Jump to content
  • Pure Vinyl Club
    Pure Vinyl Club

    Digital Vinyl: Temporal Domain

    Note : The following article contains information that has been deemed incorrect by leading digital audio engineers. I attempted to corroborate the findings of this article by asking several digital audio experts. I was unable to find anyone who could back up the statements made, with any scientific data or theory. Consider the following article retracted.

     

    I am leaving the text of this article up on CA because it has enabled a good discussion to take place. By leaving it up, people can read what was claimed and read the followup arguments that the prove it incorrect. To remove the article completely only opens up a space for this to happen again, and again, and again.

     

     

    I take full responsibility for the publishing of this article. I should have had a technical editor check it before publication. I apologize to the CA Community for the error in judgement.

     

    - CC.

     

     

     

    1-Pixel.png

    Temporal Domain of Signal, or What is More Important for Listening to Music, Static or Dynamic Characteristics of the Sound Signal?

     

    Every time my audiophile friends, who do not have an analog setup (TT), come to me and see huge piles of expensive, rare LPs, they get puzzled. They wonder, how can it be that LP lovers spend huge amounts of money on their "analog" hobby, while suffering such discomforts when listening to music. They say this method of listening in the 21st century is absolutely impractical. In addition, there are signal distortion and limitations in many of the technical aspects of vinyl.

     

    In response, I always say the same thing in support of analog - it's mainly because of the time domain signal. We (fans of analog audio) are willing to make these sacrifices and inconveniences for much better performance in a time aspect, the so-called dynamic characteristics. Static characteristics, those belonging to the spectral and dynamic domains (Dynamic Range, THD + N, Frequency Response, etc.) certainly are important for high-quality sound, but when it comes to listening to music in real time, in my opinion, it is the dynamic characteristics that matter most

     

     

    Often, in response to my comments, people react with skepticism. They say they are used to trusting technical information that can be measured and compared and what I say is very subjective and ephemeral.

     

    Also viewing comments here on СA, especially those connected with the current topics such as MQA, I have noticed that some members react rather skeptically to the arguments about MQA's improvements of characteristics in the time-domain. And, some even question the very existence of such improvements.

     

    Here it is shown that "High-resolution in temporal, spatial, spectral, and dynamic domains together determine the quality value of perceived music and ,sound and that temporal resolution may be the most important domain perceptually". Temporal resolution, is actually what I would like to briefly discuss with you.

     

    There's a deeply rooted opinion that frequency above 10 kHz, and moreover above 20 kHz, contains a small amount of music information. And yet research shows that, for example transients from cymbals contain significant frequency components extending even above 60 kHz. The trumpet playing fortissimo has transients components up through 40 kHz, and in the case of the violin even temporary frequency of 100 kHz occurs.

     

    As you can see quite a lot of music information is contained in frequencies above 20 kHz. Of course, immediately a question is raised: "Are we able to hear it?". To answer this, it is worth mentioning some rarely discussed issues. Commonly cited audibility up to 20 kHz frequency is derived from conventional hearing tests, which are based on the audibility of simple sounds. But there is an alternative look at the issue from the more "dynamic" side. This is the temporal resolution of the ear, not the "static" harmonic content and audibility of pure sinusoidal tones.

     

    This may be more appropriate in a case of music signals than the prospect of simple tones. The actual music signals have a very complex structure as a result of the imposition of the attack and decay of many instruments. More importantly, their frequency spectrum is very different between the short period of the initial attack, or the rise of sound, eg. as a result of pulling a string or striking a key of a piano, and the subsequent, much longer sound decay.

     

    There is a large group of instruments, which are characterized by a very "transient," dynamic nature of the initial attack phase of the sound. Xylophone, trumpet, cymbals and striking a drum achieve dynamic levels in between 120 and 130 dB within 10 ms or less. One thing we can say for sure, it is not possible for a CD-quality sample scattered at 22.7ms to have an opportunity to correct the commissioning attack phase of musical instruments, which are half the distance between two consecutive samples.

     

    And the attack phase is very important for audio reception. In experiments, in which the samples were of wind instruments dissected in a way that combined the short attack phase of one instrument with a longer sound decay of another one, listeners identified the sound that of the instrument with the short fragment attack, not the longer decay sound.

