Lies about vinyl vs digital

[fas42]

I think we should stop beating around the bush - every album, that's ever been released, contains a bit of that dreaded feralA, lurking in a deep, dark place, ready to pounce out and savage your ears ... 🤬

[StephenJK]

On 1/10/2020 at 8:28 PM, STC said:

3 is not surprising because any kind of noise filter somehow affects the SS. 
 

The problem with AB these files is about finding the way to eliminate the difference that cause by the interaction from phono to the next equipment. 
 

Unless you capture the sound from cartridge and feed the digital rip through the phono stage ?  Possible? 😇

Agreed, all you can do is level match and hopefully have some means of quickly switching between sources.  At that time, I had an Audio Research LS-27 with a remote to change inputs, so comparing LP to another playback source was easily done from the same listening position.  

 

But I'm sure I wasn't the only person who was disappointed to learn that our musical memory is highly unreliable.  Yes, we can listen to a track and say "I hear a triangle in the corner I didn't before" or "bass is lower and deeper" but that doesn't mean it's better or worse without having a full evaluation or a specific goal.  

 

With later changes I went back to the Dell laptop as a music server.  It may sound like a step backwards but all I can do is listen and compare.  I had a PS Audio DSJ with again multiple inputs.  I cued up the identical digital track between a Bryston BDP-2 digital player and the laptop.  Switching inputs at the DSJ showed no noticeable difference between the two inputs - so why keep the player?

 

Another more recent change is with a pair of Devialet Expert Pro 440 monoblocks.  I have yet but will experiment with using the Dell laptop as the source with JRiver, or setting up the Devialet Master as a streamer.  But I'm happy with the sound I have now.  

[StephenJK]

19 hours ago, fas42 said:

I think we should stop beating around the bush - every album, that's ever been released, contains a bit of that dreaded feralA, lurking in a deep, dark place, ready to pounce out and savage your ears ... 🤬

I look forward to the day when with the work John is doing may result in master tapes or recording being closer to what perhaps was originally intended.  

 

I don't know a lot about the industry of mastering and manufacturing and will freely admit that.  I understand loudness wars, and why it's being done - loud sounds "better" and you want your track on the radio to stand out, much like the advertising on the TV show.  The down side of course is that we control the volume and can adjust, so that no longer has an effect.

 

Where I get even more confused is how John has explained, for example, how the ABBA vinyl recordings are closer to what was intended, but other formats are not.  Where's the band in all this?  Where's the "what the hell are you doing?" from the artists.  Or do they have no control whatsoever......

 

I like Bruce Springsteen, and read with astonishment how he's such a control freak in the studio but his albums, particularly the later ones sound so poorly.  I bought Wrecking Ball and found it unlistenable and on a gradual path of degradation starting with Magic, through Working On A Dream and then Wrecking Ball.  The recording before all that with Devils & Dust from 2005 sounds great.

 

And then, of course, when you talk about attention to detail there's always Steely Dan, where I can only presume they somehow had some influence over the entire process so the record in your hand sounded they way they wanted it to.

[John Dyson]

2 hours ago, SJK said:

I look forward to the day when with the work John is doing may result in master tapes or recording being closer to what perhaps was originally intended.  

 

I don't know a lot about the industry of mastering and manufacturing and will freely admit that.  I understand loudness wars, and why it's being done - loud sounds "better" and you want your track on the radio to stand out, much like the advertising on the TV show.  The down side of course is that we control the volume and can adjust, so that no longer has an effect.

 

Where I get even more confused is how John has explained, for example, how the ABBA vinyl recordings are closer to what was intended, but other formats are not.  Where's the band in all this?  Where's the "what the hell are you doing?" from the artists.  Or do they have no control whatsoever......

 

I like Bruce Springsteen, and read with astonishment how he's such a control freak in the studio but his albums, particularly the later ones sound so poorly.  I bought Wrecking Ball and found it unlistenable and on a gradual path of degradation starting with Magic, through Working On A Dream and then Wrecking Ball.  The recording before all that with Devils & Dust from 2005 sounds great.

