Debate Thread: Scott's Hi-res Audio Test - Page 96 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 733Likes
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #2851 of 2920 Old 08-01-2014, 11:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Sacramento delta N. Cal. US Don't trust any air I can't see ☺
Posts: 2,935
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 522 Post(s)
Liked: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by jb82 View Post
I have listened to a friends vinyl digital recordings of many different Michael Jackson first U.S. pressings. He recorded into a cheap sound card with a kenwood TT, no USB. One set of 16 bit 44.1khz recordings and 16 bit 96khz, there is a difference. I know this is not actual Hi-Res music from a label but Its enough for me to believe that HD formats CAN be better with proper mastering from original studio source. I also compared both recordings 96khz and 44.1 khz to the best original MJ cd's and found the dynamics to be about even but the resolution on the 96khz vinyl rips was better than cd's.
Even if they make HD releases with better resolution than cd version it could still be compressed master from the label, why would they give us the actual studio recordings like Pono makes it out to be. They give you the best then they cant milk it anymore and lose control.
I listened to the music on his pc with some Sennheiser Hd 558's and in Foobar with WASAPI.
Not hard to better than vinyl (technically and maybe different some times ) with 16/44.1 or above digital can not explain your perceived differences in digital playback resolutions maybe others can .(Not saying vinyl is unpleasant or bad just different in a lot of respects ) maybe particular DAC or SC was better at resolving higher resolutions or sound card was maybe set incorrectly for one resolution or the other ? Can not conclude anything statistically representative
here.
Pono is marketing product differentiation just like *some* similar same platform Toyota and Lexus models not scientifically proven to be superior playback on the merits of file format alone despite what they may or may not claim.
otoh *some * content only available on Pono may have better source and* downsteam provinence* sometimes that could ad value *to that specific content played on a proprietary Phono device *= benifits and features with *specific content meeting specific conditions *.

Hires Music formats ..............."Why does it sound like a CD ?" ............. can we make it louder "?
"The wireless music box has no commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?"
- David Sarnoff's associates at RCA the 1920's -

Last edited by tubetwister; 08-02-2014 at 12:12 AM.
tubetwister is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2852 of 2920 Old 08-02-2014, 12:32 AM
Member
 
jb82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 131
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post
Not hard to better than vinyl (technically and maybe different some times ) with 16/44.1 or above digital can not explain your perceived differences in digital playback resolutions maybe others can .(Not saying vinyl is unpleasant or bad just different in a lot of respects ) maybe particular DAC or SC was better at resolving higher resolutions or sound card was maybe set incorrectly for one resolution or the other ? Can not conclude anything statistically representative
here.
Pono is marketing product differentiation just like *some* similar same platform Toyota and Lexus models not scientifically proven to be superior playback on the merits of file format alone despite what they may or may not claim.
otoh *some * content only available on Pono may have better source and* downsteam provinence* sometimes that could ad value *to that specific content played on a proprietary Phono device *= benifits and features with *specific content meeting specific conditions *.
Cd's apply limiters. I like both cd and vinyl but I have to stand by my statement that the resolution is greater in the vinyl sound. I can here the little nuances in MJ's voice like taking a breath.The DAC had nothing to do with it. I heard straight up more resolution on the vinyl recording in 96khz vs 44.1khz, I know this is not a fair way to judge cd quality but it has convinced me.
jb82 is offline  
post #2853 of 2920 Old 08-02-2014, 12:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,009
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Liked: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garidy View Post
The envelops are mixing with each other to produce an effect, not a new tone.

Regarding this "effect" you speak of. Maybe for sake of argument we could agree temporarily on calling it the "MIT Video Effect", or MVE? I believe your point is what we are hearing is not a new tone, but actually a level change or alteration that goes up and down a bit. Are we on the same page so far? Yes or no? That's not a rhetorical question. Please answer the question, for now, and do not elaborate on what causes it. I'll give you plenty of opportunity for that after just a few more simple questions like this one.

P.S. I haven't had any training/schooling in physics past high school, so this should be quite easy to make me look foolish in just a few more posts of answering only a few more questions. I bet you'll enjoy that. You up to the challenge? Or you can look like a coward, probably because you've suddenly realized you've made an error, so you'll divert the topic by, for example, throwing in a bunch of math equations, knowing damn well it is beyond the comprehension of 99% of our readers (in fact that's the purpose invoking it) and continuing to talk down to me condescendingly, rather than simply answering a few more of my very basic questions. The choice is yours....

In A/V reproduction accuracy, there is no concept of "accounting for taste". We don't "pick" the level of bass any more than we get to pick the ending of a play. High fidelity is an unbiased, neutral, exact copy (or "reproduction") of the original source's tonal balance, timing, dynamics, etc..


