Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2012 20:56:23 GMT
I believe we are talking of completely different topics/issues here.
Investigating something means you will first have to determine the frame you want to work in when you want to work together to find something. You don't start writing lines of computercode without an outlined frame to work from either.
To be clear... Are you talking about investigating hearing loss, or the chewed down, how can something sound different when there appear to be no differences or the differences are there but not known yet ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2012 21:16:59 GMT
IIRC Barry said this in the context of the ULN8, not 24/192 per se. ? Please correct me if I mis-remember. Derek. Derek In the threads, yes. Both "elcorso" (Roch) from C.A. and myself have exchanged many PMs and emails with Barry,even recently suggesting he try one of the alternatives to iTunes.Neither of us believe that Barry is hearing his own stuff anywhere near it's true potential.You will also find quite a few instances recently where Barry has backed me up, and vice versa.Barry's preference for playback is 24/192. Alex P.S. Another question could be, just how good is the playback equipment in a typical recording studio ? Monitor Speakers, for example, are far from S.O.T.A. as in a domestic situation, although purpose designed.
|
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on May 28, 2012 22:09:24 GMT
Focusing on resolution & samplerate, etc is possibly a mis-direction. Again my belief is that we don't know enough about the perception we call hearing & the particular illusion that we are all striving for - the illusion of audio reproduction that sounds close to the real event. Not until we understand more about this particular perception will we know what is important as factors in the creation of this illusion. Vinyl may well hit on some of these factors better than digital as currently practised - we simply don't know. It could be that we are focussing on the obvious but wrong factors & that some overlooked elements, currently considered unimportant are actually key to some of this?
I'm also of the opinion that in the absence of this model & the knowledge of what factors are important we have to be led by our hearing in these matters as the final arbiter. If we can eliminate all other biases & rely solely on hearing then we have to follow where this leads us, no matter where this may end up with the intention of trying to discover these factors.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2012 22:35:45 GMT
John I agree. Yet here we have many EEs designing equipment, based on a far from complete knowledge of human hearing ,and insisting that 16/44.1 is all that is needed for realism. Alex
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on May 28, 2012 22:38:20 GMT
I believe we are talking of completely different topics/issues here. Investigating something means you will first have to determine the frame you want to work in when you want to work together to find something. You don't start writing lines of computercode without an outlined frame to work from either. To be clear... Are you talking about investigating hearing loss, or the chewed down, how can something sound different when there appear to be no differences or the differences are there but not known yet ? Hearing loss is one of those Too Late things. But for the record and the benefit of younger people who are led to believe it's inevitable, I want them to know it's not inevitable, just extremely likely if they follow the normal health routine. I often do start writing code without a plan, because 1) I have a very good code toolkit, and 2) I think in code so it's easier for me to design that way. Investigating for me means accepting for sake of the argument that files which measure the same may sound different on someone else's system because of unknown factors I can't get my hands on from my remote location. They won't sound different on my system for a very simple reason, and here's an extremely simple reason why: Imagine we were talking on the phone and had lots and lots of free time. So you read to me the byte values of 3 measurably identical WAV tracks one byte at a time and one file at a time, and with my manual byte writer I write those onto my internal harddisk sequentially until complete - 3 separate files. Now there is no chance they would sound different because there are no factors external to the identical contents that could make a difference. And that's what happens when I copy the files from a remote source - my system does not receive a "real" object like a CD - the files it receives are not fixed things - my system receives a stream of instructions (bytes) that it then writes sequentially to my harddisk, eliminating any "wrappers" or other things that could make the files different. So what I just said doesn't prove that there could be a difference on the other guy's system with measurably identical files - that part requires hands-on investigation. But it does prove by rational explanation why I can't validate differences with identical files I receive from a remote source.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2012 23:07:15 GMT
Dale As i have already pointed out to you, your PC listening equipment is presently well below the SQ of that used by many RG members, ALSO another key factor could be be your unshakable confidence in your own abilities to rationalise things, thus resulting in an extreme case of expectation bias. Alex P.S. This is NOT what we are discussing in this thread. Please do not take what has so far been an informative thread into yet another heated dead end.
