or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › A Brief Guide to Audio for the Skeptical Consumer
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A Brief Guide to Audio for the Skeptical Consumer - Page 2

post #31 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

^
Well, then Ethan missed the point and/or didn't read the linked page thoroughly. I wasn't talking about the device but the inherent localization error in intensity based stereo signals. There are references and links on that page which explain the issue in more detail.

If Ethan doesn't like tubes (which is just the equally simple-minded opposite of "I like tubes")...

Its not that Ethan and I don't like tubes, it is that we know their practical purpose in audio circuits in 2013 is none.

The symmetry you claim between liking them and not liking them is false for many very clear practical reasons. Tubes make equipment larger, hotter, noisier, more expensive, more fragile, more dangerous, more distorting, and less reliable, and not by just a little. Other than that, they can be a lot of fun as long as you don't kill yourself while fooling with them. ;-)
post #32 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Its not that Ethan and I don't like tubes, it is that we know their practical purpose in audio circuits in 2013 is none.

The symmetry you claim between liking them and not liking them is false for many very clear practical reasons. Tubes make equipment larger, hotter, noisier, more expensive, more fragile, more dangerous, more distorting, and less reliable, and not by just a little. Other than that, they can be a lot of fun as long as you don't kill yourself while fooling with them. ;-)

May I add... Tubes look super cool and expensive too!
post #33 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Please explain the following:

" It can be shown that this error is reduced with vinyl."

i thought on balance they were suggesting that you need to reduce channel separation to achieve satisfactory stereo imaging using omni mics. certainly AFAIK vinyl has significantly worse separation than digital or even multitrack tape.
post #34 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenwood Ave View Post

I do feel that frequency response measurements of my living space would be something I'd like to get into in the future. I'm glad that it came across in the blog that I'm not trying to present myself as an expert but more as an enthusiastic novice. And I would like to try a subwoofer again in the future. My motivation behind writing about the subwoofer thing was more to give an honest account of my research and experiences rather than to make any kind of authoritative statements about subwoofers.


My system is primarily for music playback and only the occasional movie. My subs are an integral part of my system giving me down to 25hz measured response in my room. I find it adds so much more to the music of many genres, including folk, orchestral etc. At times I have tried other setups and only got coverage down to 35hz... and I did not like it at all, as I missed not having that last 10hz.

But that was only after learning how to take frequency response measurements of my room and then learning how to get a smooth even response free of large peaks and dips from 25hz and up. The subs after that just blended in perfectly with the speakers and never called attention to themselves. They became just another part of the music. And a important part at that. Not only do you have the lower octaves of certain instruments, but you also have how the lower octaves of those instruments interacted with the room they were recorded in, as the recording space/venue itself reverberates very low frequencies.

It's the kind of thing where you wouldn't miss it if you've never had it... but once you've had it, you couldn't go without it again.
post #35 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

My system is primarily for music playback and only the occasional movie. My subs are an integral part of my system giving me down to 25hz measured response in my room. I find it adds so much more to the music of many genres, including folk, orchestral etc. At times I have tried other setups and only got coverage down to 35hz... and I did not like it at all, as I missed not having that last 10hz.

+1 - I completely agree. And if you don't have big tower speakers that go down to 35Hz for your mains, but instead large bookshelf speakers that only go down to 50Hz then the sub is even more important for even more kinds of music. Like the OP, I am just learning how to measure in-room response and tame those room influenced peaks and dips - it makes all the difference on how the bass from the subs blend with the main speakers.
Edited by mtn-tech - 10/23/13 at 10:21am
post #36 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenwood Ave View Post

I had a lot of fun writing and researching this, and I'd definitely appreciate any feedback or even criticism.

Nice research - interesting quotes you found - some great references that I hadn't seen before. You certainly got the same old debates stirred up again. I'm not really in the "all modern equipment sounds the same" or the "audiophile - night and day difference between different gear" camps - I am in the middle - strange I know. I have heard minor improvements in higher quality electronics, but I mostly own them just because I wanted to own certain components.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenwood Ave View Post

“The loudspeaker will determine how your music system sounds. Not the amplifier, not the preamplifier, not the CD or DVD player, nothing but the loudspeaker. Speakers, even the finest, are far less accurate in terms of output compared to input than any of those other components. The speaker will be invariably the weakest link in the chain, the link that limits the quality of sound reproduction.” – A Note About Loudspeakers @ The Audio Critic

