DAT-heads Digest #47
Contents:
ISO:Preamp and A/D converter ("Robert T. Reid III")
Re: higher sampling rates (Kevin Brown)
looking for stealth tapers in Lubbock, TX and Tupelo, MS ("Frank")
Reasons for 96kHz (Dan Heend)
Re: Re: 96K Hoopla (GuySonic@aol.com)
96 khz ("Owen O'Neill")
Del McCoury, taper friendly? ("Nick Georges")
Re: Audiophile2496 & NI-MH batteries ("Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr.")
re: 96K Hoopla ("Nick Georges")
Re: 96K Hoopla (Gordon Gidluck)
neumann 140 ("scott charles")
From: "Robert T. Reid III" <rreidiii@home.com>
Subject: ISO:Preamp and A/D converter
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 22:50:44 -0700
Looking for a Preamp and A/D converter any help would be greatly
appreciated.
Robert
From: Kevin Brown <kevin5brown@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: higher sampling rates
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 22:59:54 -0700 (PDT)
We lucked out. A blurb about the following just
showed up in this month's issue of S&V:
>>>>>
Yes you are right in that 99.9999% of people will not
be able to hear a >20KHz test tone. However, I believe
that it HAS been scientifically proven that on complex
program material such as music, subjects were able to
discriminate between program material containing
ultrasonic frequencies and material cutting off at
22.05 KHz (for 44.1 recorded material). This has to do
with psychoacoustic theory that I am not very familiar
with.
<<<<<
Pg 35, Oct 2001:
I'm not going to type everything in, but basically,
what the people were hearing when they thought they
were hearing stuff above 22 kHz was actually, "the
intermodulation distortion those components produced
in the speakers output *below* 22k Hz, that is, in the
normal audio range," [covered by a 44.1 kHz sampling
rate].
When they separated out the components *above* 22 kHz
into a different speaker than from the *below* 22 kHz
material, bam, "the previously 'audible' ultrasonics
vanished!"
(This also puts a damper on Pioneer's Legato Link
approach to CD linear PCM analog output, but that's a
different animal entirely.)
So more bits seems beneficial, but a higher sampling
rate than 44.1 kHz (or 48 kHz), maybe not so much.
__________________________________________________
Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help?
Donate cash, emergency relief information
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/
From: "Frank" <frankn1@innernet.net>
Subject: looking for stealth tapers in Lubbock, TX and Tupelo, MS
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 02:35:05 -0400
Hello, I am looking for stealth tapers in Lubbock, TX and Tupelo, MS for
some shows upcoming in October. Please email me if anyone can help me out.
Thanks.
Frank
frankn1@innernet.net
From: Dan Heend <ccryder@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Reasons for 96kHz
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 03:54:32 -0400
Regarding other sonic benefits of 96kHz, I quote from Ken Pohlmann's highly
regarded book entitled "Principles of Digital Audio" 4th edition, p390-391:
"The use of high sampling rates such as 96 and 192kHz may seem unnecessary.
In rare cases, a person may be able to hear frequencies of 24 or 26kHz,
far below the cutoff frequencies of 48 and 96kHz [for 96 and 192kHz
sampling rates respectively]. In most cases, high frequency hearing
response is below 20kHz. Thus, for steady-state tones, the higher
frequency response may not be useful. However, it can be argued that high
sampling frequencies improve binaural time response, leading to improved
imaging. For example, if short pulses are applied to each ear, a 15ms
difference between the pulses can be heard, and that time difference is
shorter than the time between two samples at 48kHz. Some people can hear a
5ms difference, and that corresponds to the time difference between two
samples at 192kHz. In theory, this high sampling rate may improve spatial
imaging. Thus, it may take two ears to distinguish between a recording at
48kHz, and one at 192kHz."
FWIW, at age 14, a test performed on our class in an anechoic chamber at
Bell Laboratories in Holmdel, NJ showed that I and one other person in the
class of 30 students was able to hear a 23kHz test tone. Having played
many a loud gig in bands since then, I know I can't hear out that far
anymore, but I also know I can still hear out to somewhere between
20-21kHz. Regardless of those facts, I believe the above quote from
Pohlmann's book holds very true with respect to improved stereo imaging,
and I do look forward to the day when 96kHz will be commonplace for field
recording.
