DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go

In article , MB wrote:

Though I thought 'warmth' of sound usually means that there is a poor
frequency response on high frequencies.

'warmth' can be added back.

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

the fact is that cd audio far surpasses vinyl. this can be proven
mathematically.

where has that been proved. ?

nyquist-shannon

No it doesn't.

yes it most definitely does.

Because by definitaion an analogue signal will always contain more signal
information than the digital signal derived from it.

nonsense.

If yuo don't understand this think of a sinewave, then digitaise it split it
into 8 sections and apply a value to each. This is why sample rate is
important and why they increase the sample rate for better 'quality' MP3s .
It's a bit like JPEG compression in that tyhe less you compress it the better
the quality, and thye original will always be better than what you've
sampled.

you *clearly* don't understand sampling theory.

if you have a sine wave and sample it at least twice its frequency, you
can exactly reproduce it.

CD sales dropping vinyl sales increasing currently but I don;t think that
proves which is best for what purpose.

vinyl sales are a tiny fraction of the industry, even with whatever
increase there might have been.

while MP3s are increasing so it's not that people are buying music sampled at
a better quality.

there is no audible difference unless an mp3/aac is poorly made.

bashing digital audio because of poorly encoded mp3/aac is bull****.

you can always downgrade cd to sound like vinyl but you can't ever make
a vinyl record sound as good as a cd. it's *impossible*.

CD have already been downgraded from the original 24 bit recording
that the better studios use.

nonsense. cds have never been downgraded.

Most have been from the original analogue recording from the reel to reel
tape systems.

no they haven't, because a cd can contain more information than what's
on tape.

in other words, the loss happened in the analog domain, not the cd.

you have no idea what you're talking about, as usual.

you're talking ****, a digitised system will alway miss some data out.

when the sampling rate is high enough to reconstruct the highest
frequencies, which in the case of cds, nothing will be missed.

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

what's been done prior to producing a cd is irrelevant.

No it isn't.
What they do is chop the original sound up into many pieces and then
reconstruct it.

so what?

the reconstruction is indistinguishable from the original.

No it is not.

yes it is

again, this
is something that can be proven.

Where ?

once again, nyquist-shannon

cds have *not* been downgraded nor have they been upgraded. they are
red book compliant and have been all along.

So what, what has that tom do with it.
To be red book complient means you can have 79mins play time rather than
74.
It has NOTHING what so ever to do the quality of recording !

it has everything to do with the quality.

how can enuring that your CD can record 79mins rather than justy the 74mins
have anything to do with sound quality, specifing maxium track lenghts and
gap between songs has nothing to do with sound quality either.

it doesn't. they just packed a little bit more onto the cd by
tightening the tolerances.

it's still 16 bit/44.1khz, with *exactly* the same audio quality.

red book cds are 16 bit, 44.1khz sampling, which *defines* the dynamic
range and highest frequency that can be reproduced which is more than
the human ear can hear.

No it doesn't

yes it does.

human hearing is 20-20khz, and a cd can reproduce up to 22khz. a cd can
reproduce more than what a human can hear.

http://www.linnrecords.com/linn-what...io-master.aspx

Music on CD is encoded at 16-bit (the bit depth) and at 44.1kHz (the sample
rate). The sample rate tells us how many times the original signal has been
'sliced up' and the bit depth tells us how much information has been recorded
in each slice.

linn is hardly an unbiased source. they want to sell you stuff, and are
well known for overpriced turntables.

Studio Master files are encoded at 24-bit or higher, and currently up to
192kHz. This is so close to analogue quality that it is virtually impossible
for the human ear to perceive any difference.

not only virtually impossible, but it is impossible.

192khz sampling means it can resolve up to 96khz and there isn't a
single person on earth that can hear anywhere close to 96khz.

sampling that high is useful for mastering in the studio but it's
nothing that needs to be put on a cd.

Therefore we feel this is the
best format in which to be offering our music. This is the level that most
music is recorded at these days, and that is the resolution that we offer it
to you, so it doesn't get any better!

what they feel is irrelevant.

what the math says is what matters.

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

what's been done prior to producing a cd is irrelevant.

No it isn't.
What they do is chop the original sound up into many pieces and then
reconstruct it.

so what?

the reconstruction is indistinguishable from the original.

No it is not.

yes it is

I've heard the differnce between 16 bit and 24 bit.

no you didn't.

you might think you did but you did not.

if you did hear a difference, it was because it was mastered
differently, not because one was 16 bit and the other 24 bit.

again, this
is something that can be proven.

Where ?

once again, nyquist-shannon

meaning-less as nyquist-shannon was really only for repetative waveforms not
music, with it's constantly changing frequencies.

nonsense.

how can enuring that your CD can record 79mins rather than justy the
74mins
have anything to do with sound quality, specifing maxium track lenghts and
gap between songs has nothing to do with sound quality either.

it doesn't. they just packed a little bit more onto the cd by
tightening the tolerances.

