High Resolution Audio?

[eliash]

But, in Japan, one of the famous university's research center have Condensed Matter Nuclear Reaction Division.

http://hayabusa1.lns.tohoku.ac.jp/en/research/

What do you think about this one?

Temporal resolution of hearing probed by bandwidth restriction
https://www.tnt-audio.com/casse/temporal_resolution.pdf

...Goes into the same direction, various RC-filtered square-wave signals and their impact on audibility...

 

[Wombat]

You are always thinking of modern recordings, with all digital and almost no acoustic instrumentation. Where it is appreciated is with music from old analog tapes and modern direct recordings in DSD.

When ripping the vinyl, with that analog origin, is when the differences are much more evident. With commercial modern music, so badly produced nor I raise the disquisition.

Such as my experience.

Your experience needs to be validated, otherwise it is subjective rhetoric, repeated repeatedly, here.

 

[RayDunzl]

What do you think about this one?

I like it.

 

[solderdude]

I like bandwidth limited high frequency square waves as well ... so related/relevant to any musical experience.

 

[Krunok]

I like bandwidth limited high frequency square waves as well ... so related/relevant to any musical experience.

You will change your mind mister as soon as Ray&Blumlein's new album "'Things we found in the kitchen" hits the market!

 

[solderdude]

Only if it includes jangling keys and castanets.
The latter usually isn't found in the kitchen but maybe someone could sneak them in.

La Folia may already come close to their album though.

 

[Krunok]

Only if it includes jangling keys and castanets.
The latter usually isn't found in the kitchen but maybe someone could sneak them in.

You are seriosuly underestimating wild sounds produced by Ray's 2 spoons and Blumlein's pizza pan..

 

[solderdude]

Alright alright .... I just hope it will be at least 384/32 or DSDx8 otherwise I might not hear it correctly on my Bose 901 speakers.
Knowing those guys they will probably only release in 44/16 (non dithered) just to make a point

 

[RayDunzl]

You are seriosuly underestimating wild sounds produced by Ray's 2 spoons and Blumlein's pizza pan.

I'm quite proud of my 1-bit remastering of "With a Little Help From My Friends".

 

[Krunok]

I'm quite proud of my 1-bit remastering of "With a Little Help From My Friends".

View attachment 27735

That is indeed a masterpiece!

 

[solderdude]

Where can I buy the vinyl version so I can photograph it, rip it and get to show at least a DR2 measurement.

 

[eliash]

Where can I buy the vinyl version so I can photograph it, rip it and get to show at least a DR2 measurement.

You know guys, this may end up like in the "spoon murder" video, always that 7KHz...

 

[Blumlein 88]

What do you think about this one?

Temporal resolution of hearing probed by bandwidth restriction
https://www.tnt-audio.com/casse/temporal_resolution.pdf

...Goes into the same direction, various RC-filtered square-wave signals and their impact on audibility...

Isn't this the same one commented on earlier or maybe it was the other thread. Same issue. He used analog filters to restrict harmonics of 7 khz square waves. Those filters slightly alter the level of the 7 khz signal. He mistakenly believed since it was a level change smaller than the JND (just noticeable difference) that it wouldn't effect the test. But we know differences of .2 db and larger are detectable blind when listeners don't hear a level difference. This is especially true with just tones. If you look at his results, they show a difference until there is a .2 db level change where it isn't significant, and above it 100%. He inadvertently was simply proving small level differences are audible. Has nothing to do with time resolution or ultrasonics.

 

[eliash]

Isn't this the same one commented on earlier or maybe it was the other thread. Same issue. He used analog filters to restrict harmonics of 7 khz square waves. Those filters slightly alter the level of the 7 khz signal. He mistakenly believed since it was a level change smaller than the JND (just noticeable difference) that it wouldn't effect the test. But we know differences of .2 db and larger are detectable blind when listeners don't hear a level difference. This is especially true with just tones. If you look at his results, they show a difference until there is a .2 db level change where it isn't significant, and above it 100%. He inadvertently was simply proving small level differences are audible. Has nothing to do with time resolution or ultrasonics.

Could be, that´s why I asked for opinions...whereas, as was discussed somewhere before, 0.2dB are really hard to differ, me probably not able...my point was anyway distortion of the ear itself and its effects...

