"Rock/Pop" MultiChannel shining in Stereo

[Miska]

1 hour ago, STC said:

If you look at the permissable level of duration and loudness I wonder how this people are suffering hearing loss in the first place. 

 

I am always for hires recordingand prefer to have not less than 96khz. But they are filtered at 20khz for playback as you suggested. 

 

By the way, I would be more worried about people using DACs with leaky oversampling filters and people using loudspeakers with metal dome tweeters than ultrasonic music content. Something like MQA's upsampling filters produce much higher level ultrasonic content than what you find in many cases with music content, because they spit out images of the base band (< 20 kHz) content. And metal dome tweeters typically have +20 - +40 dB ultrasonic resonance.

 

[STC]

3 hours ago, Miska said:

 

By the way, I would be more worried about people using DACs with leaky oversampling filters and people using loudspeakers with metal dome tweeters than ultrasonic music content. Something like MQA's upsampling filters produce much higher level ultrasonic content than what you find in many cases with music content, because they spit out images of the base band (< 20 kHz) content. And metal dome tweeters typically have +20 - +40 dB ultrasonic resonance.

 

+1

 

4 hours ago, Miska said:

 

Several hours per every time they play together at 100+ dB. No wonder.

 

The guide says that continuous exposure. As far as I know no music is played more than few second or at most about 1 minute above 100dB. Even if you hear sound at 96dB constantly, it would take one hour to have permanent damage. I have seen some local  people peddle food and man a public toilet close to a waterfall where the noise level was touching 90dB without any hearing loss. At least that's how the appear to me when I talk to them. I think it should be continuous level.

 

4 hours ago, Miska said:

 

 

You are altering your transient response that way though. By the way, do you do brickwall at 20 kHz or what is your filter slope?

 

 

 

I was using slow slope with Mytek which starts to attenuate from 16kHz, IIRC. Now with Motu, I am not sure what filter is being used. But all my SIR2 for the surround attenuates everything starting with 7kHz. The main channel is sadly subjected to the digital amp filter which is brickwall at 22khz. I tried using HPF and LPF to limit the frequencies to have a gentle slope at both ends but decided against it after sometime.

[Kal Rubinson]

8 hours ago, esldude said:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2702/810e3bfde17fc044cd7775b49e9c9a77ee8f.pdf

 

The paper about ultrasonics being conducted into the inner ear via the eye sockets.  I am disappointed it was Oohashi as some of his work seems questionable.  

Thanks.  Curious stuff.

[Miska]

1 hour ago, STC said:

The guide says that continuous exposure. As far as I know no music is played more than few second or at most about 1 minute above 100dB. Even if you hear sound at 96dB constantly, it would take one hour to have permanent damage. I have seen some local  people peddle food and man a public toilet close to a waterfall where the noise level was touching 90dB without any hearing loss. At least that's how the appear to me when I talk to them. I think it should be continuous level.

 

At least here work safety limit is 80 dB and above that you need to wear hearing protection. Musicians playing several hours every day are often subjected to fairly high levels for long times, when symphony orchestras and such are practicing. Practicing alone without orchestra rarely exposes to such levels though.

 

1 hour ago, STC said:

I was using slow slope with Mytek which starts to attenuate from 16kHz, IIRC. Now with Motu, I am not sure what filter is being used. But all my SIR2 for the surround attenuates everything starting with 7kHz. The main channel is sadly subjected to the digital amp filter which is brickwall at 22khz. I tried using HPF and LPF to limit the frequencies to have a gentle slope at both ends but decided against it after sometime.

 

Even though it begins to attenuate at 16 kHz, it doesn't yet have much attenuation at ultrasonic range. Class-D amp filters are not really brickwall since they are analog. If you are worried about ultrasonics and filter begins to roll off around 20 kHz, analog filters won't have practical effect. And if you put really steep analog filter around 20 kHz is screws up audio band performance totally.

 

I'm personally not worried at all about ultrasonic content from music. And not much about many other sources around, including things like car parking radars and such.

 

[gmgraves]

12 hours ago, firedog said:

Tastes differ. I saw it then too and thought it was brilliant. Do you like any other Kubrick movies? If so, any of the later ones?

