“Gaming” measurements

[March Audio]

8 minutes ago, GoldenOne said:

This is an excellent quote

One of my favourites.  Use it often.

[Jud]

24 minutes ago, March Audio said:

So it the crash cymbals that contain the most ultrasonic energy according thatcstudy.  No real surprise I suppose.

 

Instruments With Harmonics

Fig. Instrument SPL Harmonics Percentage (dB) Visible To of Power What Freq.? Above 20 kHz

1. Trumpet (Harmon mute) 96. >50 kHz 0.5

2. Trumpet (Harmon mute) 76. >80 " 2.

3. Trumpet (straight mute) 83. >85 " 0.7

4. French horn (bell up) 113. >90 " 0.03

5. French horn (mute) 99. >65 " 0.05

6. French horn 105. >55 " 0.1

7. Violin (double-stop) 87. >50 " 0.04

8. Violin (sul ponticello) 77. >35 " 0.02

9. Oboe 84. >40 " 0.01

 
Instruments Without Harmonics

Fig. Instrument SPL 10 dB Above Percentage (dB) Bkgnd. to of Power What Freq.? Above 20 kHz

10. Speech Sibilant 72. >40 kHz 1.7

11. Claves 104. >102 " 3.8

12. Rimshot 73. >90 " 6.

13. Crash Cymbal 108. >102 " 40.

14. Triangle 96. >90 " 1.

15. Keys jangling 71. >60 " 68.

16. Piano 111. >70 " 0.02

 

 

 

"Instruments without harmonics"? The more purely percussion stuff I can perhaps understand being described that way (their sounds are dominated by inharmonics), but vocal and piano?

[March Audio]

1 minute ago, Jud said:

 

"Instruments without harmonics"? The more purely percussion stuff I can perhaps understand being described that way (their sounds are dominated by inharmonics), but vocal and piano?

That surprised me too.  Both those absolutely have harmonics.

[March Audio]

5 hours ago, semente said:

 

Also many tweeters, most of them with hard domes, produce significant to massive resonance peaks between 20 and 30 kHz, perhaps we should also consider pushing that above 30kHz?

And then the noise-shaping will have to move the grit higher up in frequency.

 

 

Now this is often cited a problem but I don't think I have seen any research into it.  Again the music content in recordings is very low at these frequencies so there is little to excite the resonance.  I feel another experiment coming on tomorrow. 

[manueljenkin]

9 hours ago, March Audio said:

I know your aim is to follow me around the forum trying to catch me out and create arguments but it doesnt work.  I have explained in detail above.  You are deliberately talking daft semantics in attempt to argue but again it doesnt work. Its noteable that your only contributions to threads are to do this sort of thing.

 

What I meant by that comment was quite clear.  I was referring to a similar amplitude signal in which case of course a higher frequency signal has a higher rate of change than a lower frequency signal. 

 

Yes I was generalising but I can assure you I was not confused.

 

Putting you back on ignore so the interesting conversation can get back to a sensible place.  Waffle on if you wish.

He is not following you. He is correcting the error you made in your write up.

 

You on the other hand tried to follow me, through the juniplayer thread, invoking measurement bullying in subjective area (violation of the new as rules I guess), also following to my personal music player comparion thread. Don't try to play victim.

[manueljenkin]

1 hour ago, March Audio said:

I don't think it will be too long before we see headphones that test the listeners specific ear canal / pinnae response and dsp the response to suit.

Those stuff are already there. Creative labs has one.

[manueljenkin]

15 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Discuss the wrongness all you want, in another sub-forum. 

I wish you had the guts to say this when @March Audiowas derailing the Bit perfect audio can sound different thread by invoking necessity of measurements, instead of closing the thread.

[March Audio]

16 minutes ago, manueljenkin said:

I wish you had the guts to say this when @March Audiowas derailing the Bit perfect audio can sound different thread by invoking necessity of measurements, instead of closing the thread.

It was thread crapped by you and peterst who didn't want an intelligent examination of the software you were promoting to happen.

