Lies about vinyl vs digital

[Confused]

8 hours ago, Teresa said:

The theory that sounds the most plausible to me is audio energy exists as upper overtones of musical instruments and has an effect on the lower frequencies which we do hear directly. When listening to music we hear the fundamental note and its overtones shape the timbre, this is why an oboe and a clarinet sound different when playing the same note as their overtone series is different. The more overtones available to shape the timbre of the fundamental tone the more accurate the timbre is IMHO.

I have heard this theory too.  The problem is though, that if the upper overtones of musical instruments and has an effect on the lower frequencies which we do hear directly, then this can be recorded by a microphone and captured at 16/44.1.  If you record and capture at 24/192, you might then reproduce the lower frequency as effected by the original overtone and then recorded, as well as reproducing the upper overtones again during replay, which will effect the lower frequencies which we do hear directly for a second time.  Thus reproducing the ultrasonics during replay will actually reduce the accuracy of the sound. 

 

(you could go crazy thinking about this too much!) 

[lucretius]

8 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

There are many theories on what our bodies do with inaudible ultrasonic frequencies our ears cannot hear. In all the theories ultrasonic overtones must have the corresponding fundamental tone in order to be perceived.  Theories I've read include:

• We can feel ultrasonics with our skin.
• Ultrasonics are processed by the eyeball.
• Ultrasonics effect how audible frequencies sound.
• etc.

There are many other theories but those seem the most popular.

 

The theory that sounds the most plausible to me is audio energy exists as upper overtones of musical instruments and has an effect on the lower frequencies which we do hear directly. When listening to music we hear the fundamental note and its overtones shape the timbre, this is why an oboe and a clarinet sound different when playing the same note as their overtone series is different. The more overtones available to shape the timbre of the fundamental tone the more accurate the timbre is IMHO.

 

If these ultrasonic frequencies are forceful enough and behave like barometric pressure, then it does have an effect on me. It gives me a headache. That would be a reason to remove them.

[Ralf11]

Teresa - if you have any studies showing that humans can in any way perceive inaudible ultrasonic frequencies, LMK and I will look at them.

 

I have never seen any, and I am in a position to know if there were any as it is a research interest of mine as a scientist.

 

As an example, humans can sense IR - this is known and so is the mechanism - skin heat sensors.  Much more elaborate versions line the pits of pit vipers such as rattlesnakes, which can image with them.

 

No example of sensing ultrasonic frequencies in humans.  Babies and some other animals can hear to 50 kHz and beyond: bats, dolphins, dogs etc.  Dolphins can also broadcast sound and use it as weapon against fish.

 

 

[Kal Rubinson]

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

Teresa - if you have any studies showing that humans can in any way perceive inaudible ultrasonic frequencies, LMK and I will look at them.

Of course, by definition, ultrasonic frequencies cannot be perceived as sound.

[fas42]

16 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Y'all need to take a step back here. You are both right, and to some degree, both wrong too. 

 

Alex, it is not possible for anyone to hear a signal at 50khz. It isn't a theory, it is indeed fact. Our auditory systems are not sensitive in that frequency range. 

 

Ralf - it is possible that capturing the entire signal, including inaudible parts, also captures something, or enables something, that we can hear. I do not know what and don't even have a viable theory about what that something would be.

 

 

Because the explanation is remarkably simple, it's largely ignored - not chewy enough! The hardware, the circuitry, because of how it's engineered, implemented will just happen to do a better job translating into analogue from some formats, adding fewer audible, irritating anomalies - unfortunately, this is in the realm where one can't have fancy handwaving debates about how to do things; this is all about taking great care on "tiny" details.

 

Precision, being fussy about everything, is the answer - and always will be ...

[fas42]

Ultrasonics are a nonsense, as far as making replay sound "more real" - the transition into convincing SQ occurs when the level of certain anomalies in the sound field drops below a particular level; the brain then "fills the gaps". Unfortunately, it is far from trivial achieving that quality; at the moment, spending decent plus to absurd money for the 'right' components should get one mighty close - otherwise, experienced tweaking is the answer ... .

[Ralf11]

25 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Of course, by definition, ultrasonic frequencies cannot be perceived as sound.

 

Let's go with > 25 kHz

 

of course, my post did not say "perceived as sound"

[mansr]

8 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Let's go with > 25 kHz

 

of course, my post did not say "perceived as sound"

I'm not sure what frequency it uses, but if I stick a finger in my ultrasonic cleaner, I can definitely perceive something.

[STC]

Health benefits. Healthy audiophiles enjoy music better. Ultrasonics helps to prevent fever, joint pain, headaches and etc etc.  ........

[Paul R]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

I'm not sure what frequency it uses, but if I stick a finger in my ultrasonic cleaner, I can definitely perceive something.

 

35K - 40K is the usual range. And yep, this is the only possible mechanism I can think of. If the ultrasonics excite something else in the room and we perceive it as something that goes with sound. 

 

But darned if it doesn't "sound" different, to me at least.   

 

-Paul 

 

[STC]

@The_K-Man it is not a laughing matter. Ultrasonics can help to prevent things that could cause them. 

