Jump to content

fas42

  • Content Count

    4808
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About fas42

Personal Information

  • Location
    Blue Mountains, Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

3344 profile views
  1. They are quite distinct when listening to them, but guessing which is which is quite pointless, really - because it will depend upon how the particular circuitry used reacts, behaves when processing the files ... I certainly have a preference, though, .
  2. There's a peculiar glitch in the recording chain, which also occurred in the first two samples manisandher put up, in the other thread, That vertical transient just prior to time 0.046secs after the start occurs just once in the waveform, and has nothing to do with a piano - OTOH, is it perhaps a glitch in the original 2L recording? Note as the title says, these are the file waveforms, unprocessed by DeltaWave.
  3. Here's another interesting grab of the two waveforms, zoomed out on the time scale, with filtering to show only the bandwidth 8k to 16k, T004 is blue, T005 is pink - does this make it easier to guess?
  4. Huge differences in the waveforms, above 8kHz. Here's a small snippet, This in DeltaWave, upsampled to 176.4k to make it clearer; with all frequencies below 8kHz filtered after the comparison. Where these differences originate is then the question ...
  5. Just downloaded these two 16/44.1 files and even using DeltaWave's inbuilt playing facilities, on the laptop speakers, it is clear how the difference in the treble spectrum between the two affects the subjective quality - will have a closer look to see if anything else is there ...
  6. fas42

    Some commonsense

    Some interesting comments here, https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/q-should-i-use-high-sample-rates.
  7. fas42

    Some commonsense

    An amusing side note ... I've compared the spectrums of YouTube audio retrieved at the best quality with an original track, and one can barely notice any variation, only starting to be significant at about 19kHz on. Comparisons of "CD quality" recording loops sometimes show more variation in the spectra than one what sees in those ... .
  8. Conditioning is not part of what's going on. If I have a rig with SQ that is subpar, then no amount of my wanting it to sound better, or believing that I have have done everything that's necessary, makes the slightest bit of difference to what I perceive - all I have is a setup that sounds like a normal hifi, with no special qualities about it. And I've been there far too often, . Unfortunately, 'extreme' high fidelity is the only solution, IME - brains can be tricked by that, and it's 100% reliable. Room and speaker manipulations help, but are nowhere near as universal a method.
  9. fas42

    Some commonsense

    As someone who has heard how fantastic "very ordinary" CDs can sound when played on a rig with largely inaudible significant flaws, I see very little value in this. Vastly more is to be gained if understanding on how reasonable cost systems can be optimised to achieve the best reproduction from current releases was more widespread, IMO.
  10. IME what happens is that the mind completely unconsciously adjusts for the changes in level, and phase - and maintains a sense of where the sounds are coming from, that correlates with the perceived positioning when listening in the "correct, central" listening spot. Treating the sounds that the brain is processing as meaningless tones, that have no significance apart from being vibrations in the air impinging on the physical parts of the ear is where one can be confused as to what matters - the human brain "knows" how elements of sound that it can relate to, emotionally, fit together to give higher meaning, and so a construct inside the head occurs.
  11. Which is a very good question to ask. And the answer is, it depends on whether the integrity of what you hear is still sustained sufficiently for one's ear/brain to accept the 'reality' of the illusion which is being projected. Normal stereo quality is not adequate to provide more than the usual "sweet spot" type of distances; but taken to the 'right' level of SQ then no collapse of the spatial projection ever occurs, irrespective of one's position with respect to the speakers.
  12. The silly thing is that you know what it's like "flying" - but you're convinced that it can only happen under special circumstances, that you've personally explored. That other people can "put on wings" in other ways just doesn't compute for you - your world is, how the world should be for everyone ...
  13. The interesting thing here is that people generally agree what the goal is - but the disputes arise, because people have highly distinct, and strongly held, views on "what matters" for making it happen. What's largely ignored is developing an understanding on "what's going on"; and this is something that I feel will help a lot more people enjoy a higher standard of listening pleasure. Everything that I've experienced, and which has further developed through reading about aspects of human hearing has caused me to consider that the overriding criterion is to cajole the listening mind into considering one coherent source of sound to be dominant in the aural universe at that moment. At one extreme consider a family kitchen in the morning, with all the sounds of everyone preparing for the day - and a small radio is playing an orchestral piece, poorly, at low volume, in the corner ... and at the other, the same family is at the concert hall, in the front rows, listening to the very same piece being played live. The two situations emphasis that something "that fills your world" is where your attention is drawn - and provided that it has high integrity as a sound source, will dominate. It's how that integrity is achieved that really matters, and of course sound making by the "real thing" is inherently always going to do that best - reproduction will alway struggle to perfectly mimic the key qualities, even if it is only the sounds of people's activities in a kitchen. One solution is to manipulate how one hears the sounds that one wishes to appear dominant - and this is what most of the posts here are about; trying to ensure that you hear the speakers and only the speakers, even if what they produce is not of a particularly high integrity. By reducing one's awareness of any sounds that threaten to challenge the dominance of the direct sound of the speakers, the chances of sustaining a sense of integrity in the latter are improved. Another solution is to improve the intrinsic integrity of the sound source one wants to focus on; that is, make the actual output of the speakers match far more closely what was recorded, more of the qualities of live sound are reproduced in a convincing way. If this can be achieved at volumes comparable to the 'real thing', so much the better. And the huge advantage of this approach is that the domination of the projection of a sound event by the reproduction chain doesn't depend upon spatial tricks in the listening, because the integrity of the sound production is always of adequate standard.
  14. fas42

    Some commonsense

    There may be some data related to the musical content, but it will normally be so low level, or buried in the sound data that lies below 20kHz, of other instruments, etc - that it doesn't matter. This is where the term "masking" is indeed relevant ... I have not come across a single instance, to date, where worrying about information above 20kHz makes sense - it certainly has absolutely nothing to do with achieving realistic playback ... information "missing" from a 24/96 master is angels dancing on a pin head stuff.
  15. fas42

    Some commonsense

    Audacity works well enough to be able to pick differences that are audible - I've mentioned a number of times a simple technique that makes pinpointing audible variations quite straightforward, that I've used for years. Roughly align the the two tracks if necessary, select a promising area in the clips of a few seconds or less, and solo one track on repeat - a monotonous pattern of sound is created, like a mantra; as soon as you've tuned into that pattern, switch to the other track, using solo again. It's immediately obvious that the second pattern has very different qualities - if in fact there's an audible variation; going back and forth makes it easy to confirm that a true difference exists.
×
×
  • Create New...