     

     

    image2.png

     

    The sound wave graph from a cymbal being struck by a stick. The sound increase is nearly instantaneous, followed by a long sustain of a rather uniform nature. - from highfidelity.pl

     

     

    When viewed from the hearing mechanism perspective, you can find information indicating that the signals which have pulsing character (i.e., generally transients), in contrast to simple tones, activate significantly larger areas of hearing cells than pure sinusoidal tones (which, in nature are almost non existent). In the case of pulses, the possible temporal resolution of the human ear may be up to 10 microseconds, corresponding to frequencies of 100 kHz.

     

    This information is also confirmed in the opinion of recognized practitioners. Art Dudley from "Stereophile" magazine, in an interesting interview from The Editors cycle, is of the opinion that the Nyquist frequency does not apply while there are working decimation and reconstruction filters of complex music signals. In his opinion, two samples may be used to describe a single frequency, but do not provide sufficient density samples to describe the speed at which the signal increases or decreases. This is crucial to distinguishing between music and ordinary sound.

     

    Also I would like to quote, in the context of the above information, an excerpt from my correspondence with Dr. Rob Robinson:

     

    "My thoughts are that with extended frequency response you are not capturing "audible" frequencies but rather preserving the critical time relationships in the music at all frequencies. Human hearing might not be able to "detect" sounds above 15 - 20 kHz or so, but on the other hand hearing, in conjunction with the brain, is very sensitive to temporal information. It's been reported that the human auditory system is capable of discerning temporal differences of tens of microseconds or less (and note, at 192 kHz the time between samples is 5 microseconds). This temporal discrimination is the reason we are able to accurately discern directional / spatial cues. Hearing evolved so that the location of threats, e.g., the cougar about to pounce, could be determined accurately, as key to survival. The spatial information comes not only from amplitude, but the time difference between the same sound arriving at each ear. And the more sensitive hearing is to temporal information, the more accurately that spatial cues can be located.

     

    A CD format brickwall filter will affect time relationships, part of the reason that CD format digital audio may sound less "natural" than analog (or live sound). Preserving temporal information is key to preserving lifelike sound and imaging. While all digital audio will affect temporal information, the influence diminishes the higher the sample rate, because the antialiasing and reconstruction filters are operating at ultrasonic frequencies. So, by using higher sample rates, even though we may be recording sounds that are inaudible, we have better preservation of the temporal information in the signal, which conveys a more lifelike presentation of the music. Besides using a high sample rate to capture the signal, we also have the ultra wide 5,000 kHz bandwidth (five thousand kilohertz, as contrasted with "just" 20 kilohertz as the generally accepted audible upper frequency limit) of the Seta preamplifier which again faithfully preserves temporal relationships in the music signal (internally, the front end circuitry has a risetime of less than 50 nanoseconds)." - Dr. Rob Robinson

     

    If we take into consideration the typical technical parameters of audio, which is mainly bandwidth and dynamics (signal-to-noise ratio), we can easily come to the conclusion that, omitting the variables associated with the physiology of hearing, audiophile devices should not differ from each other, and moreover sonically stand out in relation to the audio devices from the mass market.

     

    And yet, there are people willing to pay much higher prices for equipment and the typical specifications are often similar or even slightly worse than the cheaper devices of the mass segment.

     

    Most importantly, in many cases audiophiles agree on the description of the main attributes of the sound of the given device, although expressed in a specific descriptive dictionary, and not in strict technical parameters.

     

    This raises a difficult to challenge conclusion that if some audiophile characteristics are consistently perceived by a large number of people there's a good chance that behind this stands specific physical phenomena, though their nature can be complicated and can be difficult to express in simple numerical parameters, eg. dynamic range or frequency response.

     

    What may these phenomena be? If the key to the mystery lies not in the parameters of the frequency domain (frequency response) or dynamics (noise at a low level), then a single area remains, and that's phase issues, or timing aspects of the sound. In fact, these are the most fundamental parameters of the sound signal, because they underlie its creation, what a sound wave actually looks like in the time domain. The question is how much of the sound wave graph corresponds to the wave reaching the microphone registering this recording.