 

And then, of course, when you talk about attention to detail there's always Steely Dan, where I can only presume they somehow had some influence over the entire process so the record in your hand sounded they way they wanted it to.

 

* I believe that sometimes  I claimed 'artists intent' might have been a too-strong appeal to authority.  On the other hand, there is some amount of 'absolute truth' to the claim also.   It is NOT all or nothing...

 

FYI -- my interpretation of 'artists' intent is what is recorded/mixed into the DolbyA/tape recorder unit during the creative process.   I doubt that 'feralA' was even thought much about until digital material/CDs in the 1980s.   The 'DolbyA' audio mostly just lived on tape(film) or DolbyA processing by itself would sometimes be used for vocal enhancement.   Normally, one wouldn't listen much to the raw DolbyA -- it is kind of nasty sounding when in the native form.

 

Much of the time, the 'feralA' frequency response balance is similar to the properly decoded material (lots of EQ on the raw DolbyA) -- so the 'artists intent' as 'frequency response balance' will be the somewhat similar no matter what.  The big difference would be less obtrusive compression, cleaner dynamics, less hiss, less room rumble (when it is noticeable.) 

 

I don't think that the artists have all that much control once the material is in distribution.  They might participate in mastering the material, maybe not.  Does extreme processing as used on some FM radio stations match 'artists intent'?  This is, of course, a rhetorical question, but is certainly different than what the recording engineer/artist pair could have possibly conceived back when the recordings were made.   Likewise, I doubt that 'feralA' really existed until it became a convenience on digitally distributed material (CD.)

 

I don't claim that feralA is totally against artists intent, but is generally farther away that the intended and normal processing as envisioned when the material was recorded, but that general claim definitely becomes less absolute in the early 1980s when the feralA started appearing in distribution.   That would be just like a 2000's audio processor as used on radio stations wouldn't have even been envisioned by artists back in the 60s, 70s, 80s and early 90s.  FeralA would certainly not be as bad as a broadcast audio processor, but didn't really need to exist until the CD timeframe.

 

* A good example:  Richard Carpenter helped to produce some of the Singles remasters, but did he plan that his disks be distributed in feralA form?   He did improve some of the recordings  -- some of the HD versions of exactly the same recordings (no obvious changes) are actually worse than the original CD!?!?!!  Was the slight degradation in quality 'artists intent'?

 

So, 'artists intent' when used to strongly is a false appeal to authority.  When used as a description about unforseen 'changes' made to the material, then it still makes sense.  Maybe a better term is needed?

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

22 hours ago, fas42 said:

I think we should stop beating around the bush - every album, that's ever been released, contains a bit of that dreaded feralA, lurking in a deep, dark place, ready to pounce out and savage your ears ... 🤬

FeralA is not 'part' of a recording.  It is a vestige of a time saving convenience.   Imagine this is what goes on at the distributors:  'sounds good enough, they'll buy it.  Frankly, they'll buy anything...'

 

John

 

[StephenJK]

1 hour ago, John Dyson said:

 

* I believe that sometimes  I claimed 'artists intent' might have been a too-strong appeal to authority.  On the other hand, there is some amount of 'absolute truth' to the claim also.   It is NOT all or nothing...

 

FYI -- my interpretation of 'artists' intent is what is recorded/mixed into the DolbyA/tape recorder unit during the creative process.   I doubt that 'feralA' was even thought much about until digital material/CDs in the 1980s.   The 'DolbyA' audio mostly just lived on tape(film) or DolbyA processing by itself would sometimes be used for vocal enhancement.   Normally, one wouldn't listen much to the raw DolbyA -- it is kind of nasty sounding when in the native form.

 

Much of the time, the 'feralA' frequency response balance is similar to the properly decoded material (lots of EQ on the raw DolbyA) -- so the 'artists intent' as 'frequency response balance' will be the somewhat similar no matter what.  The big difference would be less obtrusive compression, cleaner dynamics, less hiss, less room rumble (when it is noticeable.) 

 

I don't think that the artists have all that much control once the material is in distribution.  They might participate in mastering the material, maybe not.  Does extreme processing as used on some FM radio stations match 'artists intent'?  This is, of course, a rhetorical question, but is certainly different than what the recording engineer/artist pair could have possibly conceived back when the recordings were made.   Likewise, I doubt that 'feralA' really existed until it became a convenience on digitally distributed material (CD.)