|
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on May 29, 2012 1:15:02 GMT
I agree. Yet here we have many EEs designing equipment, based on a far from complete knowledge of human hearing ,and insisting that 16/44.1 is all that is needed for realism. Alex Yea, Sandy, but I don't want to get contentious - we are all trying to do the best we can - it's just a bit disappointing when people talk with such surety about the perception of hearing as if it had all been worked out already & they know what it is. A lot of this, I believe, comes from the surety of mathematics that overspills into surety about how it's applied in digital audio & as a result our hearing perception. For instance, we are surrounded by sound continuously yet we filter it & pay attention to particular streams of this sound envelope. This is also known as the cocktail party effect & is what allows us to focus on a conversation in a noisy party. We do this when we listen to music, as well, focus on a particular stream & switch streams, etc. We also seem to anticipate what will come next - we are expert pattern matchers too, it would seem! So in essence we are all listening with this bias going on subconsciously
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on May 29, 2012 1:55:46 GMT
Dale As i have already pointed out to you, your PC listening equipment is presently well below the SQ of that used by many RG members, ALSO another key factor could be be your unshakable confidence in your own abilities to rationalise things, thus resulting in an extreme case of expectation bias. Alex P.S. This is NOT what we are discussing in this thread. Please do not take what has so far been an informative thread into yet another heated dead end. Alex if you have to have the last word, just say "I don't care what you say, I want the last word." -- But in any other case, you completely missed my point. Here it is: According to your logic, if you read me the first 500 byte values of 3 files over the phone and I write those into 3 new files manually (all values the same for the 3 files), the 3 files could still sound different. And that's absurd. BTW, I defended your position to the maximum extent that logic allows. But you seem dissatisfied with that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2012 2:20:53 GMT
Dale You need to look at these things with an open mind, and use your ears more.To you, logic is the be-all end-all. That's fine if you are simply writing software programs. However we are talking here about data where timing and "Jitter" is part of the equation. It's not just another software program. There is also a lot of hardware involved, with varying electrical demands and lots of EMI generated. You can use all the logic you like, but it is arrogant to dismiss the confirming reports of many other members, and especially since blind testing was also involved with a panel of experienced listeners in the case of the HFC report, and in John Kenny's case, all his satisfied customers who own his LiIon powered JK HiFace USB to SPDIF converters.The "bits" haven't changed, but the sound has for the better.The same applies for the many people who use the SOtM Sata filters.There are very good technical reasons why they work. Even the Editor of C.A. specifies their use in his Caps 2 Server project.You also keep disputing what MANY people in C.A. and elsewhere report about differences with USB cables too. We both know that unless the cable is faulty, the binary data will be the same, yet MANY people still report major SQ improvements with decent USB cables, just as they do with high quality Toslink (optical) cables.
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on May 29, 2012 2:27:57 GMT
Alex, you're the listening expert, but I'm the world-class computer file expert. If I say two or three files are identical, they are identical. Period, end of sentence, and nobody can dispute that.
Now as I've said before, and unlike some others you may know, I will personally concede that *something* external to the file contents on those other computers could make them play differently, even something as inconsequential as the filename itself, or where the file is stored, etc. etc. etc.
But if the contents are the same in a byte-for-byte comparison, then you have to accept the fact that the *contents* of the files are identical and proceed with eliminating the other variables in your tests.
If you don't proceed to eliminate or account for those variables, then it's just irrational stubbornness, since as I've said, the *contents* are identical, and nobody who has expertise in computers would ever doubt that.
And I don't have mere expertise - I have 37 years at the top of the pile. So if you want to learn something, then work with myself or someone on addressing those other variables.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2012 5:21:30 GMT
Dale,
What Alex and I are referring to is to discuss this particular issue in one of the threads where it is being covered already. This thread is about perception.
Just like we can discuss cables here and why USB cables appear to have the same 'sonic' properties as analog but the intention (or we bombarded it to this) is about the brains and ears attached to it and how we 'process' the soundwaves that enter those funny looking things on the sides of our head.
Now the perceived differences (IMO) have everything to do with perception in all it's forms but must rule out an unknown technical issue if it exists.