     

    The nuances of the tonal colors, to the greatest extent, are shaped by the sound wave characteristic from each instrument. And, it's not just a simple analysis of the contents of the so-called harmonics but more of dynamic aspects, mainly the so-called attacks, or the rising of sound at the moment of its creation. It is not difficult to imagine that the course of the rise in amplitude of the sound will be quite different for wind, string and plucked instruments. It's a very fine structure of transients, which over a very short period time, this new tone of a musical instrument provides the bulk of information about its color and texture. Studies show that the human ear is most sensitive to the initial part of the pulse of a new musical sound.

     

    Any disturbance or contamination of this sensitive time structure leads to a noticeable loss of sound quality from the perspective of people sensitive to audiophile aspects, such as nuances in fidelity transmission of all the colors of musical instruments.

     

    In other words, the time domain signal (issues phase, or timing aspects of the sound). In fact, these are the most fundamental parameters of the sound signal, because they lie in its creation - thus what a sound wave in the time domain actually looks like.

     

    So, one of the main advantages of vinyl is the lack of restrictions of temporal resolution in LP. One of the key challenges for us in the Pure Vinyl Club was to find a way (technology, a method of recording) the equipment to maintain a maximum level of temporal resolution from the LP while recording in digital. This does not mean that we were going to compromise or neglect other characteristics which are also important for the sound.

     

    Paweł Piwowarski in his article "PLIKI HI-RES - niezbędny krok do nirwany czy nadmiarowy gadżet?" on High Fidelity.pl in the October 2016 issue to which I referred above, noted that "The trumpet playing fortissimo contains transients of 40 kHz". I invite you to watch this little video using our LP rip, which clearly shows that transients of the trombone can get higher than 50 kHz, and trumpet reaches almost 70kHz!

     

    Later, in one of the following articles, which might be called "What is actually recorded on LP" I will showcase many interesting videos and screenshots, which clearly show that in many musical instruments transients exceed the 40-50 kHz threshold, and among them will be some unexpected ones (contrabass and sibilance of the human voice).

     

    Also, many audiophiles have prejudices about the LPs Dynamic Range. Here's a screenshot of the DR of an album's full side (Duration: 24:07, RAW Record).

     

     

     

    screnshot-DR.jpg

     

     

     

    I will focus on these and other interesting LP aspects in more detail in in the next articles of the Digital Vinyl series.

     

     

    Thank you,

     

    Igor

     

     

     

     

     

    Sound Samples

     

     

    Trippin (Kenny Drew – Trippin (1984, Japan) Promo WL, Baystate (RJL-8101))

    Official DR Value: DR13, Gain Output Levels (Pure Vinyl) – 14.00dB, Edit “Click Repair” – yes

     

    192 kHz / 24 bit (103MB)

     

     

     

    Play Fiddle Play (Isao Suzuki Quartet + 1 – Blue City (1974, Japan) Three Blind Mice (TBM-24))

    Official DR Value: DR13, Gain Output Levels (Pure Vinyl) – 8.02dB, Edit “Click Repair” – yes

     

    192 kHz / 24 bit (113MB)

     

     

     

    Make Someone Happy (Carmen McRae – Live At Sugar Hill San Francisco (1964, USA) Time Records (S/2104))

    Official DR Value: DR14, Gain Output Levels (Pure Vinyl) – 7.23dB, Edit “Click Repair” – yes

     

    192 kHz / 24 bit (99MB)

     

     

     

    Early In The Morning (John Henry Barbee, 1963

    VA – The Best Of The Blues (Compilation) (RE 1973, West Germany) Storyville (671188))

    Official DR Value: DR14, Gain Output Levels (Pure Vinyl) – 10.63dB, Edit “Click Repair” – yes

     

    192 kHz / 24 bit (75MB)

     

     

     

    La Cumparsita (Werner Müller And His Orchestra – Tango! (1967, USA) London Records (SP 44098))

    Official DR Value: DR11, Gain Output Levels (Pure Vinyl) – 0.00dB, Edit “Click Repair” – yes

     

    192 kHz / 24 bit (104MB)