I liked "Spartacus" and thought that "Paths of Glory" was well done if a little grim and preachy. Did not care for "2001" . Loved "Dr. Strangelove", and enjoyed watching "Full Metal Jacket". The rest (other than "The Shining") I am indifferent to. 

[mansr]

All Kubrick films have one thing in common. They are too long.

[gmgraves]

23 hours ago, mansr said:

Nonsense. Whisky tastes nothing like red wine.

Not what he's saying. From context, it seems to me that he is saying that there are people who think that all whiskies tastes the same and that all red wines tastes the same (I certainly feel sorry for such people). Anybody who thinks that a Woodford Reserve and an Early Times tastes the same, or that a Laphroaig and a Cutty Sark taste the same shouldn't be allowed to drink whisky! Same for someone who thinks that a Charles Shaw (Two-Buck-Chuck) Cabernet and a Lafitte Rothschild 1969 Claret tastes the same ... well, you get the idea!

BTW, Charles Shaw Merlot and Cabernets are certainly more than decent vins ordinare; fine for a week-night's supper. In fact, I'm going to have a Merlot with tonight's porterhouse with baked russet potato and locally sourced  steamed asparagus! (Yum!)

[gmgraves]

7 hours ago, Miska said:

I'm personally not worried at all about ultrasonic content from music. And not much about many other sources around, including things like car parking radars and such.

 

Me neither. I don't worry or fret about things I can't see, hear, feel, taste, or smell!

[Ralf11]

9 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Thanks.  Curious stuff.

 

Care to repeat it using Ivy League undergrads as test subjects?

[Ralf11]

58 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Me neither. I don't worry or fret about things I can't see, hear, feel, taste, or smell!

 

I suggest avoiding high doses of X-rays however...

[gmgraves]

On 12/7/2018 at 3:36 PM, Ralf11 said:

 

I suggest avoiding high doses of X-rays however...

Gamma rays too!

[Le Concombre Masqué]

almost one year after, at the time of Stereophile's last Music in the Round, it seems that nobody has even bothered to try...

 

My collection has grown to 130...

 

And I definitely wish Rock/pop albums (studio productions when natural acoustics don't matter) would be offered in a down-mixable with standardised values MCH vehicle ; it would make much more sense than 384 as use of space IMO and an improvement while lossy options such as MQA get promoted

 

a kid play, as a moron suggested in the thread ? well, a PITA process for sure, but well worth it

 

btw, I had a doubt about respective channels levels because of the recent Abbey Road BR, feeling that background voices were missing in my down-mix ; they are not in the HD tracks ST or the (different) ST extracted from the Blu-Ray. If they do miss (need to pull my UK original) this would indicate that the ST were taken from the MCH. Still, my 3 times bigger  personal down-mix sounds much better

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, Le Concombre Masqué said:

almost one year after, at the time of Stereophile's last Music in the Round, it seems that nobody has even bothered to try...

 

My collection has grown to 130...

 

And I definitely wish Rock/pop albums (studio productions when natural acoustics don't matter) would be offered in a down-mixable with standardised values MCH vehicle ; it would make much more sense than 384 as use of space IMO and an improvement while lossy options such as MQA get promoted

 

a kid play, as a moron suggested in the thread ? well, a PITA process for sure, but well worth it

 

btw, I had a doubt about respective channels levels because of the recent Abbey Road BR, feeling that background voices were missing in my down-mix ; they are not in the HD tracks ST or the (different) ST extracted from the Blu-Ray. If they do miss (need to pull my UK original) this would indicate that the ST were taken from the MCH. Still, my 3 times bigger  personal down-mix sounds much better

 There were quite a few multi channel DVD-A that are easily downmixed to Stereo using DVD=A Explorer and still retain quite a surround sensation  with good gear.

 Incidentally, many USA HDTV late shows with Musical performances  are multichannel and easily downmixed to decent stereo using suitable Video S/W if you can  find uploaded .ts streams with UseNet,  or perhaps record them.

[Le Concombre Masqué]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 There were quite a few multi channel DVD-A that are easily downmixed to Stereo using DVD=A Explorer and still retain quite a surround sensation  with good gear.

 Incidentally, many USA HDTV late shows with Musical performances  are multichannel and easily downmixed to decent stereo using suitable Video S/W if you can  find uploaded .ts streams with UseNet,  or perhaps record them.

not sure those solutions would have triggered me to promote MCH down-mixed but thank you...