If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
David Brooks aka the stalking weasel
On Sat, 27 May 2017 15:28:33 -0700 (PDT), -hh
wrote: Nospam wrote: -hh wrote: if they can't be heard, they can't be detected. Absolutely false. it's not false. it's common sense. There's means of detection other than the ears. audio signals are heard. if they can't be heard, they do not matter. at all. You're trying to use a self-licking ice cream come. I can kill you with acoustic signals that aren't "perceptible" by your definition: still want to try to believe that they don't matter? none of this specious 'but it alters brain waves'. everything alters brain waves. what matters is can it be heard. Not even talking about that stuff. Look up Larry Sturdivan's models. FYI, I have a friend whose hearing was highly impaired in an industrial accident ... root cause was that the hairs in his inner ear were selectively destroyed at the **harmonics** of the frequency source. and? And you don't know about harmonics? Really? Push a 30kHz acoustic signal strongly enough and 15KHz sensors will respond to it .. such as the ones in your ear. This is a discussion of vinyl vs. digital. There are no LP's that contain any ultrasonic frequencies, so you can neither hear nor sense something that isn't there in the first place. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
David Brooks aka the stalking weasel
In article , Bill W
wrote: FYI, I have a friend whose hearing was highly impaired in an industrial accident ... root cause was that the hairs in his inner ear were selectively destroyed at the **harmonics** of the frequency source. and? And you don't know about harmonics? Really? Push a 30kHz acoustic signal strongly enough and 15KHz sensors will respond to it .. such as the ones in your ear. This is a discussion of vinyl vs. digital. There are no LP's that contain any ultrasonic frequencies, so you can neither hear nor sense something that isn't there in the first place. yep. although to be completely accurate (since there are those here who argue absolutes), cd-4 quadraphonic lps had ultrasonic frequencies, as high as 50khz, however, that was *not* audio content, but rather used to decode the 4 channels. http://www.surrounddiscography.com/quaddisc/cd4-1.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatible_Discrete_4 Along with this audio, a separate 30*kHz carrier was recorded on each groove wall. The carrier on each side carried the difference signal for that side. This was the information that enabled a combined signal to be resolved into two separate signals. For the left carrier it would be left front minus left back, and for the right carrier it would be the right front minus the right back. These audio signals were modulated onto the carriers using a special FM-PM-SSBFM (frequency modulation-phase modulation-single sideband frequency modulation) technique. This created an extended carrier frequency range from 18*kHz to 45*kHz for the left and right channels. The algebraic addition and subtraction of the sum and difference signals would then yield compatible and discrete quadraphonic playback. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
David Brooks aka the stalking weasel
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: Nope. Just adding them to the mix. I have already told you of high frequency sounds which can't be heard but still can be detected. if they can't be heard, they can't be detected. Wrong true. someone could have an oscilloscope wired up, and detect it that way. humans can't detect sounds above the limit of human hearing using their ears. Now you are really quibbling. Are you ruling out that part of sound which reaches the brain via bone conduction? oh right. because when people listen to music, they press the instruments up against their bones. that's why the seats in the back of the music hall go for cheap. give me a ****ing break. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
David Brooks aka the stalking weasel
In article , PeterN
wrote: You should try listening to a l a r g e organ. You feel the lower notes rather than hear them. Also some drums. so what? that was never in dispute. the issue *you* brought up was high frequency sounds, not low. now you're moving the ol' goalposts around. Nope. Just adding them to the mix. I have already told you of high frequency sounds which can't be heard but still can be detected. if they can't be heard, they can't be detected. Wrong true. someone could have an oscilloscope wired up, and detect it that way. humans can't detect sounds above the limit of human hearing using their ears. The limit on human hearing is not the issue. it is the issue The issue is the ability to distinguish tonal differences. e.g. In my younger days I had a sense of perfect pitch. The vast majority of people do not. While one may not hear undertones and overtones with their ears, in the traditional meaning, there are other senses that kick in. Of course if you spend your days listening to heavy metal, you will lose that ability. As to all people seeing the same color: http://discovermagazine.com/2012/jul-aug/06-humans-with-super-human-vision that's the exception, not the rule. The same principle applies to othr senses such as taste. But then, you don't want to learn. You would rather argue. that would be you. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
