All this 'return to analogue' stuff..

[Ralph Llama]

Exactly what I was thinking.
As far as those audio links go fishfinger I can understand why his scientific friends disagree with him. The brain can extrapolate a frequency in between the hairs. Have you ever heard a tone pitch bending between 2 frequencies ? How can the transition sound smooth ?
Bollocks. .. I need sleep ... I will try and dig out some links tommorow as well as finish reading those links .

 

[ViolentPanda]

Recording music on analogue tape rather than onto a digital format is an important factor I think. Whether you use an analogue or digital playback device today is less significant. I'm taking about comparing vinyl and CDs here, not PONO/FLAC files played on headphones. MP3s are obviously shit, always will be and have no place in the debate.

Music that was recorded on analogue tape in the 50s, 60s etc can be remastered using the latest gear and sound way batter than it did back when it was made. Remaster it again in 20 years time again and it'll sound even better. Record something digitally today and it'll sound the same in 20 years time. The trouble is, I don't think there are many companies left making analogue tape.

This is a slightly sore subject for me. I've had a couple of minor floods in my home and the moist aftermath made the sleeves of my 600 odd LPs begin to rot so I flogged them before they rotted further. Had some real chestnuts in there as well.

Analogue taping inherently compresses the sound, but in a natural way that our ears perceive as "warmth". One thing the digital remastering process does is remediate that compression, and "restore" the full bandwidth of the recording. It's not so much "better", as "has an entirely different emphasis".

 

[ViolentPanda]

The cat on my street refused to be drawn on the matter of hearing, but is quite envious of human vision.

Fucking snooty cats and their snootiness.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I sat in college and was played sounds well above 20 kHz by my tutor that spent his life analysing audio and our senses that about 30% of the class could hear. The senses often work in a way that is unexpected. Take the outer ear for example and the way it adds tiny phase delays to sounds coming from different directions which are processed in the brain to reveal the direction to us. There is not just the nervous system but an unknown and amazing part of our mind/brain which can extrapolate further information.

Binaurality also helps with location information. It's why people like me, who are deaf in one ear, are fucked when trying to discern aurally where traffic is coming from, for example.

 

[mauvais]

One observation is that there's no way you'd get a competitive FPS gamer who was happy with a rig limited to 24 FPS.

There's some truth to this, but it is complicated: How many frames per second can the human eye really see? | PC Gamer

 

[Casual Observer]

Changing the subject slightly, can I ask what will happen to my now 49-year old ears in 20 years time apart from the lobes growing longer? Is my hearing likely to deteriorate to the extent that I can't really appreciate the difference between a 1990s CD of a 1970 album, a 2018 remastered CD of the same album or the 2038 remastered digital equivalent?

 

[mauvais]

Why don't you try a double-blind test and see if you can tell the difference today?

 

[likesfish]

I know I can't tell the difference between a £30ish set of headphones and a £300 set.

OK powering both from an iPhone won't help but neither could my teenage daughter

 

[Casual Observer]

Why don't you try a double-blind test and see if you can tell the difference today?

Too much trouble. I'd have to make two CDr versions of what's on my hard drive and go into the other room to play them on a proper CD player. Though it didn't look like it and was clumsily written, my question was meant to be more about possible hearing deterioration for ageing ears.

 

[Ralph Llama]

Binaurality also helps with location information. It's why people like me, who are deaf in one ear, are fucked when trying to discern aurally where traffic is coming from, for example.

Yep 2 ears cover the whole left right thing pretty well .... I bet you can tell what is above/below behind/in-front perfectly though ? If you put your head at a 90 degree angle you should be good... apart from an aching neck and strange looks :/

Changing the subject slightly, can I ask what will happen to my now 49-year old ears in 20 years time apart from the lobes growing longer? Is my hearing likely to deteriorate to the extent that I can't really appreciate the difference between a 1990s CD of a 1970 album, a 2018 remastered CD of the same album or the 2038 remastered digital equivalent?

Hearing loss is a symptom of industrialised society. The only thing that deteriorates hearing as far as i am aware is loud noises.

Will look at fishfingers links now...

 

[Ralph Llama]

Analogue taping inherently compresses the sound, but in a natural way that our ears perceive as "warmth". One thing the digital remastering process does is remediate that compression, and "restore" the full bandwidth of the recording. It's not so much "better", as "has an entirely different emphasis".

But by countering the compression of the original tape (easy BTW using acoustic mirrors in reverse ) you will restore the audio to the original bandwidth ! So it is in fact restored.

Fishfinger - that weirdo has probably got a warehouse of cd`s and 16bit sound-cards he is trying to shift I`ll break it down and edit it into this post.

My first point is my own subjective experience as a producer of digital and analogue music and a sound engineer.
At higher bit depths and sample frequencies I can tell with my ears(and body and mind) the difference in the depth in the sound. This is backed up by the analytical tools i use when producing in AbletonLive.

Gentlemen, meet your ears
The ear hears via hair cells that sit on the resonant basilar membrane in the cochlea. Each hair cell is effectively tuned to a narrow frequency band determined by its position on the membrane. Sensitivity peaks in the middle of the band and falls off to either side in a lopsided cone shape overlapping the bands of other nearby hair cells. A sound is inaudible if there are no hair cells tuned to hear it

Wrong. The brain can extrapolate the frequency in-between the hairs in the same way we can extrapolate the left/right position of a sound with 2 ears.

if you look at the hair cells (in blue) you will see that m8e`s analysis is horribly oversimplified .. the number of hair-cells which he attributes to one frequency could easily be reaching out(using extrapolation processing in the brain) to the in-between frequencies.

This is of course not proven (in isolated conditions in a lab) ... after sound weapon tests backfired (literally) the scientific funding community lost interest in audio.

If you can find an acoustic engineer who agree`s with m8e`s analysis... well ... don`t hire them cos they do not understand acoustics.

Chris Montgomery - Wikipedia

He holds a B.S. in electrical engineering and computer science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a M.Eng. degree in computer engineering from the Tokyo Institute of Technology.

The bloke has not even studied acoustics in a professional capacity ! He is a hacker with a limited understanding of human biology where acoustics is concerned .

The stair step thing :

I am starting to question this blokes motives TBH ! Stair steps/lollipops... whatever! We still loose the information between sample points !

The 20hz to 20khz limit thing ? Easy... by using data from sensors in resonating cavities in the body(LF) and bones(HF)(youve got to feel it in your bones ) we can hear above and below these `limits`.

Can humans perceive sounds above 20 kHz?

 

[8ball]

There's some truth to this, but it is complicated: How many frames per second can the human eye really see? | PC Gamer

Interesting stuff - cheers.

 

[Ralph Llama]

I think ... one could say .. all this adds up to the fact that science does not have much of a clue about our senses and how they work. The more you look into it... the weirder it gets. Which is great !

 

[JuanTwoThree]

One thing about analogue time is that it is really my mental picture of time: a quarter of an hour is a big 1/4 slice of a pie-chart in my mind. I have to recast 12.30 to twelve and a 1/2. The same goes for fuel gauges, speedometers and rev counters in a car, although these I don't see as full circles. They are hard to understand as digital information. Though I'm not sure if fuel is shown digitally; sometimes it's like a number of bars, which is another analogue I know.

I'm showing my age.

 

[fishfinger]

But by countering the compression of the original tape (easy BTW using acoustic mirrors in reverse ) you will restore the audio to the original bandwidth ! So it is in fact restored.

Fishfinger - that weirdo has probably got a warehouse of cd`s and 16bit sound-cards he is trying to shift I`ll break it down and edit it into this post.

My first point is my own subjective experience as a producer of digital and analogue music and a sound engineer.
At higher bit depths and sample frequencies I can tell with my ears(and body and mind) the difference in the depth in the sound. This is backed up by the analytical tools i use when producing in AbletonLive.



Wrong. The brain can extrapolate the frequency in-between the hairs in the same way we can extrapolate the left/right position of a sound with 2 ears.

if you look at the hair cells (in blue) you will see that m8e`s analysis is horribly oversimplified .. the number of hair-cells which he attributes to one frequency could easily be reaching out(using extrapolation processing in the brain) to the in-between frequencies.

This is of course not proven (in isolated conditions in a lab) ... after sound weapon tests backfired (literally) the scientific funding community lost interest in audio.

If you can find an acoustic engineer who agree`s with m8e`s analysis... well ... don`t hire them cos they do not understand acoustics.

Chris Montgomery - Wikipedia



The bloke has not even studied acoustics in a professional capacity ! He is a hacker with a limited understanding of human biology where acoustics is concerned .

Oh dear Ralphy, what are we going to do with you?

I provided you with a couple of links to xiph.org. In case you don't know, xiph developed various codecs including ogg vorbis, and are continuing development of FLAC.

Their open source codecs are in extremely wide use (including being supported in Ableton Live).

Many video games store in-game audio as Vorbis, including Amnesia: The Dark Descent, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, Halo: Combat Evolved, Minecraft, and World of Warcraft, among others.[citation needed] Popular software players support Vorbis playback either natively or through an external plugin. A number of websites, including Wikipedia, use it.[23][24][25][26] Others include Jamendo and Mindawn, as well as several national radio stations[23] like JazzRadio, Absolute Radio, NPR, Radio New Zealand[27] and Deutschlandradio.[28] The Spotify audio streaming service uses Vorbis for its audio streams.[29][30] Also, the French music site Qobuz offers its customers the possibility to download their purchased songs in Vorbis format, as does the American music site Bandcamp.[31]

So good enough for Spotify but according to you, Chris Montgomery is just a hack and a weirdo

If you really want to learn about this subject, then I suggest you read that article and watch the video. You will learn plenty.

Oh, and nobody is trying to sell anything (including old CDs) as it's all free open source

 

[Saul Goodman]

Sample rates... no matter how high ... can not meet the infinite resolution of our senses. FACT.
Saying that ... there is a resolution of sorts to magnetic tape... this can be increased by recording it at a higher rate though.

I learnt in college that the first cd rom developed was in fact blue-ray level. They have simply been drip releasing the tec over the years to cash in!! I can not find anything to back this up I just trusted my electronics tutor.

I thought digital was absolutely shit (apart from FM synthesis+samplers TBH) until I used auidorealism bassline with a fat sound-card .... and have not looked back.

The tangibility thing .. a bit esoteric.. but if a sound is produced - converted into an electronic analogue signal via a mic - effects the magnetic alignment on tape - is cut into vinyl - is played through an analogue amplifier - into a speaker .... it is a bit like you are directly connected to the original event. Sorry that sounds shit :/

Also digital is under our control therefore we only include in it what we deem as necessary . As we often completely underestimate our senses this leads to problems. Example :

CD`s/ audio equipment that cut off below 20hz and above 20khz was a fucking stupid idea. Most people can hear/ are aware of sounds above and below these limits ... not even getting into bit depth(limiting posible db levels to only 65536 variables) and sample rates.

Spoken like a true audiophile.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Spoken like a true audiophile.

OUCH!

 

[Saul Goodman]

OUCH!

I know, right!

 

[Ralph Llama]

I

Oh dear Ralphy, what are we going to do with you?

I provided you with a couple of links to xiph.org. In case you don't know, xiph developed various codecs including ogg vorbis, and are continuing development of FLAC.

Their open source codecs are in extremely wide use (including being supported in Ableton Live).



So good enough for Spotify but according to you, Chris Montgomery is just a hack and a weirdo

If you really want to learn about this subject, then I suggest you read that article and watch the video. You will learn plenty.

Oh, and nobody is trying to sell anything (including old CDs) as it's all free open source

I said he was a hacker not a hack. Jesus... what are you going to do with me .. completely loose your argument .. as Anybody who is not an arse licker of yours can plainly see.

I have tried to explain all the points which you dismissed. You have completely ignored the points or clearly do not understand them. I am not going to have a retarded status seeking battle with you because I am only interested in intellectual debate on this. You chuck that link up as if it is saying somthing... it is not... the man has got it wrong. Any sound engineer you talk to who knows anything will confirm this. And there was me looking for ward to an interesting exchange go urban75


If you really want to learn about this subject then go to college rather than believing the first thing that comes up on a Google search.

 

[Ralph Llama]

OUCH!

What planet to you live on ?

*leaves thread in disappointment and disgust

 

[ViolentPanda]

What planet to you live on ?

*leaves thread in disappointment and disgust

It's called Earth, and I happen to find accusations of audiophilia - or "more money than sense disease", as I think of it - amusing.

 

[Enviro]

... At higher bit depths and sample frequencies I can tell with my ears(and body and mind) the difference in the depth in the sound. This is backed up by the analytical tools i use when producing in AbletonLive....

The difference in perception is marginal. The main use of higher sample rates and bit depths is for higher resolution processing 'in the box'.

And yes we can hear sounds above 22.05 kHz, but the difference that they make in musical perception is negligible. That's why we can all listen to a CD without it sounding horrible.

Also, there is a need to separate perceiving sound through vibration and actually hearing it. For example an explosion will create a shock wave that you will certainly perceive. But do you actually "hear" the pressure wave passing you at 1 Hz? No, you do not.

 

[isvicthere?]

So watches are another example. You can find it convenient to use a watch to tell the time rather than look at your phone without it having deep sociopolitical meaning - I mean it is definitely easier to look at your wrist than pull out your phone if you need to know the time often, it doesn't use up the battery so is convenient for travel, and watches are more weatherproof than phones too. Maybe the fact that watches are less popular than before is just down to most people not needing to know the time very often, and now having a portable device that includes a clock. *shrugs*

I appreciate that this is what pundits get paid for, I'm not bitter, just we need to be reasonable about it all.

Also, or so someone recently told me, the most common use of mobile phones now is... checking the time.

 

[8ball]

Also, or so someone recently told me, the most common use of mobile phones now is... checking the time.

Even more so than "not looking shifty when you have to stand in one place for more than half a second"?

 

[Ralph Llama]

The difference in perception is marginal. The main use of higher sample rates and bit depths is for higher resolution processing 'in the box'.

And yes we can hear sounds above 22.05 kHz, but the difference that they make in musical perception is negligible. That's why we can all listen to a CD without it sounding horrible.

Also, there is a need to separate perceiving sound through vibration and actually hearing it. For example an explosion will create a shock wave that you will certainly perceive. But do you actually "hear" the pressure wave passing you at 1 Hz? No, you do not.

Negligible. .. I disagree. When producing a track I spend quite a bit of time up there.

Separating senses as with genders is just a classic case of over simplification and western ignorance IMO. We feel vibrations .. end of .

If you give a damn about what the origional sound was intended to paint in your mind , a CD is a pathetic attempt to recreate it.

You basically agree with me though so good good .

 

[Ralph Llama]

It's called Earth, and I happen to find accusations of audiophilia - or "more money than sense disease", as I think of it - amusing.

You are an idiot then.

 

[Enviro]

Yes, you spend quite a bit of time using higher quality audio when producing, because that is the main purpose of high quality audio - to retain the quality whilst audio is being processed, prior to being reduced in quality to a more consumable format. If you process the audio at CD quality then there will be more artefacts, and potentially a loss of quality. <sorry, I see you're referring to spending a lot of time on ultrasound when producing, not in high sample rates and bit depths... are you making music for bats!?!?!>

I don't think separating senses is over simplification. It's just a technical and logical approach. i.e. okay we're going to design an audio codec > what frequencies can people actually hear? > what frequencies can typical (or even high end) systems reproduce? > do we really need frequencies over 22.05 kHz?, etc.

CD quality is not pathetic. If it were then there would be more than the odd audiophile and sound engineer complaining about it. Any recording of a performance will be limited by the specification of the recording and reproduction systems, nothing is perfect in that regard.

I ran some listening tests for my acoustics degree that indicated to me that 128 kbps Mp3 is surprisingly good and it is not easy to tell the difference between that and a CD quality WAV (some of the programme material was from SACD too so it wasn't just CD quality to low bitrate MP3, in some cases it was better than CD quality to low bitrate MP3, and telling the difference between these was very difficult too).

 

[Saul Goodman]

Negligible. .. I disagree. When producing a track I spend quite a bit of time up there.

Separating senses as with genders is just a classic case of over simplification and western ignorance IMO. We feel vibrations .. end of .

If you give a damn about what the origional sound was intended to paint in your mind , a CD is a pathetic attempt to recreate it.

You basically agree with me though so good good .

Have you ever performed a double blind test, to see if you can tell the difference between raw files and compressed files?
There have been many, many double blind tests set up to enable audiophiles to prove they're not simply deluded bullshitters. Unfortunately, most audiophiles flatly refuse to take the tests, and the ones who do take them tend to do no better than if they'd guessed the answer.

 

[BassJunkie]

One thing about analogue time is that it is really my mental picture of time: a quarter of an hour is a big 1/4 slice of a pie-chart in my mind. I have to recast 12.30 to twelve and a 1/2. The same goes for fuel gauges, speedometers and rev counters in a car, although these I don't see as full circles. They are hard to understand as digital information. Though I'm not sure if fuel is shown digitally; sometimes it's like a number of bars, which is another analogue I know.

I'm showing my age.

I would suggest you're not so much showing your age as your humanity.
I seem to remember (but am lacking a link right now) reading that humans can process analogue dials - such as speedometers and fuel gauges faster than digital representations as the latter require one to translate the numbers into 'meaning'.

 

[BassJunkie]

I think I've suggested this before as regards audiophilia, surely if it sounds better to you (even if you're objectively wrong) then it sounds better to you (subjectively, which is surely the only way you can experience the senses).

I use the cheapest speaker cables available, but could well believe if I spent £20 a metre on them that I would suddenly experience the music sounding better subjectively.

Pour cheap wine into a bottle labelled £30 and let someone else taste it - it'll taste better to them because of their subjective perception. This is why double blind tests are important. But subjective perception is everything when it comes to the senses isn't it?