     

     

     

    Wild Is The Wind (The Dave Pike Quartet Featuring Bill Evans – Pike’s Peak 1962 (RE 1981, USA) Columbia (PC 37011))

    Official DR Value: DR12, Gain Output Levels (Pure Vinyl) – 10.31dB, Edit “Click Repair” – yes

     

    192 kHz / 24 bit (109MB)

     

     

     

    People Are Strange (The Doors – 13 (1970, USA) Elektra (EKS-74079))

    Official DR Value: DR11, Gain Output Levels (Pure Vinyl) – 0.00dB, Edit “Click Repair” – yes

     

    192 kHz / 24 bit (82MB)

     

     

     

    Let’s Groove (Earth, Wind and Fire – Raise! (1981, Japan) CBS/Sony (25AP 2210))

    Official DR Value: DR15, Gain Output Levels (Pure Vinyl) – 7.89dB, Edit “Click Repair” – yes

     

    192 kHz / 24 bit (108MB)

     

     

     

    Smooth Operator (Sade – Smooth Operator (1984, Single, 45rpm, Japan) Epic (12・3P-581))

    Official DR Value: DR13, Gain Output Levels (Pure Vinyl) – 7.15dB, Edit “Click Repair” – yes

     

    192 kHz / 24 bit (114MB)

     

     

     

    Fernando (Paul Mauriat – Feelings (1977, 45rpm, Japan) Philips (45S-14))

    Official DR Value: DR14, Gain Output Levels (Pure Vinyl) – 5.76dB, Edit “Click Repair” – yes

     

    192 kHz / 24 bit (112MB)

     

     

     

    1-Pixel.png




    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Agree 16/44 is enough, The Trinity Sessions is one example of a great 16/44 recording.Maybe the A to D converters/process is worse now than in early years?

     

    No, I don't think AD converters are worse than the early years. Quite the reverse.

     

    I do a little recording of my own. Not hard to get pretty nice recordings. Hard to get commercial companies in the music biz to do simple recordings and not process the crap out of them.

     

    That was the magic of the Trinity Sessions. Very simple recording technique with very limited processing of the result. The gear isn't the secret, the secret is keeping it simple and not messing with things too much. You could duplicate such quality for relatively peanuts right now if you will leave well enough alone, get a special performance in a nice sounding place like they did and call it good right there.

     

    The Trinity Sessions used the equivalent of one pair of mics into one DAT recorder. No mixing or other processing done.

     

    The Trinity Sessions Revisited included many guest musicians in the same location with lots of equipment multi-miked and processed pretty heavily. Not a bad sounding album, but doesn't hold a candle the original simple method. It is mostly the method and not the gear.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    No, I don't think AD converters are worse than the early years. Quite the reverse.

     

    I do a little recording of my own. Not hard to get pretty nice recordings. Hard to get commercial companies in the music biz to do simple recordings and not process the crap out of them.

     

    That was the magic of the Trinity Sessions. Very simple recording technique with very limited processing of the result. The gear isn't the secret, the secret is keeping it simple and not messing with things too much. You could duplicate such quality for relatively peanuts right now if you will leave well enough alone, get a special performance in a nice sounding place like they did and call it good right there.

     

    The Trinity Sessions used the equivalent of one pair of mics into one DAT recorder. No mixing or other processing done.

     

    The Trinity Sessions Revisited included many guest musicians in the same location with lots of equipment multi-miked and processed pretty heavily. Not a bad sounding album, but doesn't hold a candle the original simple method. It is mostly the method and not the gear.

     

    Trinity was recorded using a customized Nakamichi DMP100, presumably the producer thought DAT wasn't good enough:

    Cowboy Junkies ‘Sweet Jane’ |

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    How many tracks are typical of the big studio consoles these days?

     

     

    Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Trinity was recorded using a customized Nakamichi DMP100, presumably the producer thought DAT wasn't good enough:

    Cowboy Junkies ‘Sweet Jane’ |

     

    Well it has been reported several places it was recorded to DAT. If not it really doesn't change anything about my conclusion. The gear was not the magic. The simple miking and lack of processing was along with someone carefully positioning everything for the recording. It would appear they didn't go with a DAT. Even primitive digital was pretty good, and simple recording was good before digital.