Last edited by m. zillch; 08-02-2014 at 02:12 AM.
m. zillch is offline  
post #2854 of 2920 Old 08-02-2014, 12:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Sacramento delta N. Cal. US Don't trust any air I can't see ☺
Posts: 2,935
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 522 Post(s)
Liked: 362
On the trained listening thing I have revisited position and my opinions on that for scientific testing purposes for differential analysis as related to this discussion after reading many posts including many from Armin and Arny and some other postings on the subject and some of JA's articles and posting here

Also one personal reason being reason (based on experiences and training ) being that I can listen to almost any ordinary automobile or gas engine that has an internal knocking noise that can be heard by almost anyone under varying conditions by recreating some of these variables I can ascertain
if it is a worn crankshaft main bearing (sometime s if front or rear or with some basic testing which one*(s) . Same for engine connecting rod bearings or sometimes camshaft bearings or loose torque converter bolts or worn/ damaged torque converter flex plate (kinda like a flywheel in a way )

Some times I can instantaneously determine causation , Also many of same when faint and others *may not hear or may not know what to listen for *


All of that goes back to training and experience . Just because you can hear something does not mean you know what it is or causation e.g., differences in Arny's key 's test file playback .that perhaps I may not be able to hear (or single out ) for some of same reasons above .

ofc none of this proves or disproves the music resolution vs music resolution thing at all .

I would have to conclude I have benefited from this thread discussion recently from all the folks and also quite a few of Arnimn's postings lately and ofc the usual suspects like Arny,Krabapple,mcnarus. etc etc.
some of antoniobiz1,and garitys postings are thought provoking also

No bloodsport today .....time to heal from the poison crow I had to eat yesterday yuck !

Nothing about the COB thing from SQC or NMPC yet will keep advised stop.☺☺

Hires Music formats ..............."Why does it sound like a CD ?" ............. can we make it louder "?
"The wireless music box has no commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?"
- David Sarnoff's associates at RCA the 1920's -

Last edited by tubetwister; 08-02-2014 at 03:49 AM.
tubetwister is online now  
post #2855 of 2920 Old 08-02-2014, 12:52 AM
Member
 
jb82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 131
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 15
The biggest difference is with MJ's Invincible album. I have the MOV album and the cd and all I can say for sure is that the vinyl captures more detail in his voice. No DAC is going to give you more of something that is just not there in the first place. The least amount of difference would be with Off the Wall and Thriller. I have the 32.8p matrix of Thriller on cd, it supposedly has the same master as the vinyl and it does sound damn good and in some ways I prefer it over the vinyl. But I still detect more resolution in the vinyl.
I was going to go with an entry level DAC/headphone amp but got myself a TT instead. Specs are definiteley not all there is to sound but you cant gain the resolution of Invincible on vinyl with a better DAC.
jb82 is offline  
post #2856 of 2920 Old 08-02-2014, 01:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Sacramento delta N. Cal. US Don't trust any air I can't see ☺
Posts: 2,935
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 522 Post(s)
Liked: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by jb82 View Post
Cd's apply limiters. I like both cd and vinyl but I have to stand by my statement that the resolution is greater in the vinyl sound. I can here the little nuances in MJ's voice like taking a breath.The DAC had nothing to do with it. I heard straight up more resolution on the vinyl recording in 96khz vs 44.1khz, I know this is not a fair way to judge cd quality but it has convinced me.
Myths (Vinyl) link


The *perceived differences you may hear* could be the playback chain IIRC vinyl equivalent to digital playback is maybe up to ~ 13bits at best and much less dynamic range + higher noise floor potentials also could be source provenience dependent on CD vs Vinyl not to mention the RIAA EQ thing with vinyl disc mastering and playback that *may * emphasize or de emphasize certain frequencies.(lots of variation there depending on the playback chain also) Cold be DAC implementation in SC software /HDWE IM distortion or resolution by win audio stack maybe CDR vs Vinyl playback gain stages

As you can see (or should see )it's impossible for vinyl at ~13 bits to have more resolution above the noise floor than 16 bit red book CD (that you could hear anyway ) unless the CD master was severely stepped on with compression and or normalizing and pushed way up (not impossible happens all the time at the insistence of the labels usually in pop and hip hop music bty) .
(think loudness wars )

I can see the difference in what we send out for re master /CDR replication and digital uploads/downloads end user final result from the 24/96 source files we send out sometimes they get stepped on pretty good has nothing whatsoever to do with rebook 16/44.1 CDR brick wall limiting or 16/44.1 overall potential vs vinyl (or anything) in the real world .
lots of variables at play here again nothing to draw statistically representative conclusions from.

CD redbook limiting wouldn't be anything you should hear anyway old audiohool straw man argument .


