DAT-heads Digest #49
Contents:
I was... (Steven Kingsley)
klay vs. gary (Paul Loeber)
96k Hoopla (Kevin Brown)
oh well (hambone@javanet.com)
Re: SACD, DVD-Audio and the 24/96 discussion ("Owen O'Neill")
96K Hoopla (-bob)
dino valenti wanted ("paul gluchanicz")
Bang 8/4/01 ("john e. bogus")
ISO- Ben! A Taper from the Gainesville Mule show! ("bocabob")
Re: 96k Hoopla ("Charles Quinn")
checking soundcards for resampling (Gordon Gidluck)
Re: checking soundcards for resampling (Gordon Gidluck)
Re: Mike Clark ("Charles Quinn")
some 24-bit theory ("Jamie Lutch")
Re: 24-bit recording does NOT provide greater resolution (Seth Breidbart)
Re: 24-bit recording does NOT provide greater resolution ("Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr.")
From: Steven Kingsley <eskay@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: I was...
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:06:18 -0400
kinda phyched the tradjedy hadn't reared it's ugly head here.
need somethin new 2 listen to. anyone 4 a quickie dead trade?
sk
=A9=BA=B0=A8=A8=B0=BA=A9=A9=BA=B0=A8=A8=B0=BA=A9=BA=B0=A8=A8=B0=BA=A9=A9=BA=
=B0=A8=A8=B0=BA=A9=BA=B0=A8=A8=B0=BA=A9=A9=BA=B0=A8=A8=B0=BA=A9=BA=B0=A8=A8=
=B0=BA=A9=A9=BA=B0=A8=A8=B0=BA=A9
| ICQ# 105508168 kngdelrio @ Efnet |
| Es2DaKay @ aol I.M. DAT's @ www.netcom.com/~eskay/ |
| |
=A9=BA=B0=A8=A8=B0=BA=A9=A9=BA=B0=A8=A8=B0=BA=A9=BA=B0=A8=A8=B0=BA=A9=A9=BA=
=B0=A8=A8=B0=BA=A9=BA=B0=A8=A8=B0=BA=A9=A9=BA=B0=A8=A8=B0=BA=A9=BA=B0=A8=A8=
=B0=BA=A9=A9=BA=B0=A8=A8=B0=BA=A9 =20
From: Paul Loeber <paulparrot@neo.rr.com>
Subject: klay vs. gary
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:46:59 -0400
Klay,
Kindly keep your personal remarks against Gary in private email. This
digest can quickly get ugly if your kind of comments continue.
From: Kevin Brown <kevin5brown@yahoo.com>
Subject: 96k Hoopla
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 17:00:25 -0700 (PDT)
Does anyone know yet if any major (reputable)
publication has done a blind A/B/X test with 16/44.1
vs 24/96? Or even someone out there on this list?
Matched levels, all the equipment as much the same as
possible, mastering of the source material the same,
the only difference being 16/44.1 as the digital
source vs 24/96?
Until then, I'm not sure statements like the following
mean much:
>>>>>
...being much smoother, way more open especially in
the vocals and with a much more detailed low end.
<<<<<
I think (most) everyone would agree that 24/96 should
*theoretically* sound better. But practically? I'm
not sure of that.
__________________________________________________
Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help?
Donate cash, emergency relief information
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/
From: hambone@javanet.com
Subject: oh well
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 20:12:35 -0400
im sorry to have created such a stir
with my suggestions of allowing terror chat
on the dat list
i totally understand seans point of view and with the grace her expressed it
i wasnt thinking from that angle when i wrote my initial post
i was just stunned from the media bombardment
and the wake up call we all experienced last tuesday
what truly shocked me were the totally harsh and negative
attacks i received for suggesting dat chat be interupted
people telling me to get over it and on with it
i just feel things may need to change for us to keep enjoying all the
freedoms that allow us to keep sneaking the rig in for the
fat up front tapes
still wishing you all the best in these times
over&out
From: "Owen O'Neill" <oweno@home.com>
Subject: Re: SACD, DVD-Audio and the 24/96 discussion
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 20:19:40 -0400
">i just wanted to say that i recently read a review of SACD/DVD audio where
the writer made a point that unless you sit in the exact "sweet" spot of the
sound targeted by the sound system (and i forget how many speakers are
involved, i'm guessing 5 + a subwoofer?), that the writer felt that there
was no perceived improvement over stereo sound from a standard 44.1kHz CD
(and not having to position oneself in one super-exact position with stereo)
and he went on to make another point that "most" people do not listen to
music in this fashion of a 100% perfect sweet spot the "majority" of the
>time"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The above comments were made in response to my discussion of recent media
reviews of
the sound of SACD and DVD-Audio, both of which are capable of 24/96. I
apologize for not
clarifying that the relevant discussions pertained only to TWO CHANNEL
utilization of these
formats. I do not have an interest in the issues beyond plain old stereo
recordiong at the moment.
