IDM Mailing Archive

Marc 3 Poirier wrote:

quoted 23 lines About the only practical application of this audio technology is in the

> > > About the only practical application of this audio technology is in the > > recording and reproduction of classical music. The clarity is so good > > out of an entire symphony orchestra you can individually pick out the > > French horn player sitting in the middle who stopped briefly to pick his > > nose. > > > > As for IDM? 16bit/44.1kHz is fine. > > Aw jeez, this is totally bogus. 16-bit 44.1 kHz is the most bare-ass, > hardly passing standard for digital audio. Okay, maybe not totally because > the 16-bit part is pretty good, but the 44.1 kHz part is atrocious. It > doesn't have to do with whether you call the music you're playing > "classical," it has to do with whether it has treble in it, & most music I > listen to, of all different sorts, does have treble. Once you start > getting into the highest audible frequencies, 44.1 kHz representations of > them sound like shit, harsh & grating shit. Once you get to 22.05 kHz, > this is what any waveform is going to be from a 44.1 kHz audio recording: > \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ > That's it. Absolutely no detail at all. It gets better the lower you go > from there, but that's why it sounds so bad. > > Marc Poirier

i am not versed in the science of sound, but can humans hear over 20 khz? cl

Excerpts from mail: 15-Feb-99 Re: (idm) 24bit 96kHz format by cl@enteract.com

quoted 2 lines i am not versed in the science of sound, but can

> i am not versed in the science of sound, but can > humans hear over 20 khz?

From what I understand, it's not the sound itself, but the waveform the data is encoded in... digital. Aaron

At 10:26 AM 2/15/99 -0600, cl wrote:

quoted 27 lines Marc 3 Poirier wrote:

>Marc 3 Poirier wrote: >> >> > About the only practical application of this audio technology is in the >> > recording and reproduction of classical music. The clarity is so good >> > out of an entire symphony orchestra you can individually pick out the >> > French horn player sitting in the middle who stopped briefly to pick his >> > nose. >> > >> > As for IDM? 16bit/44.1kHz is fine. >> >> Aw jeez, this is totally bogus. 16-bit 44.1 kHz is the most bare-ass, >> hardly passing standard for digital audio. Okay, maybe not totally because >> the 16-bit part is pretty good, but the 44.1 kHz part is atrocious. It >> doesn't have to do with whether you call the music you're playing >> "classical," it has to do with whether it has treble in it, & most music I >> listen to, of all different sorts, does have treble. Once you start >> getting into the highest audible frequencies, 44.1 kHz representations of >> them sound like shit, harsh & grating shit. Once you get to 22.05 kHz, >> this is what any waveform is going to be from a 44.1 kHz audio recording: >> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ >> That's it. Absolutely no detail at all. It gets better the lower you go >> from there, but that's why it sounds so bad. >> >> Marc Poirier > >i am not versed in the science of sound, but can >humans hear over 20 khz?

Most folks, no, but that's not totally the point of what I was saying. I was more saying that the stuff at & near 20 kHz is of very, very poor quality in digital 44.1 kHz sampled recordings. Marc Poirier

quoted 2 lines i am not versed in the science of sound, but can

>i am not versed in the science of sound, but can >humans hear over 20 khz?

it sure is a cliche, but "studies have indicated" that humans can sense a difference between sine and square waves at upwards of 100kHz, and there are mixer and amplifier manufacturers who design equipment to be flat from 20-200kHz. some say they should start extending the top end to 320kHz in order to cover 4 whole octaves above 20kHz. no doubt, when an 8 channel mixer in this class goes for about $4000 used, that it's not for everybody. eric p.s. hopefully this won't devolve into a "pro/con: odd-order harmonics make people agitated and angry" flamewar like last time. onnow: dropshadow disease (rather interesting)

George, David" <dbg17@elec.canterbury.ac.nz wrote:

quoted 4 lines last week while checking out some cds i noticed that jmj - equinoxe has

>last week while checking out some cds i noticed that jmj - equinoxe has >been remastered and was in a 24bit 96kHz format. that's all very good >and well but what contraption can this be played on? surely not any old >cd player?