Any kind of signal that comes off an LP above 20kHz is pretty much entirely noise and distortion.
unless obsolete CD4 or or whatever the other one was .
-hydrogen audio-

Hires Music formats ..............."Why does it sound like a CD ?" ............. can we make it louder "?
"The wireless music box has no commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?"
- David Sarnoff's associates at RCA the 1920's -

Last edited by tubetwister; 08-02-2014 at 07:06 AM.
tubetwister is online now  
post #2857 of 2920 Old 08-02-2014, 01:48 AM
Advanced Member
 
jj_0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the rain
Posts: 757
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post
From the video titled "MIT Physics Demo - Tuning Forks: Resonance & Beat Frequency"


"When two different tuning forks are struck at the same time, the interference of their pitches produces beats."


You might want to contact MIT about their sloppy language.

You, as well, might consider that "beats" are not IM distortions, necessarily.

Do you recall the trig identity for sin(ft)+sin((f+delta)t) ??? http://www.trans4mind.com/personal_d...ductCosSin.htm

Note that there is no intermodulation there, and no nonlinearity. You see a modulation at half the difference frequency.

That's what the MIT demo is showing.

Now, if you apply a frequency analyzer to that with reasonable windowing (i.e. longer than 2 delta) you will see 2 sine tones separated by delta. There is no TONE, no sin wave, at sin(delta t)

In other words, there is no distortion. That is a mathematical identity, and a spectrum will not show any signal at all at delta/2 frequency.

NOW take sin (f t) * sin ((f=delta) t). What do you get? You get a tone at sin(delta t). and a tone at sin( (2f-delta) t). THAT is nonlinearity. NOW you have changed the spectrum of the signal.

The two are sensed in the ear, as well, by entirely different methods. You can make inappropriate appeal to authority all you want, but that's the math. Please review your basic trig before you reply.
stereoeditor and tubetwister like this.

James D. (jj) Johnston
jj_0001 is online now  
post #2858 of 2920 Old 08-02-2014, 01:52 AM
Advanced Member
 
jj_0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the rain
Posts: 757
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post
I guess what they meant when they wrote, " When two different tuning forks are struck at the same time, the interference of their pitches produces beats" they really meant " When two different tuning forks are struck at the same time, the interference of their pitches produces beats, but not really."


And in the video text, "The tuning forks produce different pitches, which interfere to create beats." they actually meant "The tuning forks produce different pitches, which interfere to create beats, according to the poorly informed at least."
Before you continue down this track, it would be wise of you to learn and understand the spectra of each tuning fork, and the spectrum of the summed pair. The spectrum of the summed pair is exactly the sum of the two spectra. It's a linear system.

NOW, when you have nonlinearity, you get sum and difference frequencies. The spectrum of the two multiplied signals is NOT the sum, but rather the convolution, of the two spectra. Then there are new frequencies, not present in the original, present.

Your understanding of what the MIT demo says is wrong, and your understanding of what happens in a nonlinearity appears to be missing, as well.

Please look at the trig page I just pointed to.
tubetwister likes this.

James D. (jj) Johnston
jj_0001 is online now  
post #2859 of 2920 Old 08-02-2014, 01:54 AM
Advanced Member
 
jj_0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the rain
Posts: 757
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post
No, exactly. I quoted them verbatim. If you don't like the MIT video's sloppy wording or terminology, that's fine, but it is them you need to correct, not me.

On second thought, it would probably be best if you just reviewed the video:

http://video.mit.edu/watch/tuning-fo...equency-11447/

Your intransigence is noted. You are wrong, your understanding of the MIT video is likewise wrong, and your interpretation of the waveform you are LOOKING at is, likewise, wrong.

We do not LOOK at waveforms, we LISTEN to waveforms.
tubetwister likes this.

James D. (jj) Johnston
jj_0001 is online now  
post #2860 of 2920 Old 08-02-2014, 01:58 AM
Advanced Member
 
jj_0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the rain
Posts: 757
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post
Or you can look like a coward and divert the topic by, for example, throwing in a bunch of math equations and continuing to talk down to me condescendingly, rather than simply answering a few more of my very basic questions. The choice is yours....
What you are arguing is MATHEMATICS. You wish to have this explained to you without mathematics, when the issue is exactly mathematics, is simply not in the cards.

Again, look at the spectrum of

sin( f t) + sin ( (f+delta) t)

Then look at the spectrum of

sin (f t) * sin ( (f+delta) t)

You will see that in the first case, all you see is the two original sine waves. The beating you see is simply the time domain interference between the two sine waves in AMPLITUDE. There is no change in the frequency content.

Now, look at the spectrum of the second case. In the second case, there are different frequencies present.

This is math. This is exactly math. It is not condescending to use mathematics to demonstrate a mathematical issue, it is appropriate. It is what is necessary, and what is needed.

