't perceive low frequencies separately from left and right another discerning part is lost and I should add that the L/R MP3 issue is mainly in the bass (!). Probably this is logic when you sort out the masking means of MP3.

 

 

My own fun of a post like this is that nothing is as it seems.

[PeterSt]

Now we have Digital Radio using bit rates as low as 64kBs .

 

Then better be happy with that because at least nobody forces us to play that - I think.

 

Better talk about almost not audible/understandable internet telephony which more and more use (mainly companies) and which comes across with so many hurdles and noise that I seriously can't focus on the content but merely must deal with my "interpreter" to ever get what's being said.

 

Same thing over here with radio reporters who now also use the very digital internet means to get interviewed but where the syncing does not work out. So pieces go like prrrrt and other parts are completely missed or repeat at over 1 second intervals. It seems like the radio stations themselves don't hear this ? it gets worse and worse and worse.

I too can switch off those stations but the general message of course is that this is totally ridiculous.

[crisnee]

Sorry Chris, you'll likely never get an air of acceptance of high bitrate MP3 here on CA regardless of the fact that 99% of its opponents won't be able to identify the Redbook counterpart...

 

I'm not so much interested in that as I am interested in what is going on that some folks can't stand any kind of MP3 (like Alex and Teresa at CA) while others can't hear a problem or at the least don't mind it.

 

I don't believe Alex and Teresa are lying and I sure don't believe all the folks that either don't mind or can't hear a difference are deaf or uneducated as to listening. So, it seems there must be another option. I'm interested in finding out what it is; but it doesn't seem that others are. So....

 

Chris

[PeterSt]

A Scatter I wanted to put out before but forgot :

 

We could say "FWIW" but it should be the most valuable to us all;

Some people will know about my self recording of the drum kit we have here and how this ended up in some (very interesting) "Engineers you molest our Recordings !" thread in CA. This was about the infinitely better of my own against all the so many albums I have here and which intuitively are always compared to our sun practicing his drumming and "how in heaven's sake can we mimic that through speakers".

 

These recordings are from almost 4 years ago and just were "the very best ever". Now :

 

Today, those recordings are unchanged but they turned into 100% indistinguishable from the real thing. But "we" (Phasure) progressed in a couple of areas.

 

So this is not to be proud of or anything, but you have to KNOW and keep reminding that when I let you listen in the drumming room here to live drumming with quite some snare, roto's, toms of various kinds and kick drum and quite a pile of cymbals ... and I let you walk to the playback room (live drumming still continuing) which is level matched with the live drumming (110dBSPL for the cymbals) ... you will not be able to hear any difference anywhere. You just won't be able to tell where any difference is, also not for feeling on the chest etc.

 

This time I do not say this because of the relative infinitely poor recordings as we know them; this time I say it because of it being very on-topic for this thread. See next post for that.

[sandyk]

I'm not so much interested in that as I am interested in what is going on that some folks can't stand any kind of MP3 (like Alex and Teresa at CA) while others can't hear a problem or at the least don't mind it.

 

I don't believe Alex and Teresa are lying and I sure don't believe all the folks that either don't mind or can't hear a difference are deaf or uneducated as to listening. So, it seems there must be another option. I'm interested in finding out what it is; but it doesn't seem that others are. So....

 

Chris

 

Chris

What would be interesting is to compare both 320MP3 and higher res formats of the same recording through a better than average system, and see whether the preferences change or not I think much of the differences perceived may come down to the genre of the recordings and personal preferences. It may also come down to what you have been exposed to over the years. Dale, who frequently posts in the Headphone and Speakers section of the forum also believed that 320 .mp3 was indistinguishable from 16/44.1.

I provided him with DLs of a 320 mp3 and a 16/44.1 original version of "Yello-Bostich (Reflected)" and he was surprised that he could hear clear differences that he couldn't explain.

 

Alex

[sandyk]

So this is not to be proud of or anything, but you have to KNOW and keep reminding that when I let you listen in the drumming room here to live drumming with quite some snare, roto's, toms of various kinds and kick drum and quite a pile of cymbals ... and I let you walk to the playback room (live drumming still continuing) which is level matched with the live drumming (110dBSPL for the cymbals) ... you will not be able to hear any difference anywhere. You just won't be able to tell where any difference is, also not for feeling on the chest etc.

 

Peter

Seeing this isn't copyright material, do you have any of f this available for download ? Perhaps best via a PM request though if you are able to.

 

Alex

[PeterSt]

This time I do not say this because of the relative infinitely poor recordings as we know them; this time I say it because of it being very on-topic for this thread. See next post for that.

 

Aren't discussions always and ever about how the listening room contributes to the sound and how we are unable to perceive the recording space - or how both are mixed and thus messy ? or what we'd actually want to this respect ?

This all takes for granted that our room has large contribution. Now I can tell you, when things *really* starts to work, the recording room will overrule. And easily.

 

Please notice that it needs quite many more posts to give you some fundamentals and (technical) justification for this, and on my own forum there's a 300+ post thread about it. But this is how I try to hand you something which is envisionable, like plainly telling you that a full fletched drum kit just sounds 100% the same through speakers for ALL aspects. So, just believe me, and when not don't tell about it but you are invited.

