That's a 4% increase, which can definitely be noticed. The proper way to do it would be with a pitch-invariant time compression. I have no idea to what extent this method was used on VHS or DVD releases, though with a digital source, there's really no excuse not to.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
I have a similar anecdote. Someone had copied a CD to a cassette tape for listening in the (old) car. Despite being met with disbelief, I insisted it was playing too fast. Finally, we timed a couple of tracks, and they were indeed a few seconds fast. The speed difference would have been a few percent, so it could have been noticeable. Then again, I may have imagined it and got lucky. We will never know.
It was simply played faster, with no pitch compensation, so was fixable with DVD by simply playing back at the original correct speed.
I can't name the notes, so I fail that test.
But having listened to music for so long, and participated as a minor player in some ensembles (starting in third grade) and fooled aorund for years with guitars and such, I might have a feel for when the base frequencies are off...
That's all based on the modern A=440Hz tuning, though.
I'll have to listen to some pieces with A=432Hz tuning and let you know.
Meanwhile, try some non-12 note octave tunings for you own edification, if you like...
The ratio of frequencies between two adjacent notes on a piano is the 12th root (12 notes in the scale) of 2 (doubling of frequency in the octave). Maybe technically not precisely 12th root for all intervals as implemented, because of other harmonic considerations, but that's the basic idea.
Use the 15th root of 2 to determine the relative frequencies for a 15 note octave, etc.
These pieces are beyond off...
Some details: http://www.cedillerecords.org/albums/microtonal
More: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easley_Blackwood_Jr.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2018
- Messages
- 6,652
- Likes
- 9,406
I quite like it actually
There are a few microtonal composers whose stuff I like, very hit and miss for me though...https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,110146.0.html
Quite a number of people can ABX 500Hz vs 501Hz.
Quite a number of people can ABX 500Hz vs 501Hz.
Again, that is differential testing. Have them listen to a single tone and say whether it is 500 or 501 Hz.
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2018
- Messages
- 6,652
- Likes
- 9,406
The incidence of people who can do this is around 1/10,000 (higher for people whose native language is tonal and who had music education from a young age).
I was referring to mansr's 24Hz vs 25Hz comment.
Basically it cannot be a "non-differential" test.
Let's say someone only listened to 440Hz music since his birth. Until 10 years old he listened to a 432Hz music and found a difference. It can also be listening to a 440Hz song followed by a 432Hz one without intentional fast switching.
So yes, fast switching ABX test with test tone is much more revealing, but it is not a "competition" or "challenge". Content distributes cannot restrict how users listen to their music, if something like 24Hz vs 25Hz is audible in some situation then it is better to be corrected.
I have a similar experience. I and my friend are game music lovers and I used to record music from game consoles with cassettes. I considered my friend's Kenwood deck sounds better than my Sony deck so I went to his home to record some music. However when I was back to home and listened to it with both my cassette deck and walkman, It sounded a bit flat, and by comparing with the actual console in my home it was indeed a bit flat.
Don't know if it is easier than telling something is 100dB SINAD vs 101dB SINAD or not.
BTW, I speak Cantonese:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantonese#Tones
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2018
- Messages
- 6,652
- Likes
- 9,406
Don't know if it is easier than telling something is 100dB SINAD vs 101dB SINAD or not.
BTW, I speak Cantonese:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantonese#Tones
Haha
Is Cantonese your native language or a second language?
Native as I am from Hong Kong.Haha
Is Cantonese your native language or a second language?
I tried that just now and got 9/10 correct with some effort. Using headphones might have been easier, but I was too lazy to fetch them. 500 Hz vs 502 Hz was much easier. With 500/505 Hz it was effortless.
That was with rapid switching. I would not be able to pick the frequency of a single tone with such accuracy.
I also have a funny story to tell. Years ago the local dealer had "phono days" and a guy from Ortofon offered free checks of turntables. I watched as he checked the speed of a Thorens TD-105 with an Ortofon test record. The speed was absolutely correct and he told the owner that his TT was perfect and no other drive could ever best it in SQ.
Having owned an TD-115 for many years and knowing its inferior SQ (even the entry level Linn LP 12 is much better) I was so stupid to mention that a correct speed is not the most important spec of a good TT. He got quite angry and told me that if a TT has no perfect speed it can never be good.
Well, point made, point taken. Now comes the funny part: Next day a group of people including me and the Ortofon guy listened to a record unknown to me. It sounded weird and after a minute I said that it must be a 45 rpm record played at 33 rpm. I was right.
So even the Ortofon guy did not note that the record was played some 25% too slow.
Mission accomplished to fail?..
This may be the culprit.
It is simply not "normal" to listen to anything blindfolded. This in itself may cause a distraction of awareness that will mask normal brain activity in listening.
This is flawed because it is simply not normal and not how any person listens.
Same goes with most tests as being unnatural or self aware.
This is my opinion.
I say, the emperor has no clothes...
You say, measure it or its not actually true but instead your perception.
I say, "ok how?"
"Do a blind test", you respond.
I say ok, and put on blindfold.
Then I say, "Yes, you must be right, as I do not see anything"..
The one thing most tests have in common is their resultant perception of no proof, when we all hear differences and go by our hearing to purchase products every day.
Then we supposed to come here and say that there is no difference.
I say it all has to do with the ability to have confidence in what you hear.
A "piano tuner" gets paid to tune piano by ear.
NOT by measurements.
A recording engineer's success also has to do partially with his ear and his microphone placement technique.
To have "Doubt" in the mind, is the initial destruction of the brain's ability to percieve differences.
Also Straining to percieve a certain aspect makes a person blind to the whole picture...
What is the user observing?The frequency? The amplitude? The soundstage? Instrument separation? Clarity? Resolution? Realism? Spacial cues? Blackness of background? Height? Width? Size? Proximity? Distance?
Do current tests make allowance for such observations?
This is why most users have more solid preferences when they are at home relaxed with thier gear.
I am not debating the usefulness of scientific measurements and tests, but to point out how they most ALL FAILED at proving WHY we hear differences and make general consensus what is better gear from lesser gear.
You cannot pin everything on placibo.
To do that is to make excuses.
Last edited:
No, your statement is flawed. 'Blind' in blind testing does not involve wearing a blindfold or a mask. It's a shorthand for not having a prior knowledge of the identity of the device being heard. It's a standard technique in all bias-controlled testing. Nothing unique about its application to audio.
That was funny to realize.
Metaphorically still blinded with doubt though ...
It might be noticed if you were doing a back to back comparison but it wouldnt in isolation. Any country whose TV system that is 50i based will speed up film, but I have never heard anyone mention it sounding too fast
Most definitely beats 3:2 pulldown, just watch a pan
I don't think we have all the tools on sound science.
I have read about military applications of sound advancements, like being able to point and place sounds/voices into victims heads.
Or military use for weaponizing.
Technology has advanced in all areas since the 70s and I don't see why it would not in all areas.
Think about it. Our military planes shown to us are about 20yrs old, before use of cellphones.
Then people wonder why they spot unusual activity in sky..
It is us all along.
Technology trickle down to the masses.
I have read about military applications of sound advancements, like being able to point and place sounds/voices into victims heads.
Or military use for weaponizing.
Technology has advanced in all areas since the 70s and I don't see why it would not in all areas.
Think about it. Our military planes shown to us are about 20yrs old, before use of cellphones.
Then people wonder why they spot unusual activity in sky..
It is us all along.
Technology trickle down to the masses.