Challenging basic trig is not going to get you anywhere. There is no question about the math. It is long-ago proven mathematically. In math there is absolute proof, unlike in science.
tubetwister likes this.

James D. (jj) Johnston
jj_0001 is online now  
post #2861 of 2920 Old 08-02-2014, 02:41 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 1161
Quote:
Originally Posted by 807recordings View Post
I sent a PM to JJ on another Pro forum as his name seems to be dropped here a lot. He has been very honest and enlightening in the knowledge he has shared in the past and helped dispel a lot of myths to audio and the so called high end which is a lot more than I can say for these sad discussions that always go on.
I can't think of any FTF meetings between JJ, myself, and Ethan, but there have definitely been a number of such meetings between the late Tom Nousaine, JJ, myself and some other highly effective and vigorous audio debunkers who shall at this time remain nameless. We kind of feed off of each other... Atkinson's name is mentioned not infrequently as one of the guys on "The Dark Side".
arnyk is offline  
post #2862 of 2920 Old 08-02-2014, 02:49 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 1161
Quote:
Originally Posted by jb82 View Post
I have listened to a friends vinyl digital recordings of many different Michael Jackson first U.S. pressings. He recorded into a cheap sound card with a kenwood TT, no USB. One set of 16 bit 44.1khz recordings and 16 bit 96khz, there is a difference. I know this is not actual Hi-Res music from a label but Its enough for me to believe that HD formats CAN be better with proper mastering from original studio source. I also compared both recordings 96khz and 44.1 khz to the best original MJ cd's and found the dynamics to be about even but the resolution on the 96khz vinyl rips was better than cd's.
Even if they make HD releases with better resolution than cd version it could still be compressed master from the label, why would they give us the actual studio recordings like Pono makes it out to be. They give you the best then they cant milk it anymore and lose control.
I listened to the music on his pc with some Sennheiser Hd 558's and in Foobar with WASAPI.

Two words: Sighted evaluation. One of the huge problems with sighted evaluations such as are described above is that they are very likely to be strongly influenced by the state of mind of the listeners. People hear what they want to hear and you can "Take that to the bank! Many have including several who post to this thread. Read this whole thread and you will see detailed discussion of serious attempts to avoid listener bias. Then ask yourself: "Why?"
arnyk is offline  
post #2863 of 2920 Old 08-02-2014, 02:55 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 1161
Quote:
Originally Posted by jb82 View Post
Cd's apply limiters.
On certain bad days that may happen.

The irony is that CD's don't need them, but analog media is far more likely to need them. There are a ton of CDs that were produced without limiting. If your ears were so sensitive to this flaw, you would know which are which.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jb82 View Post
I like both cd and vinyl but I have to stand by my statement that the resolution is greater in the vinyl sound.
You may stand on the deck of the next ship to sink with all hands lost. Vinyl is one such sinking ship.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jb82 View Post
I can here the little nuances in MJ's voice like taking a breath.
They are plenty easy to hear on the CDs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jb82 View Post
The DAC had nothing to do with it. I heard straight up more resolution on the vinyl recording in 96khz vs 44.1khz,
It is true that your expectations are probably stronger influences in your mind than the possible sound quality improvements due to the use of a really good DAC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jb82 View Post
I know this is not a fair way to judge cd quality but it has convinced me.
You heard what you want to hear, and if working at that level is what you want to do, please don't let me disturb you.
arnyk is offline  
post #2864 of 2920 Old 08-02-2014, 02:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Sacramento delta N. Cal. US Don't trust any air I can't see ☺
Posts: 2,935
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 522 Post(s)
Liked: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post
Believe it or not, the audibility of differences between 'hi rez vs redbook' is really not that interesting a 'problem' to be solved or discussed, compared to things that make a *substantial* and *easily verified* difference to sound quality. Such as loudspeaker design, loudspeaker configuration / channel number / DSP, room acoustic treatment, mastering choices.....

Championing the cause of microscopic 'problems' like HDMI jitter and the 'need' for 'high rez' in light of those elephants in the room, is farcical almost to the point of decadence. In other words, it's the 'high end'.
Funny that's what I've been thinking since first seeing this or any other similar discussions . Some folks don't know you can sometimes pick up ~ 4 dB SPL or more of room gain just placing speakers in the corners but instead buy a 2x more powerful amplifier to maybe result in 3dB SPL at peak output (if they don't over compress the speaker drivers )


Sometimes these discussions remind me of that in a way ( or OCD ) lots of the biggest gains I've had even recently were exactly as you outlined above I wish I would have known that much earlier than I did would have saved some money for sure I've found out the hard way in years past that hardware or source up grades rarely meet expectations even half way after a certain point in a given room often much less than that or a null went through the same thing with serial PC upgrading till I figured out it wasn't worth upgrading a single core CPU (same architecture usually )unless it was at least twice as fast as the older one it's a little different now in some ways but not all that much overall
for the avarage uses .