Just depends on if this is multi-channel or just stereo. The industry is going towards a higher bit rate and sampling rate due to the better digital equipment that is being used in larger studios. Regular cd's are mostly 16 bit/44.1 kHz. So 99% of all normal players will not support it. Some of the better DVD players ($599 -$1k) will play it, although most downsample to 48kHz. The most expensive cd/dvd players that have stock 24 bit DAC's (Digital Audio Converter) will play these discs. However, the cheapest I have seen for now is $2500 from DENON (DVD5000). Of course most people will not buy into this "higher quality" for quite some time, or even if they are forced to because of the price tag. So it will remain for the high-end audiophiles that will shell out the cash and buy new cd/dvd players. Look to see Audio only DVD players on these shores very soon. On a side note, don't panic if you have discs that won't play on your cd carousel. If you have a digital ouput on the back then you can get a newer receiver/amp that will support this bit rate or you can buy a standalone 24 bit DAC when they become more common. Technology marches on. Remember we have had our current cd's for more than a decade! Cheers, _____________________________________ ---------------------------------------------~ Curt King cking@xnet.com COLUMBIA AUDIO/VIDEO Chicago,IL.USA.EARTH "Taste is the enemy of art" _____________________________________ ----------------------------------------------~

Excerpts from mail: 15-Feb-99 (idm) 24bit 96kHz format by SWEET VERNAL@xnet.com

quoted 5 lines Regular cd's are mostly 16 bit/44.1 kHz. So 99% of all normal players will

> Regular cd's are mostly 16 bit/44.1 kHz. So 99% of all normal players will > not support it. Some of the better DVD players ($599 -$1k) will play it, > although most downsample to 48kHz. The most expensive cd/dvd players that > have stock 24 bit DAC's (Digital Audio Converter) will play these discs. > However, the cheapest I have seen for now is $2500 from DENON (DVD5000).

About the only practical application of this audio technology is in the recording and reproduction of classical music. The clarity is so good out of an entire symphony orchestra you can individually pick out the French horn player sitting in the middle who stopped briefly to pick his nose. As for IDM? 16bit/44.1kHz is fine. Aaron

quoted 7 lines About the only practical application of this audio technology is in the

> About the only practical application of this audio technology is in the > recording and reproduction of classical music. The clarity is so good > out of an entire symphony orchestra you can individually pick out the > French horn player sitting in the middle who stopped briefly to pick his > nose. > > As for IDM? 16bit/44.1kHz is fine.

Aw jeez, this is totally bogus. 16-bit 44.1 kHz is the most bare-ass, hardly passing standard for digital audio. Okay, maybe not totally because the 16-bit part is pretty good, but the 44.1 kHz part is atrocious. It doesn't have to do with whether you call the music you're playing "classical," it has to do with whether it has treble in it, & most music I listen to, of all different sorts, does have treble. Once you start getting into the highest audible frequencies, 44.1 kHz representations of them sound like shit, harsh & grating shit. Once you get to 22.05 kHz, this is what any waveform is going to be from a 44.1 kHz audio recording: \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ That's it. Absolutely no detail at all. It gets better the lower you go from there, but that's why it sounds so bad. Marc Poirier

On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, Marc 3 Poirier wrote:

quoted 6 lines 44.1 kHz representations of

> 44.1 kHz representations of > them sound like shit, harsh & grating shit. Once you get to 22.05 kHz, > this is what any waveform is going to be from a 44.1 kHz audio recording: > \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ > That's it. Absolutely no detail at all. It gets better the lower you go > from there, but that's why it sounds so bad.

I quite enjoy listening to music. Stuart

As for IDM? 16bit/44.1kHz is fine.

quoted 4 lines Aw jeez, this is totally bogus. 16-bit 44.1 kHz is the most bare-ass,

> > Aw jeez, this is totally bogus. 16-bit 44.1 kHz is the most bare-ass, > hardly passing standard for digital audio. Okay, maybe not totally because > the 16-bit part is pretty good, but the 44.1 kHz part is atrocious.

when audio engineers complain about 16/44.1 quality, it's generally the 16 bit part that they're complaining about...i.e, audible quantization noise during fadeouts and stuff, since there are only 2 to the 16th power steps of amplitude instead of 2 to the 24th as with 24 bit audio... and 16/44 is the de facto standard for digital audio and has been for years...only in the next few years will we be seeing a change.

