"Rock/Pop" MultiChannel shining in Stereo

[Miska]

6 minutes ago, esldude said:

I've never, ever heard anyone say there is no visible difference in SD or 1080.  Nor 1080 and 4k.  The difference is more obvious than 128 kbps MP3 and redbook. 

 

The people who developed MP3 didn't claim it was transparent.  There are those who claim highrate MP3 is close to transparent.  

 

Oh, I remember many claims and magazine articles about this. Just like I remember the same about RedBook vs hires.

 

Probably same people will claim that all whisky and red wine tastes the same. I just ignore them, waste of time otherwise.

 

[gmgraves]

12 hours ago, Miska said:

 

I don't want to go into this again, but I'll just say as I've said before that IMO it is needed for accurate transient reproduction. So that you capture and reproduce all harmonics that exist without limiting bandwidth at any point in the channel. That includes microphones too.

I've never seen any of your previous posts on this subject, but I get your gist. I am also one-thousand percent sure, based on more than 30 years of recording, that you are wrong. But it's your hobby as much as it is mine, and what you like and don't like and what you believe or don't believe is your business. I've a friend who believes that amplifiers which aren't class-A are no good. No sense trying to enlighten him about amp design, so I don't. 

But microphones with the kind of high-frequency response that you are talking about are unbelievably expensive  -at least the ones that I have seen are! 

12 hours ago, Miska said:

 

 

What is outrageous? I don't see anything outrageous in currently used distribution formats. Some of my ADCs can spit out 768/32 PCM and that would be maybe something I would consider not necessarily worthy distribution format.

Well, it's outrageous from the standpoint of the size of the files it makes. I have never seen the use in capturing music at 192 KHz, 384 KHz, or the gods forbid, 768 KHz! 

12 hours ago, Miska said:

For recording yes! But for final distribution format? When you put something out for distribution you very well know what you are putting out. And remember that you are no limited to just 16-, 24-, or 32-bit. I have demonstrated that you could very nicely distribute for example 120/18 format to optimize file size without losing anything in terms of content. When you output for example to FLAC and have dithered just 18 or 20-bit worth of data and LSBs zeroed, FLAC encoder understands this and compresses much more efficiently. You can inspect the content to see how many bits it actually uses before noise floor.

I see your point, but the only distributing that I do is to give the group I'm recording either a CD or a file of the recording I made. I keep the high-res stuff to listen to myself - that's the whole reason I got into recording in the first place. I couldn't find recordings that sounded good enough for me! I've only produced one recording that was released commercially and that was a solo lute recording on Musical Heritage Society that I made with a friend.

12 hours ago, Miska said:

Studies have show that yes there is certainly content above 20 kHz! Many percussive instruments put out lot of energy above 20 kHz. And I have tested this myself and examined lot of hires recordings too. I run all hires content I buy through analysis so I know what I have.

No doubt, but again, if humans can't hear it, why capture it? My experience is that extended high-frequency bandwidth is a lot like people who work on audio circuitry to get the signal-to-noise-ratio down to -145 dBm. Humans can't hear anything below about -115 dBm, but people who want that low a noise floor just feel better when the noise floor is that low! 

12 hours ago, Miska said:

 

https://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm

 

From this study the best transient example is claves:

https://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/11.htm#a

I have tested many of these same things too. Castanets also produce similar spectrum. Maracas produces spectrum closer to crash cymbal:

https://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/13.htm

 

One of my personal favorites is also soprano  glockenspiel, it puts out distinct spectrum lines and very sharp transient attack.

 

In addition things like electric guitar with nice tube or semiconductor distortion puts out lot of harmonics. And so do synthesizers (because for example modular synths can run square and sawtooth waves).

 

All you say is true, but none of it alters the fact that you can't hear that expanded spectrum, and all it's libel to do is annoy your dog!

[gmgraves]

30 minutes ago, esldude said:

I didn't run up and down the line telling people don't go, but had the same experience.  My girl at the time insisted we go see it. She agreed it was horrible.  We saw some people we knew for the next showing and did tell them see something else.  I've never understood the accolades for that film.  It was a waste of some fine actors and actresses. 

Agree, 100%! I never got it either.

[gmgraves]

6 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

Oh, I remember many claims and magazine articles about this. Just like I remember the same about RedBook vs hires.

 

Probably same people will claim that all whisky and red wine tastes the same. I just ignore them, waste of time otherwise.

  

Amen to that!