 

I don't claim that feralA is totally against artists intent, but is generally farther away that the intended and normal processing as envisioned when the material was recorded, but that general claim definitely becomes less absolute in the early 1980s when the feralA started appearing in distribution.   That would be just like a 2000's audio processor as used on radio stations wouldn't have even been envisioned by artists back in the 60s, 70s, 80s and early 90s.  FeralA would certainly not be as bad as a broadcast audio processor, but didn't really need to exist until the CD timeframe.

 

* A good example:  Richard Carpenter helped to produce some of the Singles remasters, but did he plan that his disks be distributed in feralA form?   He did improve some of the recordings  -- some of the HD versions of exactly the same recordings (no obvious changes) are actually worse than the original CD!?!?!!  Was the slight degradation in quality 'artists intent'?

 

So, 'artists intent' when used to strongly is a false appeal to authority.  When used as a description about unforseen 'changes' made to the material, then it still makes sense.  Maybe a better term is needed?

 

John

 

I appreciate your contribution, and agree that people will buy most any music, and it would seem where convenience is preferred over quality. 
 

I suspect the artists and musicians care more today about their live performance than their iTunes download. 
 

 

 

[fas42]

3 hours ago, SJK said:

 

I like Bruce Springsteen, and read with astonishment how he's such a control freak in the studio but his albums, particularly the later ones sound so poorly.  I bought Wrecking Ball and found it unalienable and on a gradual path of degradation starting with Magic, through Working On A Dream and then Wrecking Ball.  The recording before all that with Devils & Dust from 2005 sounds great.

 

 

 

I was never into Springsteen, but had read that his albums were "unlistenable to" in a couple of places - so borrowed a recent album from the library. And understood what the fuss was about ... there's zero problems with the recording, as a recording; but Springsteen and whoever else, had opted for a very intense, confrontational mix - it's up to the replay to be to handle this .. think of it like a highly spiced food dish: the cooking of it was executed perfectly, but if your palate was "not ready" to handle the oomph of what was prepared, you would spit it out, and declare it "terrible" ... and the locals around you would snigger, behind their hands ...

[fas42]

There are two issues, the currently overdone compression; and what John is calling feralA, with regard to much older recordings. I see the former as being a problem, because a lot of the light and shade is lost, and it makes the sound come across as very aggressive, especially if there is the slightest lacking in the playback. But I don't see "feralA" in the normal releases of older material as being something that needs to be dealt with, by remastering of the source.

[John Dyson]

16 minutes ago, SJK said:

I appreciate your contribution, and agree that people will buy most any music, and it would seem where convenience is preferred over quality. 
 

I suspect the artists and musicians care more today about their live performance than their iTunes download. 
 

 

 

Yea -- from what I heard, it is live perf where they make money...  I'd suspect that the recordings, from the standpoint of the artist are 'marketing material' more than big money making.   (That is, at least what I have heard.)

 

John

 

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Yea -- from what I heard, it is live perf where they make money...  I'd suspect that the recordings, from the standpoint of the artist are 'marketing material' more than big money making.   (That is, at least what I have heard.)

For major artists, this is true. Less known bands/artists, so they've told me, make significant money licensing tracks for commercial use (advertising). Then again, nobody cares about quality there.

[John Dyson]

26 minutes ago, fas42 said:

There are two issues, the currently overdone compression; and what John is calling feralA, with regard to much older recordings. I see the former as being a problem, because a lot of the light and shade is lost, and it makes the sound come across as very aggressive, especially if there is the slightest lacking in the playback. But I don't see "feralA" in the normal releases of older material as being something that needs to be dealt with, by remastering of the source.

The needed remastering is a matter of a 'file copy' type operation...  Decoding DolbyA isn't difficult at all -- when doing it cheap (feral), it is just as simple as the file copy and fast/cheap filter operation -- no biggie.   From what I can tell, most of the time, the actual correct mastering needed for CDs on is just copying the file and decoding it.  At least, that would be an improvement over just the quick file copy and feraAl filter -- no real extra cost anymore.