quoted 8 lines It

>It > doesn't have to do with whether you call the music you're playing > "classical," it has to do with whether it has treble in it, & most music I > listen to, of all different sorts, does have treble. Once you start > getting into the highest audible frequencies, 44.1 kHz representations of > them sound like shit, harsh & grating shit. Once you get to 22.05 kHz, > this is what any waveform is going to be from a 44.1 kHz audio recording: > \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

this may have been a valid argument for earlier cd players which had brick wall filters that cut off all frequencies above 20k, but current cd/dat players allow a good bit of the frequencies up to 22.05 khz to come through (24 for dats)...this is well above audible frequency range, which in a normal adult maxes out to about 15-18 khz.

quoted 2 lines That's it. Absolutely no detail at all. It gets better the lower you go

> That's it. Absolutely no detail at all. It gets better the lower you go > from there, but that's why it sounds so bad.

bad as compared to what? live classical music? in any case, most idm music is created with samplers which can only do 16/44 anyway...

I can't believe how spoiled people are by CD Audio that they feel like they need 24bit, 96khz audio. I was 25 before I bought my first CD player and CDs. Some of the people on this mailing list were born after the introduction of the CD! Sure, it's nice to have that headroom both in frequency and dynamics, but that's a technical thing having to do with music production, not with listening pleasure. Some of the transcendent musical moments of my life came from hearing music on an Blaupunkt AM radio in a VW Bug, or listening to a GE compact stereo with a white plastic tone arm. Even now, when I have decent professional near field monitors and a good amplifier, I think good enough is good enough. Would a 24/96 CD walkman sound any better? More to the point, would 24/96 sound better when played on a 3000watt PA through a DJ mixer? I think all this high resolution stuff has more to do with the economics of making gear than any actual requirements of listeners. Every few years, when the latest hi fi gewgaw has gone from expensive luxury to ubiquitous commodity, they have to come up with something new to soak more money from the market. Maybe you can play a 24/96 super-CD on a $700 DVD player, but the truth is you'd need a $5000 24-bit digital to analogue convertor to hear any noticable difference in sound. It's even more absurd when you consider the lengths people go to to actually reduce audio resolution when they're recording. They run their microphones through cheap guitar stomp boxes, bounce to analogue tape, compress, eq, re-compress, re-eq etc. It's ridiculous to think that it takes 24bit/96khz to reproduce the sound of a $50 stomp box abusing the signal from a microphone. kent williams -- kent@avalon.net

quoted 8 lines I can't believe how spoiled people are by CD Audio that they feel like

> I can't believe how spoiled people are by CD Audio that they feel like > they need 24bit, 96khz audio. I was 25 before I bought my first CD > player and CDs. Some of the people on this mailing list were born after > the introduction of the CD! > > Sure, it's nice to have that headroom both in frequency and dynamics, but > that's a technical thing having to do with music production, not with > listening pleasure.

I like all of the music that I like, but sometimes the high frequencies on certain CDs hurt my ears. It certainly depends a lot on the CD player as well (with the digital to analogue converters in it), & since I got this splendid new CD player about a year ago, I don't have the problem as often any more, but I still do with some CDs. & they hurt in this way unique to inadequate digital audio, something that never happens with good quality all-analogue recordings. I would like to see a higher standard sampling rate for digital audio, & bit rate, too. That's all, bye. Marc Poirier

On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Marc 3 Poirier wrote:

quoted 18 lines I can't believe how spoiled people are by CD Audio that they feel like

> > I can't believe how spoiled people are by CD Audio that they feel like > > they need 24bit, 96khz audio. I was 25 before I bought my first CD > > player and CDs. Some of the people on this mailing list were born after > > the introduction of the CD! > > > > Sure, it's nice to have that headroom both in frequency and dynamics, but > > that's a technical thing having to do with music production, not with > > listening pleasure. > > I like all of the music that I like, but sometimes the high frequencies > on certain CDs hurt my ears. It certainly depends a lot on the CD player > as well (with the digital to analogue converters in it), & since I got this > splendid new CD player about a year ago, I don't have the problem as often > any more, but I still do with some CDs. & they hurt in this way unique to > inadequate digital audio, something that never happens with good quality > all-analogue recordings. I would like to see a higher standard sampling > rate for digital audio, & bit rate, too. That's all, bye. >