 

Please don't bring that into this thread.

[The Computer Audiophile]

15 minutes ago, manueljenkin said:

I wish you had the guts to say this when @March Audiowas derailing the Bit perfect audio can sound different thread by invoking necessity of measurements, instead of closing the thread.

This has nothing to do with guts. 

[March Audio]

35 minutes ago, manueljenkin said:

He is not following you. He is correcting the error you made in your write up.

 

You on the other hand tried to follow me, through the juniplayer thread, invoking measurement bullying in subjective area (violation of the new as rules I guess), also following to my personal music player comparion thread. Don't try to play victim.

Then equally you don't understand the content of the posts.

 

As I said to Peterst and opus,  I'm not going to get into these childish argumentative rabbit holes with you.  If you don't have anything constructive to contribute to the the thread please go away.

[semente]

4 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Never been bothered, so analog sound was perfect and digital audio was never invented in a quest to find something better...?

 

Rather than "never been bothered," I think it's more accurate to say no hope of achieving useful response at higher frequencies was practically possible with the technology of the day, so people concentrated on what *was* possible to achieve. I don't recall anyone (at least anyone not engaging in hyperbole) saying turntables or tape decks of the day produced results indistinguishable from live performance.

I agree that it is something worth pursuing, now that modern technology has made that possible.

I remain sceptical of the advantages in terms of audibility/perception but there’s no doubt about the importance of moving the sample rate further from the upper limit of the audible spectrum.

[manueljenkin]

56 minutes ago, March Audio said:

It was thread crapped by you and peterst who didn't want an intelligent examination of the software you were promoting to happen.

 

Please don't bring that into this thread.

Funny you call your flawed assessment of "making a copy of the file before playback" which the player recommends against to be intelligent! I love the sense of humour.

 

51 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Then equally you don't understand the content of the posts.

 

As I said to Peterst and opus,  I'm not going to get into these childish argumentative rabbit holes with you.  If you don't have anything constructive to contribute to the the thread please go away.

You didn't go away from the other thread even after being shown each of your assessment had holes. Sorry, none of us are responsible for your errors here and I have content to contribute here.

 

55 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This has nothing to do with guts. 

Well you seem to have a hypocritical approach whenever March audio is involved. Threads closed and March audio did violate the new guidelines you made a year ago.

[The Computer Audiophile]

25 minutes ago, manueljenkin said:

Well you seem to have a hypocritical approach whenever March audio is involved. Threads closed and March audio did violate the new guidelines you made a year ago.

Give me a break. Read this whole thread to see my displeasure with him. 
 

 

[manueljenkin]

6 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Give me a break. Read this whole thread to see my displeasure with him. 
 

 

My sincere apologies. Just checked the conversation.

[fas42]

10 hours ago, March Audio said:

 

 

At the end of the day microphones don't "hear" in the same way as two ears and a brain.  Recordings will only ever be a facsimile of listening live. 

 

Is this the same thing as a camera can't "see" in the same way as two eyes and a brain? Therefore, photos and videos will only ever be a (poor) facsimile of seeing live?

[March Audio]

17 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Is this the same thing as a camera can't "see" in the same way as two eyes and a brain? Therefore, photos and videos will only ever be a (poor) facsimile of seeing live?

Well there are quite different issues, but in very general terms, yes.

 

Just put two omni directional mics in a room.  It sounds nothing like what you hear.  They don't do the "filtering" your brain does or reduce background ambience/noise.  They will sound echoey.  So then you put the mics close to the instrument to reduce this ambience which gives a different sound to what listener would hear at some meters away.  Or you use cardioid pattern mike's.  Spacing and angle of mics affects spatial impression.  The list goes on.

[fas42]

26 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Well there are quite different issues, but in very general terms, yes.

