Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Audiophile madness part 57 (Read 14567 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Audiophile madness part 57

Reply #50 –
Quote
This is somewhat off-topic, but some of the latest research implies there's no such thing as "conscious choice" at all. To put it another way, does anyone "choose to choose?" A decision just occurs, apparently controlled entirely by 'subconscious' factors. A 'readiness potential' to act has been demonstrated to occur about 1/2 second before research subjects report making a conscious decision to take an action.

Very interesting, but it makes sense and would explain quite a bit about people in general.


Quote
Rockport Sirius System III Turntable

Probably the best turntable ever made.  All the air bearings and such may seem like madness but they all serve a purpuse, to keep vibration as low as possible.  The only vibration should come from the needle in the groove, not the motor, tonearm, or anything else.  Turntables are mechanical beasts while CD players are electical.


Quote
I even believe that, in a level-matched blind test, it can be really *very* difficult, or imposible at all, to notice diferences between two decent, not top of the range, cd players, and that they may be undistinguishable from a top quality cd player, DAC, SACD or 96 KHz 24 bit digital audio.

While I haven't done blind tests I can without a doubt tell you that certain CD players DACs and souch can and do sound better than others.  Much of this has to do with price, but just because it's expensive doesn't automatically make it good - that's where your ears come in.  There also comes a point where the price differences become huge for only minor noticable improvements.

As for as the whole DVD audio SACD thing goes, the differences range from small to jaw dropping depending on the material.  I don't know how much of it is due to the increased sampling rate, and how much of it is due to the extra resolution.  Can you distinguish between 16/44 and 24/96? How many different distinguishable colors are there?  32 million?  Do you think you would notice a difference between a 64,000/60Hz color image and a 16,000,000/130Hz color image?  You might only slightly notice the improved refresh -depending on the person and monitor, but you would definately notice the color.  Why do pro's use 24/96 if there is no audible differece?  Wouldn't they rather use less expensive 16/44(48) gear?  The truth is there is a huge difference between a 24/96 master and the final mix on a 16/44 CD.  SACD however is most likely doomed.  The DSD signal is expensive to master, and can't be DSP'd like PCM can, and produces all kinds of distortions that must be filtered.  Not to mention it's pretty much a Sony proprietary thing with very little media existing or planned.


Quote
We used to hook the speakers up out of phase then ask them to comment on the soundfield quality. Only a few picked up on it.

I've done this before on accident!  I've always notice the difference, but couldn't figure out what it was right away.


Quote
Vinyl is not the horrendous format some think it is... but it does require a larger investment in gear. A 5 turntable with built in preamp probably sounds like sh*t (much worse than a 5 CD player)

I definately agree, 99% of people have not heard how good vinyl can actually sound.  It suprised me, and anyone else who was brought up to believe that CD was perfect.  I can listen to Vinyl for hours with the sound cranked whereas I listen to the same CD and I eventually get a headache.  So many people make the statement that CD is technicaly superior to Vinyl, when in fact the numbers have very little to do with how good something sounds.  The way we hear things is analog, and analog distortion and limitations are generally less objectionable and noticeable than digital ones.  I'm not saying Vinyl is perfect, I just prefer tha analog limitations over the digital in terms of pure sound.  Now for conveniece and availability of media CD is definately the way to go.

Audiophile madness part 57

Reply #51 –
Professional people use 24/96 because they need headroom to process the sound. If they were starting from 44.1/16, there could be no compression, no volume, no balance, no equalizing, no mixing, nothing without loss.

Example, I have a CD of symphonic music with full dynamics (I guess). Between the quietest and the loudest part, there are 55 db of difference. The recording is clipped and the waveform is truncated to 14 bits, it must be because it was amplified from a 44.1/16 bits master.
Say that the engineer would have liked to reduce the dynamics to a more sensible 20 db. He would have to amplify the quiet parts by say 25db, while reducing the peaks by 5 db.
Only 10 bits would remain for the quiet part ! Starting from a 24 bits master, 18 bits would have been left, then dithered to 16.


Now, here's my opinion about free will :

I don't think that the negation of free will should cause any problem. It is off topic in the study of the brain. It's a non scientific matter.
I think (but it's my personal opinion), that our acts are completely  determined by the law of physics, otherwise, there could have things happening without cause, which is impossible IMHO.
But I also think that my will is nothing else than some current flowing in my brain. Therefore my "free" will, that I enjoy nonetheless is the result of the physical behaviour of these currents.

As far as I can tell, my consciousness is the addition of my senses (what I see, hear, etc) that are infos running on my nerves, and my memory, that is not well understood yet. Some scientists say that it is the result of broken connections in the brain, that lead to a given structure.