(I´ve ordered that new RME AD/DA converter to come next month, yesterday I checked out a small CM6631a based S/PDIF to USB converter, both togehter will expand my testing capabilities a lot, more experimenting to follow.)

 

[tohoho4]

What do you think about this one?

Temporal resolution of hearing probed by bandwidth restriction
https://www.tnt-audio.com/casse/temporal_resolution.pdf

I don't read this article, because too long and complicated for me. But ultrasonic perception of your idea (some nonlinear effect in the hearing chain) seems good point. Not only ultrasonic frequency but also am radio frequency can be heared by non-electrical (which means without electronic radio reciever) mixing down (product detecting) in the very close area of AM radio transmitter antenna.

 

[eliash]

I don't read this article, because too long and complicated for me. But ultrasonic perception of your idea (some nonlinear effect in the hearing chain) seems good point. Not only ultrasonic frequency but also am radio frequency can be heared by non-electrical (which means without electronic radio reciever) mixing down (product detecting) in the very close area of AM radio transmitter antenna.

Just for information:
I tried to prove my nonlinear downmix theory by generating 2 testsignals, one with high frequency content, the other without.
1st Testsignal without high frequency content is a quality 24/96 broadband white noise (low level, unclipped, constant spectrum up to cutoff), LP-filtered at 18KHz w 48dB/oct.
2nd Testsignal with high frequency content is the above 18KHz LP-filtered signal plus 22KHz HP-filtered (48dB/oct) white noise from the a. m. source. This avoids any level overshoot in the cutover region and maintains identical content in the audible frequency range. The level is of course higher, but far away from clipping.

Now here comes the result:
I was not able to detect any difference, under several loudness conditions. So no nonlinear downmix detectable in this experiment.
Also tried running the LP-filtered signal on left and only HP-filtered content on the right speaker at once and move right next to the right speaker (more HF-level). Also no difference audible, while switching the right channel on and off.

As described, I could hear a difference in that a. m. downsampled album under the same conditions, so I guess I need to attack the issue differently...

 

[daftcombo]

Thanks. Would you conclude that a 48dB/oct at 18 kHz will make the difference with any track without that LP inaudible?
I myself think so.

 

[eliash]

Thanks. Would you conclude that a 48dB/oct at 18 kHz will make the difference with any track without that LP inaudible?
I myself think so.

I haven´t checked for the audibility of this 18KHz LP-filter with other sound material. I just generated the test tracks in Audacity for that purpose.
As I explained above there was an audible difference, when downsampling that "Thin LIzzy" album. I tried the same with other 24/96 material and I came to the conclusion that there is at least no difference, when the original 24/96 material was brickwalled (i.e. mastered for CD, no spectrum left above 22KHz) before.

Meanwhile I also experimented (independently to the above) with upsampling clipped CD tracks (to 176KHz; just the other way around as above) and look at the individual samples and their amplitude afterwards. They were slightly increased in amplitude afterwards and the particular music sample of a few seconds showed more clipping at 100% than the 44KHz original before. I think this can be explained logically, as the oversampling process does so.
My point in this context is though, if the ""Thin Lizzy" source material was clipped at 100% or slightly below, maybe the downsampling did also something to the signal at clipping level. That could have been audible as well...anyway, more to look into...

 

[eliash]

Thanks. Would you conclude that a 48dB/oct at 18 kHz will make the difference with any track without that LP inaudible?
I myself think so.

Meanwhile I did some additional experimenting, which answers your question.
Since the audibility of a downmix effect might also depend on the spectral coherence of the signal (i.e. a full cymbal spectrum containing ultrasonics),
I generated a so called IRN signal (Iterated Ripple Noise, based on 16 additons of n x 2ms shifted white noise signal. Afterwards 2KHz HP-filtered, leaving some distinct and hopefully coherent 500Hz lines in its noise spectrum).
Now I compared this signal and its 18KHz LP-filtered deduction against each other: As well nothing, not the slightest difference...

 

[bennetng]

Where can I buy the vinyl version so I can photograph it, rip it and get to show at least a DR2 measurement.

Some random cassette decks can do the same:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...kamichi-dragon-cassette-deck.5595/post-124666
If I use that delusional meter: