Jud Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 A related topic, human hearing versus Fourier analysis regarding time-frequency discrimination (see particularly Figure 3, the text for which confusingly begins "Figure 2"): http://link.aps.org/accepted/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.044301 One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
Paul R Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Well, Ric, "Hearing it" is probably not what's going on (if anything). There is a theory that while the ear is not sensitive to ultrasonic frequencies above 20 KHz, the body can "sense" such sounds and that sensation forms part of the phenomenon that we consider the "live music" experience. I don't know whether or not that's true, but it doesn't seem like a reasonable hypothesis to me. To me it's like requiring that one's TV monitor be good at displaying ultraviolet radiation. One can't see it, and all it will do is give the viewer skin cancer. Is it? What is the analogy for a live concert then, where a trumpet for instance, it putting out a lot of sound well above 20k? -Paul Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC. Robert A. Heinlein Link to comment
Boris75 Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 From what I've read, there may be at 44.1kHz, and the problem should not be as great at 88.2kHz, for the reason that humans appear to be able to detect transient changes in sound that occur in about half the time period taken by a 20kHz wave. The reproduction will still not be exact due to the inharmonic/unpitched nature of the sound, but a much better approximation can be built with sine waves approaching 44.1kHz than with sine waves approaching 22.05kHz. Many thanks. It is much pleasant to have a conversation that takes us forward, rather than in circles. Link to comment
kennyb123 Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Many thanks. It is much pleasant to have a conversation that takes us forward, rather than in circles. +1 Digital: Sonore opticalModule > Uptone EtherRegen > Shunyata Sigma Ethernet > Antipodes K30 > Shunyata Omega USB > Gustard X26pro DAC < Mutec REF10 SE120 Amp & Speakers: Spectral DMA-150mk2 > Aerial 10T Foundation: Stillpoints Ultra, Shunyata Denali v1 and Typhon x1 power conditioners, Shunyata Delta v2 and QSA Lanedri Gamma Revelation and Infinity power cords, QSA Lanedri Gamma Revelation XLR interconnect, Shunyata Sigma Ethernet, MIT Matrix HD 60 speaker cables, GIK bass traps, ASC Isothermal tube traps, Stillpoints Aperture panels, Quadraspire SVT rack, PGGB 256 Link to comment
esldude Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Not quite there yet, since I don't happen to know whether any of the transients in the figure have a rise time faster than that of a 20kHz sine wave, but Figure 2 in the paper at the link below is interesting. The figure shows a graph for an original piece of audio, then the harmonic and transient components separated by filters. The paper's description of the way it characterizes musical notes is also of interest: Link: http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~jes1/EveryDMRN05.pdf I do notice this paper used notes from 44.1khz recordings to analyze. The transients they are referring to are captured by this sample rate. And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
kennyb123 Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 I do notice this paper used notes from 44.1khz recordings to analyze. The transients they are referring to are captured by this sample rate. This paper is a little over my head, so I may be off here... The objective of this paper was to describe techniques for separating the harmonic and inharmonic content. Is it really fair to assume that the inharmonic content was captured 100% faithfully - as that wasn't really their objective? Digital: Sonore opticalModule > Uptone EtherRegen > Shunyata Sigma Ethernet > Antipodes K30 > Shunyata Omega USB > Gustard X26pro DAC < Mutec REF10 SE120 Amp & Speakers: Spectral DMA-150mk2 > Aerial 10T Foundation: Stillpoints Ultra, Shunyata Denali v1 and Typhon x1 power conditioners, Shunyata Delta v2 and QSA Lanedri Gamma Revelation and Infinity power cords, QSA Lanedri Gamma Revelation XLR interconnect, Shunyata Sigma Ethernet, MIT Matrix HD 60 speaker cables, GIK bass traps, ASC Isothermal tube traps, Stillpoints Aperture panels, Quadraspire SVT rack, PGGB 256 Link to comment
esldude Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 This paper is a little over my head, so I may be off here... The objective of this paper was to describe techniques for separating the harmonic and inharmonic content. Is it really fair to assume that the inharmonic content was captured 100% faithfully - as that wasn't really their objective? Well, no did not say it was captured 100%. But it captured enough to separate harmonic and inharmonic content. And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
Paul R Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Well, no did not say it was captured 100%. But it captured enough to separate harmonic and inharmonic content. Actually, you said the transients they were referring to were captured at this sample rate. Here you seem to be admitting they were captured imperfectly. It is what it is - are you actually arguing that a higher sampling rate won't do a better job of capturing, and at least in theory, reproducing this content? -Paul Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC. Robert A. Heinlein Link to comment
sandyk Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Hi Alex, Could you analyse the same file using Spek? Spek – Free Acoustic Spectrum Analyzer / Spectrogram Viewer The graph you posted doesn't present the sound level in a clear manner. Thanks, Ric Ric I'm not the one that needs convincing here. Why not send Barry a PM, and ask for access to the Format Comparison links to "Maria" from the same "Americas" album , then post your findings using that software ? Then don't bother doing what a few here do, and then make the usual claim that they are beyond audibility thresholds. It's tiresome, and prevents further cooperation between both camps. i. Regards Alex How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file. PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020 Link to comment