I agree with John we must use our ears to get to the bottom of this but all I ask is to use them wisely and if you want results must be repeatable as well in certain conditions. Unfortunately this involves using the ears and gears of those that hear AND the trust of those involved that it is not about egos or being 'right'.
a frame is already outlined and only needs filling in gaps or concensus.
This is what I meant with concensus and designing a framework where one can work in to obtain results that are meaningful to all involved.
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on May 29, 2012 6:11:04 GMT
Dale, What Alex and I are referring to is to discuss this particular issue in one of the threads where it is being covered already. This thread is about perception. Just like we can discuss cables here and why USB cables appear to have the same 'sonic' properties as analog but the intention (or we bombarded it to this) is about the brains and ears attached to it and how we 'process' the soundwaves that enter those funny looking things on the sides of our head. Now the perceived differences (IMO) have everything to do with perception in all it's forms but must rule out an unknown technical issue if it exists. I agree with John we must use our ears to get to the bottom of this but all I ask is to use them wisely and if you want results must be repeatable as well in certain conditions. Unfortunately this involves using the ears and gears of those that hear AND the trust of those involved that it is not about egos or being 'right'. a frame is already outlined and only needs filling in gaps or concensus. This is what I meant with concensus and designing a framework where one can work in to obtain results that are meaningful to all involved. If you check with Alex, you will find that in previous discussions and file compares, I offered him the benefit of the doubt (and still do!) that even if two or more files' contents are the same but they sound different, then I trust his ears. OK? I am not changing my position on that one bit. But I also will restate that if the files' contents are the same, then the "files themselves" are the same, i.e. any differences *must* come from somewhere besides the files' contents, which are identical. I even offered a lot of my time to make suggestions about where to look for differences, and how to eliminate possible factors by renaming files and copying them to different locations, etc. etc. But, if anyone insists that the contents of the files I compared as the same (identical) are not really the same, then they are totally wasting everyone's time, because they are identical. That will never change unless someone (not me) has a really weird computer that makes files whose contents are identical not identical. Now again, I believe Alex's ears, by trust only. But I will not support the notion that a file's contents can both be and not be at the same time. That is purely illogical. And we're not using any files whose contents ever vary just by observing, like a quantum state of some kind. I am a member of many computing organizations, and that is not a tenable notion anywhere for our PC's.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2012 6:25:59 GMT
Dale, In short.. To address this issue (files/rips) please use one of the (not locked) threads to discuss this. Perhaps: rockgrotto.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=talk&action=display&thread=7827In Alex defense: Alex and others suspect SQ is not determined by the actual contents (the 'described' analog waveform) ALONE but other issues like timing of those bits and storage properties and the actual digital path (processing/handling/programs) including DA conversion and PS ALSO contribute. Just like it is not disputed by any technical person that 24/192 can describe waveforms in a more accurate way the dispute is not about the contents of the file that are obviously the same BIT by BIT. But as said before.... Discuss this subject in another thread please. I know this thread should not belong in the computer section but has some relevance. It being in this section does envoke the eternal debate though, but that is true no matter where it is placed in the forum. perhaps moving the thread to the general section might help in this aspect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2012 9:53:10 GMT
Now now guys, keep it calm and be nice to each other please. Please respect each others opinion, even if you don't share it. We are all rational adults aren't we and should be able to peacefully agree to disagree without getting bitchy like women with PMT (sorry ladies ). What is it about music that is so divisive? We all enjoy the music and fall out big time about the nitty gritty of why it's so enjoyable. It's things like this that turn me off forums and others I suspect - chill out, enjoy the music and worry not about whether the other guy is talking sense in your opinion. Mike, I suggest we close the thread now to stop it getting out of hand. If the main protagonists want to debate the subject further let them do it by PM rather than in public - no one is going to land the knock out punch on this, it's just a public points scoring joust IMO. Sorry guys, no offence intended to anyone . Dave.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2012 10:24:35 GMT