 

Just put two omni directional mics in a room.  It sounds nothing like what you hear.  They don't do the "filtering" your brain does or reduce background ambience/noise.  They will sound echoey.  So then you put the mics close to the instrument to reduce this ambience which gives a different sound to what listener would hear at some meters away.  Or you use cardioid pattern mike's.  Spacing and angle of mics affects spatial impression.  The list goes on.

 

What would the different issues be ... they are both mechanisms which attempt to present to the respective senses a capture of what occurred in a place, and time?

 

Yes, the microphones don't do the filtering - but that's not the point. All the microphones, and then the playback system have to do is provide a linking mechanism; to pass across a chasm of place and time, that which occurred - your brain's filtering then kicks in when you hear the reproduction, to interpret the 'data' ... all the recording has to do is capture enough information, to allow that filtering to take place, unencumbered.

[March Audio]

36 minutes ago, fas42 said:

What would the different issues be ... they are both mechanisms which attempt to present to the respective senses a capture of what occurred in a place, and time?

 

Yes, the microphones don't do the filtering - but that's not the point. All the microphones, and then the playback system have to do is provide a linking mechanism; to pass across a chasm of place and time, that which occurred - your brain's filtering then kicks in when you hear the reproduction, to interpret the 'data' ... all the recording has to do is capture enough information, to allow that filtering to take place, unencumbered.

Do you really need a point for point description of the differences between a microphone and a CCD image sensor in a camera?

 

Im afraid that just doesnt happen Frank.  Below is an example.  3 files recorded in one of our listening rooms.  Its fairly small (aboyt 6m x 4.5m x 2.8m), is acoustically treated with low RT in the range of 0.3 seconds across most of the frequency range, so quite dead.  Rode NT5 cardiod mics are placed in 3 configurations at the normal listening position. Spaced Stereo Pair (A-B), ORTF and XY.   For definitions and further information see here:

The Ultimate Guide: Stereo Recording Techniques & Setup (dpamicrophones.com)

 

I walk in a cricle around the room talking followed by playing a track over the speakers.  You will notice that the room still sounds fairly ambient in the recording even though I can assure in real life its quite dead.  The spatial characteristics vary dramatically between the 3 mic set up patterns.  The music track played over the speakers sounds timbrally different (you will have to take my word on that) and again more ambience and quite unlike hearing the speakers yourself in the room.  It sounds like "you recorded speakers in a room".

 

You can try this yourself and record with your mobile phone to understand the difference between what you hear and what a mic "hears"

 

FLAC

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnQ0c7fb_4zLgQx2nPioseeakE1O?e=DUXgNt

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnQ0c7fb_4zLgQtRnKPw21753Gvt?e=XMQWBF

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnQ0c7fb_4zLgQ2YfRBxAtRrciVR?e=8Z0Xhq

 

MP3

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnQ0c7fb_4zLgQ71j-ZpzFjSPWaf?e=NdbRKN

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnQ0c7fb_4zLgQ-IBLMlXsvOQJUf?e=CnKv5W

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnQ0c7fb_4zLgRBrHjj4fWLB_Aa5?e=079QwS

 

 

 

 

[fas42]

43 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Do you really need a point for point description of the differences between a microphone and a CCD image sensor in a camera?

 

They are both simply devices that are sensitive to the physical behaviours that those respective senses register - if they are reasonably capable to doing that, then they are the first part of the chain that can convey what then becomes a subjective experience, to another place and time ...

 

43 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Im afraid that just doesnt happen Frank.  Below is an example.  3 files recorded in one of our listening rooms.  Its fairly small (aboyt 6m x 4.5m x 2.8m), is acoustically treated with low RT in the range of 0.3 seconds across most of the frequency range, so quite dead.  Rode NT5 cardiod mics are placed in 3 configurations at the normal listening position. Spaced Stereo Pair (A-B), ORTF and XY.   For definitions and further information see here:

The Ultimate Guide: Stereo Recording Techniques & Setup (dpamicrophones.com)

 

I walk in a cricle around the room talking followed by playing a track over the speakers.  You will notice that the room still sounds fairly ambient in the recording even though I can assure in real life its quite dead.  The spatial characteristics vary dramatically between the 3 mic set up patterns.  The music track played over the speakers sounds timbrally different (you will have to take my word on that) and again more ambience and quite unlike hearing the speakers yourself in the room.  It sounds like "you recorded speakers in a room".