Or more correctly how the loudspeaker sounds in your particular room - the same speaker doesn't always perform the same in different environments. In my experience those other things can also make a difference, but only 10% - the speakers are the other 90%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenwood Ave View Post

Any amplifier, regardless of topology, can be treated as a ‘black box’ for the purpose of listening comparisons. If amplifiers A and B both have flat frequency response, low noise floor, reasonably low distortion, high input impedance, low output impedance, and are not clipped, they will be indistinguishable in sound at matched levels no matter what’s inside them.” – Obsession with Amplifiers @ The Audio Critic

I agree that any high quality amplifier of modern design will have a mostly transparent influence on music reproduction and differences between them under very controlled conditions are not audible. But notice that this statement of "no audible differences between amps" has a lot of qualifications - they always do. Yes, most modern amps have similar frequency response and other specs, but they do not have similar noise or distortion specs (may or may not be audible) and certainly don't have similar output impedance, max current or power outputs specs. Yes, modern amps will sound the same when level matched at lower listening levels with easily driven loads where the lesser amp is not pushed into excessive distortion or clipping - but those other listening situations do exist and that is where you will be able to tell the difference. My little Parasound Zamp - a wonderful little 30 watt amp - sounds great but it cannot drive any speaker to high listening levels the same way that an amp with 10x the power can. Some lesser AVRs will even shut down after a few minutes under these conditions - I've seen it myself with a $700 Sony ES AVR.
post #37 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond Leggs View Post

All of it is MOOT unless you are doing something that most people don't do. Which is play MP3's on their stereo system. Unless you have a good CD player and or SACD etc, you won't even get material that will make those speakers worth happening.

If your using it in a home theater system then something like DTS-MA HD and Dolby Digital + with the better quality tracks, ie; uncompressed then you'll be able to hear the differences between speaker sets. But most people never get to hear those differences either through screwups with their system, source material etc. 

I totally disagree - I think almost everyone can hear the difference between speakers - regardless of the source material. Speakers are "voiced" very differently and often don't even have the same type of sound (bright highs, warm, thin bass, etc). I can't imagine anyone switching between high end bookshelf speakers, large towers, electrostatics, and horn loaded speakers and not being able to tell the difference.

The differences in speakers are WAY more obvious than the minor gains in fidelity between MP3 (even 320kps) and CD or between Dolby Digital (AC3) and lossless multi-channel. I can hear the differences when switching between these but they are VERY minor compared to the differences in speakers. And that goes for stereo L/R speakers, center channel speakers, surround speakers, and even subs. There is no comparison between the clarity and fullness of mid-bass of my last two center channel speakers - they were both $500+ speakers but they don't sound at all alike and the new one has so much better intelligibility even with Dolby Digital that it is like I got a new DVD collection.
post #38 of 59
Quote:
7. “Audiophile” higher bit audio formats are not likely to offer audible improvements over compact disc 16 bit/44.1 kHz quality.

What about harmonics that extend beyond the upper end of hearing?
I don't think it's as simple as writing them off as being inaudible. Frequencies below 20hz are inaudible also, but they do provide an experience.
It was my understanding that the increase in sample rate was implemented to be able to reproduce these harmonics.
post #39 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audionut11 View Post

Quote:
7. “Audiophile” higher bit audio formats are not likely to offer audible improvements over compact disc 16 bit/44.1 kHz quality.

What about harmonics that extend beyond the upper end of hearing?

You already answered your own question when you said " beyond the upper end of hearing", didn't you?
Quote:
I don't think it's as simple as writing them off as being inaudible.

You're right. The real question is how low can I set the brick wall filter, and not hear a difference, given I'm starting out with a music or dramatic recording that has response all the way up. The answer to that question is about 16 KHz which is well below the upper end of human hearing for single pure tones. The explanation is spectral masking.
Quote:
Frequencies below 20hz are inaudible also, but they do provide an experience.

Of course, so much so that many of us will argue with the claim that they are inaudible. They may not get to us through our ears, but if loud enough they are easily perceived and their absence is about as obvious as the nose on your face. Not so with the high frequency stuff.
Quote:
It was my understanding that the increase in sample rate was implemented to be able to reproduce these harmonics.

You can reproduce the hamonics above 16 KHz right in your face, but they add nothing that you can reliably perceive.

In Y2K I made some special recordings with measurement mics that had strong response up to about 40 KHz. The sample rate was 96 KHz and the presence of the high harmonics > 20 KHz is quite clear in technical tests. I brick wall filtered them at various frequencies and found that as long as the brick wall was > 16 Khz, it had no discernible effect on listeners.