     

    To repeat, the take home message from Trinity Sessions is about simple unprocessed recordings with simple microphones.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    How many tracks are typical of the big studio consoles these days?

     

     

    Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

     

    None of even small studios are going to have less than 24 tracks.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Well it has been reported several places it was recorded to DAT. If not it really doesn't change anything about my conclusion. The gear was not the magic. The simple miking and lack of processing was along with someone carefully positioning everything for the recording. It would appear they didn't go with a DAT. Even primitive digital was pretty good, and simple recording was good before digital.

     

    To repeat, the take home message from Trinity Sessions is about simple unprocessed recordings with simple microphones.

     

     

    More complex workflows also have something to tell us about fidelity. Mark Knopfler's recent recordings, generally acknowledged to be of good sound quality, have at least frequently if not perhaps exclusively used a system of bouncing back and forth between digital and various analog consoles to get a desired sound. So whatever digital recording is being used in that process (I'm thinking they do it at 24/96 resolution, but I could easily be wrong about that) is pretty transparent.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    One of a few studios in a big Nashville studio.

     

    https://www.blackbirdstudio.com/studio-a

     

     

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neve_8078

     

     

    That's an analog console, which they run into a 48 or 96 track digital system. The digital system they use is advertised as permitting "up to 256 audio tracks with a single card system or up to 768 audio tracks with three cards. Mix up to 192 ins and outs. Get the power to run volumes more plug-ins."

     

     

     

    Where I was headed is that as you add tracks, the resolution you can get per track with the computing power available has eventually got to be reduced. I don't know where the cutoff for 24/96 versus 24/44.1 or 16/44.1 is these days, let alone keeping things in DSD as much as possible as Channel and Blue Coast do, or DXD as 2L does.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    "The first cartridge with integrated RF shielding, the Clearaudio Goldfinger Statement MC phono cartridge is designed to play on the world's finest analog systems and reproduce the music on the greatest recordings ever made with unstinting clarity, liveliness, dynamics, realism, and responsiveness. Featuring 12 perfectly matched and symmetrical magnets – an unprecedented achievement – surrounding its coils. The Product of the Year Award-winning Goldfinger Statement allows systems to reach the long-unattainable dynamic range of 100dB." https://www.musicdirect.com/store/clearaudio-goldfinger-statement-mc-cartridge

     

    Honest question, is vinyl capable of 100db dynamic range? Wouldn't the inherent noise of vinyl limit it's dynamic range?

     

    Looking at the economics, at the price for the Goldfinger Statement, about $15,000, taking the typical 1000hr stylus life suggested by Ortofon, and averaging a 45 minute LP length, you would have to pay the meter approximately $11.25 every time you played an LP, a pretty expensive calculation no matter how you look at it.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Honest question, is vinyl capable of 100db dynamic range? Wouldn't the inherent noise of vinyl limit it's dynamic range?

     

    Looking at the economics, at the price for the Goldfinger Statement, about $15,000, taking the typical 1000hr stylus life suggested by Ortofon, and averaging a 45 minute LP length, you would have to pay the meter approximately $11.25 every time you played an LP, a pretty expensive calculation no matter how you look at it.

     

    I've read the ideal theoretical capability is 120dB, and allowing for various practical limitations, in an extraordinarily good situation around 80dB can be attained.

     

     

    Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I enjoy listening to vinyl because some (perhaps a lot, unfortunately) of the mastering was better than you can get with CDs or downloads these days. (I'm speaking of my old original vinyl and times I've repurchased in the newer formats.) You may not be able to make a silk purse from a sow's ear, but the music companies prove over and over that the opposite is quite possible.

     

     

    Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

     

    That's exactly the point Jud. I've purchased recently TT, because even nowadays more vinyl records have better mastering than CD for the same album. To top it off, many high resolution downloads are just fake - not generalizing, but many. Another reason for vinyl record is that some albums are available only on vinyl and even got CD release it was in early years of digital where the sound quality was far away from what that medium is capable now - including all the technology advance in D/A conversion.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    By the way: None of what's been said should obscure the fact that while CD is capable of greater dynamic range than vinyl, CDs are all too often actually produced with a squashed dynamic range. No hocus pocus is necessary to explain this, only production decisions.