David Brooks aka the stalking weasel
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: the issue *you* brought up was high frequency sounds, not low. now you're moving the ol' goalposts around. Nope. Just adding them to the mix. I have already told you of high frequency sounds which can't be heard but still can be detected. if they can't be heard, they can't be detected. The evidence is that the brain can. there is no evidence it can be heard. you even admitted that there's no evidence. You keep quibling. ain't me who is quibbling. claiming that 'brain waves' matters is absurd. you've yet to cite any double blind test that shows that it matters. until you do, it's *bull*****. The ultimate recipient of the sound signals are the brain. The ears are the primary channel through which the sound is delivered but they are not the only channel. See http://www.goldendance.co.jp/English...onduct/01.html and particularly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasonic_hearing you are desperately grasping for straws. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
David Brooks aka the stalking weasel
In article , -hh
wrote: audio signals are heard. if they can't be heard, they do not matter. at all. You're trying to use a self-licking ice cream come. I can kill you with acoustic signals that aren't "perceptible" by your definition: still want to try to believe that they don't matter? not for music reproduction, they don't. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
David Brooks aka the stalking weasel
On Sat, 27 May 2017 17:05:15 -0700, Bill W
wrote: On Sat, 27 May 2017 15:28:33 -0700 (PDT), -hh wrote: Nospam wrote: -hh wrote: if they can't be heard, they can't be detected. Absolutely false. it's not false. it's common sense. There's means of detection other than the ears. audio signals are heard. if they can't be heard, they do not matter. at all. You're trying to use a self-licking ice cream come. I can kill you with acoustic signals that aren't "perceptible" by your definition: still want to try to believe that they don't matter? none of this specious 'but it alters brain waves'. everything alters brain waves. what matters is can it be heard. Not even talking about that stuff. Look up Larry Sturdivan's models. FYI, I have a friend whose hearing was highly impaired in an industrial accident ... root cause was that the hairs in his inner ear were selectively destroyed at the **harmonics** of the frequency source. and? And you don't know about harmonics? Really? Push a 30kHz acoustic signal strongly enough and 15KHz sensors will respond to it .. such as the ones in your ear. This is a discussion of vinyl vs. digital. There are no LP's that contain any ultrasonic frequencies, so you can neither hear nor sense something that isn't there in the first place. Yes, it keeps diverging into ultrasonics but the question I keep raising is that of complex wave forms for which higher frequency harmonics are required. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
David Brooks aka the stalking weasel
On Sun, 28 May 2017 12:21:32 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote: On Sat, 27 May 2017 17:05:15 -0700, Bill W wrote: On Sat, 27 May 2017 15:28:33 -0700 (PDT), -hh wrote: Nospam wrote: -hh wrote: if they can't be heard, they can't be detected. Absolutely false. it's not false. it's common sense. There's means of detection other than the ears. audio signals are heard. if they can't be heard, they do not matter. at all. You're trying to use a self-licking ice cream come. I can kill you with acoustic signals that aren't "perceptible" by your definition: still want to try to believe that they don't matter? none of this specious 'but it alters brain waves'. everything alters brain waves. what matters is can it be heard. Not even talking about that stuff. Look up Larry Sturdivan's models. FYI, I have a friend whose hearing was highly impaired in an industrial accident ... root cause was that the hairs in his inner ear were selectively destroyed at the **harmonics** of the frequency source. and? And you don't know about harmonics? Really? Push a 30kHz acoustic signal strongly enough and 15KHz sensors will respond to it .. such as the ones in your ear. This is a discussion of vinyl vs. digital. There are no LP's that contain any ultrasonic frequencies, so you can neither hear nor sense something that isn't there in the first place. Yes, it keeps diverging into ultrasonics but the question I keep raising is that of complex wave forms for which higher frequency harmonics are required. Add to the issues this factor: Every piece of gear used in the original recording chain, including the cables, must have the capability to handle those frequencies. When you start with the mics, it all pretty much ends right there, right at the beginning. And if there are complex wave forms that can be heard, then they are within the range of hearing, so again, there would be no difference in the sound quality between digital and vinyl, except for all that noise that comes naturally to vinyl. Well that, and the DR, and the S/N ratio, etc. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