[mansr]

24 minutes ago, Miska said:

I remember lot of people saying that nobody can see difference between SD and 1080p video.

I don't, not one. That difference is blatantly obvious.

 

Quote

And then that nobody can see difference between 1080p and 4K video.

For many domestic settings, that is true. You need a pretty large display before there is a clear difference. In a cinema, it is quite apparent.

 

Quote

And that nobody can hear difference between 128 kbps MP3 and RedBook. Oh yeah.

Nobody claimed that. MP3 is good enough under the constraints for which it was developed. At 256 kbps and higher it really is quite close to transparent, although differences can usually be heard under close scrutiny.

 

Please stop misrepresenting facts, and try to get a grip on reality.

[Miska]

6 minutes ago, mansr said:

Please stop misrepresenting facts, and try to get a grip on reality.

 

What fact I'm misrepresenting? Am I misrepresenting what I remember reading? Something else?

 

6 minutes ago, mansr said:

Nobody claimed that.

 

You are quite good at knowing what goes on in the world! I'm not so good that I could claim anything about "nobody" or "everybody".

 

Just like one local technical magazine here stopped comparing CD players some 20+ years ago, because they concluded that all measured so well that nobody is able to hear difference between CD players so it doesn't make any sense to make tests anymore.

 

[mansr]

13 minutes ago, Miska said:

Probably same people will claim that all whisky and red wine tastes the same. I just ignore them, waste of time otherwise.

Nonsense. Whisky tastes nothing like red wine.

[Miska]

Just now, mansr said:

Nonsense. Whisky tastes nothing like red wine.

 

Ahh, not what I meant.

 

But they'd probably claim that all Highland and Islay tastes the same. And that all Merlot and Shiraz tastes the same.  Not least because difference in ethanol content is so small that human taste sense cannot distinguish between those.

 

[mansr]

Just now, Miska said:

But they'd probably claim that all Highland and Islay tastes the same. And that all Merlot and Shiraz tastes the same.

Hell no. I will say that expensive isn't necessarily better, though.

[Ralf11]

Shiraz sux

 

Syrah is what you want

[fas42]

35 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

Yes, seriously. You don't need to worry about speakers, just worry about the recording chain. Recording chain needs to be at least as good as any playback chain that exists out there.

 

 

No. Major fallacy in thinking, and will always cause unrest in the listener, who will then "blame the recording" if "it doesn't sound right!". Recordings, no matter how dire, can be presented so what they will be satisfying to listen to, where the impact of the musical message comes through as well as anyone could want - if the latter doesn't happen then it means that the playback system needs to be "better" - and that is close to zero to being dependent on "all the frequencies being there!".

[Miska]

Actually reminds me of recent article by upset professor telling people that all salt is the same, because NaCl is simple chemical compound and all different salts is just fallacy. And sea salt and rock salt just have bunch of unwanted impurities and better avoided because there are much more clean NaCl compounds available!

 

He quite didn't get that the < 5% of "impurities" is precisely all that makes the very important difference!

 

[Miska]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

No. Major fallacy in thinking, and will always cause unrest in the listener, who will then "blame the recording" if "it doesn't sound right!". Recordings, no matter how dire, can be presented so what they will be satisfying to listen to, where the impact of the musical message comes through as well as anyone could want - if the latter doesn't happen then it means that the playback system needs to be "better" - and that is close to zero to being dependent on "all the frequencies being there!"

 

Up to a limit yes. But you can't make gold from shit. I have bad productions that cannot be made good no matter what you do with listening side. Probably the problem in the end is with my ears and brain that need to be replaced, they just don't process the input correctly.

 

[Ralf11]

that analogy fails

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Miska said:

 

Oh, I remember many claims and magazine articles about this. Just like I remember the same about RedBook vs hires.

I don't believe you.  Not on the video.  I've seen claims that at normal viewing distances 4K and 2k aren't visibly different, and that is possible.  I've seen explanations that beyond some viewing distances SD and HD would have resolution  limited by your eye and distance.  But not that they were not different in general. Of course much 4k also offers higher dynamic range which is a difference of another kind. 

Quote

 

Probably same people will claim that all whisky and red wine tastes the same. I just ignore them, waste of time otherwise.

 

Oh, this gives proper credibility to the rest of your post here.  Whisky and red wine aren't the same.  People claiming other people believe that might be a waste of time.  This is quite ridiculous.  What's with you today Miska?