Reading postings here by yourself ,arny and mcnarus and some other effective debunkers enlightens me a ton
with easily verified information in a lot of cases .
regards
markrubin and imagic like this.

Hires Music formats ..............."Why does it sound like a CD ?" ............. can we make it louder "?
"The wireless music box has no commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?"
- David Sarnoff's associates at RCA the 1920's -

Last edited by tubetwister; 08-02-2014 at 03:27 AM.
tubetwister is online now  
post #2865 of 2920 Old 08-02-2014, 03:02 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 1161
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Our current suite of measurements are woefully inadequate in dealing with dynamic, non-linear distortions.
The far more correct statement is that some people's woefully incomplete and flawed understanding of measurements vastly understates reality.

When I get rebuffed while pointing out that there can't be any distortion without a signal, I know exactly where I am. I am in the land of the blind.
arnyk is offline  
post #2866 of 2920 Old 08-02-2014, 03:17 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 1161
Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post
I have no idea why out of nowhere, since you don't know me from Adam, you decided to pick a fight and take a hostile, condescending tone with me, but I won't take it, m'kay? I just wanted to point out you started us down this path.
Well, its time for the blood pressures to settle out. Sleep works for that.

I have to admit that I've puzzled over beats, because I know the math that JJ has recited, and it is highly relevant.

It is hard to conceive of anything more independent and less prone to intermodulate than two tuning forks. Of course they are in the same acoustic space and air is a bit nonlinear, but its not that nonlinear. These aren't very loud sounds. No, the beat has to be a perceived phantom sound (of which there are many), and not an actual physical event in the air of the room. If you measure this with a good mic, you find two independent tones. If you record it coming out of the same driver, you can actually find some intermodulation, especially if you crank the gain. But, it happens audibly with two tuning forks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post
You are a really poor teacher by the way. A good teacher can tailor their lecture to the technical expertise of the audience. You don't seem to be able to do that, at all. Plus your condescension makes you look childish, by the way.
JJ can be hard to follow for the exact reason you state, and secretive. Lots of people flunked calculus and a lot more didn't try. I both flunked the first two semesters of Calculus and then aced them all the way though graduate school. I may be uniquely positioned to empathize with those who are weak in math and also befuddle them at the drop of a hat should I fall into that trap.

Back in the day I tried to get JJ to reveal what he actually meant when he talked about listener training. No dice until his JAES paper about the MPEG tests came out and that was a loooong time later. While I was waiting for that to happen I developed my own technology for listener training, and for the kinds of tests of electronic equipment that I developed it for, it stands up very well 20 years later if I do say so myself.
arnyk is offline  
post #2867 of 2920 Old 08-02-2014, 03:48 AM
Advanced Member
 
jj_0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the rain
Posts: 757
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post
You are a really poor teacher by the way. A good teacher can tailor their lecture to the technical expertise of their audience.
Wow, you refuse to even look at the math, and attack the messenger. You think I'm condescending because I tell you math is necessary. Sorry, you won't understand this until you understand the tools, and the most important tool is the mathematics.

You'll have to develop the tools, give up arguing, or simply accept what people who understand tell you. Until you do gather the trig issues, this one is not going to sink in. Math is the key here. I repeat. Math. Math is not irrelevant, math is not diversion, math is the key issue. Mathematics. Not simple, flawed analogies, not looking at waveforms instead of listening to them, math.

Really. All you seem to be able to do is engage in appeals to inappropriate authority (while ignoring relevant authority), insinuate that relevant authority is talking through its hat, refuse to work with the necessary tools to understand the problem in the first place, and then insult people who are trying to help you.

Math is necessary to understand this field. Rather a lot of math. Not just calculus, trig, and linear algebra, but also fourier analysis, filter theory, transform duality, and rather a lot of other stuff. Really. It would be lovely if more people wanted to learn all that, too.

James D. (jj) Johnston
jj_0001 is online now  
post #2868 of 2920 Old 08-02-2014, 03:49 AM
Super Moderator
 
markrubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Jersey Shore
Posts: 22,898
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 95 Post(s)
Liked: 359
thread cleanup

please guys, stop the personal attacks: that way you can continue posting in this thread

thanks

Last edited by markrubin; 08-02-2014 at 03:58 AM.
markrubin is online now  
post #2869 of 2920 Old 08-02-2014, 03:59 AM
Advanced Member
 
jj_0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the rain
Posts: 757
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 40
removed

James D. (jj) Johnston
jj_0001 is online now  
post #2870 of 2920 Old 08-02-2014, 04:02 AM
Advanced Member
 
RayDunzl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 905
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 297 Post(s)
Liked: 293
"Again, look at the spectrum of

sin( f t) + sin ( (f+delta) t)


Then look at the spectrum of

sin (f t) * sin ( (f+delta) t)"

---

I haven't gotten it into a spectrum yet, but just looking at the waveforms:



I think I will see two equal frequencies in the first.

