Understanding Sample Rate

[sandyk]

18 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

If someone has the "brilliance" to be able to spoon feed me in laymans terms why i have difficulty accepting that 44.1K sampling rate is enough to capture all sounds that is audible to man, i would change my mind, but i highly doubt that is possible.

 

 It isn't.  24/48 would be better though, but even then ....

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

thank you for that....

it is nice to know that someone will accept me even though that i am unable to accept something i do not believe.

 

The majority of those giving you a hard time are correct in most respects, and mean well, but they don't have a mortgage on the truth. There are still many things that we are currently learning , especially in the area of very clean power supplies etc.

I note also a backdown in some areas such as depth and height of stereo images from (in some cases) impossible, to accidental and non predictable accuracy .

Things may get even more interesting if Mani is able to convince Mansr  that he isn't imagining what he reports .

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

I would have chosen 24/48 had I been in charge  but apparently there were size limitations, both physical and 'digital'  on the disc at the time.

 

 Yes, I am aware of that being the preferred option , but back then, even 16 bit was hard to achieve, hence the 14 bit players available at the time including Nakamichi etc. ( I had a Nakamichi player at a later time)j

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, beerandmusic said:

To be honest, i do not believe Mansr will hear differences, even if there are.....i doubt i would be able to hear differences either, or at least not in a comparative way....The differences are usually so subtle, and even when they are not, comparative listening has not proven to be very productive...

 

He doesn't need to. He only needs to be convinced that Mani can hear them. I wouldn't sell Mani's hearing or equipment short either.

Despite what many appear to believe, there can be a big gulf between the SQ of typical gear and more well designed equipment where fewer compromises have been made, especially in the areas of power supply isolation between Digital and Analogue areas. The ready availability of extremely low noise voltage regulators such as the LT3045 etc. will result in further audible improvements as their use becomes more common place.

[sandyk]

8 hours ago, firedog said:

None of that has anything to do with other factors that might influence listening SQ such as clean power. There are lots of things in audio that are debatable. This specific question and answer aren't one of them.

 

 So is the BS that several here appear to be pushing about 16/44.1 being all that's necessary for perfect stereo reproduction. 

 Incidentally, years later Elektor magazine published a design intended to correct the phase related problems of the original Sony players.

[sandyk]

4 hours ago, firedog said:

Yes, but at least on some recordings there could well be material above 44.1k, musical or otherwise. Recording at 96k or above eliminates this as a potential problem. 

 

Not quite , at least in the case of some of Barry Diament's recordings with genuine musical content to 57kHZ

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, mansr said:

The early Sony players multiplexed a single DAC for both channels resulting in one channel being delayed by 11.3 μs. That doesn't mean the format itself is insufficient.

 My reply was a quick response to the statement below , and the earlier players such as the Sony CDP101 were quite fatiguing for long listening sessions .

Quote

......Philips and Sony really did think about these things......

 

[sandyk]

15 minutes ago, mansr said:

How do you know it's musical if you can't hear it?

 

There are many reports that the absence of the higher frequencies are noticed, even though we can't hear them directly with our ears.

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, Spacehound said:

They are not true.

 

 Bone conduction is one of the reported mechanisms for noticing HF above the normal hearing range.

[sandyk]

Just now, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Honest question: Can you say with any certainty that "bone conduction" contributes (or not) to your musical listening?

I have no way of knowing.

I do however know that there are specialised hearing aids designed around bone conduction.

[sandyk]

 

Extremely high frequencies causing distortion in the audible band  ?

[sandyk]

18 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

my biggest take away from this is that I am going to see if I enjoy multi-channel over stereo for listening pleasure.

Has anyone else gone this direction either to stick with or to go back to stereo?

 

 Many years ago I had an SQ Logic controlled system to go with SQ encoded LPs, but I eventually went back to Stereo due to the lack of realistic sounding material, plus a nearby lightning strike that vaporised the underground phone cable, fried the logic PCB. Neil Diamond's "Hot August Night"  sounded pretty good in 4 Channel though.

[sandyk]

25 minutes ago, firedog said:

In the playback. Because the equipment can’t fully handle it. It’s a known problem. 

 

Just like many earlier amplifiers couldn't handle SACD artifacts,(even burning out!)  so they dumbed down the upper frequency capability of SACD ? 

After that, I guess they no longer needed those nice Sony 100kHZ tweeters that were released for SACD.

[sandyk]

17 minutes ago, esldude said:

This sounds like revisionist history.  

 

Unfortunately, it's fact, and apparently forgotten  by many .

There were quite a few reports of amplifiers not being able to handle the fairly high level residual HF artifacts.

I went very  close to ordering a Sony 100K tweeter back then.

 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD

[sandyk]

3 hours ago, mansr said:

Martin Colloms isn't exactly trustworthy, but I'll check it again.

 

He is at least as trustworthy as you are, and far more well known than an anonymous E.E. like yourself.

This means that he will have had his work far more peer reviewed than you have had..

[sandyk]

28 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

This thread may be of interest:

 

http://sa-cd.net/showthread/31197//y?page=first

 

 

I found the attached on p.2 of your link of interest as it agrees with my own experiences in this area.

 

Quote

Even with severe hearing damage in the audible range you may still have the ability to perceive ultrasonic frequencies which we DO NOT perceive as "sound". Even young children cannot here above 25kHz, yet according to Prof. Johnson's research at Pacific Microsonics and others even though we cannot hear ultra-sonic frequencies as sound we do respond to frequencies up to 80kHz and notice when they are removed. In other words ultra-sonic frequencies are processed by our brains and effect the frequencies that we do hear.