DaveK Both Frans and myself are in agreement that this thread should be confined to the original subject, where there was quite a reasonable exchange of viewpoints. As Frans has recently posted, the other subject should be discussed in an existing thread. I see no reason to close this thread provided that we stick to the area of your initial post. Regards Alex
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2012 10:33:57 GMT
DaveK and Frans In coming weeks I hope to place an 8 ohm ribbon tweeter on top of each of my speakers. These ribbon tweeters have output to 40kHz. Robin has suggested that if I use a series 1uF high quality capacitor (perhaps bypassed with a smaller value quality capacitor) with each ribbon tweeter, that they should cross over at approx. 20kHz. This may help me to confirm Dave's findings about the audible contribution of Super Tweeters, or extended range tweeters. Alex
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2012 10:36:41 GMT
I completely agree. Also I can see no disagreement of any kind just an open discussion about perception. Discussing Alex his findings in this thread is not 'right on topic' that's all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2012 10:42:02 GMT
DaveK and Frans In coming weeks I hope to place an 8 ohm ribbon tweeter on top of each of my speakers. These ribbon tweeters have output to 40kHz. Robin has suggested that if I use a series 1uF high quality capacitor (perhaps bypassed with a smaller value quality capacitor) with each ribbon tweeter, that they should cross over at approx. 20kHz. This may help me to confirm Dave's findings about the audible contribution of Super Tweeters, or extended range tweeters. Alex The problems that can arise with 2 tweeters operating in the same part of the FR (so NOT low pass filtering the tweeter already in there) are MANY fold. Firstly filtering at 20kHz will cause phase shifts in the region you don't want it (the discussion was all about timing NOT FR) also the physical distance between 2 drivers that do the same and at short physical wavelenghts can cause 'combfilter' effects and or cancellation/boosting of certain frequencies. Just my thoughts though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2012 11:00:10 GMT
DaveK and Frans In coming weeks I hope to place an 8 ohm ribbon tweeter on top of each of my speakers. These ribbon tweeters have output to 40kHz. Robin has suggested that if I use a series 1uF high quality capacitor (perhaps bypassed with a smaller value quality capacitor) with each ribbon tweeter, that they should cross over at approx. 20kHz. This may help me to confirm Dave's findings about the audible contribution of Super Tweeters, or extended range tweeters. Alex The problems that can arise with 2 tweeters operating in the same part of the FR (so NOT low pass filtering the tweeter already in there) are MANY fold. Firstly filtering at 20kHz will cause phase shifts in the region you don't want it (the discussion was all about timing NOT FR) also the physical distance between 2 drivers that do the same and at short physical wavelenghts can cause 'combfilter' effects and or cancellation/boosting of certain frequencies. Just my thoughts though. Frans If it means anything, my speakers are quoted as 25Hz to 18kHz (no limits given) I believe the tweeters may be Philips (AD0160T8 ?) Alex
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2012 11:18:46 GMT
DaveK Both Frans and myself are in agreement that this thread should be confined to the original subject, where there was quite a reasonable exchange of viewpoints. As Frans has recently posted, the other subject should be discussed in an existing thread. I see no reason to close this thread provided that we stick to the area of your initial post. Regards Alex Hi Alex and Frans, Not doing an about face here but I completely agree with both of you providing that we can all agree with your last paragraph. That will need everyone's cooperation and, in the manner of these things, I wonder if that can be expected, that's all . As I said earlier I personally love bouncing ideas around for discussion, no matter how 'left field' or even off topic, but I do not enjoy the bitching that often follows about "my expertise supercedes your expertise", "I'm right and you're wrong", "my science is better than your science", "you can't expect to hear what I'm hearing 'cos my kit is better than your kit", etc., etc,. ad infinitum. So go for it guys and I'll chip in with a few choice intellectual morsels when I can, but don't hold your breaths . Dave.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2012 11:40:09 GMT
Personally I would exchange the speakers if possible.
The combfilter effect will be between 15kHz and 20kHz so switching a second tweeter (that is physically also a certain distance away) will with 100% certainty cause audible effects... but the side-effects in the 15 to 20kHz region will be mostly responsible for the perceived differences. The risk exists that audible differences that occur when switch on or off or when added and listened to for a longer period have little to do with added supra-aural frequencies but are most likly caused by acoustic 'mixing' of phase shifted signals.