 

One aspect of 'mastering' in the olden days is 'tweaking in' the DolbyA.  A lot of times, the DolbyA tones aren't very accurate -- so there had to be multiple tries to get the sound just right.   With the DHNRDS, the tweaking isn't nearly as needed -- doesn't produce the same defects that a DolbyA does when it is fed messed up material.

* In fact, there were sometimes calibration errors between channels or even between frequency bands.  The DHNRDS doesnt' produce distortion, allows individual band/channel adjustment if really needed, has quick testing turnaround (seconds), but still does gain extra benefit from close adjustment.

 

All of the troubles that I have with feralA decoding is the undefined filters that they use to try to make the shreaking DolbyA sound into something more tolerable.   True DolbyA decoding is very close to file copying (depending on quality can be slower though.)

 

John

 

[sandyk]

15 minutes ago, fas42 said:

But I don't see "feralA" in the normal releases of older material as being something that needs to be dealt with, by remastering of the source.

 You can't hear it because your tiny Laptop's speakers have no worthwhile response to >10kHz , as well as very little below 100HZ, and are pretty poor in linearity over the frequency range up to there as well.

Neither does John do remastering. He simply corrects for the non decoded DolbyA which was used mainly for internal distribution , and never intended to be still there on the eventually released CD. The main problem as stated several times before is with compilation albums from various sources.

[fas42]

Since you suggested such, I created a sweep from 10kHz to 20kHz in Audacity, and whipped it through a few times. Even on the dead cold audio chain it was easily going through to the limits of my hearing, with no obvious distortion artifacts - you know how high frequency stuff causes that weird "going through your head" sensation; no troubles doing that ...

[fas42]

17 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Neither does John do remastering. He simply corrects for the non decoded DolbyA which was used mainly for internal distribution , and never intended to be still there on the eventually released CD. The main problem as stated several times before is with compilation albums from various sources.

 

I will be a lot happier when I see a recognised engineer from the industry state this as being a "known problem" ...

[John Dyson]

16 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I will be a lot happier when I see a recognised engineer from the industry state this as being a "known problem" ...

Simple existence proof isn't good enough?  Note that you shouldn't  use the term 'problem' because of the apparent a** covering.  It should be -- are they just filtering the DolbyA signal and calling it a product?  If they say NO, then they are either not telling you the truth, or don't understand the context, or don' tknow what they are talking about.  That is a simple existence proof.  Don't need anyone recognized -- just need to use eyes/ears.

 

You know that there are 'engineers' buying something like a feralA filter as a plug-in, thinking that it is DolbyA decoder?  My project partner and I wondered why a well known DolbyA decoder plugin doesn't noise reduce and doesn't sound like a DolbyA...   It is apparently a feralA filter, and sold as a decoder?!?!?   Someone is being fooled.

 

Being honest, it simply seems that you don't want to believe the truth?

 

*Originially these 'recording engineers' told me that it was impossible to design a working, functional SW DolbyA decoder...   Of course, they were 100% wrong, and mine is much better!!!!   Sometimes egos are stronger than peoples knowledge.   The fact is, no-one else could do it...  If even a super competent DSP person started looking at the intricacy of the design related to emulating the multiple nested control systems -- it would be a daunting task.  It was difficult for me...

 

In *fact* the DA decoder is complicated to even describe.  I have started writing some documents about it -- trying to figure out how to explain the interactions.   A block diagram would be mind boggling in its full form, but even on a per channel/band basis, it isn't simple.   The DHNRDS actually processes 8 (8 more in certain places) signals at once, each with differing time constants and state -- complex stuff.   I guess I can understand why someone might think that it is impossible.

 

 

John

[Ralf11]

just ignore him, or put him on ignore

 

replies distract from your main mission, feralA decontamination

[John Dyson]

42 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Simple existence proof isn't good enough?  Note that you shouldn't  use the term 'problem' because of the apparent a** covering.  It should be -- are they just filtering the DolbyA signal and calling it a product?  If they say NO, then they are either not telling you the truth, or don't understand the context, or don' tknow what they are talking about.  That is a simple existence proof.  Don't need anyone recognized -- just need to use eyes/ears.