Another poster in today's digest confirmed these reactions by commenting on
his expereinces at the CES show.
Regardless of what the theory or the numbers indicate, there is some sort of
very distinct audible difference -
I forone look forwar to doing the A/B test myself.
Owen O'Neill
From: -bob <bp@gti.net>
Subject: 96K Hoopla
Reply-To: bp@gti.net
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 20:28:55 -0400
>>I extensively in consumer print media, most particularly in
Stereophile
>>magazine. I'm not one
>>who sides with the folks who hear remarkably audible differences
between a
>>$100 pair of cables and a $1,000 set of cables
Stereophile is way into the ether. Their current reference speaker
connecting cable
is said to be made from dual 1/8 inch annealed copper tubing filled with
a slurry of
Tofu and Clamato Juice. (heh-heh)
>>but there are a few writers in the mag who have an appreciation for
the
>>audio law of diminishing returns
But this is flavored with writers who are more concerned with the law
of diminishing Advertising dollars. Don't get me wrong, I love
Stereophile, but
as with everything, you need to look for their motivation and
perspective.
Maybe I'm just too cynical, but granite turntable bases??-- sheesh!
>>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.
It is odd that they compare these an get vastly differing results, no?
I suspect analog differences and different DACs as primary causals.
I am beginning to concede that 24/96 is the way to go for 2-channel,
tho'.
We have the medium, technology, and ability to capture it all, why not?
If some is wasted, at little cost, who cares.
We need a low cost standard!
>>diehards who have consistently maintained that the vinyl LP has
superior
>>sound to the CD (when used with the proper equipment) ,
Like esoteric tube amps which use 5000 watts to put out 300 !
Methinks that they are well into excess and that odd mental state
wherein
we justify the expense of our personal toys with pseudo-science and
placebos
just to increase our own feelings of self worth.
Hey, if it makes 'em happy...........
My take:
Digital Signal Processing methods make digital better, plain and simple.
Analog cannot suppress the noises in ways that digital can.
24Bit/96Khz will be a standard soon, in some format, but which one?
Looking forward to AES, as well.
-Bob
From: "paul gluchanicz" <paulphish@hotmail.com>
Subject: dino valenti wanted
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 00:34:13
Looking for any Dino Valenti tapes if any do exist, solo or with Zero or the
Dinosaurs. Or the Cipollina tribute that I think he played on. Plenty to
trade.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
From: "john e. bogus" <mallness@surfbest.net>
Subject: Bang 8/4/01
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 20:24:15 -0400
My next offering for the list will be Bang at Harry Katz, Aston, PA 8/4/01.
This is an A+ quality recording, FOB with the Nak 300's>D7@48khz. Approx
running time 100 minutes, also mastered on DV video. Trade size on this one
will be limited to just this one tape. If interested, email me and be sure
to let me know what you have in trade. Thanks again for the posting....
john e. bogus
mallness@surfbest.net
From: "bocabob" <bocabob@bellsouth.net>
Subject: ISO- Ben! A Taper from the Gainesville Mule show!
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 21:08:35 -0400
Sorry to bother all!
But Ben if your out there! I patch out of your rig at the Gainesville Mule
Show...Dead center FOB....While I was up front taking pictures, everyone in
the line swapped tapes at about 45 mins...so my tape has several cuts....I
took lots of photo's :)
Can we trade for a clean tape?