[esldude]

24 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Shiraz sux

 

Syrah is what you want

I find I like Argentine Malbec's for something not expensive. 

[Ralf11]

Once upon a time... N. Rhones were not expensive. 

[mansr]

19 minutes ago, Miska said:

Up to a limit yes. But you can't make gold from shit. I have bad productions that cannot be made good no matter what you do with listening side. Probably the problem in the end is with my ears and brain that need to be replaced, they just don't process the input correctly.

Clearly, your system hasn't been Frankensorted.

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Miska said:

 

Yes, seriously. You don't need to worry about speakers, just worry about the recording chain. Recording chain needs to be at least as good as any playback chain that exists out there.

 

Developing such systems is just work, the kind of stuff I do every day. 100 kHz is not that much in the end.

 

 

When I play instrument, my hand-to-ear distance is about 0.5m. There's not that much attenuation in that distance. I put microphone on same distance as my ears and then listen the signal from microphone through headphones. It must sound identical to the direct sound. It is pretty simple.

 

I await the full recording of an orchestra done this way.  In ear microphones for each player so you can hear what the musicians hear.  All mixed together so you can know what it is like to hear yourself playing every instrument in the orchestra all at once.  

 

Do you use an artificial ear on your microphone, otherwise directionality effects and such means it can never sound the same. 

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, esldude said:

I find I like Argentine Malbec's for something not expensive. 

I often find those a tad punchy for my liking. Could do with a bit less dynamic range compression.

[Miska]

3 minutes ago, esldude said:

I don't believe you.  Not on the video.  I've seen claims that at normal viewing distances 4K and 2k aren't visibly different, and that is possible.  I've seen explanations that beyond some viewing distances SD and HD would have resolution  limited by your eye and distance.  But not that they were not different in general. Of course much 4k also offers higher dynamic range which is a difference of another kind. 

 

I've seen many claims that 4K vs 1080p is completely marketing ploy and nobody is able to see the difference.

 

All this goes into same category of "normal viewing distances",  "average listening equipment", etc. Somehow people have less difficulty questioning claims about human capabilities when they use eyes than when they use ears.

 

Same goes for frame rates. For UI design, already in 90's we (at Nokia) knew that for smooth UI experience you need >= 60 fps update rate at all times. You could hear a lot of blaah blaah about humans not being able to distinguish between higher frame rates. Once you watch the 1080p 60 fps video on VR goggles you'll notice that it stinks. Even 4K 60 fps stinks on VR. 8K and 120 fps is a little better on VR goggles but still not good.

 

Good DAC and headphones are just like VR goggles.

 

[mansr]

1 minute ago, Miska said:

I've seen many claims that 4K vs 1080p is completely marketing ploy and nobody is able to see the difference.

Where?

[Miska]

3 minutes ago, esldude said:

I await the full recording of an orchestra done this way.  In ear microphones for each player so you can hear what the musicians hear.  All mixed together so you can know what it is like to hear yourself playing every instrument in the orchestra all at once.  

 

Do you use an artificial ear on your microphone, otherwise directionality effects and such means it can never sound the same. 

 

I have flat frequency response Sennheiser measurement microphone capsules stuffed inside earplugs for real-head recordings!

 

[Miska]

8 minutes ago, mansr said:

Where?

 

On the media I read. Stupid Finnish technical magazines including. When 4K was a new thing, there was a lot of this all over the media that 4K doesn't make any sense and that humans cannot see the difference.

 

Actually one thing that helped people really notice the difference was when mobile devices like iPad started to introduce "retina" displays. First just below 300 dpi and later reaching much higher. No more blurry looking font anti-aliasing and sub-pixel smoothing. Now getting closer to really sharp edged, but smooth curved fonts with latest high resolution displays. Not much different from hires audio actually. Laser printers went from 300 dpi to 600+ dpi much earlier.

 

My 2.7K monitor still looks a bit shitty with anti-aliasing and without anti-aliasing. I had a 4K display for a while, but it's contrast ratio wasn't as good as this Eizo one. I need to get a good Eizo 4K display...

[Miska]

15 minutes ago, esldude said:

I await the full recording of an orchestra done this way.  In ear microphones for each player so you can hear what the musicians hear.  All mixed together so you can know what it is like to hear yourself playing every instrument in the orchestra all at once.  

 

Do you use an artificial ear on your microphone, otherwise directionality effects and such means it can never sound the same. 

 

Now you are talking about MQA!