-Dan
From: GuySonic@aol.com
Subject: Re: Re: 96K Hoopla
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 08:47:36 EDT
In a message dated 9/16/01 10:10:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
DAT-heads-Request@datheads.phish.net writes:
<< ------------------------------
From: Will Wilson <williamwilson@home.com>
Subject: Re: 96K Hoopla
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 16:12:54 -0500
As far as bit depth goes. . . more bits equal more precision in the
recorded sound, forget about noise floor. If you have more bits the
audio just plain sounds better because you are measuring it with a more
accurate ruler.
-=Will
------------------------------
From: Seth Breidbart <sethb@panix.com>
Subject: Re: 96K Hoopla
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 22:02:34 -0400 (EDT)
> Higher sampling rates put the Low-Pass filter out of the audible
> range and also allow the recording medium to capture more of the
> actual sound. The goal is to capture the best representation of the
> original sound. 96k and higher sampling rates allow us to be able
> to capture more of the actual sound.
> It sounds better because its a more accurate measurement.
What evidence do you have that it sounds better (or even different)?
Seth
-------- >>
It seems that most people regard more bit depth and higher sample rate as
recording at higher quality regardless of the acoustic sound or input signal
source.
For what I can see, 24 bit/96K has got to be more accurate and may now be the
technical and audible equal of high speed analog tape/LP (vinyl) in regard to
bandwidth (50K+cycles) and equivalent "bit" resolution (even if buried within
the noise floor).
It may at some point be wiser to realize that NOT ALL A/D convertors of equal
sample rates sound the same or have the equivalent performance specs; look at
the S/N for one indicator and transient (ringing-overshoot) waveforms.
It's quite possible that a poorly 'implemented' 24/96K system to give audible
sounding performance that's inferior to a well designed and implemented 16 or
20 bit/48K A/D. So don't toss out your DAT system just yet.
Also brought up in discussion is if the additional file size of 24/96K
recording is really worth the trouble. Are we going to "consistently reap" a
more satisfying recording than that of 16/48K DAT?
If so, just how much better?
Or maybe nobody is likely to hear the difference or improvement of a typical
Pop/Rock venue recording using quality equipment under ideal playback
circumstances?
I can't help but remembering those postings here from brave (or perhaps
going-deaf) souls that admitted to not hearing real differences with using
12Bit/32K for Pop/Rock DAT recordings! There may be good reason for this due
to the recorder's actual input source.
The acoustic source(s) and the microphone system seem the most important
considerations for hearing consistent benefits with any recording system, be
it 12/32K to state-of-the-art 24/96K.
It seems obvious that pure acoustic voice/instrument or orchestra recordings
have the most demanding bandwidth requirements. Bandwidths exceeding 30,000
for pure acoustic rock (i.e., drum kit) and 60,000+ cycles with some large
orchestras are possible bandwidth requirements to consider.
PA or Amplified venues demand the least bandwidth to capture all of the
speakers output range; mostly well below 17,000 cycles. But there's more to
this story for sure; especially if you're recording more than just direct
speaker output with highly directional cardioid or shotgun type microphones
with typically less than 18,000 cycle frequency response, but instead wanting
to record more of what is actually heard live at a venue with omni or
surround-sound type mics.
Once the PA'd sound leaves the speakers, it is bounced, refracted, and
dispersed in every way that's possible for a particular indoor or outdoor
venue. In other words, bandwidth requirement can be more demanding if
recording more than just speakers. The sounds of the audience greatly add to
bandwidth requirements working with non-directional or omni microphone
systems.
In other words, "ambient" surround type sound, is much more acoustically
complex and demands more bit resolution/bandwidth to record with best audible
results than solely the speaker outputs as a sound source. Ambient stereo or
multichannel surround microphones (with 25K+ response frequency) seem most
likely to consistently audibly benefit from 24/96K A/D recording and may well
be worth the additional trouble involved with bleeding edge 24/96K
convertors.
----
On a sadder note, I'm certain we all in this group share common and personal
grief at our recent loss of our 'brothers and sisters.'