David Brooks aka the stalking weasel
Eric Stevens wrote:
Bill W wrote: -hh wrote: Nospam wrote: -hh wrote: if they can't be heard, they can't be detected. Absolutely false. it's not false. it's common sense. There's means of detection other than the ears. audio signals are heard. if they can't be heard, they do not matter. at all. You're trying to use a self-licking ice cream come. I can kill you with acoustic signals that aren't "perceptible" by your definition: still want to try to believe that they don't matter? none of this specious 'but it alters brain waves'. everything alters brain waves. what matters is can it be heard. Not even talking about that stuff. Look up Larry Sturdivan's models. FYI, I have a friend whose hearing was highly impaired in an industrial accident ... root cause was that the hairs in his inner ear were selectively destroyed at the **harmonics** of the frequency source. and? And you don't know about harmonics? Really? Push a 30kHz acoustic signal strongly enough and 15KHz sensors will respond to it .. such as the ones in your ear. This is a discussion of vinyl vs. digital. True, it started there, but nospam made an absolutist statement that had bearing far beyond what's commonly used in commercial music recording. There are no LP's that contain any ultrasonic frequencies, so you can neither hear nor sense something that isn't there in the first place. Yes, it keeps diverging into ultrasonics but the question I keep raising is that of complex wave forms for which higher frequency harmonics are required. The other part of the question is ... at just what step in the recording process does this higher (and lower) frequency data get filtered out? Because in a fully unfiltered setting (such as live orchestra), there will be this beyond-range stuff which will then interact at audible harmonic frequencies which ARE audible. Depending on how the composition was performed & recorded, this data may or may not necessarily have been lost, as it depends on how the original multipathed source(s) were recorded & filtered. Even when the same filtering values are being used: where they're applied matters. -hh |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
David Brooks aka the stalking weasel
On Sat, 27 May 2017 18:12:01 -0700 (PDT), -hh
wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: Bill W wrote: -hh wrote: Nospam wrote: -hh wrote: if they can't be heard, they can't be detected. Absolutely false. it's not false. it's common sense. There's means of detection other than the ears. audio signals are heard. if they can't be heard, they do not matter. at all. You're trying to use a self-licking ice cream come. I can kill you with acoustic signals that aren't "perceptible" by your definition: still want to try to believe that they don't matter? none of this specious 'but it alters brain waves'. everything alters brain waves. what matters is can it be heard. Not even talking about that stuff. Look up Larry Sturdivan's models. FYI, I have a friend whose hearing was highly impaired in an industrial accident ... root cause was that the hairs in his inner ear were selectively destroyed at the **harmonics** of the frequency source. and? And you don't know about harmonics? Really? Push a 30kHz acoustic signal strongly enough and 15KHz sensors will respond to it .. such as the ones in your ear. This is a discussion of vinyl vs. digital. True, it started there, but nospam made an absolutist statement that had bearing far beyond what's commonly used in commercial music recording. There are no LP's that contain any ultrasonic frequencies, so you can neither hear nor sense something that isn't there in the first place. Yes, it keeps diverging into ultrasonics but the question I keep raising is that of complex wave forms for which higher frequency harmonics are required. The other part of the question is ... at just what step in the recording process does this higher (and lower) frequency data get filtered out? Well that's the thing, it doesn't with digital recording, but the highs are certainly mastered out with vinyl by means of a low pass filter, and the lows are also attenuated per the RIAA curve. Because in a fully unfiltered setting (such as live orchestra), there will be this beyond-range stuff which will then interact at audible harmonic frequencies which ARE audible. And if it's audible, it will appear on the recording, whether vinyl or digital. Depending on how the composition was performed & recorded, this data may or may not necessarily have been lost, as it depends on how the original multipathed source(s) were recorded & filtered. Even when the same filtering values are being used: where they're applied matters. Only vinyl has a need to filter things out. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
David Brooks aka the stalking weasel | Eric Stevens | Digital Photography | 1 | May 25th 17 06:50 AM |
David Brooks can be an interesting person... | Diesel | Digital Photography | 14 | May 24th 17 02:01 PM |
Stalking Technique | Brad Thompson | Photographing Nature | 6 | January 2nd 05 02:52 AM |