 

You can try this yourself and record with your mobile phone to understand the difference between what you hear and what a mic "hears"

 

FLAC

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnQ0c7fb_4zLgQx2nPioseeakE1O?e=DUXgNt

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnQ0c7fb_4zLgQtRnKPw21753Gvt?e=XMQWBF

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnQ0c7fb_4zLgQ2YfRBxAtRrciVR?e=8Z0Xhq

 

MP3

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnQ0c7fb_4zLgQ71j-ZpzFjSPWaf?e=NdbRKN

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnQ0c7fb_4zLgQ-IBLMlXsvOQJUf?e=CnKv5W

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnQ0c7fb_4zLgRBrHjj4fWLB_Aa5?e=079QwS

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for those clips ... the music sections are very revealing - things sound fine with the intro, but once the full band kicks off, the SQ degrades, badly - this is pretty typical of an unsorted setup ... so long as it's not tested with more dynamic material it does well; but then doesn't cope with more demanding music.

[March Audio]

38 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

They are both simply devices that are sensitive to the physical behaviours that those respective senses register - if they are reasonably capable to doing that, then they are the first part of the chain that can convey what then becomes a subjective experience, to another place and time ...

 

 

Thanks for those clips ... the music sections are very revealing - things sound fine with the intro, but once the full band kicks off, the SQ degrades, badly - this is pretty typical of an unsorted setup ... so long as it's not tested with more dynamic material it does well; but then doesn't cope with more demanding music.

Frank, i can assure you its a very "sorted" setup, however the recordings sound nothing like the experience in the room.

[fas42]

Just now, March Audio said:

Frank, i can assure you its a very "sorted" setup, however the recordings sound nothing like the experience in the room.

 

So, you can't hear the clear signs of the playback being flawed ... okay, you haven't learnt to recognise the symptoms ...

 

BTW: What's the track?

[March Audio]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

So, you can't hear the clear signs of the playback being flawed ... okay, you haven't learnt to recognise the symptoms ...

 

BTW: What's the track?

I hear lots of flaws, but they are not a playback issue, they are the behaviour of of microphones in a room.  cant you differentiate between the two?  Dont you recognise how different it sounds to when you are in a room with speakers?

 

Seriously, get your mobile phone out and record your hifi.  I sincerely hope you can spot the difference to your own live experience.

 

track is "You'll Never Get To Heaven" Bill Morrissey.

[fas42]

Just now, March Audio said:

I hear lots of flaws, but they are not a playback issue, they are the behaviour of of microphones in a room.  cant you differentiate between the two?  Dont you recognise how different it sounds to when you are in a room with speakers?

 

No. What I should hear is the presentation of the recording, which is not accurate when the complexity of the mix goes up - in those clips ... and, if you could tell what the track is, I would appreciate it, 🙂.

 

Just now, March Audio said:

Seriously, get your mobile phone out and record your hifi.  I sincerely hope you can spot the difference to your own live experience.

 

A recording of a playback should conjure up the 'vision' of the recording space - I would be happy to post a couple, soon, of what I'm talking about - if you like.

[March Audio]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

No. What I should hear is the presentation of the recording, which is not accurate when the complexity of the mix goes up - in those clips ... and, if you could tell what the track is, I would appreciate it, 🙂.

 

 

A recording of a playback should conjure up the 'vision' of the recording space - I would be happy to post a couple, soon, of what I'm talking about - if you like.

Thats not what you are hearing Frank., but I think we already knkew about your "unusual" interpretations 😉

[opus101]

11 hours ago, March Audio said:

If you don't have anything constructive to contribute to the the thread please go away.

 

So when someone posts something erroneous, its not constructive to the thread to explain and correct the error?