Here's the web page I made back then:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050210190126/http://www.pcabx.com/technical/low_pass/index.htm

You can do the listening tests for yourself by downloading files from that web page (still works!) and auditioning them yourself in DBTs performed with the Foobar2000 music player and its ABX plug in. Don't believe me, just believe your ears!
Edited by arnyk - 10/24/13 at 5:27am
post #40 of 59
A large part of the increase in sampling rate is/was to increase the transition band for the filters (anti-alias filter before the ADC, image filter after the DAC). That reduces in-band phase shift and amplitude ripples.

Of course, another large part is that delta-sigma converters can be made cheaply...
post #41 of 59
Also I believe the inaudibly high frequencies are filtered out.
post #42 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

You can reproduce the hamonics above 16 KHz right in your face, but they add nothing that you can reliably perceive.

But as a consumer you cannot provide me with reliable data to show this. There is plenty of science to show that there are natural harmonics above our audible sensory perception. I raised the point about lower then audible frequencies because it is very easy to notice the effects.
If I was to listen to your test samples and claim I heard a difference, on what grounds would you be able to assure me that I'm just hearing things!


I think the point being is that there is science to show that the other points made in the guide are correct. The last point even has quotes that counter claim each other.

Quote:
That the Meyer-Moran tests leave no room for continued disagreements is an occasion for the most delicious Schadenfreude on the part of electronic soundalike advocates like yours truly. I stated my suspicions that SACD was no improvement over CD seven years ago, in my review of the first Sony SACD player.
Quote:
“The Meyer/Moran test is persuasive, but I am open to the idea that some further research may prove it to be not the last word on the transparency of 16/44. Still, I’d expect the audible differences between 16/44 and higher resolutions to be subtle at best, and I am sceptical of any claims otherwise.”

Quote:
The real question is how low can I set the brick wall filter, and not hear a difference

But this is skeptical at best.
Quote:
Of course, so much so that many of us will argue with the claim that they are inaudible. They may not get to us through our ears

Am I missing something here? If the sensory perception is not audible (transmitted to the brain via the ears), then it would be inaudible.
post #43 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonH50 View Post

A large part of the increase in sampling rate is/was to increase the transition band for the filters (anti-alias filter before the ADC, image filter after the DAC). That reduces in-band phase shift and amplitude ripples.

Some people said that.

Those of us who actually listened properly found out that those effects could be and were usually restricted to very near 22 KHz. But you see 22 KHz is an ultrasonic or in other words an inaudible frequency. We found that you could take quite a serious dump in the near ultrasonic region and nobody heard nuttin'.

High sample rates are a solution looking for a problem.

Transition band audibility was a candidate for that solution but was not actually a problem.
Quote:
Of course, another large part is that delta-sigma converters can be made cheaply...

That compounded the problem of finding a purpose for high sample rates. It became feasible and common for anti-alias filters to be made as ideally as was needed.

44.1 KHz sampling is overkill. 34 KHz usually suffices.
post #44 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audionut11 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

You can reproduce the hamonics above 16 KHz right in your face, but they add nothing that you can reliably perceive.

But as a consumer you cannot provide me with reliable data to show this.

Well, maybe not as a consumer, but let me put on this other hat. ;-)
Quote:
There is plenty of science to show that there are natural harmonics above our audible sensory perception.

Yes, but as you say, they are above our audible sensory perception.
Quote:
I raised the point about lower then audible frequencies because it is very easy to notice the effects.

..as long as you stick to invalid sighted evaluations. Some of us do better work than that!
Quote:
If I was to listen to your test samples and claim I heard a difference, on what grounds would you be able to assure me that I'm just hearing things!

I came pretty close to death for health reasons here a few months back, and so my patience for idle speculation is not so much.

What do you actually hear?
Quote:
I think the point being is that there is science to show that the other points made in the guide are correct. The last point even has quotes that counter claim each other.

The guide is correct in many areas.
Quote:
That the Meyer-Moran tests leave no room for continued disagreements is an occasion for the most delicious Schadenfreude on the part of electronic soundalike advocates like yours truly. I stated my suspicions that SACD was no improvement over CD seven years ago, in my review of the first Sony SACD player.

Since you hide your true identity behind a bogus alias, you can say what you will and I can ignore it as I will because you could be some 12 year old with delusions of grandeur. ;-)
Quote:
“The Meyer/Moran test is persuasive, but I am open to the idea that some further research may prove it to be not the last word on the transparency of 16/44. Still, I’d expect the audible differences between 16/44 and higher resolutions to be subtle at best, and I am sceptical of any claims otherwise.”