wgscott Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Ric I'm not the one that needs convincing here. Why not send Barry a PM, and ask for access to the Format Comparison links to "Maria" from the same "Americas" album , then post your findings using that software ? Then don't bother doing what a few here do, and then make the usual claim that they are beyond audibility thresholds. It's tiresome, and prevents further cooperation between both camps. i. Regards Alex Are there any threads here where you don't do this? Link to comment
sandyk Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 You really didn't hate to say that. You could have made your point with professionalism rather than sophomoric sentences. Hi Chris There is published research that shows that people with hearing disabilities are often able to hear things that others don't notice, especially when there is close coupling to the ears with good quality headphones. You wouldn't think that Peter St, who designed XXHE Windows player as well as the highly acclaimed Phasure NOS DACs also has hearing problems that cause his hearing between both ears to be a little different. Peter has also, on occasion, had one ear completely shut down. I stand by my record of discussing and posting possible solutions to USB audio problems BEFORE the SOtM USB and iFi USB commercial solutions became available, as well as my confirmation of another "impossible" finding in a previously posted DIY Audio link to the Nov.2008 Current Mirror thread. Both relate to very low level differences that were not noticed by most . Regards Alex How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file. PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020 Link to comment
Jud Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 This paper is a little over my head, so I may be off here... The objective of this paper was to describe techniques for separating the harmonic and inharmonic content. Is it really fair to assume that the inharmonic content was captured 100% faithfully - as that wasn't really their objective? Well, no did not say it was captured 100%. But it captured enough to separate harmonic and inharmonic content. Right, the point for me being that however imperfectly captured, the transient graph or trace won't show anything with a rise time faster than a 22.05kHz sine wave. Don't know if such a figure exists, but I'm on the lookout. One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
sandyk Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Are there any threads here where you don't do this? Haven't you got another asinine Poll to start ? asinine /ˈasɪnʌɪn/ adjective adjective: asinine extremely stupid or foolish. "Lydia ignored his asinine remark" synonyms: stupid, foolish, pointless, brainless, mindless, senseless, doltish, idiotic, imbecilic, imbecile, insane, lunatic, ridiculous, ludicrous, absurd, preposterous, nonsensical, fatuous, silly, childish, infantile, puerile, immature, juvenile, inane, witless, half-baked, empty-headed, unintelligent, half-witted, slow-witted, weak-minded; More informalcrazy, dumb, cretinous, moronic, gormless, damfool; informaldivvy, daft; informalglaikit; informaldumb-ass, chowderheaded; informaldof; informaldotish "another asinine bit of advertising" antonyms: intelligent Origin How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file. PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020 Link to comment
gmgraves Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Is it? What is the analogy for a live concert then, where a trumpet for instance, it putting out a lot of sound well above 20k? -Paul I don't understand your question, Paul. Humans can't hear above 20 KHz, but perhaps they can "feel" it. Humans can't see ultraviolet light, but they can certainly feel it. It's called sunburn. It seems like an apt analogy to me IF one can indeed feel ultrasonic frequencies (which I doubt). I know that people can feel ultra low frequencies, but I have no evidence or experience to indicate that we can feel ultrasonic frequencies. George Link to comment
Paul R Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 I don't understand your question, Paul. Humans can't hear above 20 KHz, but perhaps they can "feel" it. Humans can't see ultraviolet light, but they can certainly feel it. It's called sunburn. It seems like an apt analogy to me IF one can indeed feel ultrasonic frequencies (which I doubt). I know that people can feel ultra low frequencies, but I have no evidence or experience to indicate that we can feel ultrasonic frequencies. i was just pointing out we live in an environment full of ultrasound every day, and except in massive quantity, it is no more like UV exposure than eggs are to Apples. But full range sound is one significant difference between live music and recorded music. If not the ultrasound, then what parts are missing in reproduced sound? Also note, that THD and other factors can come into play. I am not so sure that humans being sensitive to ultrasonics is at all like getting sunburn from a CRT.mat least so long as the CRt vontinues to scan! Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC. Robert A. Heinlein Link to comment
Jud Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 IF one can indeed feel ultrasonic frequencies (which I doubt). I know that people can feel ultra low frequencies, but I have no evidence or experience to indicate that we can feel ultrasonic frequencies. Research has been done on this, and it does not appear to be controversial that ultrasonics can be sensed via bone conduction at least. From one of the academic journal articles I cited upthread: It also appears that the cochlea may sense ultrasonic stimulation if the latter manages to reach the cochlea in sufficient intensity, both when presented through the air (Henry and Fast, 1984; Ashihara et al., 2006) but especially when presented through bone conduction (Corso, 1963; Deatherage et al., 1954; Lenhardt et al., 1991; Lenhardt, 1998). It has also been conjectured that such high level ultrasound may possibly change the perception of timbre when superimposed on audible harmonics (Oohashi et al., 1991; Yoshikawa et al., 1995). I have no idea, having not read most of the cited articles, what contribution ultrasonics might or might not make to our impressions of audible range sounds/music. One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