     

     

    Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

     

    Amen, bro!

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I've read the ideal theoretical capability is 120dB, and allowing for various practical limitations, in an extraordinarily good situation around 80dB can be attained.

     

     

    Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

     

    Thanks for the response!

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I've read the ideal theoretical capability is 120dB, and allowing for various practical limitations, in an extraordinarily good situation around 80dB can be attained.

     

     

    Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

     

    This theoretical 120 db is for the electronics involving the cartridge, and phono preamp electrically. And it is a theoretical max. It does not involve signal being traced in a groove of a piece of spinning vinyl.

     

    If you look at various Stereophile measures of various phono pre-amps, very good ones typically have SNRs of 75 db or so. I seem to recall some that some are near 90 db or so with A-weighting. Again however this is a measure of the electrical performance. The cartridge tip being dragged thru real vinyl is going to fall short of that.

     

    Also I was a bit sloppy in comments earlier mixing SNR and Dynamic Range concepts. They are similar though not identical parameters. It doesn't change my conclusion that the Goldfinger cartridge achieves neither 100 db of dynamic range nor SNR. Rather something like 65 db in either case according to their own graph.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    That's exactly the point Jud. I've purchased recently TT, because even nowadays more vinyl records have better mastering than CD for the same album. To top it off, many high resolution downloads are just fake - not generalizing, but many. Another reason for vinyl record is that some albums are available only on vinyl and even got CD release it was in early years of digital where the sound quality was far away from what that medium is capable now - including all the technology advance in D/A conversion.

    This is the truth of the matter. I was going through the Frank Sinatra albums on Tidal last night and found them all vastly inferior to the vinyl versions. Until the record companies stop putting out this garbage, Audiophiles need an analog source.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I've read the ideal theoretical capability is 120dB, and allowing for various practical limitations, in an extraordinarily good situation around 80dB can be attained.

     

     

    Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

     

    In a very good and lucky situation, but that's not all about dynamic range that mean everything. Vinyl records have surface noise, ticks, statics all sorts of artefacts, but the sound is more pleasant to the ear despite that fact. I am not saying that CD cannot sound very good - take a look at the AudioWave/Yoshida Blue Note reissues - they sound almost as good in that term than vinyl records or even better.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I wanted to say that I like thoughtful reflections on listening preference. Particularly not draped in effusive comments and Frasier Crane-like pretentiousness. The use of examples is intriguing, too. Thank you.

     

    What I might offer for your consideration(s) is that you start with a definition or two. Such as Temporal Domain.

    Temporality is, to my knowledge, described as the ratios of, or relative intervals between events. The temporal domain carries no information about frequency or sequence.

     

    That said, each of the domains- frequency, sequential, and temporal do overlap with the information about the time domain contained within their two counterpart component domains.

     

    Next- imparting to the reproduction characteristics that cannot exist if they were not (authentically) available during production is a question here.

    A perspective change might be useful from the micro-tech to the recording industry. The producers of the music product have very different agendas than the musicians. What you (we) get is a compromised, not optimized result.

    Multiple mic-ing, 28 (or more) tracks, mixing boards, "pressing" or quantizing create a scale of complexity that is beyond the human span of control.

     

    The recording industry is trying to 'train' our ears to producers interests. As Apple battles for its larger distribution access agenda, for example.

     

    Live group musicians and their audiences have a very different 'training' than studio and over-dub musicians. Blending 28 events are limited to a very narrow subset of the domain attributions to give producers some control over their branding. Regardless if you like Phil Spector's, to name just one, signature sound or not.

     

    Blending different performances of isolated individuals simply won't have authenticity to time or phase coherency. Let alone the "self-organization" and complexity between instruments and performers in a collective event. Even to the coupling of the environment of the "event".

     

    Then there is the final mixing. Which is a marketing decision for the psycho-acoustic characteristic of the markets' producers expect to reach. Once it was phonograph, AM radio, or FM radio. Ear buds are very different than large rooms with no square corners. Many events that would have unfolded are sheared off. If you found something...its not my intent to marginalize it. It just isn't authentic- from the performance(s).