 

Side note (to please see all the detail in the devils) :

I talked about this 3x 15" woofer speaker. Ok. But before that one I used a 3x 12" version of the same design, and that did *not* do for the "in the chest part". Why ? woofer surface is too small compared to the kick drum skin surface. This too has been worked out on my forum and what this comes down to is that when these kind of things don't match, sound can never be real (yes, I said real, not realistic). Mind you, this related to instruments and not an absolute measure. For example, when I'd have such a huge 25Hz "Yamamoto" etc. drum, it may be realistically sounding but it can not be real because of the inability to create the same SPL for the frequency implied (hence need more woofer surface).

 

Now if you'd be in that drumming space, which is a room of 14 x 6 meters and a roof at 4 meters (42 x 18 x 12ft) and where all is hard (floor and roof), you'd perceive a special large area hollow sound with quite some reflections and meanwhile a very good rendition of low level sounds (think like a hit no the floor tom by just dropping the stick on to it (so not smashing) sounding for over 10 seconds, not by reflections but because not damped).

 

Next envision your own listening room and how albums generally sound. Because all sounds fairly similar you tend to contribute that to your room. Like reality depicts over here, you could walk from the listening room to the drumming room. When you talk in there you will not notice something very special, hence the room is sufficiently decorated to not let it sound hollow and hearing yourself speak. All is normal. However, when the drumming starts you sure can perceive that the drumming takes place in that particular place, just because it *is* that place and all matters. Keep in mind, cymbals play at a normal 110dBSPL when smashed, and this is important for the following.

 

We now move to the playback room, level match the recording of it so again 100dBSPL come from the cymbals, and what we hear is a totally 100% drumming room. So, not only the instrument is indiscernable, the room isn't either. Nor is the staging ... (which btw was the difficult part - not to let sound the kit too wide or too small, so mic placement).

 

How come ?

 

For what the microphones received, all can be regarded direct sound. So, also the reflections of the room are for the mics direct; it doesn't know the difference. Of course what was captured is reflections largely in reality. But, the room sounds as it does to our ears, includes all the phase relations everywhere and that now ended up as a "flat file" ready to be played back.

 

The fun now is, that - at least when using a sufficiently directive speaker, the loud 110dBSPL etc. is DIRECT SOUND INCLUDING THE RECORDING ROOM REFLECTIONS. True, our room will reflect all once again, but this is lower in SPL compared to the real sound, and the real sound, well, resembles the recording room reflections already. There is just no way that our playback room wall reflections will get louder than the original.

 

This all may seem obvious to you, but in practice it hardly can be. I mean, I myself had had this as a large quest for many years, and I really really could not work it out. It is only that I started an again multi-100 post thread on my own forum named "My definition of ambiance" - and which followed the acquisition of mentioned 3x 12" speaker, that allowed me to see it (happening in practice). I think this started off with kettle drums played in a church and how they could form their lower than original frequency and which is done by the church itself etc. ... and how actually nobody with "normal speakers" could even hear the 32Hz organ pipe play (for the proposed test track).

 

The story is (thus) longer than this again, but what it comes down to is that you must be able to overrule your room's response and actually this is "easily" (ahum) done by enabling your system to do ALL right, which for this post is about the levels. So cut off the ambiance part (which is frequency approaching 20Hz easily) and other things start to prevail.

So notice : while a kick drum plays in the 38Hz area, it is the room response which makes it a "roll" towards 20Hz. This happens in the recording space (but don't damp it !!) and this happens in your playback room (taken it is insufficiently damped for that anyway). I know, this latter part is too brief for full explanation, but it can be done and I did elsewhere.

[PeterSt]

Peter

Seeing this isn't copyright material, do you have any of f this available for download ? Perhaps best via a PM request though if you are able to.Alex

 

Alex, the last thing I promised a couple of weeks back about this was to re-do the recordings but now by a professional drummer or at least by our son who is actually doing quite well these days. 4 years ago it was me but I would be too ashamed to put that up, knowing that it was me for maybe the 5th time (in life) behind the (any) kit. So you know what I mean ...

But it will be done and everybody will readily see what I mean in saying "we can try what we want but as long as recordings are so vastly molested there is not much to do".

Still the normal recordings keep on improving.

 

Regards,

Peter

[crisnee]

Chris

What would be interesting is to compare both 320MP3 and higher res formats of the same recording through a better than average system, and see whether the preferences change or not I think much of the differences perceived may come down to the genre of the recordings and personal preferences. It may also come down to what you have been exposed to over the years. Dale, who frequently posts in the Headphone and Speakers section of the forum also believed that 320 .mp3 was indistinguishable from 16/44.1.

I provided him with DLs of a 320 mp3 and a 16/44.1 original version of "Yello-Bostich (Reflected)" and he was surprised that he could hear clear differences that he couldn't explain.

 

Alex

 

I think you're right that it comes down to certain types of sounds. Some are just much more difficult for MP3 to work as well with, applause comes to mind and certain electronic sounds would also seem to be likely culprits i.e. Yello for instance.

