DAT-heads Digest #47, Volume #6 Mon, 17 Sep 01 10:50:00 EDT 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" 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 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" 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 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 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 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: WWW.SONICSTUDIOS.COM 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" 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" 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." Subject: Re: Audiophile2496 & NI-MH batteries Reply-To: 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" 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 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" 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 ******************************