Peace,
Boca Bob Silver
~~ )<///%> ~~~~ )><///%> ~~~~ )><///%> ~~
http://personal.lig.bellsouth.net/lig/b/o/bocabob/tapelist.html
http://www.thephilzone.com/
~~ )<///%> ~~~~ )><///%> ~~~~ )><///%> ~~
From: "Charles Quinn" <cmquinn@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: 96k Hoopla
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:04:28 -0700
Sound below and above the hearing range can be felt. Low frequency vibration
in your car is an annoyance, at a concert it adds to the feel of the music.
High frequency has an effect. I remember in communications class taking a
high frequency single tone, and using a low pass filter to cut off upper
harmonics, and being able to hear a difference in the tone (all before
attending way too many loud shows).
In addition many microphones are only rated to the listenable range. What
there specs are above this is unknown but can't imagine they get better.
Speakers are rated only in the listenable range also. To get the maximum
from the pyschoacoustics you would need to have speakers that are flat to 48
kHz.
Chuck Quinn
From: Gordon Gidluck <gidluck@swbell.net>
Subject: checking soundcards for resampling
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 21:21:03 -0500
RE: In response to Jonathan's request to tell whether his Zoltrix
soundcard was resampling or not.
I put together some information on a web page for those who may be
interested in checking their soundcards for resampling (now or
whenever). If this can help you, please feel free to use it.
The link is... http://www.shoptheozarks.com/soundcard.resampling.html
I ended up using a 22kHz tone. I was able to successfully record that
tone via AES/EBU to a 16-bit hard disk recorder and then recover it
fully by recording it back from the recorder through the soundcard.
After editing the files matched exactly. The method is posted on the web
page, as well I have included the wav file in a zip archive in case you
want to use it.
My original plan involved preparing a tape with a tone on it for
Jonathan. However, I had to adjust my plan because the DAT recorder was
giving me errors. I tried different frequencies before determining that
it was the DAT deck at fault. Unfortunately mine does not have an error
counter. :-( I ended up using a DR4d hard disk.
Gordon
From: Gordon Gidluck <gidluck@swbell.net>
Subject: Re: checking soundcards for resampling
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 21:26:55 -0500
Correction, that should be....
http://www.shoptheozarks.com/GGM/soundcard.resampling.html
Gordon
From: "Charles Quinn" <cmquinn@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Mike Clark
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:24:36 -0700
Caught them in Vegas. They are way talented and taper friendly. In fact one
of the members came out and asked me questions about mine and another tapers
equipment before the show.
Chuck Quinn
>From: "Steve Randolph" <srandolph@core.com>
>Subject: Mike Clark
>Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 11:58:20 -0400
>He is playing at The Grog Shop in Cleveland, Ohio
>this Friday 9/21/01.
>Anyone know his taping policy?
From: "Jamie Lutch" <reconstruction@thegrid.net>
Subject: some 24-bit theory
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 20:04:24 -0700
Slipkid wrote:
> i just wanted to say that i recently read a review of SACD/DVD audio where
> the writer made a point that unless you sit in the exact "sweet" spot of
the
> sound targeted by the sound system (and i forget how many speakers are
> involved, i'm guessing 5 + a subwoofer?), that the writer felt that there
> was no perceived improvement over stereo sound from a standard 44.1kHz CD
> (and not having to position oneself in one super-exact position with
stereo)
>
I'll bet he was also using the analog outs from that player, which likely
has near 16-bit resolution (~100dB). If you really want to do an a/b, you
need to have equipment that can utilize as much of the 144dB that 24-bit has
to offer, like a 24-bit DA converter, which start at $700 and up. The fact
of the matter is that a 24-bit source peaking at -48dB sounds as good as a
16bit source peaking at zero (ala seth's original note about the levels) All
I know is listening to the 24-bit SCI recordings I have, when its peaking
at -18 and a balloon pops, spiking the levels up to -3, it sounds as if
youre there, as opposed to a 16 bit recording, which would have clipped the
hell out of it. Granted, thats just an example, I'm not into taping balloon
pops, but the same rule applies for transients in the music. Realistically,
an AD2K (at 24-bit) has 117 dB of dynamic range, an apogee AD1000 (at
20-bit) has about 109. Compare that to a DAT at 96dB, and yes there is a
difference. while it does eventually get to the point of diminishing
returns, keep in mind that the AD2K has a real 20dB advantage over DAT, as
an analogy, DAT has about a 20dB advantage over a cassette with dolby C. So
24-bit vs 16 bit is no contest, 20 dB of headroom for only 50% more space.