So no effect on audio quality at all.

that's what i said.

it's still 16 bit/44.1khz, with *exactly* the same audio quality.

but the analogue before putting on CD in a recording studio is 24 bit 192KHz.

that's a contradiction.

analog is not 24/192khz. it's analog.

it can be sampled at 24/192khz, at which point it's digital.

It's a little like JPEG and RAW . From any RAW image you can get a JPEG
which is limited 'bandwidth' just like CDs are limited.

everything is limited.

that limit is more than what you can hear so having such a limit makes
absolutely no difference whatsoever.


what the math says is what matters.

The maths (and it's maths not math !) does matter.
Because if you try to reconstruct complex music especally high end
rather than pop, it won't sound right unless your' pretty tomne deaf.
What you'll get in hearing is similar to de-moire in images.

nonsense.

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

what the math says is what matters.

I can onl;y just hear slight differncies if it's pointed out to me,

nope. you're being influenced.

do an objective double-blind test, without anyone coaching you as to
what you should be hearing.

just like some peole can pixel peak images and others think the picture is
perfect, for most vision 10MB is more than enough so why have 50MB and higher
RAW.

resolution higher than what the eye can resolve can't be seen.
sound frequencies higher than what the ear can hear can't be heard.



https://noivad.wordpress.com/2012/05...is_not_enough/

Some quote the Shannon-Nyquist theorem and say people like me do not
understand it and that we are arguing with scientific fact. The conditions
necessary for the theorem to be true are ideal conditions. "Ideal Conditions"
means conditions where there are no random variables and everything in
the environment is controlled.

yet another idiot with a blog.

On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 10:00:47 -0400, nospam
wrote:

Studio Master files are encoded at 24-bit or higher, and currently up to
192kHz. This is so close to analogue quality that it is virtually impossible
for the human ear to perceive any difference.

not only virtually impossible, but it is impossible.

192khz sampling means it can resolve up to 96khz and there isn't a
single person on earth that can hear anywhere close to 96khz.

sampling that high is useful for mastering in the studio but it's
nothing that needs to be put on a cd.

I wonder why recording studios use 24 bit 192kHz.

Could it be that they need this much overhead clearance to deal with
complex wave forms?

No, it couldn't be that. :-(
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

sampling that high is useful for mastering in the studio but it's
nothing that needs to be put on a cd.

I wonder why recording studios use 24 bit 192kHz.

because it reduces errors from manipulations done in mastering.

it's nothing that can be heard.

it's similar to using 16 bit in photoshop when most printers only
support 8 bit prints.

Could it be that they need this much overhead clearance to deal with
complex wave forms?

No, it couldn't be that. :-(

it isn't.

On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:08:41 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

sampling that high is useful for mastering in the studio but it's
nothing that needs to be put on a cd.

I wonder why recording studios use 24 bit 192kHz.

because it reduces errors from manipulations done in mastering.

it's nothing that can be heard.

it's similar to using 16 bit in photoshop when most printers only
support 8 bit prints.

Could it be that they need this much overhead clearance to deal with
complex wave forms?

No, it couldn't be that. :-(

it isn't.

You will be interested in
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm

"INTRODUCTION
Each musical instrument family — strings, winds, brass and
percussion — has at least one member which produces energy to 40
kHz or above. Some of the spectra reach this work's measurement
limit of 102.4 kHz.
Harmonics of French horn can extend to above 90 kHz; trumpet,
to above 80; violin and oboe, to above 40; and a cymbal crash shows
no sign of running out of energy at 100 kHz. Also shown in this
paper are samples from sibilant speech, claves, a drum rimshot,
triangle, jangling keys, and piano.
The proportion of energy above 20 kilohertz is low for most
instruments; but for one trumpet sample it is 2%; for another,
0.5%; for claves, 3.8%; for a speech sibilant, 1.7%; and for the
cymbal crash, 40%. The cymbal's energy shows no sign of stopping at
the measurement limit, so its percentage may be much higher.
The spectra in this paper were found by recording each
instrument's sound into a spectrum analyzer, then "prospecting"
moment by moment through the recordings. Two instruments (clarinet
and vibraphone) showed no ultrasonics, and so are absent here.
Other instruments' sounds extended high up though at low energy. A
few combined ultrasonic extension with power.
The mere existence of this energy is the point of this paper,
and most of the discussion just explains why I think that the
spectra are correct, within the limits described below. At the end,
however, I cite others' work on perception of air- and
bone-conducted ultrasound, and offer a few remarks on the possible
relevance of our spectra to human perception and music recording.'
................

"SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESULTS
Given the existence of musical-instrument energy above 20
kilohertz, it is natural to ask whether the energy matters to human
perception or music recording. The common view is that energy above
20 kHz does not matter, but AES preprint 3207 by Oohashi et al.
claims that reproduced sound above 26 kHz "induces activation of
alpha-EEG (electroencephalogram) rhythms that persist in the
absence of high frequency stimulation, and can affect perception of
sound quality."