And one strong frequency at f1*f2 with a pair of weaker sidetones in the second. More likely a tone at the frequency of the undulation.

I could be wrong...

------

Right on the first one:

Using tones at 2000 and 2100 in audacity




... and considering how to create f1*f2 in audacity...

Found how to do Fourier in Excel, but failed to graph it, and giving up, as the answer is from JJ below.

I'll be back later...



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
> digits >
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
>
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
>
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
>
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
>
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by RayDunzl; 08-02-2014 at 05:00 AM.
RayDunzl is online now  
post #2871 of 2920 Old 08-02-2014, 04:04 AM
Advanced Member
 
jj_0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the rain
Posts: 757
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
Back in the day I tried to get JJ to reveal what he actually meant when he talked about listener training. No dice until his JAES paper about the MPEG tests came out and that was a loooong time later. While I was waiting for that to happen I developed my own technology for listener training, and for the kinds of tests of electronic equipment that I developed it for, it stands up very well 20 years later if I do say so myself.
Arny, when one works for an employer, one can not just give away their property on a whim.

Sometimes one must be secretive when one works for a company that wishes to make money (let's try to forget how poor they were at that goal, though).

The problem with this discussion is that it's all math. The key difference is linearity, i.e. is there more than scaling and simple addition involved. If there is, new frequencies not present at the "input" will be generated.

That kind of nonlinearity is what can pull things down into the audible range. Those ultrasonic speakers that somebody has been showing work on air nonlinearity, you cross two beams, and the resulting IMD is the desired audio signal. That desired audio signal is not emitted by either set of drivers.

Two tones will "beat' by interference in the time domain, but as you said, when you analyze them, you will see only two tones.

James D. (jj) Johnston
jj_0001 is online now  
post #2872 of 2920 Old 08-02-2014, 04:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,009
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Liked: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by jj_0001 View Post
Wow, you refuse to even look at the math, and attack the messenger. You think I'm condescending because I tell you math is necessary. Sorry, you won't understand this until you understand the tools, and the most important tool is the mathematics.
.
I never said your math was wrong.


I'll explain this to all about your error, with only a little bit of math, but unlike your posts which you know damn straight aren't understood by your target audience and you do that by design, MY explanation will be. Goodnight.

In A/V reproduction accuracy, there is no concept of "accounting for taste". We don't "pick" the level of bass any more than we get to pick the ending of a play. High fidelity is an unbiased, neutral, exact copy (or "reproduction") of the original source's tonal balance, timing, dynamics, etc..


Last edited by m. zillch; 08-02-2014 at 04:13 AM.
m. zillch is offline  
post #2873 of 2920 Old 08-02-2014, 04:14 AM
Advanced Member
 
jj_0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the rain
Posts: 757
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayDunzl View Post
"Again, look at the spectrum of

sin( f t) + sin ( (f+delta) t)


Then look at the spectrum of

sin (f t) * sin ( (f+delta) t)"

---

I haven't gotten it into a spectrum yet, but just looking at the waveforms:



I think I will see two equal frequencies in the first.
Precisely. You see envelope modulation at delta/2 frequency just like one would expect, but you will see the same two frequencies you expect, namely f and f+delta and nothing else (well, unless you do something nonlinear to it).
Quote:

And one strong frequency at f1*f2 with a pair of weaker sidetones in the second. More likely a tone at the frequency of the undulation.

I could be wrong...
You have a tone at delta and at 2f+delta, is what I would expect. That's what it looks like, too. Might have said 2f-delta before, but it's +delta.

Maybe I should just make a picture. Good idea.
stereoeditor likes this.

James D. (jj) Johnston
jj_0001 is online now  
post #2874 of 2920 Old 08-02-2014, 04:21 AM
Member
 
jb82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 131
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
Two words: Sighted evaluation. One of the huge problems with sighted evaluations such as are described above is that they are very likely to be strongly influenced by the state of mind of the listeners. People hear what they want to hear and you can "Take that to the bank! Many have including several who post to this thread. Read this whole thread and you will see detailed discussion of serious attempts to avoid listener bias. Then ask yourself: "Why?"
Well I guess you need to recommend me a DAC that will bring out more detail in my cd's and get it better than my vinyl. And I do keep saying I like both cd and vinyl just that the vinyl has more detail in the voice,etc. The dynamics are close in early cd's and I think I like the cd's better in this area. I was talking about the breaths in Invincible compared to cd. So you think you can get an EQ and turn down everything except MJ's voice and those subletie's will be there, no.
And it had nothing to do with sighted evaluation I spent a lot of time critically listening to 44.1khz vinyl rips and 96khz vinly rips and just the cd's. You can keep saying all the hog wash u want the detail is there. Now if I ever come across a cd that has the detail of its vinyl counterpart I will reconsider.