6dB/octave is simply not recommended eventhough many people 'add' supertweeters. 18dB/oct and proper placement and low pass filtering is recommended.
Of course you can add the tweeter and take those 'comb filter' effects for granted IF you use filtered signals to 'listen out' for differences.
The easiest way would be to use a 192/24 file which has clear amounts of related HF in the signal and convert THAT file to 44/24 WAV.
Then ask someone else to (randomly ?) start the 192 and 44 file (which has a much smaller bandwidth but the same resolution voltage wise) and determine the differences.
That's the way I would prove the thesis when using speakers with an extra tweeter on top.
My speakers already have a planar ring-emitter that reaches 35kHz and I cannot find differences between 96/24 and 44/16 when listening blind a while ago (with pointy analysis hat on) The same test can be done with headphones that extend far enough by the way, not many do.
AD0160 has a rather steep cut-off above 18kHz but is reasonably flat and usable from 5kHz. They have a 'nylon stocking' dust filter and a yellowish see through dome. Mostly with a circular sticker in the middle of the dust filter. I still have some of these and AD0163 (woven dome) in the attick but never cared much for them. They are not bad tweeters though and the AD0160 sounds 'faster' than AD0163. I did use them for quite some time though.
Finding a cheap and good sounding tweeter that has a good 'connection' with midrange or woofers is a real PITA
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2012 12:05:25 GMT
Hi Frans I am quite happy with the performance of these DCM QED 1A, but as I have a pair of the ribbon tweeters , I thought it might be an interesting exercise to try and confirm what DaveK reported. It's too damn hard to get into these speakers to play around with proper crossover networks, and it would be a P.I.T.A. to permanently mount the ribbon tweeters anyway. If I do get to try it when my friend returns the ribbon tweeters, I will try what you suggested. Regards Alex
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2012 13:36:12 GMT
Alex and Frans, On the confident assumption that you will refrain from laughing, (at least publicly ), can I throw into the discussion what I did with adding my super tweeters. My speakers are bog standard Mission 774s which I like very much. I bought these items: - www.ebay.co.uk/itm/320877821584?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649and asked for advice on another forum. I was offered a pair of Noble crossovers and a pair of custom built L-Pads which I was glad to accept. The tweeters, crossovers and L-Pads were then forwarded to a builder friend for connection and returned to me for putting in a case. My builder friend advised not to connect the 'dome' tweeter' (so as not to cause conflict with the existing Mission tweeters). I am very happy with the resulting sound. If anyone is interested in more technical details or pics of the guts of the super tweeters I'm sure I can dig them out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2012 22:05:21 GMT
DaveK They do appear to be very good value. As Frans says though, it is very hard to integrate them into an existing system properly. If you were building your own speakers they would be great. That is why I have chosen to simply try the ribbon tweeters simply sitting on top of the speakers, and see if I can detect their contribution. There are some real Super Tweeters available with response to 100kHz that are in nice cases and sit on top of your speakers, but they are far too expensive for old geezers like me. Regards Alex
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2012 22:32:06 GMT
Alex, Yet again I seem to have mislead by omission - to clarify, my super tweeters are each encased in a suitable sized plastic box from Maplins - the finished boxes sit on top of my existing speakers and are coupled to the treble input posts of the main speakers using 1m silver plated Chord speaker cable terminated with silver bananas on both ends. If anything is not clear (but relevant) I can easily post pics. I'm beginning to think that either I got some extremely good help/advice and/or I got extremely lucky because IMHO everything integrates beautifully sonically - it will be very interesting to hear of your experience with super tweeter add-ons. Regarding the value point, I was pleased to hear that the guy who put the L-Pads and crossovers together for me had bought stuff from the same seller and been very pleased with the quality of stuff that he received. Cheers, Dave. DaveK They do appear to be very good value. As Frans says though, it is very hard to integrate them into an existing system properly. If you were building your own speakers they would be great. That is why I have chosen to simply try the ribbon tweeters simply sitting on top of the speakers, and see if I can detect their contribution. There are some real Super Tweeters available with response to 100kHz that are in nice cases and sit on top of your speakers, but they are far too expensive for old geezers like me. Regards Alex
|
|