All findings of science are provisional and may be changed by future findings. Truisms based on that shed remarkably little light.
Quote:
Quote:
The real question is how low can I set the brick wall filter, and not hear a difference

But this is skeptical at best.

No, the question is very relevant, and claims that the brick wall must be set higher than 22 KHz lack reliable evidence.
Quote:
Quote:
Of course, so much so that many of us will argue with the claim that they are inaudible. They may not get to us through our ears

Where's the beef?

You seem to have problems with speculation, and then you dump what seems to be a pile of it in my lap.

I'm not all that much amused, except by the irony of the self-contradiction you seem to be engaging in.

As far as Meyer and Moran goes, they may have been bushwhacked by the music industry who sold a lot of low-bandwidth recordings as the Emperor's new hi rez clothes. Some say that it is probable or at least possible that up to half of the so-called hi rez recordings that Meyer and Moran used were from legacy and other compromised sources that never had significant content > 22 KHz. They were only sold that way, which was probably petty fraud. Meyer and Moran took them at face value, with the results that the percentage of the recordings that even had something > 22 KHz to hear was low enough to possibly affect their experiment.

Eventually some experimenters found out about the compromised so-called hi rez recordings. The loss of high frequencies shows up in measurements and some of those measurements have been published. However, high end reviewers had been ooohing and aaahing about the compromised recordings for quite a while at that point, and none of them blew the whistle on the music industry until later on if at all.
post #45 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audionut11 View Post

What about harmonics that extend beyond the upper end of hearing?

Arny is already giving you good answers, but I can add some too:

Many instruments (and other sound sources such as jingling keys) do produce overtones at frequencies beyond 20 KHz. But nobody can hear them. This has been tested so many times over the past 50-100 years that it's not worth arguing about. It's also very easy for you to test yourself! The text below from my Audio Expert book describes how to do this. And then you'll know for sure. I tried to attach the Wave file mentioned, but the forum doesn't allow Wave files and an MP3 file is not sufficient. So you'll have to record your own file, which is not difficult.
Quote:
Frequencies below 20hz are inaudible also, but they do provide an experience.

Frequencies below 20 are in fact audible, but they have to be very loud to be heard as well as felt. My SVS subwoofer can play to below 16 Hz and I can definitely hear that. So could you.
Quote:
It was my understanding that the increase in sample rate was implemented to be able to reproduce these harmonics.

No, "high resolution" audio was developed solely to sell you the same music you already bought, and new hardware to play it on. biggrin.gif

--Ethan


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Audio Expert 
It's easy to determine, for once and for all, if a response beyond 20 KHz is noticeable to you. All you need is a sweepable low-pass filter. You start with the filter set to well beyond 20 KHz, play the source material of your choice, and sweep the filter downward until you can hear a change. Then read the frequency noted on the filter's dial. I've used a set of keys jingling in front of a high-quality, small-diaphragm condenser mike, but a percussion instrument with extended high-frequency content such as a tambourine works well, too. Most people don't have access to suitable audio test gear, but you can do this with common audio editing software. Record a source having content beyond 20 KHz using a sample rate of 88.2 or 96 KHz, then sweep a filter plug-in as described above. I suggest you verify that ultrasonic frequencies are present using an FFT or Real Time Analyzer plug-in to be sure your test is valid.

So you won't have to do it, I recorded the file “tambourine.wav” at a sample rate of 96 KHz through a precision DPA microphone. As you can see in Figure 3.4, this file contains energy beyond 35 KHz, so it's a perfect source for such tests. It's only 7 seconds long, so set it to loop continuously in your audio editor program as you experiment with a plug-in EQ filter.
post #46 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audionut11 View Post

What about harmonics that extend beyond the upper end of hearing?

Arny is already giving you good answers, but I can add some too:

Many instruments (and other sound sources such as jingling keys) do produce overtones at frequencies beyond 20 KHz. But nobody can hear them. This has been tested so many times over the past 50-100 years that it's not worth arguing about. It's also very easy for you to test yourself! The text below from my Audio Expert book describes how to do this. And then you'll know for sure. I tried to attach the Wave file mentioned, but the forum doesn't allow Wave files and an MP3 file is not sufficient. So you'll have to record your own file, which is not difficult.
 