Being a somewhat technical group, it may be good (without mentioning names)
to bring up an interesting point about our present 'state-of-the-art' air
transportation vehicles. Once in the air, no human intervention is needed to
go anywhere, and even land. Yes, they are that sophisticated with computer
and guidance systems much like the famous misdirected "HAL" computer in the
movie "2001" or maybe more like a cruise M. I can't help but think that
only one in four (for certain) got far enough along to hear HAL sing the
"Daisy, Daisy" song just before .... anyway, some food for thought while the
search goes on for 'qualified' pilots.
It may be good to recall the advice given to Luke Skywalker: "Don't give in
to the Dark Side" Even though prompted by the evil Emperor to give in to
hate, rage, and seek revenge, Luke resisted the advice and emphatic prompting
even though viewing the ending of all his friends by the Emperor's fleet and
being attacked by his own father. Luke refused to hate and seek revenge,
nearly being killed until saved by his father who was lost, but now saved by
Luke's faith in what was right, even risking his own death to retain his
heartfelt humanity.
Perhaps we could be so inspired to resist the "Emperor's" call to the Dark
Side, retain our humanity, our constitution, and our hard-won freedoms,
always refusing to live a moment in fear for our safety. Maybe then we could
someday (soon?) realize that most all those enemies are in reality our
brothers and sisters that have all along just needed our love and caring
support, not our fear of them, hate, or some kind vengeful violence as being
encouraged by the Emperor and the like.
In any case brothers and sisters, we are a greater peoples (comprised of all
nationalities) than given credit by our own Emperor, please "Don't give in to
the Dark Side"
For inspiring diversions in these grim times, Also see: the movie "the 5th
Element" and X-Files, the album/song by Bob Dylan "~sometimes comes as a man
of peace"
Best Regards in Sound & Music Recording,
Leonard (& Debbie) Lombardo, Owners
============================
Sonic Studios "17 Years of Making Audio History with DSM Stereo Microphones"
Featuring Patented Headworn or HRTF Baffled Gear for Field & Studio 3-D
Ambient Sound/Music Recording
=================================
Informative Web Site: <A HREF="http://www.sonicstudios.com">
WWW.SONICSTUDIOS.COM</A>
Microphone, Headphone, MD/DAT Portable Deck equipment reviews+Tips+MP3 sound
files
USA FREE: 1-888-875-4976 1-(541)459-8839 TEL/ 42FAX
================================================
A better wish: "A bit of technical knowledge coupled to a great deal of
fearless God-given wisdom serves us best"
From: "Owen O'Neill" <oweno@home.com>
Subject: 96 khz
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 08:58:34 -0400
I've been following this with interest because the topic has already been
discussed
extensively in consumer print media, most particularly in Stereophile
magazine. I'm not one
who sides with the folks who hear remarkably audible differences netween a
$100 pair of cables
and a $1,000 set of cables but there are a few writers in the mag who have
an appreciation for the
audio law of diminishing returns (most tapers are well familiar with the
concept - spending $5,000
on microphones won't buy a significant improvement in audible quality vs.
spending $2,000).
The point that interests me is this: in the process of reviewing the two new
24 bit 96 khz audio formats
(SACD super audio CD and DVD Audio), the assessment that the sound is more
natural, more real and
has a greater sense of depth seems consistent. The adjectives used by audio
writers are widely varied but the
consensus is consistent - every single writer, even those who seem to
disagree about most other things, seem
to hear a substantial improvement over previous technologies. Of greatest
interest is the fact that the analogue
diehards who have consistently maintained that the vinyl LP has superior
sound to the CD (when used with the proper equipment) ,
are consistently stating that the new format finally delivers the depth and
quality of sound that digital previously promised
but failed to deliver. One point not mentioned thus far in thsese
discussions is the PERCEPTION of a more realistic sound.
The fact is that there are attributes of sound that are subjective to human
perception and not measurable. In theory a conventional
CD should sound better than a vinyl record but those of you who've heard a
pristine high quality vinyl LP played through a kick-ass
sound system may agree that there's a perceptible "live" quality to the best
anbalogue sound that up until now has not been duplicated
in digital media. I'm not knocking digital - I own and use DAT, Mini-Disc
and have hundreds of CD's (and yes, my turntable is in the
closet and hasn't been plugged in for quite some time). I do believe that
the 24 bit 96 khz format has the potential to sound better.
I'll be going to the AES show in NYC in November as an interested consumer
and look forward to doing some A-B comparisons
at the show.