Well listening to CD's shouldn't hurt anyway. That's the fault of the mastering engineer.

quoted 2 lines i am not versed in the science of sound, but can

> > i am not versed in the science of sound, but can > > humans hear over 20 khz?

well, if you suffer from my ear condition, then 9kHz is the big max.1 cheers, jon (dub fan)

At 12:13 PM 2/15/99 -0500, Aaron S Michelson wrote:

quoted 1 line As for IDM? 16bit/44.1kHz is fine.

>As for IDM? 16bit/44.1kHz is fine.

Given that the equipment it's made on tends to be 16bit/44.1kHz, I agree. But since most new equipment has 20-22 bits of resolution (the 23rd & 24th bits are below the thermal noise of a resistor, so the last 2 bits are known as "marketing bits" in the parlance of the industry, they're there mainly because computers prefer bits in multiples of 8), and more bits=more dynamics, I think the music would benefit, ambient music especially. And maybe IDM makers could get away from compressing the shit out of their mixes. At 06:52 PM 2/15/99 -0500, Marc 3 Poirier wrote:

quoted 12 lines Aw jeez, this is totally bogus. 16-bit 44.1 kHz is the most bare-ass,

>Aw jeez, this is totally bogus. 16-bit 44.1 kHz is the most bare-ass, >hardly passing standard for digital audio. Okay, maybe not totally because >the 16-bit part is pretty good, but the 44.1 kHz part is atrocious. It >doesn't have to do with whether you call the music you're playing >"classical," it has to do with whether it has treble in it, & most music I >listen to, of all different sorts, does have treble. Once you start >getting into the highest audible frequencies, 44.1 kHz representations of >them sound like shit, harsh & grating shit. Once you get to 22.05 kHz, >this is what any waveform is going to be from a 44.1 kHz audio recording: >\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ >That's it. Absolutely no detail at all. It gets better the lower you go >from there, but that's why it sounds so bad.

Like detail is going to matter after it's been smeared by MP3 encoding. Talk about sounding bad... But I digress. Digital waveforms are always filtered with a brickwall (high cutoff slope) filter somewhere below the Nyquist frequency, which is 1/2 the sampling freqency. CD filters start at 20kHz, which means that by 22.05kHz the slope of the filter should be below hearing levels. It also means that the square wave which represents a 20kHz wave on the filter input is a sine wave on the filter output. At 10:26 AM 2/15/99 -0600, cl wrote:

quoted 2 lines i am not versed in the science of sound, but can

>i am not versed in the science of sound, but can >humans hear over 20 khz?

I can. Ultrasonic sensors drive me nuts. But most people's hearing rolls off around 15kHz (Do your ears ring when you leave a show, get out of your car, or turn off your walkman? You've just lost some of your high frequency hearing!). Even if you can't hear those frequencies, it doesn't mean that you can't perceive useful information in those frequencies. Some spatial information seems to be encoded in the ultrasonic range, which is why, as Irene has noted on this list earlier, vinyl records tend to sound more "open" (unwilling to concede anything to vinyl, I must add that 3D sound encoders can fake the spatial effects in a 44.1kHz signal). Acoustic music would benefit the most from higher frequencied recordings, but you might notice a difference in IDM recorded on newer equipment. It's hard to say. At 10:07 AM 2/16/99 -0600, ChairCrusher wrote:

quoted 7 lines Some of the transcendent musical moments of my life came from hearing

>Some of the transcendent musical moments of my life came from hearing >music on an Blaupunkt AM radio in a VW Bug, or listening to a GE compact >stereo with a white plastic tone arm. Even now, when I have decent >professional near field monitors and a good amplifier, I think good >enough is good enough. Would a 24/96 CD walkman sound any better? >More to the point, would 24/96 sound better when played on a 3000watt >PA through a DJ mixer?