 

It does allow ZIP files though, Ethan. If the zipped file is within their upload size limits anyway. Just a thought.

post #47 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonH50 View Post

A large part of the increase in sampling rate is/was to increase the transition band for the filters (anti-alias filter before the ADC, image filter after the DAC). That reduces in-band phase shift and amplitude ripples.

Some people said that.

Those of us who actually listened properly found out that those effects could be and were usually restricted to very near 22 KHz. But you see 22 KHz is an ultrasonic or in other words an inaudible frequency. We found that you could take quite a serious dump in the near ultrasonic region and nobody heard nuttin'.

High sample rates are a solution looking for a problem.

Transition band audibility was a candidate for that solution but was not actually a problem.
Quote:
Of course, another large part is that delta-sigma converters can be made cheaply...

That compounded the problem of finding a purpose for high sample rates. It became feasible and common for anti-alias filters to be made as ideally as was needed.

44.1 KHz sampling is overkill. 34 KHz usually suffices.

I don't want to divert this too much... I and many others (you too, I am betting) measured the filter transfer function and impulse response of several early CD players and they were horrible. High-order imaging filters caused significant phase shifts several octaves down into the pass band (i.e. into the low kHz range). Phase was non-linear as all get-out, natch, so group delay was anything but constant.

At that time (early 80's) we decided some of the HF hash was from the fitlers. Of course, how the filters interact with the buffers was also at play, and some opamps did NOT like the glitches DACs produced! There was so much else going on in those days that I would not attribute all their ills to the filters, however, so audibility remains a question mark for me (and perhaps others).

Of course, we'll still be talking ourselves blue in the face to people who can hear "digital" when we have 64-bit, 64-MS/s audio converters.
post #48 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonH50 View Post


I don't want to divert this too much... I and many others (you too, I am betting) measured the filter transfer function and impulse response of several early CD players and they were horrible. High-order imaging filters caused significant phase shifts several octaves down into the pass band (i.e. into the low kHz range). Phase was non-linear as all get-out, natch, so group delay was anything but constant.

So much for measurements. What we also found is that as bad as it measured, it didn't sound different from ideal with almost all music. Check the DBTs we did for Stereo Review, and you'll find that the effect was only just barely detectable with recordings of big choirs and pink noise.

Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?", Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986)

This was true of the one of the two original ca. 1983 players, but was corrected in later models. The problem became moot when overly complex, imprecise, and expensive analog filters were replaced with digital filters.
post #49 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

All findings of science are provisional and may be changed by future findings.

I agree wholeheartedly. But you're not willing to entertain the fact that your findings based on observations could change with time?

Do our observations of the world around us not change with experience?


And I would also ask you kindly to stick to the conversation at hand and not lower yourself to attacks on my credibility based of my forum alias. The entire point of this thread is to reassure the skeptical consumer about some of the claims that are thrown around in the industry, and how those claims do not effect the listening experience. It has nothing to do with my points of conversation being invalid because I am "hiding behind a fake alias", and the speculation of being a 12 year old. Nor do your points made in this conversation hold extra weight because you make those points from your high pedestal.

Cheers,
Lionel Davey.
Just an individual!
post #50 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonH50 View Post

A large part of the increase in sampling rate is/was to increase the transition band for the filters (anti-alias filter before the ADC, image filter after the DAC). That reduces in-band phase shift and amplitude ripples.

Exactly correct - back in the 70's when the technology was developed these were both very real problems - the extra bit depth back then could have made a significant improvement in the dynamic range and higher sample frequencies to allow for better low pass filtering.

Bit dithering solved the ADC problem and if done correctly can approach the theoretical limit for dynamic range and S/N ratio for 16 bits which is more than enough - of course that is only if it is done correctly. And the DAC filtering isn't really an issue anymore with digital filtering - back then vey steep sampling frequency analog "brick wall" filters with flat response to 20kHz were not possible without side effects. When CD was developed, Sony wanted to use 20 bits and it would have made CD better, but now that the extra bit depth is available it isn't really needed IF the mastering is done well.
post #51 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audionut11 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

All findings of science are provisional and may be changed by future findings.

I agree wholeheartedly. But you're not willing to entertain the fact that your findings based on observations could change with time?

Of course I am.

I've done far more than merely entertained that thought. I've redone my work using alternative techniques and helped others do the same.

Others have mounted independent efforts. For example I had no idea about what Meyers and Moran were up to until I read their AES conference paper, even though I designed and built some of the equipment they used a few decades earlier and had a personal acquaintance with Meyers.

The results are all basically the same.