 

BTW in case you haven't gotten it, I'm not saying there are no differences that can be heard between MP3 and higher res formats, I'm just saying that those differences are not always evident, and are minor and acceptable to many when they are.

 

What I am curious about is people that claim to hear large differences and that can't in any circumstance abide them.

 

Chris

 

Edit

 

Let me clarify minor and acceptable. I much prefer the minor differences in high bit rate MP3 over the defects of any previous format like lps, cassettes, early cds, etc. never mind a great recording in MP3 over a mediocre recording in pristine hi-res.

[PeterSt]

I provided him with DLs of a 320 mp3 and a 16/44.1 original version of "Yello-Bostich (Reflected)" and he was surprised that he could hear clear differences that he couldn't explain.

 

Assumed (mind you) that MP3 always rolls off higher frequencies (so even 320 I mean), the difference will be in the super squared parts of this track. This already makes everything "subjective" because it first needs a system which is able to play back the transients (parts of it are transients only). IOW, smear that with a nice digital filter and *that* difference is out of the way to begin with.

I know, I present it quite black and white, but it will at least be true to some extend.

N.b.: Square requires high frequency.

 

Of course this means that we must know what to exactly play in order to let submerge the differences.

Give him (or yourself) Roberta Flack and no difference may be perceived. Oh it will, but with the proper focus like on the mid-bass in "First Time ...". MP3 should show that fuzzy, while it is the most beautiful straight (and I don't mean the flanger piano, haha).

[PeterSt]

What I am curious about is people that claim to hear large differences and that can't in any circumstance abide them.

 

Psychological ?

 

Chris, this is one for you :

 

I recall that at some stage I was able to obtain the first album from King Crimson (Court of the Crimson King). Was I happy. Old days and such. It was the hires version. It was as it was and I didn't know better, also knowing that it had been maybe 40 years ago I heard it for the last time.

 

Alex this one is for you :

 

I am the hires hater.

No no, no words to be spoiled on this, but just saying before you throw it at me as an argument for this :

 

So to you both :

 

Then I found an original version, though in MP3.

WTF and how in the world was THIS possible. Mind you, for me this was one of the "oldest" albums from my youth as it was actually before my times. So THAT is how it can sound ! So open, so clean, so, well from that era with sensitivity all over - tear drawing. Really. And not lacking resolution that I could tell like from the ride cymbal.

And no single way the hires did that.

 

Later I obtained the 16/44.1 uncompressed version;

I never heard a difference with the MP3 with the notice I didn't A/B it.

 

Again for Chris :

Flutes man, flutes !!

 

 

Of course I could twist this into an "Alex, see ? hires sucks". But of course this is total nonsense.

All what happens is that again there is more if only put to the proper context plus many things are relative and ...

yes, hires sucks when someone tries to make it out of tape of 45 years or whatever old.

 

MY main point is : When I objectively listen to MP3 because the album isn't around otherwise, I hardly ever complain (but let it be 256 at least please). I am not that "psychological" guy I think. But now this :

Once any remaster is on (and in 95% of cases this is hires just the same) and this goes UNNOTICED because I just pick by the cover, this never lasts for 1 minute. I just can't bear it. This too is without A/B.

N.b.: That it's an MP3 I pick is visible so that isn't even objective (listening).

 

So ?

[crisnee]

Peter, are you sayin' the devil is in the details?

 

Chris

[crisnee]

But now this :

Once any remaster is on (and in 95% of cases this is hires just the same) and this goes UNNOTICED because I just pick by the cover, this never lasts for 1 minute. I just can't bear it. This too is without A/B.

N.b.: That it's an MP3 I pick is visible so that isn't even objective (listening).

 

So ?

 

Is it all remasters? I've found the same with some and perhaps many remasters. But I don't usually have the original to compare it to and so I think just that that's the way it is.

 

I'm wondering if it's worse for popular music as opposed to classical or even jazz. Intuitively it would make sense that pop would be more of a problem.

 

Chris

[crisnee]

Chris, this is one for you :

 

I recall that at some stage I was able to obtain the first album from King Crimson (Court of the Crimson King). Was I happy. Old days and such. It was the hires version. It was as it was and I didn't know better, also knowing that it had been maybe 40 years ago I heard it for the last time.

 

So to you both :

 

Then I found an original version, though in MP3.

WTF and how in the world was THIS possible. Mind you, for me this was one of the "oldest" albums from my youth as it was actually before my times. So THAT is how it can sound ! So open, so clean, so, well from that era with sensitivity all over - tear drawing. Really. And not lacking resolution that I could tell like from the ride cymbal.

And no single way the hires did that.

 

Later I obtained the 16/44.1 uncompressed version;

I never heard a difference with the MP3 with the notice I didn't A/B it.

 

 

Yeah, I loved that album too and of course lost the original. When I got another copy I was really glad, but I hardly ever listened to it. It just didn't do it for me. I remember being really surprised by that. I wonder if it's because it's a remaster (I don't know if it is, because I no longer have the physical disk).

 

Chris