 

You know that there are 'engineers' buying something like a feralA filter as a plug-in, thinking that it is DolbyA decoder?  My project partner and I wondered why a well known DolbyA decoder plugin doesn't noise reduce and doesn't sound like a DolbyA...   It is apparently a feralA filter, and sold as a decoder?!?!?   Someone is being fooled.

 

Being honest, it simply seems that you don't want to believe the truth?

 

*Originially these 'recording engineers' told me that it was impossible to design a working, functional SW DolbyA decoder...   Of course, they were 100% wrong, and mine is much better!!!!   Sometimes egos are stronger than peoples knowledge.   The fact is, no-one else could do it...  If even a super competent DSP person started looking at the intricacy of the design related to emulating the multiple nested control systems -- it would be a daunting task.  It was difficult for me...

 

In *fact* the DA decoder is complicated to even describe.  I have started writing some documents about it -- trying to figure out how to explain the interactions.   A block diagram would be mind boggling in its full form, but even on a per channel/band basis, it isn't simple.   The DHNRDS actually processes 8 (8 more in certain places) signals at once, each with differing time constants and state -- complex stuff.   I guess I can understand why someone might think that it is impossible.

 

 

John

I should reply a bit with an apology for the stridency.

 

Here is an anecdote -- one of the so called 'engineers' who *a long time ago* made fun of my DolbyA effort found a more recent posting elsewhere, and showed interest in a copy of the decoder.  I knew who he was, but he asked for an evaluation copy.   I gave him one...  I knew full well that he was going to come back with some comments that it doesn't work...   He disappeared instead...  Maybe I am paranoid, but sometimes I think that there is an advocacy against a real SW DolbyA decoder...   It just might show some malfeasance.

 

I have had too many people, so called experts, telling me that I couldn't do what I said that I could.  It was insulting, but I undstood that they didn't know me from Adam.  On the other hand, I had the sense that they were actually *UPSET* about the fact that there might be working DA software.

 

Later on, I figured out this feralA stuff in detail.  Now, I think that I understand...  Sometimes, this feralA has been created in lieu of proper decoding.   That is, there MIGHT have been a lot of false decoding out there -- material being sold as 'mastered', when it is truly not complete.

 

I am sometimes sensitive -- but think about the fact that my competency is brought into question because some peoeple might be trying to hide the fact that they might not be 'doing their job' correctly.   I am simply trying to do something GOOD, and not profit.

 

Again, I seriously regret my strident responses.

I'll leave this part of the discussion alone now.

 

John

 

[StephenJK]

6 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I should reply a bit with an apology for the stridency.

 

Here is an anecdote -- one of the so called 'engineers' who made fun of my effort found a more recent posting elsewhere, and showed interest in a copy of the decoder.  I knew who he was, but he asked for an evaluation copy.   I gave him one...  I knew full well that he was going to come back with some comments that it doesn't work...   He disappeared instead...

 

I have had too many people, so called experts, telling me that I couldn't do what I said that I could.  It was insulting, but I undstood that they didn't know me from Adam.  On the other hand, I had the sense that they were actually *UPSET* about the fact that there might be working DA software.

 

Later on, I figured out this feralA stuff in detail.  Now, I think that I understand...  Sometimes, this feralA has been created in lieu of proper decoding.   That is, there MIGHT have been a lot of false decoding out there -- material being sold as 'mastered', when it is truly not complete.

 

I am sometimes sensitive -- but think about the fact that my competency is brought into question because some peoeple might be trying to hide the fact that they might not be 'doing their job' correctly.   I am simply trying to do something GOOD, and not profit.

 

John

 

John,

 

Profit or otherwise, start with a patent.

 

Stephen

[John Dyson]

Just now, SJK said:

John,

 

Profit or otherwise, start with a patent.

 

Stephen

Thanks for the suggestion :-).  I have to document the monstrosity first.  I have written a lot of complex things, fthis DA decoder is A LOT more complex than anything else that I have done myself.   The DA decoder is the single most complex piece of software that I have written, and when it comes to DSP, it is probably the most complex piece of software that I have ever worked on.