Last edited by jb82; 08-02-2014 at 04:29 AM.
jb82 is offline  
post #2875 of 2920 Old 08-02-2014, 04:36 AM
Member
 
jb82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 131
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 15
You guys dont find it odd that many people are using very high quality vinyl rips now in 96khz instead of the cd versions? The science behind redbook seems convincing but if you still have decent ears they will tell you otherwise.
jb82 is offline  
post #2876 of 2920 Old 08-02-2014, 04:42 AM
Advanced Member
 
jj_0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the rain
Posts: 757
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Ok, going back, the question was "Can two tones create an audible beat, in the context of the two tones being above the highest frequency one can hear, without high levels or some kind of distortion involved?" (high levels in the atmosphere will distort in the atmosphere)

The issue of linear combination leading to "beating" was raised.

Here we see four lines in a plot. The sampling rate for the plot, conveniently, is 192kHz.

The first line is a 30kHz sine wave added to a 33kHz sine wave. The horizontal scale is seconds.
The second line is the spectrum of that signal. The horizontal scale is frequency (no surprise I hope)

The third line is the two sine waves multiplied.
The 4th is the spectrum of that signal.

Clearly, without a nonlinearity, simple addition of the two sines does not create any energy at 3kHz. The visible beating is at 1.5kHz (notice the phase inversions at the zeros), but there is no energy in audible frequencies. There is nothing that the eardrum can even transmit effectively to the cochlea in that signal.

With the product (which pretty much defines nonlinear), notice we have a 63kHz signal, and a 3kHz signal.

That signal has a very, very audible component that is physically present, and that is created by the nonlinearity.

This shows clearly the difference between "beating" as shown in the cited MIT url, and actual nonlinearity.

The frequencies are also quite relevant, being ones that have been tested.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	foobar.jpg
Views:	21
Size:	63.2 KB
ID:	192953  
stereoeditor likes this.

James D. (jj) Johnston

Last edited by jj_0001; 08-02-2014 at 04:48 AM.
jj_0001 is online now  
post #2877 of 2920 Old 08-02-2014, 04:42 AM
Member
 
jb82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 131
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
On certain bad days that may happen.

The irony is that CD's don't need them, but analog media is far more likely to need them. There are a ton of CDs that were produced without limiting. If your ears were so sensitive to this flaw, you would know which are which.



You may stand on the deck of the next ship to sink with all hands lost. Vinyl is one such sinking ship.




They are plenty easy to hear on the CDs.



It is true that your expectations are probably stronger influences in your mind than the possible sound quality improvements due to the use of a really good DAC.



You heard what you want to hear, and if working at that level is what you want to do, please don't let me disturb you.
I did not hear what I want to hear, I wanted the cd to sound just as good or the cd quality rip to as well. At this time I was on redbooks side. Now I know there is something to it if the music labels want to give us more resolution they could.
jb82 is offline  
post #2878 of 2920 Old 08-02-2014, 04:44 AM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 5,665
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1118 Post(s)
Liked: 2271
Quote:
Originally Posted by jb82 View Post
You guys dont find it odd that many people are using very high quality vinyl rips now in 96khz instead of the cd versions? The science behind redbook seems convincing but if you still have decent ears they will tell you otherwise.
At the Capital Audiofest I paid specific attention to the sound of CD vs. vinyl. In my subjective opinion, based on circumstantial evidence, CDs generally sounded better. There are situations where a vinyl pressing will contain more dynamic range than the CD version of an album, in which case recording a needle drop would make sense. It would be better if the CD version contained the good mix, but if the best mix is on vinyl then that's what you have to work with.
tubetwister likes this.

Find out more about Mark Henninger at
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
imagic is online now  
post #2879 of 2920 Old 08-02-2014, 04:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Sacramento delta N. Cal. US Don't trust any air I can't see ☺
Posts: 2,935
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 522 Post(s)
Liked: 362
I'm some what behaving 2 day got served a large helping of crow yesterday the bigger portion from J.A. ( didn't interpret correctly or even read the material in an argument I should have stayed out of or might not have entered had I read what I was disputing the smaller potion was from our benevolent dictator Armn he busted me (rightfully )on some claims I made about You tube audio playback bit rates I was ill informed as to the accepted upload bit rates actual YouTube playback bit rates .


Armimn has been presenting some rather good arguments and information about the need for listener training today I couldn't ignore so that's at least 2 for Armimn he's been doing pretty good today hate to admit it but the guys no dummie ofc I never really thought that anyway even when we were needling each other maybe he is mellowing out his hires position a bit maybe not.......... or looking for a soft landing maybe who has not done that? ☺☺

In any event nothing wrong with his position on pristine source files or exact replicas if you can afford them why not if they sound better(they can) or just make you feel better ?