I'm w/ Kent here - my friends laugh at my listening setup, but I'd rather spend the money on music, not speakers. Great music seems to come through loud & clear no matter what.

quoted 5 lines I think all this high resolution stuff has more to do with the economics

>I think all this high resolution stuff has more to do with the economics >of making gear than any actual requirements of listeners. Every few >years, when the latest hi fi gewgaw has gone from expensive luxury to >ubiquitous commodity, they have to come up with something new to soak >more money from the market.

Yup.

quoted 6 lines It's even more absurd when you consider the lengths people go to to actually

>It's even more absurd when you consider the lengths people go to to actually >reduce audio resolution when they're recording. They run their microphones >through cheap guitar stomp boxes, bounce to analogue tape, compress, eq, >re-compress, re-eq etc. It's ridiculous to think that it takes 24bit/96khz >to reproduce the sound of a $50 stomp box abusing the signal from a >microphone.

AFX fans take note! ;) Che

On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Che wrote:

quoted 3 lines At 12:13 PM 2/15/99 -0500, Aaron S Michelson wrote:

> At 12:13 PM 2/15/99 -0500, Aaron S Michelson wrote: > > >As for IDM? 16bit/44.1kHz is fine.

[ summary -- how dynamic range improvements would be good. ]

quoted 2 lines And

> And > maybe IDM makers could get away from compressing the shit out of their mixes.

Nah. People will always do that. COMPRESSED SIGNALS SOUND LOUD AND LOUD IS BETTER!

quoted 5 lines At 06:52 PM 2/15/99 -0500, Marc 3 Poirier wrote:

> At 06:52 PM 2/15/99 -0500, Marc 3 Poirier wrote: > > >Aw jeez, this is totally bogus. 16-bit 44.1 kHz is the most bare-ass, > >hardly passing standard for digital audio. Okay, maybe not totally because > >the 16-bit part is pretty good, but the 44.1 kHz part is atrocious.

Golden ear types sat around in the late seventies trying to come up with what an audiophile standard for digital audio would entail, and they came up with 44.1khz. There were sound reasons for this -- in the realm of science, no one would make the singularly loony statement that "you can actually hear what you can't hear." Which is the crux of that whole audiophile argument, stated plainly. I'd like to see some rigorous blind tests with a large number of people to see who can actually hear the difference between 24/96 and 16/44. Knowing how variable these things are, I'd guess that only a relatively small percentage of people could really hear the difference, and that a significant percentage of people would actually think they prefer 16/44.

quoted 2 lines Even if you can't hear those frequencies, it doesn't mean that you can't

> Even if you can't hear those frequencies, it doesn't mean that you can't > perceive useful information in those frequencies.

Err, either you can hear things or you can't hear things. If a signal has frequencies above your range of hearing, the only the only thing you might hear of the high frequency signal is some distortion of audible signals caused by the high frequency signals. This distortion is most definitely in the audible range. But who's to say that it's even pleasant or desirable?

quoted 5 lines Some spatial information

> Some spatial information > seems to be encoded in the ultrasonic range, which is why, as Irene has > noted on this list earlier, vinyl records tend to sound more "open" > (unwilling to concede anything to vinyl, I must add that 3D sound encoders > can fake the spatial effects in a 44.1kHz signal).

Not to pick a fight or anything (moi?) but this doesn't follow from what you said above about ultrasonic signals encoding spatiality. Vinyl doesn't sound more 'open' -- for one thing you can't get cartridges that reproduce frequencies much higher than the top CD frequencies. For another thing, the inevitable crosstalk between the channels in a stereo groove is enough to swamp any spatial detail you might perceive as "openness." Vinyl records may sound better to some people's ears precisely because there are subjectively pleasing things about the distortions that medium introduces. But mastering for vinyl is an art a lot like sausage making. It sounds good in the end, but a vinyl mastering engineer is going to further compress, EQ, and generally mess your precious signal around in order to get a good signal into the vinyl.

quoted 5 lines I'm w/ Kent here - my friends laugh at my listening setup, but I'd rather

> > I'm w/ Kent here - my friends laugh at my listening setup, but I'd rather > spend the money on music, not speakers. Great music seems to come through > loud & clear no matter what. >

The biggest improvement in my enjoyment of music was going from LP's to CDs. I bought only vinyl records up until about 1983 when we could actually afford a CD player and I used to really be distracted by scratches, surface noise, skips, etc. I especially used to be annoyed by the crusty sound that the last song on a side would get, because of having less linear groove per second. Don't get me wrong -- I love vinyl records. They still sound good after all these years so long as they aren't seriously abused. But there's a lot of complete BS that goes around when people talk about audio -- especially audiophiles. Anyone who'd willingly spend more than $15 on an RCA cable is a fool.

