Massively improve the SQ of computer audio streaming?

[Arpiben]

On 11/29/2018 at 9:00 PM, esldude said:

People can 'hear' gigahertz radar signals if strong enough.  But this is not hearing in the normal sense.  Bone conducted ultrasonics can show up as perceived lower frequencies, but listening via the air such things are of no real consequence. 100 khz or so sound high enough in level enters the eye sockets and vibrates some auditory nerves.  Again in normal situations of hearing they are of no consequence.  Infra sound can be felt, and if high enough in level it can vibrate us enough our vision is effected.  Would you say we see infrasound?

 

 

Sorry @eslude but during the last 30 years I have been working with low and high power micro and millimetre EM waves (2 -160 GHz) I have never 'hear' them. I may be deaf.

More seriously I am not aware of ultrasonics (vs electromagnetic ) at such high frequencies.  

[Kal Rubinson]

On 11/29/2018 at 3:00 PM, esldude said:

100 khz or so sound high enough in level enters the eye sockets and vibrates some auditory nerves. 

Really?  Considering the intervening anatomy, that is hard to understand.  Do you have a reference?

 

[tapatrick]

1 hour ago, phusis said:

....in my case, ... and almost wholly about ease of presentation, bandwidth (dynamically as well as in regards to frequency extension downwards), more or less uninhibited SPL-capabilities (when needed, as in real, live acoustic performances), and physicality. These are vital traits in the pursuit of a fairly authentic reproduction, and while anyone can prioritize whether to achieve this it doesn't make it any less vital for realistic reproduction. ....isn't any less in the effort towards musical satisfaction, or so I gather  

Appreciate the input @phusis  Which has got me thinking. I wish I had the room and house! to explore these kind of levels. Here are 2 random graphs - one of a live gig I just went to (bass heavy rock/jazz small club) and my home system at a loud volume. What a gap!?

 

[jabbr]

[jabbr]

Cello, MacBook & XLR cables  

[esldude]

5 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Really?  Considering the intervening anatomy, that is hard to understand.  Do you have a reference?

 

Not handy.  But I have seen it in I think an JAES presentation. 

 

I'll do a bit of looking, but can't promise I can find it. 

[esldude]

5 hours ago, Arpiben said:

 

Sorry @eslude but during the last 30 years I have been working with low and high power micro and millimetre EM waves (2 -160 GHz) I have never 'hear' them. I may be deaf.

More seriously I am not aware of ultrasonics (vs electromagnetic ) at such high frequencies.  

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

[afrancois]

14 hours ago, Jud said:

  I've never heard systems with separate subwoofers that do this as well as a two-speaker system.

 

 

If you have the opportunity go listen to a Steinway-Lyngdorf system. 

[Arpiben]

6 hours ago, esldude said:

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

 

Thanks for the link even if I disagree.

Heating effects are true and quite well known on humans. Effects on electronic components are also well known and used as microwave weapons in military applications.

[Middy]

Darpa ensures that the USA is defended against giant monster Lasagne microwave meals..

Pasta la Vista baby...

 

[Kal Rubinson]

5 hours ago, Arpiben said:

 

Thanks for the link even if I disagree.

Heating effects are true and quite well known on humans. Effects on electronic components are also well known and used as microwave weapons in military applications.

Also, no mention that the radiation "enters the eye sockets and vibrates some auditory nerves."

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Also, no mention that the radiation "enters the eye sockets and vibrates some auditory nerves."

Don't get the two mixed up. I never said radar enters the eye socket.

 

I would agree this isn't hearing in the normal sense. But for trust your ears audiophiles hearing is believing.

[mansr]

8 minutes ago, esldude said:

But for trust your ears audiophiles hearing is believing.

And vice versa.

[Arpiben]

8 hours ago, Arpiben said:

 

Thanks for the link even if I disagree.

Heating effects are true and quite well known on humans. Effects on electronic components are also well known and used as microwave weapons in military applications.