I believe that it is significant that the brain can respond to
so-called ultra-sonic sounds, even though nospam believes they are
inaudible to humans.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 7/30/2015 8:41 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:08:41 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

sampling that high is useful for mastering in the studio but it's
nothing that needs to be put on a cd.

I wonder why recording studios use 24 bit 192kHz.

because it reduces errors from manipulations done in mastering.

it's nothing that can be heard.

it's similar to using 16 bit in photoshop when most printers only
support 8 bit prints.

Could it be that they need this much overhead clearance to deal with
complex wave forms?

No, it couldn't be that. :-(

it isn't.

You will be interested in
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm

"INTRODUCTION
Each musical instrument family — strings, winds, brass and
percussion — has at least one member which produces energy to 40
kHz or above. Some of the spectra reach this work's measurement
limit of 102.4 kHz.
Harmonics of French horn can extend to above 90 kHz; trumpet,
to above 80; violin and oboe, to above 40; and a cymbal crash shows
no sign of running out of energy at 100 kHz. Also shown in this
paper are samples from sibilant speech, claves, a drum rimshot,
triangle, jangling keys, and piano.
The proportion of energy above 20 kilohertz is low for most
instruments; but for one trumpet sample it is 2%; for another,
0.5%; for claves, 3.8%; for a speech sibilant, 1.7%; and for the
cymbal crash, 40%. The cymbal's energy shows no sign of stopping at
the measurement limit, so its percentage may be much higher.
The spectra in this paper were found by recording each
instrument's sound into a spectrum analyzer, then "prospecting"
moment by moment through the recordings. Two instruments (clarinet
and vibraphone) showed no ultrasonics, and so are absent here.
Other instruments' sounds extended high up though at low energy. A
few combined ultrasonic extension with power.
The mere existence of this energy is the point of this paper,
and most of the discussion just explains why I think that the
spectra are correct, within the limits described below. At the end,
however, I cite others' work on perception of air- and
bone-conducted ultrasound, and offer a few remarks on the possible
relevance of our spectra to human perception and music recording.'
................

"SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESULTS
Given the existence of musical-instrument energy above 20
kilohertz, it is natural to ask whether the energy matters to human
perception or music recording. The common view is that energy above
20 kHz does not matter, but AES preprint 3207 by Oohashi et al.
claims that reproduced sound above 26 kHz "induces activation of
alpha-EEG (electroencephalogram) rhythms that persist in the
absence of high frequency stimulation, and can affect perception of
sound quality."

I believe that it is significant that the brain can respond to
so-called ultra-sonic sounds, even though nospam believes they are
inaudible to humans.

That is not my belief, I know it for a fact. Simalarly sub-sonic waves
cause reactions in humans.


--
PeterN

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

You will be interested in
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm

"INTRODUCTION
Each musical instrument family — strings, winds, brass and
percussion — has at least one member which produces energy to 40
kHz or above. Some of the spectra reach this work's measurement
limit of 102.4 kHz.

so what? you can't hear any of that.

Harmonics of French horn can extend to above 90 kHz; trumpet,
to above 80; violin and oboe, to above 40; and a cymbal crash shows
no sign of running out of energy at 100 kHz. Also shown in this
paper are samples from sibilant speech, claves, a drum rimshot,
triangle, jangling keys, and piano.

you can't hear that either

The proportion of energy above 20 kilohertz is low for most
instruments; but for one trumpet sample it is 2%; for another,
0.5%; for claves, 3.8%; for a speech sibilant, 1.7%; and for the
cymbal crash, 40%. The cymbal's energy shows no sign of stopping at
the measurement limit, so its percentage may be much higher.
The spectra in this paper were found by recording each
instrument's sound into a spectrum analyzer, then "prospecting"
moment by moment through the recordings. Two instruments (clarinet
and vibraphone) showed no ultrasonics, and so are absent here.
Other instruments' sounds extended high up though at low energy. A
few combined ultrasonic extension with power.
The mere existence of this energy is the point of this paper,
and most of the discussion just explains why I think that the
spectra are correct, within the limits described below. At the end,
however, I cite others' work on perception of air- and
bone-conducted ultrasound, and offer a few remarks on the possible
relevance of our spectra to human perception and music recording.'
................

"SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESULTS
Given the existence of musical-instrument energy above 20
kilohertz, it is natural to ask whether the energy matters to human
perception or music recording. The common view is that energy above
20 kHz does not matter, but AES preprint 3207 by Oohashi et al.
claims that reproduced sound above 26 kHz "induces activation of
alpha-EEG (electroencephalogram) rhythms that persist in the
absence of high frequency stimulation, and can affect perception of
sound quality."

one claim says it matters, zillions say it makes no difference.

I believe that it is significant that the brain can respond to
so-called ultra-sonic sounds, even though nospam believes they are
inaudible to humans.

yet nobody can tell the difference in a double-blind study.