On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, ChairCrusher wrote:

quoted 4 lines I'd like to see some rigorous blind tests with a large number of people

> I'd like to see some rigorous blind tests with a large number of people > to see who can actually hear the difference between 24/96 and 16/44. > Knowing how variable these things are, I'd guess that only a relatively > small percentage of people could really hear the difference [...]

I can detect a very small difference between 16 bit and 24 bit processing at 44.1KHz. But then I am among the maybe 1% of people for whom speaker wire thicker than 16 guage is a relevant concern. Blessing or curse? If for example your speaker wires are different lengths for the left and right channels, and you don't notice a problem, the extra bits and potential frequency response are not going to mean much. I've put together an excellent, semi-high-end audio system, and for me it was money well spent. However, any fool who thinks a stereo is going to accurately reproduce the low end of a big pipe organ or the highest notes of a violin probably deserves to be robbed of their money. --Mark __ Burning Rome : SENSELESS CD on Mindfield Records MindCD03 Cathartium 14 > Distributed by Dutch East India Trading, Com Four, and Carrot Top < < http://www.xnet.com/~mkolmar/BurningRome > < MP3 & RealAudio tracks >

On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, Mark Kolmar wrote:

quoted 14 lines On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, ChairCrusher wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, ChairCrusher wrote: > > > I'd like to see some rigorous blind tests with a large number of people > > to see who can actually hear the difference between 24/96 and 16/44. > > Knowing how variable these things are, I'd guess that only a relatively > > small percentage of people could really hear the difference [...] > > I can detect a very small difference between 16 bit and 24 bit processing > at 44.1KHz. But then I am among the maybe 1% of people for whom speaker > wire thicker than 16 guage is a relevant concern. Blessing or curse? If > for example your speaker wires are different lengths for the left and > right channels, and you don't notice a problem, the extra bits and > potential frequency response are not going to mean much. >

Mark I know you're a good person, and I like nice audio gear as much as the next guy but do the math: Electricity travels in a perfect medium at the speed of light; through copper wire it travels some fraction of that. The only specific references I've found on the net suggest that a real-world figure would be something on the order of a meter every 1/5,000,000 of a second. In other words, 200 nanoseconds per meter. If you have two speaker cables -- one 3 meters long, and the other twice as long, the phase error between the speakers would amount to 600 nanoseconds, or just under 1 millionth of a second. Are you telling me you can hear phase errors in the microsecond domain?

On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, ChairCrusher wrote:

quoted 4 lines On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, Mark Kolmar wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, Mark Kolmar wrote: > > for example your speaker wires are different lengths for the left and > > right channels, and you don't notice a problem, the extra bits and > > potential frequency response are not going to mean much.

quoted 4 lines If you have two speaker cables -- one 3 meters long, and the other twice

> If you have two speaker cables -- one 3 meters long, and the other twice > as long, the phase error between the speakers would amount to 600 nanoseconds, > or just under 1 millionth of a second. Are you telling me you can hear > phase errors in the microsecond domain?