 

@esldude

 

Here is the answer, thanks:

During World War II, it was observed that individuals in the radiation path of radar installations experienced clicks and buzzing sounds in response to microwave radiation. This microwave auditory effect was thought to be caused by the microwaves inducing an electric current in the hearing centers of the brain. Research by NASA in the 1970s has shown this to be caused by thermal expansion in parts of the inner ear.

[Ralf11]

4 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Also, no mention that the radiation "enters the eye sockets and vibrates some auditory nerves."

 

plausible tho

 

maybe the Cubans have worked it out?

[Kal Rubinson]

3 hours ago, esldude said:

Don't get the two mixed up. I never said radar enters the eye socket.

That was a direct quote.

[Kal Rubinson]

45 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

plausible tho

Not as stated.

[Ralf11]

why is it not plausible?

 

the quote does not state how much vibration there is...

[afrancois]

On 11/29/2018 at 10:25 AM, PeterSt said:

Let this be today's most crazy post (I plee guilty):

 

My previous post has the ^2 interlink as the subject (though in combination with the Lush^2). What I can make up - not hindered by any real knowledge - is that the higher frequencies - and then those who form a square and not the "single sine" per se, normally may escape from a cable but with proper shielding setup, stay in there. So mind you, we always try to think of cables requiring shielding to prevent environmental RF to enter the cable, but my approach could be the other way around: prevent RF to escape from the cable. But what is RF ... does that perhaps already include the higher frequencies we lack ? not that we knew that, but come over and listen ...

Remember: This is now about an interconnect, that normally only carrying audio frequencies.

 

The idea becomes profound if you'd look again at the M Scaler; two BNC cables need to be positioned very close to each other (because the BNC terminals are so close to each other) and people can prove easily (and coincidentally because of the M Scaler's possibilities) that one cable works at the required bandwidth, the other cable works too at the required bandwidth, but both won't work. My view: the both cables now influence each other.

OK, to be correct on that it requires some more tinkering, but that happened too. It will be too hard to explain, but knowing the topology of the cable used (which coincidentally was our own, so I really could do this) I could see how the one cable could radiate over to the other, while the other would be the receptor of it. And this mutually. But what would the cables radiate ? well, actually the S/PDIF protocol at 50MHz or so. Not really high, and most certainly much lower than USB (at 480MHz). And so I acted as if I knew that this was the problem, changed the cables, (re)sent them to the customer and the problem vanished.

 

Still it would be hard to prove I was correct in my judgment but at this moment it is really not about that. What it is about is that I project this newly learned data on to the analogue cables and see the same happening. Yes, @pkane2001would be right it is conjecture (once again) but does he G-D know what the result is SQ wise ? or is this all not important and am I dreaming in my own universe for 12 years by now. And so many customers with it.

 

And so what I now think or hope or dream is that particular shielding prevents higher frequency in the cable to escape and that part of it what we normally measure as RFI is "audible frequency" without realizing it. Keep the higher frequency (in) and it does its work.

Point is also: without such hopes or dreams, nothing happens. No progress.

 

It is all not easy to judge and somewhere in my own forum I reasoned that a cable can radiate RF but capture this RF itself via an other screen (shield). Really. Am I right on this ? I would never claim that. I dream a lot for sure. From there tomorrow my sound is better again.

Is ? or will it be a dream.

Your reasoning might not be as crazy as you think or I’m the crazy one. I heard a clear improvement after I had shielded my BNC cables with mu-metal. I’ve even gone so far as to put little cylinders of mu-metal around the connectors. Especially these digital cables entering my MC3+USB. I have a REF10. I did the shielding for the high frequency harmonic content of square waves not to influence surrounding cables.

[Ralf11]

Was your test methodology adequate to remove various sources of bias?

[afrancois]

8 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Was your test methodology adequate to remove various sources of bias?

May I respond in the same manner as you. Is your system good enough to hear the difference?

[Ralf11]

YES, it is.  However, I did not make the claims that you did.

 

Now please answer the question.

[PeterSt]

Blurp

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

YES, it is.  However, I did not make the claims that you did.

 

Now please answer the question.

You already know the answer.

[asdf1000]

5 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

YES, it is.  However, I did not make the claims that you did.

 

Are you still using AirPlay with an Apple TV, which re-samples everything to 48kHz?