At the most basic level, being newborn, for example, I choose, wityh my free will, pleasure over pain.
Why ? It's a result of the evolution : all lifeforms that acted towards self destruction self destructed, and all lifeforms that acted towards healthy survival survived. Therefore my "free will", just instinct at this stage, necessarily leads me to avoid being hurt. The nerves are connected like this.

Then as I live, my memory is building, and the wonderful process of intelligence comes in. I know what is good and what is bad, because I've learned it. That leads to something that I'd call "free will".
This thing is the most complex process I can imagine. I beleive that when I choose between two choices (banana or peach, for example), I choose the one that will give me the more pleasure (not meant in an egotistic way : it's also a pleasure to please other people, because I like to see them smiling), and I know which choice is good from all that I know and all that I've learnded or understood by myself and that is in my memory, and I believe that this memory is nothing else than neuronal connections guiding electric flows. Like an improved computer.
After all we've already lost the track of electrical current in the computer : when I send this message, I use a PHP form, that was built on a compilator, that was built on another code, that was built on assembler, that was built on microchips, that were built on other assembled chips, that are built on transistors...

For me the brain is like this : the raw human body is already beyond our knowledge, so all that is building from the time we are born, at which we behave quite basicly, until the time we are adults is even further beyond what we can understand (analyzing the human body as a machine).

Imagine we give a computer to very intelligent scientists of the 10th century, with some batteries, and let them guess how it can let you play video games, while they have not the slightest idea of what electricity is. How much time will they take to explain all, from the transistors (that they can't see) until the cathode ray monitor ?

I believe we are the same, regarding the human body.

Some of you will ask me if I think then that computers are a life form
Well, they lack two important things : senses, and memory of what they would sense. After that, they'd have to be programmed for survival, reproduction, and self repair, and that could work
 

Audiophile madness part 57

Reply #52 –
Quote
Originally posted by KikeG
It seem that the conditions under which the ultrasonic sounds have caused a brain response are quite extreme. Also, as noted, the subjects said that they couldn't perceive anything.  Also, this study was not by-peer reviewed, and is under suspect,  because if  remember well, whe people responsible of the study, when asked for precise data to try to duplicate the experiment, didn't respond. I believe also that this study was financed from a big japanese audio company, with obvious interests.
You're right, this is an issue. Unless the results can be reproduced by others it's meaningless. And if what say about the funding is true then that's a problem also. It's like when the oil industry funds global warming studies or natural habitat destruction studies.
Quote
The moose and deer actually benefited from the large pipelines because they provided warmth during the long night and provided numerous opportunities for exercise during the day.

Audiophile madness part 57

Reply #53 –
Quote
Originally posted by Wombat
@PIO
It must be the same shematics as feeding the DAC in a DAT recorder, nothing more.

Why they call it jitter-free?

Promotion or some other parts i don´t get!


I answered in a new thread : http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/showth...=1617#post25563

Audiophile madness part 57

Reply #54 –
Quote
Originally posted by Pio2001
I'm wondering about 96/24 bits. It is said that 24/96 converters work better because they can filter at higher frequencies. But it isn't the same as doubling the sample rate of a 44.1 kHz signal ? It is already done in 44.1 converters that oversample....
Is it because the oversampling algorithms are so bad that some artifacts are generated above 22.05 kHz ? Then why not just improve the algorithms, instead of replacing all medias and technologies, until the 44.1 - 88.2 oversampling doesn't generate anything above 22.05 kHz ?


I believe it is not that difficult to filter everything above 22.05 KHz using oversampling and a digital filter, I'd say the difficult thing is to do it in a way that doesn't alter much what is left below 22.050 KHz. But I'd say that with today's technology it is quite easy and common to find.

The reasons why marketing people argue that 96 KHz is better are not very convincent, for the reasons you explain. I think the real reason is to have something new to sell, with the advantage (for them) that with the new formats that use this sampling rate it is not posible to make digital copies.

A little more technical explanation at:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=oversamp....std.com&rnum=6

Quoting Dick Pierce:

">Related: 24/96 audio.  As far as I can work out now, the main
>advantage of this (along with potentially lower noise) is that
>the requirements for the filters are far less severe, as they
>can be moved well away from the audible range.  Sound right?

Partially. But that is also ROUTINELY done with 44.1 kHz audio
as well. The technique is called "oversampling." What either a
high sampling rate or oversampling buys you is that it moves the
aliases and images ABOVE the Nyquist frequency, but now that
Nyquist frequency is much higher. For example, a 64x oversampled
44.1 kHz system has a Nyquist frequency not at 22.05 kHz, but 64
times higher than that, at 1411.2 kHz. The analog portion of the
filter needed to deal withat is little more than a simple,
single pole, transient-perfect RC filter. However, the
requirement is STILL there it have a brick-wall filter at 22.05,
but now it can be done ENTIRELY in the digital domain, where you
have many more degrees of freedom at your disposal."