Crawl bots caught me today with some poliitikkal <SIC.> satire (real funny too) gotta lay low for a while (under the radar ) especially with the blood sport stuff !And now we are on a real human mods radar yikes !

Back to the discussion at hand ( one of them anyway) I know what a beat freq. oscillator (CW BFO) for morse code is electronically not so sure about the tuning fork thing I also know what an R.F.resonant circuit,( tank circuit, or tuned circuit )is also . How did we get from hires to tuned R.F. circuits ? Not to sure about tuning fork beat freq in air though .

I was to busy flirting with a babe a few seats over in H.S. when we where doing tuning forks I know a little about electronic and some acoustical resonances and all. I made plenty of A.R. playing music at rude levels over the years even rattled the kitchen cabinets some .


Guess we will see how it goes ! I'm thinking at least J.J might have the upper hand here though, especially considering his impressive back ground and all. Cant deny what I'm thinking on this it's not like I'm taking the 5th here or anything I hope Zilch doesn't get to bloody tomorrow . I can tell him first hand crow ain't the best meal one could ever have

Hires Music formats ..............."Why does it sound like a CD ?" ............. can we make it louder "?
"The wireless music box has no commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?"
- David Sarnoff's associates at RCA the 1920's -

Last edited by tubetwister; 08-02-2014 at 05:18 AM.
tubetwister is online now  
post #2880 of 2920 Old 08-02-2014, 04:47 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 1161
Quote:
Originally Posted by jj_0001 View Post
Arny, when one works for an employer, one can not just give away their property on a whim.
Doooh. How many NDA's do you think I've signed in my life? How many security clearances have I had? In both cases, lots. You know my resume a bit. I worked for the advanced R&D departments of car companies. I served in the military during the Vietnam era and I maintained secret military equipment. I developed software that did at the time what nobody else could do.

However, I'll bet money you know nothing about any of them. AFAIK never even hint of them has been heard from my mouth until just now. The good news is that it is now pretty much all in the public domain.

The problem is that your mentions of listener training was something that I had a fair amount of experience with well before I ever met you. The context was highly contentious (RAO) and certain people (some of whom post here) were using your words to criticize my efforts to publicize the benefits and relevance of DBTs. It was a lose-lose situation for me, and in the end the technology that was used in the MPEG tests wasn't that different from our own work. Had you said nothing, to this day I think I would have been under less stress.

I never figured out that you were protecting trade secrets until this morning when I posted what I did. A light went on, and on 8/2/2014 at about 5 am EDT I thought for the first time "JJ was protecting what were at the time (snicker, snicker) MPEG group trade secrets." Ironically, they were secrets that I'll claim that any reasonable careful worker would figure out for himself. I did, and I'm far from being the sharpest knife in the drawer. But it took a while.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jj_0001 View Post
Sometimes one must be secretive when one works for a company that wishes to make money (let's try to forget how poor they were at that goal, though).
That whole era had to be very frustrating for you. It is frustrating when you with great difficulty beat out the keys to the kingdom and when you give them to management they go away mystified, but never bother to ask for an explanation because that would expose what they don't know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jj_0001 View Post
The problem with this discussion is that it's all math. The key difference is linearity, i.e. is there more than scaling and simple addition involved. If there is, new frequencies not present at the "input" will be generated.
Of course, and that is all fine and good. However, a good scout is someone who knows the lay of the land and will introduce you to her. ;-). As I've just mentioned in another post, I just came away from a discussion in this thread in which it was strongly asserted by one of the local eggspurts that you can have distortion with no appreciable input signal. That after disputing the propriety of testing equipment with near FS test signals. That after asserting for several years the strong audibility of -120 dB and smaller artifacts while claiming that masking was the only limit to the audibility of these artifacts, and so on. Fun, fun, fun!

Quote:
Originally Posted by jj_0001 View Post
That kind of nonlinearity is what can pull things down into the audible range. Those ultrasonic speakers that somebody has been showing work on air nonlinearity, you cross two beams, and the resulting IMD is the desired audio signal. That desired audio signal is not emitted by either set of drivers.
For your pleasure please download and analyze this file (actually a zip file with 2 files in it):

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rjaw0fd9vg...tones%20f3.zip



Quote:
Originally Posted by jj_0001 View Post
Two tones will "beat' by interference in the time domain, but as you said, when you analyze them, you will see only two tones.
Right, and that is a great lesson to people who believe that the evidence of their ears is exactly what it seems to be in every case.
arnyk is offline  
Closed Thread Audio theory, Setup and Chat

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off