While ideally 96K vs 48K will have some subtle phasing differences, most
location tapers arent going to justify doubling the stream for an
incremental improvement (yet - wait a year, when 5400rpm laptop drives
become more common)
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned Dan Heend's excellent 24-bit faq at:
http://www.24bitfaq.org/
it will surely answer alot of questions you have. I for one am building my
collection of 24-bit material, but will never really get to hear them until
I get that sweet sweet 24-bit lucid DA converter :)
Gary repied to this as follows
> >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.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, this is NOT true. The steps in 24-bit
> recording are NOT closer together, they just extended over a longer
> range.
>
> If anyone knows for sure that I'm wrong about this, please elaborate!
correct, 96dB vs 144dB of headroom. so all of your gain is in the lower end,
technically
> But what about a complex 11Khz signal; not a sine wave? Again,
> digital audio theory says this doesn't matter, because the
> harmonics necessary to make an 11K signal "complex" are
> outside the hearing range. Essentially, an 11Khz sine wave and an
> 11Khz square wave sound exactly the same to the human ear,
> because the ear can only hear the fundamental frequency, ie, an
> 11Khz sine wave.
correct, however, the way harmonics work, 11K has harmonics at 22K, and 44K,
though while outside the range of hearing, have an effect on the way the ear
hears it. In other words, you will hear 11 differently than 11+22+44
-Jamie
From: Seth Breidbart <sethb@panix.com>
Subject: Re: 24-bit recording does NOT provide greater resolution
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 23:34:48 -0400 (EDT)
>>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.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, this is NOT true. The steps in 24-bit
> recording are NOT closer together, they just extended over a longer
> range.
>
> If anyone knows for sure that I'm wrong about this, please elaborate!
You're both right/wrong; it depends on the setting.
If 0 is set to the same point (say, 120 dB) then with 24 bits, the
steps are much closer together. On the other hand, if 0 is set to 100
dB for 16-bit, and 148 dB for 24-bit, then the steps are the same
distance apart. You get more steps; whether they cover a larger range
at the same distance, the same range at a much smaller distance, or
some combination, is up to the user.
Seth
From: "Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr." <wayne@hoxnet.com>
Subject: Re: 24-bit recording does NOT provide greater resolution
Reply-To: <wayne@hoxnet.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 00:26:27 -0500 (CDT)
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Gary Davis wrote:
> >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.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, this is NOT true. The steps in 24-bit
> recording are NOT closer together, they just extended over a longer
> range.
It is my understanding that a true 24 bit recording played back through
a true 24 bit DAC will behave as described (more accurate ruler),
but that most ADC's that are over 16 bits move the bits around with
dithering or super bitmapping to fit them into a 16 bit format (such
as DAT) ant this would result in your "extended over a longer range"
description.
It is a shame that DAT didn't keep up with DDS. Now with DDS4
technology we could have had a good 24/96 solution with several hours
of record time in the exact same package we now have.
>
> If anyone knows for sure that I'm wrong about this, please elaborate!
>
> Now, it's true that a higher sampling rate does sample each wave
> more frequently. For example, an 11Khz sine wave would only be
> sampled 4 times at 44.1K but 8 times at 96K. However, digital
> audio theory says this makes no difference, because the low-pass
> filtering on playback will turn these samples back into a sine wave.
Well, DAC processors make an assumption on the wave file being
regenerated. It is a connect-the-dots kind of thing. More dots
gives a closer representation to a curve so more bits gives a better
sine wave.
>
> But what about a complex 11Khz signal; not a sine wave? Again,
> digital audio theory says this doesn't matter, because the
> harmonics necessary to make an 11K signal "complex" are
> outside the hearing range. Essentially, an 11Khz sine wave and an
> 11Khz square wave sound exactly the same to the human ear,
> because the ear can only hear the fundamental frequency, ie, an
> 11Khz sine wave.
>
> --Gary
>
Whoa Gary. Is this a typo? Certainly you *CAN* hear the difference
between a square wave and a sine wave (at any audible frequency).
--
Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr.
wayne@hoxnet.com
http://www.hoxnet.com
PGP Key ID 138BCEE1
** 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
******************************