    Last- a byproduct of my career, with some legacy collected media, one can use a LiDAR that creates a 3d map of vinyl. You don't have to destructively drag a diamond through the lacquered vinyl media. Even if everything was equal, which it is not, determinism is an assumption better left to Newtonian antiquity. Uncertainty (scientific) yields only more artifacts- not fewer.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Temporality is, to my knowledge, described as the ratios of, or relative intervals between events. The temporal domain carries no information about frequency or sequence.

     

    Time and frequency domains are equivalent through the Fourier transform.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Not sure what your point is.

     

    Fourier Transforms take a time-based pattern, measures every possible cycle, and returns the overall "cycle recipe" (the amplitude, offset, & rotation speed for every cycle that was found). This an alternate representation, characterized by sine and cosines. The Fourier Transform shows any waveform can be re-written as the sum of sinusoidal functions.

     

    Equivalence is something else. Perhaps you're are collapsing the convolution theorem into this?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Not sure what your point is.

     

    Fourier Transforms take a time-based pattern, measures every possible cycle, and returns the overall "cycle recipe" (the amplitude, offset, & rotation speed for every cycle that was found). This an alternate representation, characterized by sine and cosines. The Fourier Transform shows any waveform can be re-written as the sum of sinusoidal functions.

     

    Equivalence is something else. Perhaps you're are collapsing the convolution theorem into this?

    My point is that you are wrong.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    My point is that you are wrong.

     

    Not sure whether I should "Like" this, but I did LOL. :)

     

     

    Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I wanted to say that I like thoughtful reflections on listening preference. Particularly not draped in effusive comments and Frasier Crane-like pretentiousness. The use of examples is intriguing, too. Thank you.

     

    What I might offer for your consideration(s) is that you start with a definition or two. Such as Temporal Domain.

    Temporality is, to my knowledge, described as the ratios of, or relative intervals between events. The temporal domain carries no information about frequency or sequence.

     

    That said, each of the domains- frequency, sequential, and temporal do overlap with the information about the time domain contained within their two counterpart component domains.

     

    Next- imparting to the reproduction characteristics that cannot exist if they were not (authentically) available during production is a question here.

    A perspective change might be useful from the micro-tech to the recording industry. The producers of the music product have very different agendas than the musicians. What you (we) get is a compromised, not optimized result.

    Multiple mic-ing, 28 (or more) tracks, mixing boards, "pressing" or quantizing create a scale of complexity that is beyond the human span of control.

     

    The recording industry is trying to 'train' our ears to producers interests. As Apple battles for its larger distribution access agenda, for example.

     

    Live group musicians and their audiences have a very different 'training' than studio and over-dub musicians. Blending 28 events are limited to a very narrow subset of the domain attributions to give producers some control over their branding. Regardless if you like Phil Spector's, to name just one, signature sound or not.

     

    Blending different performances of isolated individuals simply won't have authenticity to time or phase coherency. Let alone the "self-organization" and complexity between instruments and performers in a collective event. Even to the coupling of the environment of the "event".

     

    Then there is the final mixing. Which is a marketing decision for the psycho-acoustic characteristic of the markets' producers expect to reach. Once it was phonograph, AM radio, or FM radio. Ear buds are very different than large rooms with no square corners. Many events that would have unfolded are sheared off. If you found something...its not my intent to marginalize it. It just isn't authentic- from the performance(s).

    Last- a byproduct of my career, with some legacy collected media, one can use a LiDAR that creates a 3d map of vinyl. You don't have to destructively drag a diamond through the lacquered vinyl media. Even if everything was equal, which it is not, determinism is an assumption better left to Newtonian antiquity. Uncertainty (scientific) yields only more artifacts- not fewer.

     

    There was a turntable that used a laser, but IIRC the surface noise was a problem.

     

     

    Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    My point is that you are wrong.

    Ok. About what?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Ok. About what?

    The equivalency of time and frequency domains. The Fourier transform shows that both representations contain the same information. You're insisting otherwise.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now




×
×
  • Create New...