Ultra-sonic research is helping deaf people to "hear" by shifting speech into the ultrasonic region where they can perceive it. Here are some links to the research

http://www.google.com/search?q=ultrasonics+and+the+hearing+impaired&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

 

[sandyk]

4 hours ago, esldude said:

We've been down this road before.  The first Sony player like others was 3db down at 40 khz rolling off steeply above that. Many rolled at 35 khz.  A few had extension to 50 khz.  The 100 khz thing was never realized.  

 

That is not my recollection. Do you remember the reports of the initial players causing quite a few amplifiers to burn out , and the availability of the special Sony stand alone Super tweeters with up to 100kHZ bandwidth ?

I do ! 

 

Quote

The SACD format is capable of delivering a dynamic range of 120 dB from 20 Hz to 20 kHz and an extended frequency response up to 100 kHz, although most currently available players list an upper limit of 70–90 kHz,^[22] and practical limits reduce this to 50 kHz.^[17] Because of the nature of sigma-delta converters, one cannot make a direct technical comparison between DSD and PCM. DSD's frequency response can be as high as 100 kHz, but frequencies that high compete with high levels of ultrasonic quantization noise.^[23] With appropriate low-pass filtering, a frequency response of 20 kHz can be achieved along with a dynamic range of nearly 120 dB, which is about the same dynamic range as PCM audio with a resolution of 20 bits.^{[citation needed]}

.

[sandyk]

3 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Come on, most systems struggle to reproduce the audible band with reasonably high accuracy and people are worried about ultrasounds?

 

Talk about misplaced objectives...

 

This had nothing to do with accuracy. The initial SACD players had fairly high level ultrasonic artifacts due to inadequate filtering, which some amplifiers didn't like, and burnt out tweeters, as well as in some cases burning out too !

[sandyk]

6 hours ago, esldude said:

No I don't.  I remember and you can still look up stereophile and other's measures of the players.  50 khz is it.

 

 Do a proper Google search like I did originally, and you will find references to burned out tweeters etc. before they amended the filtering.

[sandyk]

Dennis

There were numerous reports of  tweeter burn out and amplifier 

 failures at the time.There was also a great deal of promotion of several types in a range of Sony 100khz tweeters at the time too that you apparently never saw either.They weren't a figment of my imagination !!!

There is helluva lot of earlier material on Google that is no longer findable, especially stuff that wasn't favourable to major  corporations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, Spacehound said:

Martin Colloms

He's a British self-proclaimed  'expert'  on  audio and the  unknowing Captain of sandyk's Pretorian Guard, (which has the regimental  motto  of  "Many  Members"). He was granted this eminent position   as he is rumoured  to have  agreed with sandyk once, but only 'statistically'.

 

Also at the top of his website he says he is an 'Expert Witness'. As he doesn't say what on we can only assume it's everything.

 

Thus he is the  perfect target for derision  

 

An arrogant and Pompous Ass like yourself is also a perfect target for derision. As is so often the case in this forum, it's a case of " Cut down the tall poppies " Syndrome by envious little nobodies !

Perhaps you were short changed at birth too ???

[sandyk]

6 minutes ago, Don Hills said:

 

I say, old chap, a little close to the knuckle, don't you think?

No I don't.

Spacecadet has insulted M.C by questioning his qualifications , when a simple Google search would have provided a great deal more information including the facts that he is a qualified E.E. , Consultant, and even a well respected speaker designer

[sandyk]

12 minutes ago, Don Hills said:

 

Spacehound questioned MC's qualifications. You, on the other hand, insulted the man (Spacehound). Our host's views on this are quite clear and often enforced. 

 

I am well aware of the Forum's requirements, however it appears to be quite O.K. to ridicule and insult both myself and M.C. at every opportunity.

Is it any wonder why we rarely see informative posts any more by leading industry figures ,?

 

[sandyk]

3 hours ago, Spacehound said:

Martin Colloms

He's a British self-proclaimed  'expert'  on  audio and the  unknowing Captain of sandyk's Pretorian Guard, (which has the regimental  motto  of  "Many  Members"). He was granted this eminent position   as he is rumoured  to have  agreed with sandyk once, but only 'statistically'.

 

Also at the top of his website he says he is an 'Expert Witness'. As he doesn't say what on we can only assume it's everything.

 

Thus he is the  perfect target for derision  

 

Chris

So posts  like this from Spacehound are perfectly acceptable ?

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, Spacehound said:

"Arrogant and pompous ass like you" - sandyk about Spacehound.

"So he claims. AFAIK he has never been known to make anything"  - Spacehound about The Colloms.

 

That's not an insult at all, it's just taking the piss. He's a ****ing Pom too  

And there's not much about him on the  'net except his own claims.

 

Has he made anything? Or just wrote a book? "Consultant"?  What on? It's not a qualification.

I was asked how to catch a trout once. Does that make me one? If so, bow down and kiss my ass.

 

Anyway, I thought you didn't like EE's?  You're always rabbiting on about how useless thy are. You even called me one,, and you meant it as an insult   

 I would suggest that you should have done more research before jumping to your previous conclusions. He was also the editor of U.K. magazines such as HiFi News and Record Review at one stage, when it also published quite a bit of technical content and Audio Projects from authors such as Ben Duncan,(High Performance Audio Power Amplifiers for music perfomance and reproduction) 

I don't have a problem with Pommies in general, ( unless they don't use SprayFresh in summer) as I have a couple of good online friends from a  U.K. Audio Forum  , one of whom is a Virgin pilot, and several of us have had some very enjoyable GTGs with him when  Virgin was flying to Au.(Jon drinks his beer cold too !)

I don't have a problem with E.E.s in general either ,only those that believe that Subjective reports are a complete waste of time, as everything needing to be known, is already known.

 I actually have 2 qualified E.E. friends who I first met when they started their working lives at a Jaycar Electronics store in Sydney before going to Uni. One of these E.E.s has also participated in several of our GTGs.