I sure hope not....No, it's not the phase error. That would be even sillier than you point out. It must be the resistance and capacitance of the wire. All I know is I had switched from 16 guage wires of different lengths to 12 guage wires of the same length (so, yes, that's two variables). There was a change in the right channel, the one that used to have the longer wire. I had heard the difference before, but before I changed the wires I thought it had to do with the room. As long as we're on the subject of the finer points of sound, anyone who's still reading will probably have some opinions on this: what kind of production do you like, especially the soundstage? A lot of the techno I like that you could theoretically dance to (UR, Jeff Mills) gets a lot of its ambience from the room. Fair enough for something that will be pumped out of big, unrefined contraptions into a room damped only be the people who occupy it. Most of Atom Heart's stuff is sort of the same way, even if it is more for living rooms. Imaging can be excellent, but it is mostly very dry. It usually doesn't work in headphones. More often than not I'll start walking around, or work at the computer at the other end of the room. That goes 10x more for the discs that use total channel separation (e.g. BASS) because you get a decent stereo image from just about anywhere. Most of Aphex Twin's stuff (I opted out after _I Don't Care Even If You Do_) is too sloppy to lose too much even if you are in a completely different room. At the other end of the spectrum is something like Underworld's _Second Toughest in the Infants_, which has a clear soundstage, and a definite sense of room ambience to sit inside, with foreground and background. A little overcompressed maybe. Richard H. Kirk's productions are not crisp like that, but they can envelop you like a warm bath. The early Warp bleep stuff is dry, but I know one of the reasons is so it will survive going through a PA into a big room -- and that's where it gets the ambience. --Mark __ Burning Rome : SENSELESS CD on Mindfield Records MindCD03 Cathartium 14 > Distributed by Dutch East India Trading, Com Four, and Carrot Top < < http://www.xnet.com/~mkolmar/BurningRome > < MP3 & RealAudio tracks >

Marc 3 Poirier wrote:

quoted 8 lines I like all of the music that I like, but sometimes the high frequencies

> I like all of the music that I like, but sometimes the high frequencies > on certain CDs hurt my ears. It certainly depends a lot on the CD player > as well (with the digital to analogue converters in it), & since I got this > splendid new CD player about a year ago, I don't have the problem as often > any more, but I still do with some CDs. & they hurt in this way unique to > inadequate digital audio, something that never happens with good quality > all-analogue recordings. I would like to see a higher standard sampling > rate for digital audio, & bit rate, too. That's all, bye.

well how do you know it's the cd sampling rate that makes these cds sound like shit...it's possible the artist ran the mix through a cheap aural exciter, or the mastering engineer didn't quite know what he was doing, or the pressing plant fucked up, etc...also, cd's can reproduce frequencies that analogue tape cannot...hence if you record some 19khz tone at high volume on digital, it will sound as loud and piercing as it would in real life, whereas if you recorded the same tone to a cassette or reel to reel or vinyl, it would be more muffled and quieter, hence less grating on the ears, because the medium isn't correctly reproducing it... depends a lot on your speakers and the room you're listening in too.

Che wrote:

quoted 4 lines i am not versed in the science of sound, but can

> >i am not versed in the science of sound, but can > >humans hear over 20 khz? > > I can. Ultrasonic sensors drive me nuts.

me too...but neither you nor i can actually hear them...what we do hear is the effect of the ultrasonic sensors heterodyning the air and creating harmonics below the actual tone...i.e. a 30khz tone might give off some low volume 15khz harmonics, which you can hear if you have good ears...to see if you can actually hear 20+ k tones, you really need to listen to them on good headphones in one of those listening test type environments...(i.e. you can't see when someone is or isn't playing a tone)

quoted 7 lines On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, public anemone wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, public anemone wrote: > > below the actual tone...i.e. a 30khz tone might give off some low volume 15khz > > harmonics, which you can hear if you have good ears...to see if you can > > actually hear 20+ k tones, you really need to listen to them on good > > A decent and easy test is whether you can tell if the TV is on in another > room with the volume off. TVs produce a tone around 15KHz I think.

Hmm. Can't everyone do this?

quoted 3 lines OK, closer to IDM content: At the end of Ryoji Ikeda's +/- there is a

> OK, closer to IDM content: At the end of Ryoji Ikeda's +/- there is a > tone which supposedly a listener becomes aware of only when it stops. > Well, I can hear it the whole time. (Hint: wear earplugs at concerts!)

Nah, gotta be hardcore and go deaf.