How many times do you measure gravity expecting a significantly different result? ;-)

People who expect a different result obviously lack hands-on experience doing it, because if they had, they wouldn't be skeptical at all. It is what it is, let's move on.

Unfortunately, greed is alive and well and the business strategy of using a different playback technique to resell the same recordings again and again to the same people apparently still has some life in it, despite the cratering of SACD and DVD-A. People lost their jobs and had their careers permanently adversely affected by them. And the new victims are falling over each other lining up to take a try...
post #52 of 59
tambourine.zip 1021k .zip file
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

It does allow ZIP files though, Ethan.

D'oh! Good point. Here it is. biggrin.gif

--Ethan
post #53 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

How many times do you measure gravity expecting a significantly different result?

Quite regularly actually... http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/mission/

And if you think we have gravity fully figured, then you are sadly mistaken... http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/december-2005january-2006/the-search-for-extra-dimensions

People in 100 years will probably look back and think how ignorant we were on our understanding of gravity in this day and age. Don't make the mistake of adding arrogance to that ignorance.
post #54 of 59
For the record a 16-bit converter has about 6N+2 = 98 dB SNR at full scale, and the range from full-scale signal peak to noise floor (spurious-free dynamic range, SFDR) is about 9N = 144 dB. Both theoretical maximums.

Noise decorrelation, or dither, helps randomize the quantization (sampling) noise floor which would otherwise be correlated to the signal. Dither tends to make a more pleasing-sounding "analog" noise floor at the expense of SNR and SFDR, both of which are reduced by dither.
post #55 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audionut11 View Post

... There is plenty of science to show that there are natural harmonics above our audible sensory perception. ....

What would have been the reason for evolution to give us the ability to hear above 20kHz without a top limit? Why would it even stop at 50kHz? Why a 100kHz or above? There must be frequencies in the air above 100kHz, that is no electromagnetic, no? Might be nice to hear them, or just get really confused by all the noise that we could hear.
As to evidence of not being able to detect ultrasonics by the human ear, what will you accept as evidence?
post #56 of 59
It may be that our ears are physically capable of detecting such higher frequencies and our subconscious minds receive the information... but a filtering process determines what our conscious mind experiences.

Much like the filtering process of the visual information our brain receives from our eyes. What we see is a much lower resolution than our eyes are capable of, simply so our brains do not get overload processing all of that information.
post #57 of 59
Loved your article. With the obvious being the intended points of your thoughts but the fluidity of technical jargon and creative analogies really made for a great read.
biggrin.gif


with that out of the way, i need some input if i could
http://nadelectronics.com/products/hifi-amplifiers/C-375BEE-Integrated-Amplifier
This piece of equipment, without a doubt 100% sounded different than anything i have ever heard. I don't know if it was so good at doing everything it's suppose to do right
and just showed flaws in every other system i have heard or if it actually does have a different sound. To me, it made the sound more real, but compared to the other sources/amps it almost
sounded fake
post #58 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by bthrb4u View Post

i need some input if i could
http://nadelectronics.com/products/hifi-amplifiers/C-375BEE-Integrated-Amplifier
This piece of equipment, without a doubt 100% sounded different than anything i have ever heard.

I had a similar experience with a component but neither of us should be admitting it - especially in this "Skeptical Consumer" thread!
post #59 of 59
yes, i know you're right. In my head i have told myself to go back to this thread a hundred times with the intentions of letting these guys know that i was not trolling but neglected to.
I have been getting responses from a few of the guys in here on different threads i have post so i thought they might have some input.
I have a demo cd that i always bring with me and all but one time, tonally speaking, the songs generally sound the same just with a different take on imaging and low bass quantity. One song in particular i have heard a million times, when i heard the first drum hit, i couldn't believe how real it sounded. Like all other speakers were adding artificial body to the sound. I don't know what would cause this, possibly slow decay or distortion.
Now, i would believe that the Theil's i heard were so accurate, that they were on a totally different level than every speaker i had ever heard but when the source and amp were switched to a turn table with marantz reference gear, the more full bodied sound was brought back. It was actually pleasant as the NAD made the sound almost dry.

So, i was hoping maybe someone here had heard this piece of gear. 100% was not wanting to hear something different and i promise you, i have heard every song on that cd a million times and know that this set up was different than anything i had ever heard.
also wondering if maybe the "pure digital signal" didn't have what it takes to make the speaker keep its intended frequency response causing a massive dip from 1k down
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Audio theory, Setup and Chat
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › A Brief Guide to Audio for the Skeptical Consumer