esldude Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Research has been done on this, and it does not appear to be controversial that ultrasonics can be sensed via bone conduction at least. From one of the academic journal articles I cited upthread: I have no idea, having not read most of the cited articles, what contribution ultrasonics might or might not make to our impressions of audible range sounds/music. The bone conduction ultrasonics becomes 'audible' when resonances in the skull/brain cause pressure fluctuations in the blood vessels of the inner ear at frequencies below 20 khz. From memory I think the sweet spot is 13-15 khz fluctuations in the blood vessels with the bone conduction sound about an octave higher. The same effect out in the wild would have to be at extraordinarily loud levels without bone conduction. Pretty much it isn't happening that way. And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
Paul R Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 The bone conduction ultrasonics becomes 'audible' when resonances in the skull/brain cause pressure fluctuations in the blood vessels of the inner ear at frequencies below 20 khz. From memory I think the sweet spot is 13-15 khz fluctuations in the blood vessels with the bone conduction sound about an octave higher. The same effect out in the wild would have to be at extraordinarily loud levels without bone conduction. Pretty much it isn't happening that way. That mechanism may be possible, but there are far more ways that humans can recognize ultrasonic sound, starting with but not limited to mechanical resonance of structures within the local environment. Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC. Robert A. Heinlein Link to comment
Jud Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 The bone conduction ultrasonics becomes 'audible' when resonances in the skull/brain cause pressure fluctuations in the blood vessels of the inner ear at frequencies below 20 khz. From memory I think the sweet spot is 13-15 khz fluctuations in the blood vessels with the bone conduction sound about an octave higher. The same effect out in the wild would have to be at extraordinarily loud levels without bone conduction. Pretty much it isn't happening that way. Sounds reasonable. One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
sdolezalek Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 I'm guessing this is the relevant figure (not having read the thread): [ATTACH=CONFIG]13697[/ATTACH] First, thank you to everyone who has contributed to the sheer volume of knowledge this thread now contains; it has clearly exceeded my capabilities for absorption/understanding. But I'm surprised that there isn't more dialog as to these pretty straightforward diagrams (which as Jud has mentioned look a lot like some of the pre-ringing we get from certain filters). Are those that deny any difference from hi-res suggesting that the difference in these waveforms are "inaudible?" What about the data in the article that shows the percentage of listeners able to distinguish between them? It almost feels as though much of this is semantics; i.e. there are those who say we can't hear above 20kHz and thus for them the debate ends because "there can be nothing else" and those who can show there are differences but may not be able to explain how our brains actually measure or "hear" those differences and thus cannot convince the doubters. Wouldn't we be better off recognizing that there can be and are waveform differences (that appear to be audible in some form) and then figure out what resolution/filtering methods allow us to recreate the correct waveform? Synology NAS>i7-6700/32GB/NVIDIA QUADRO P4000 Win10>Qobuz+Tidal>Roon>HQPlayer>DSD512> Fiber Switch>Ultrarendu (NAA)>Holo Audio May KTE DAC> Bryston SP3 pre>Levinson No. 432 amps>Magnepan (MG20.1x2, CCR and MMC2x6) Link to comment
wgscott Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 In that figure I posted, I have no idea if the differences you can see are audible. What is noteworthy is that the listening tests they report are within the confines of standard resolution, so I don't think it tells us one way or the other about how high res audibly differs. The paper about how percetion violates the Fourier limits is more interesting to me ar least, because it suggests a fundamentally different physiological response to impulse detection. If high res realky makes an audible difference, i bet it will be related to that (in addition to to the other more mundane reasons we for the most part seem to agree on). Link to comment
esimms86 Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 I've never had an opportunity to listen to a system containing super tweeters but I certainly appreciate reports that super tweeters have made significant improvements in the listening experience. Esau Link to comment
Don Hills Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 I hate to say this, but that assertion is sort of like that obese guy who thinks he looks great in a speedo. Sandy in budgie smugglers? I really did not need that image. "People hear what they see." - Doris Day The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were. Link to comment
beanbag Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 No figure, since non-IEEE members are restricted to just the abstract, but I think that will give you a little bit of a flavor: IEEE Xplore Abstract - Adaptive sinusoidal modeling of percussive musical instrument sounds The jist of this article is that given a fixed number of free parameters, it is better to model a transient sound using wavelets as opposed to pure sinusoids. That is like saying that it is easier to model mountain landscapes by using triangle waves as your fundamental building blocks instead of trying to superimpose sinusoids. Well duh. This article is mainly relevant for synthesis of sounds, but is not that relevant to audio reproduction, where all the information is already there. PS: audio signal reproduction does not involve "fourier reconstruction", except in the case of MP3 decompression. Link to comment
beanbag Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Full pdf: NB: It is a violation of the Terms of Use agreement to share these IEEE articles with the general public. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now