[Teresa]

6 hours ago, Confused said:

I have heard this theory too.  The problem is though, that if the upper overtones of musical instruments and has an effect on the lower frequencies which we do hear directly, then this can be recorded by a microphone and captured at 16/44.1.  If you record and capture at 24/192, you might then reproduce the lower frequency as effected by the original overtone and then recorded, as well as reproducing the upper overtones again during replay, which will effect the lower frequencies which we do hear directly for a second time.  Thus reproducing the ultrasonics during replay will actually reduce the accuracy of the sound. 

 

(you could go crazy thinking about this too much!) 

 

Have to disagree with that. If ultrasonic overtones effect lower frequencies, they can have no effect if you record at 16/44.1 kHz since the ultrasonic overtones are removed by the brick wall filter at 22.05 kHz. So for them have an effect they have to be in the recording. Or to put this another way if you remove ultrasonic overtones they can no longer effect the timbre of the fundamental tone.

[Teresa]

5 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

I have never seen any, and I am in a position to know if there were any as it is a research interest of mine as a scientist.

 

I don't know of any scientific studies, I haven't looked for those are I am more interested in searching out new to me music. Perhaps someone else will know of such studies. I have read many theories.

 

If you have any Chandos SACDs you will find this statement in the back of booklet:

 

Quote

The Chandos policy of being at the forefront of technology is now further advanced by the use of 24-bit / 192 kHz recording. In order to reproduce the original waveform as closely as possible we use 24-bit, as it has a dynamic range that is up to 48 dB greater and up to 256 times the resolution of standard 16-bit recordings. Recording at the 44.1 kHz sample rate, the highest frequencies generated will be around 22 kHz. That is 2 kHz higher than can be heard by the typical human with excellent hearing. However, in this case we use the 192 kHz sample rate, which will translate into the potentially highest frequency of 96 kHz. The theory is that, even though we do not hear it, audio energy exists, and it has an effect on the lower frequencies which we do hear , the higher sample rate thereby reproducing a better sound.

 

 

[STC]

29 minutes ago, Teresa said:

 

Have to disagree with that. If ultrasonic overtones effect lower frequencies, they can have no effect if you record at 16/44.1 kHz since the ultrasonic overtones are removed by the brick wall filter at 22.05 kHz. So for them have an effect they have to be in the recording. Or to put this another way if you remove ultrasonic overtones they can no longer effect the timbre of the fundamental tone.

 

I think this was based on Oohashi’s papers. But he also said that that Fr from 16 to 32 kHz were not beneficial or triggers the brain negatively. 

[Rexp]

38 minutes ago, Teresa said:

 

Have to disagree with that. If ultrasonic overtones effect lower frequencies, they can have no effect if you record at 16/44.1 kHz since the ultrasonic overtones are removed by the brick wall filter at 22.05 kHz. So for them have an effect they have to be in the recording. Or to put this another way if you remove ultrasonic overtones they can no longer effect the timbre of the fundamental tone.

So given 16/44 is good enough, ultrasonics are irrelevant. 

[Ralf11]

Ultrasonics allow you to overcome bit rot, and provide a place to hide the origami of all the folded MQA, not to mention giving you the hiss of summer lawns

[Kal Rubinson]

31 minutes ago, STC said:

I think this was based on Oohashi’s papers.

AFAIK, Oohashi's papers have not been generally accepted by the biology community.  

[The_K-Man]

32 minutes ago, STC said:

 

I think this was based on Oohashi’s papers. But he also said that that Fr from 16 to 32 kHz were not beneficial or triggers the brain negatively. 

 

Which contradicts what you said back in #1311.

 

I'm still ROTFLMAO btw...

[Kal Rubinson]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

Let's go with > 25 kHz

of course, my post did not say "perceived as sound"

I know.  

[STC]

20 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

AFAIK, Oohashi's papers have not been generally accepted by the biology community.  

 

But we are audiophiles. We only need just one supporting evidence. 

 

19 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

 

Which contradicts what you said back in #1311.

 

I'm still ROTFLMAO btw...

 

I still stand by it. Ultrasonic helps to prevent joint pains, fever, headaches among others. 

[lucretius]

23 minutes ago, STC said:

 

But we are audiophiles. We only need just one supporting evidence. 

 

 

I still stand by it. Ultrasonic helps to prevent joint pains, fever, headaches among others. 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3406898/Is-noise-modern-life-making-ill-Ultrasound-public-places-triggering-sickness-headaches-pain.html

[sandyk]

23 minutes ago, STC said:

 

But we are audiophiles. We only need just one supporting evidence. 

 

 

I still stand by it. Ultrasonic helps to prevent joint pains, fever, headaches among others. 

 

 It has also been used in tests by the Military to maim or disorientate the enemy.

[STC]

1 minute ago, lucretius said:

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3406898/Is-noise-modern-life-making-ill-Ultrasound-public-places-triggering-sickness-headaches-pain.html

 

Now I know why it is so hard to trust scientists. Anyway, I am referring to immediate effect of ultrasonics.   

[lucretius]

2 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 It has also been used in tests by the Military to maim or disorientate the enemy.

 

Apparently, infrasonic sound is better for that -- a good blast of 17Hz. 

[STC]

2 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 It has also been used in tests by the Military to maim or disorientate the enemy.

 

Now I understand why we get intimidated in presence of ultra high end equipment. 😁