Re: Vinyl quality vs. digital sound (whoops!)


Subject: Re: Vinyl quality vs. digital sound (whoops!)
From: Rick Nance (rnance@dmu.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Oct 21 2004 - 18:30:29 EDT


I'll get my eyes checked along with my ears though. I figure I'll
evetually be able to tell the diff between 100 and 100,000 Hz!
!!
oh well...

But also,

In Digi's HD 24/192KHz recording, I ASSUME it's using the same analog
outputs as the section that is outputting the 16/44.1.

You can hear the difference in the two. ARE they using different analog?
op amps, right?

Rick

Rick Nance wrote:

> yeah, well generally I don't worry about things above 15KHz, but
>
> The problem with high-end audiophile recordings and playback, as far as
> I can tell, is price.
> I've heard analog playback that I still swear is better than the same
> publication on CD.
>
> Elvis, the Sun Years(?)
> half-speed master disc vs 16/44.1
>
> The confound in the little experiment was price.
>
> Goldman turntable $15,000 US, Thrush tonearm another grand. vs CD player
>
> It mattered. It was obvious. no placebo effect margin for error.
> ==============================
> Also, I've been probably reading too much on the auditory and now the
> cochlea list but just to remind; the ear isn't analog, and it doesn't
> make fourier transforms. It probably doesn't do "spectral analysis". It
> measures differences.
> =============================
>
> From another list in its entirety here:
> http://iesk.et.uni-magdeburg.de/~blumsche/M20.html
> (Comment by Eckard Blumschein: M20 contains just a very interesting
> question by Zatorre and two pertaining reflections of mine. As soon as
> the promised summary is available, I will add it to the archive.)
> ================
> The interesting data follows, but the rest of the letter(s) aren't a loss.
>
> "As a corollary, audition includes features which are not appropriately
> or even not at all reflected within the traditional signal analysis.
> Already the fundamental properties of each neuron provide an explanation
> for that. Nonetheless, beware of ascribing auditory perception to single
> neurons. The tradeoff between bandwidth and temporal resolution holds
> for the mechanics of cochlea with exceptions of foveae in bats. The
> smallest perceptible phase difference detectable by humans, 2,
> corresponds with a temporal disparity of 4 microseconds at 100 Hz. Bats
> were reported to even perceive much shorter disparities. The relation of
> uncertainty would limit temporal resolution at that frequency to 10
> milliseconds. With different words, hearing outperforms the spectrogram
> in that case by more then two orders..."
> ===========================================
>
>
>
>
> John Nowak wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 21, 2004, at 5:15 PM, Rick Nance wrote:
>>
>>> It's not an issue if you believe that 20KHz is a number that matters.
>>> There is some evidence that differences up to 100KHz are detectable.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is also "evidence" that we never landed on the moon and that
>> Stalin was truly a man of the people. I say rubbish!
>>
>> Hesitantly.
>>
>> - John



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:04 EST