 

Today, I just finally started documenting it piece by piece.  It is fun to revisit, but just as a small example:  a real challenge how to describe a complex time variant filter behaviors and how they all interact to do 'whatever is needed'.  I have procrastinated on the documentation for the last 2yrs, the basic concepts haven't changed much, but the techniques have advanced.   There are probably 1000 different filters in the decoder, many Hilbert transform filters, lots of FIR filters, even some IIR filters.  There are nonlinear attack/release filters, just everything that one might think of.  A lot of the filter types can have their time constants modulated -- very important capability in the DHNRDS DA.

 

* Note -- I hint at potentially useful technologies in this note.  Anyone implementing a compressor, limiter or other kind of gain control device  (e.g. expander, etc), and interested in any of the advanced techniques, I am willing to supply information on the techniques.  Some of the techniques can almost do the previously 'impossible'.

 

My guess is that the most generally useful techniques developed are the anti-IMD and anti-MD portions of the code, but the algorithms for DolbyA attack/release calculations are technically 'interesting.  The attack/release algorithms are what is missing in the Sony DolbyA patent.  In the Sony patent, they just said 'fast attack/slow release' -- like yea :-).  Mmmmm....   Creating the attack/release algorithms was more complicated than figuring out a way to emulate the feedback compressors.  A straight audio feedback compressor (like a FET feedback compressor) is not possible to directly implement in DSP.   I wouldn't be surprised if Dolby would have been interested in the DHNRDS DA DolbyA SW technology.  They told us that they were no longer interested and wouldn't consider us to be competition...  If they were interested,  the strangely detailed/complex attack/release algorithms and parameters would be super interesting to them.  The idea of attack/release code might seem simple -- just emulating some diodes and some resistors/capacitors.  If the emulation was that simple, it probably would already have been done!!!   The effective time constants wobble all over the place based upon signal level, state of each section of the attack/release emulation, and even the DolbyA gain.  Each of these has to be implemented for each band of each channel.  That is a lot of math operations!!!

 

The 'fancy' things are the anti-MD and anti-IMD, that is, these are 'extra credit' sections, not really needed to emulate a DolbyA,but makes the DHNRDS DA so very nice :-).

 

The anti-MD is great for getting rid of the effects of the fast gain control creating modulation products in the audio -- the basis of the DolbyA fog.   I developed an incremental method of doing the traditional 'gain * signal' calculation used everywhere in gain control -- but my version doesn't create the modulation products in the same way as normal methods, essentially hiding them, but still remaining in the signal.  (The modulation products are mathematically necessary, but BAD modulation products are not mathematically necessary.  There are patents that do a part of the solution, by my method is *really* *really* good at hiding the MD.)

 

 

The anti-IMD is probably more useful for DolbyA than other compressors/expanders, but might still be helpful.  The DolbyA attack/release calculation creates beat products, which then interfere with the signal by modulating the gain.  Makes ugly sound.  The anti-IMD massages the measured signal so that it no longer has normal 'audio frequencies' in it, but still has the same statstics as a normal audio signal.  Without the 'audio frequencies' in the level measurement, then there is no opportunity for the DolbyA attack/release calculation to create those ugly beat products.  The creation of this 'fake audio' signal is nonlinear and time variant.  Fast attacks are still fast, but 'ripple' as in a level detection ripple doesn't happen.  Also, fast ripple doesn't happen.  The signal going to the attack/release code is really, really clean.

 

One more thing that can be patented also is the DHNRDS DA structure itself.  It is very ad-hoc but also very simple.  it avoids infringing on the Sony patent, and isn't even recognizably the same.  It might be fun to document it -- but no one ever will write a DolbyA decoding emulator again.  I just might write a simple DA decoder for others to use in plugins.  Wont' sound nearly as good as the DHNRDS DA, but about the same as a true DolbyA...  The simple decoder would be good for helping others, but I doubt that anyone is crazy enough to replicate the DHNRDS DA...  It does things that I'd suspect that most real experts in the field would say are impossible.