On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Andrew Hime wrote:

quoted 4 lines A decent and easy test is whether you can tell if the TV is on in another

> > A decent and easy test is whether you can tell if the TV is on in another > > room with the volume off. TVs produce a tone around 15KHz I think. > > Hmm. Can't everyone do this?

yep. i remember playing this game with my friends when i was really young where you bet that you can tell if the tv is on. i've met some other people who can hear it too. it's more noticeable on older tv's, like that kind that have a power knob that also acts as a volume control. (and there's a similar sound that comes from the end of my street, i don't know what it is, but it's the same annoying sound.) -eric --- eric sherman szale@doubtful.com doubtful productions www.doubtful.com

william ratke wrote:

quoted 21 lines me too...but neither you nor i can actually hear them...what we do hear is

> > > >me too...but neither you nor i can actually hear them...what we do hear is > the > >effect of the ultrasonic sensors heterodyning the air and creating > harmonics > >below the actual tone...i.e. a 30khz tone might give off some low volume > 15khz > >harmonics, which you can hear if you have good ears...to see if you can > >actually hear 20+ k tones, you really need to listen to them on good > >headphones in one of those listening test type environments...(i.e. you > can't > >see when someone is or isn't playing a tone) > > im entirely into the theory of sound and how the human intakes it but > really i find textures that rest on the lo-fidelity end of the audio > spectrum have a much more profound effect upon me at all levels, (via > mego, the haters, gbv, vvm nd third eye found. amidst others, in quite a few > ways i prefer reel to reel/four track composition to digital, whenever i > play with digital i allways end up degrading the sound quality so much it > sounds like it was produced on a defunct gramaphone, really all a matter of > preference i suppose_ will

horses for courses.... an answer to most questions. ;-)

quoted 2 lines me too...but neither you nor i can actually hear them...what we do hear is

> >me too...but neither you nor i can actually hear them...what we do hear is

the

quoted 1 line effect of the ultrasonic sensors heterodyning the air and creating

>effect of the ultrasonic sensors heterodyning the air and creating

harmonics

quoted 1 line below the actual tone...i.e. a 30khz tone might give off some low volume

>below the actual tone...i.e. a 30khz tone might give off some low volume

15khz

quoted 3 lines harmonics, which you can hear if you have good ears...to see if you can

>harmonics, which you can hear if you have good ears...to see if you can >actually hear 20+ k tones, you really need to listen to them on good >headphones in one of those listening test type environments...(i.e. you

can't

quoted 1 line see when someone is or isn't playing a tone)

>see when someone is or isn't playing a tone)

im entirely into the theory of sound and how the human intakes it but really i find textures that rest on the lo-fidelity end of the audio spectrum have a much more profound effect upon me at all levels, (via mego, the haters, gbv, vvm nd third eye found. amidst others, in quite a few ways i prefer reel to reel/four track composition to digital, whenever i play with digital i allways end up degrading the sound quality so much it sounds like it was produced on a defunct gramaphone, really all a matter of preference i suppose_ will

quoted 5 lines Excerpts from mail: 15-Feb-99 Re: (idm) 24bit 96kHz format by

>Excerpts from mail: 15-Feb-99 Re: (idm) 24bit 96kHz format by >cl@enteract.com >> i am not versed in the science of sound, but can >> humans hear over 20 khz? >

From what I understand, it's not the sound itself, but the waveform the

quoted 3 lines data is encoded in... digital.

>data is encoded in... digital. > >Aaron

Humans have been known to hear up to 22khz. A few studies that the old soviet union did proved humans can hear much higher if the transducer was placed directly on the skull... but that's not the point. For digital recording the sampling rate needs to be AT LEAST twice the highest frequency that will be recorded. This is so that nothing will be aliased which is something bizarre that happens when you record digitally at too low of a sampling rate. New frequencies which didn't previously exist are being created. Aphex Twin uses TONS of aliasing in his songs on purpose. The come to daddy EP, at least three songs have it in there that i can hear. 44.1khz will record frequencies up to 22.05khz, anything above that gets chopped off with filters. They've done studies and supposedly even though we can't hear any higher than that, humans can detect aesthetic qualities in music that only exist in higher harmonics. It's mostly an audiophile thing, not something joe six-pack will much care about when playing his new digitally remastered Foghat CDs. -scott

quoted 6 lines As long as we're on the subject of

> As long as we're on the subject of > the finer points of sound, anyone who's > still reading will probably have some > opinions on this: what kind of > production do you like, especially the > soundstage?

I think it may be worth mentioning that the new Delano and Dahlback 12, Nueva York, has to bo the thickest, fattest and best-mixed production that I know of. I would have gladly paid a full 12 price for each of the four songs by themselves, and will be buying two more copies. Intelligent house. bbn