Owen O'Neill
From: "Nick Georges" <nick@nickspicks.com>
Subject: Del McCoury, taper friendly?
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 09:16:02 -0400
didn't see him on the list of bands that are, but I have taped him before
when he was playing with other pro-taping bands.
******************************************
www.nickspicks.com *
a resource for digital music enthusiasts*
*
www.cablemodeminfo.com *
best broadband resource page there is! *
*
*
******************************************
From: "Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr." <wayne@hoxnet.com>
Subject: Re: Audiophile2496 & NI-MH batteries
Reply-To: <wayne@hoxnet.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 08:28:38 -0500 (CDT)
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Jamie Lutch wrote:
[SNIP]
> In any case, keep in mind that this card uses the same
> chipset as the $10-20 nightingale card, but has some more I/O options. I'd
> try that card first personally....
Actually, the Audiophile 2496 uses the ICEnsemble ICE1712 (Envy24)
chipset whereas the Midiman 2448 uses the CMI 8738 chipset--big
difference!
>
> Jayson asked:
>
> > Is there a good place to get replacement Sony DAT Rechargeable Ni-MH AA
> > batteries on the web?
>
> www.thomasdistributing.com
>
> -Jamie
I just use Radio Shack 1600 NiMH's. They're pretty cheap ($18 for
a pack of 4) and work fine in the Sony charger.
--
Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr.
wayne@hoxnet.com
http://www.hoxnet.com
PGP Key ID 138BCEE1
From: "Nick Georges" <nick@nickspicks.com>
Subject: re: 96K Hoopla
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 09:25:57 -0400
I have to chime in w/the laymans view.
While I know very little on this topic, I'm teaching myself vigorously.
Being in the saddle for 24bit field recording, it's a topic I'm very
interested in.
As I see it, again...laymans view:
Does a 48k/16bit aud recording capture EXACTLY what is being heard, right
down to the very smallest detail? I would say no.
Will increasing digital range to 24 bit, and doubling the sample rate
capture more of what is happening in more detail? I would say yes.
Then, it would stand to reason that the more detailed picture will be truer
to the original.
Where is the flaw in this logic?
Many people here say they can hear, with relative ease, the difference in a
44.1/16 vs. 48/16 recording. You're going to tell me that this increase to
96/24 will not be heard so easily?
I'm frowning w/disbelief.
I understand that there are physical limitations posed by the human auditory
system. I'm reading the "New Stereo Handbook" to try and better understand
the issues of playback and "hearing".
******************************************
www.nickspicks.com *
a resource for digital music enthusiasts*
*
www.cablemodeminfo.com *
best broadband resource page there is! *
*
*
******************************************
From: Gordon Gidluck <gidluck@swbell.net>
Subject: Re: 96K Hoopla
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 08:49:04 -0500
Hello dat-heads,
It all depends upon your delivery media. If your recording is going to
be distributed in 16-bit 44.1kHz (or 48kHz), there is no advantage to
fielding the original recording at 96kHz (because of subsequent
filtering). If for CD, record at 44.1kHz to avoid sample rate
conversion.
The advantages of greater bit depth have already been discussed.
Given a choice, I would record at 44.1kHz at a bit depth of 24-bits if I
could. You can do some normalization and then dithering to 16-bits for
CD. This would give you the full dynamic range possible for your
recording with 16-bit media.
Gordon
From: "scott charles" <scochar@hotmail.com>
Subject: neumann 140
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 14:59:23
Anything major different between an SKM140 set and buying 2 KM140's
separately now that Neumann doesn't offer matching anymore? I know you get
a nice box with the skm140 set but anything else different worth the extra
$200 or so?
thanks scott
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this digest, please send email to
dat-heads-unsubscribe@datheads.phish.net
If your email address has changed, you may (optionally)
send the message to
dat-heads-unsubscribe-oldaddress=olddomain@datheads.phish.net
and the old address will be removed.
Problems or questions about a subscription should be addressed
via these avenues and then if needed to
dat-heads-owner@datheads.phish.net
or
postmaster@datheads.phish.net
never the list itself
You can submit a message for inclusion in the next digest via this address:
Internet: dat-heads@datheads.phish.net
Archives of DAT-Heads digests and related files are available on
the DAT-Heads home page:
http://www.solorb.com/dat-heads/
End of DAT-Heads Digest
******************************