 

I was thinking about patents, but instead I think that if I do an AES article for each major innovative subsystem, that might be more beneficial than a patent to me.  Some of the concepts could be very helpful for very specific types of equipment...  Mostly compressors/limiters-- stuff like that.   Little people like me don't make money on special purpose patents, but a bit of name recognition could be helpful for future endeavors.

 

But, thanks again for the thought -- I keep trying to figure out how to do the documentation, but only take a few hours :-).

 

John

 

 

 

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

Since you suggested such, I created a sweep from 10kHz to 20kHz in Audacity, and whipped it through a few times. Even on the dead cold audio chain it was easily going through to the limits of my hearing, with no obvious distortion artifacts - you know how high frequency stuff causes that weird "going through your head" sensation; no troubles doing that ...

At your age , and through tiny laptop speakers ? Come on Frank, pull the other leg. It whistles.

 

[fas42]

43 minutes ago, sandyk said:

At your age , and through tiny laptop speakers ? Come on Frank, pull the other leg. It whistles.

 

 

I didn't say I could hear 20kHz, did I, Alex? 😉 I said, "the limits of my hearing"; left ear the last time I checked a bit more carefully was around 15k, right was an unusual 18k, but I suspect that's faded by now ... the point of going to 20k was to make sure that I covered the full span, and that the speakers didn't start coughing, and make nasty noises when driven by such a signal. Which they didn't ...

[fas42]

2 hours ago, John Dyson said:

In *fact* the DA decoder is complicated to even describe.  I have started writing some documents about it -- trying to figure out how to explain the interactions.   A block diagram would be mind boggling in its full form, but even on a per channel/band basis, it isn't simple.   The DHNRDS actually processes 8 (8 more in certain places) signals at once, each with differing time constants and state -- complex stuff.   I guess I can understand why someone might think that it is impossible.

 

 

John

 

I appreciate that what you are doing is very sophisticated, John, and take my hat off to you for going to the effort. However ... I still see it as an exercise in "unmixing" to some degree, and then remastering, to make it more 'palatable' to many people - I see it in the same way as I have heard multiple versions of Yes albums, courtesy of the audio friend down the road; some so "nice" you could play them in an elevator, 😁. But the version that always stands head and shoulders above the rest is the original, 'untainted' one, the first off the rank - it has the guts, the verve, the sparkle, the depth of captured music making that makes one enjoy what's going on - rather than think, this is one for the maiden aunt to listen to, 😝.

[semente]

8 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

I will be a lot happier when I see a recognised engineer from the industry state this as being a "known problem" ...

 

Frank, I am sorry to inform you that your standards are just too low. I get the benefits of tweaking, I've experienced first hand how some modifications can provide significant improvement to equipment performance, but you really should be a (big) bit more demanding. We are reproducing recorded vocals and instruments and detail is not all that music is about: audio is not music in black and white, it has colours and the system must get them right too.

And the same is valid for the recording process, of course.

[semente]

5 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

I appreciate that what you are doing is very sophisticated, John, and take my hat off to you for going to the effort. However ... I still see it as an exercise in "unmixing" to some degree, and then remastering, to make it more 'palatable' to many people - I see it in the same way as I have heard multiple versions of Yes albums, courtesy of the audio friend down the road; some so "nice" you could play them in an elevator, 😁. But the version that always stands head and shoulders above the rest is the original, 'untainted' one, the first off the rank - it has the guts, the verve, the sparkle, the depth of captured music making that makes one enjoy what's going on - rather than think, this is one for the maiden aunt to listen to, 😝.

 

The thing is you are not appreciating because you are not comprehending what @John Dyson is doing, and worst of all you can't even identify the problem in the first place which is a very serious issue indeed.

 

John is creating what you call an "original, 'untainted' one, the first off the rank - it has the guts, the verve, the sparkle, the depth of captured music". Have you ever heard of mastering?

John is correcting inadequatelly mastered recordings.

[The_K-Man]

On 1/9/2020 at 7:57 PM, AudioDoctor said:

Every. Single. Album?

 

 

 

YES.  The issues you are hearing have zero to do with the format.   Digital audio has gotten beyond all that.