MQA alternative - open source
 

One of the problems here is that the proponents tend to get a bit
vague and sweeping about what they mean by terms like 'resolution' etc in
this context.

Indeed. Lots of hand waving.

Maybe I'll say it sometime. At present I'm (slowly) going though this area
in detail, running down references, etc. I'll then write a detailed webpage
saying what I found, and then probably write about it for HFN.

Looking forward to that! It would be a refreshing departure from
editorial policy...

Julf

MQA alternative - open source
 

In article , Johan Helsingius
wrote:
One of the problems here is that the proponents tend to get a bit
vague and sweeping about what they mean by terms like 'resolution' etc
in this context.

Indeed. Lots of hand waving.

Maybe I'll say it sometime. At present I'm (slowly) going though this
area in detail, running down references, etc. I'll then write a
detailed webpage saying what I found, and then probably write about it
for HFN.

Looking forward to that! It would be a refreshing departure from
editorial policy...

TBH I haven't felt any reluctance by the Editor to print anything I've
written on the basis of any kind of 'party line'. Both Barry Fox and I do
sometimes publish articles that challenge some ideas, etc.

Any many of the audiomisc webpages that question or analyse aspects of
audio have also been mentioned in my column over the years. I hope that
some readers will have followed them up.

The main problem from my POV in recent years is a move away from publishing
anything "too technical". Personally, I regret the lack of DIY articles or
ones that explain or analyse areas in technical depth. This is a matter of
the judgement of the Editor in terms of who they see as their 'audience'
for the magazine, though. I deal with it by the above process. Put the
technical details on the web, and write about them in more general terms in
the magazine. This seems to work OK. I'd love to see the mag do more, but
the editor may well know more than me about who might buy printed hifi mags
these days.

But in the end, if readers write in and say they would *like* such
articles, the editor will notice. If enough people do, he will respond.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

MQA alternative - open source
 

The main problem from my POV in recent years is a move away from publishing
anything "too technical". Personally, I regret the lack of DIY articles or
ones that explain or analyse areas in technical depth.

Yes - and in the absence of any technical content, all they
can write is the 15000th iteration of "the music felt much
more 3-dimensional, and it was as if veils were lifted...".

But in the end, if readers write in and say they would *like* such
articles, the editor will notice. If enough people do, he will respond.

After the treatment I got after writing in a couple of times
(basically being ridiculed as a believer in "bits are bits"
by implying a very different context than what I commented
on) I am not very likely to repeat the experience...

Julf

MQA alternative - open source
 

On 09/09/2016 20:33, Don Pearce wrote:
On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 17:21:39 +0100, RJH wrote:

On 09/09/2016 15:41, Don Pearce wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 13:32:50 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Vir Campestris wrote:
A quick rummage in my tracks seems to show brick wall at 16kHz.

Just for info, 16kHz was regarded by the BBC as the upper limit needed for
the highest quality radio transmissions.

On any true programme material, there was no useful information above this.

And of course they had to leave room for an analogue notch filter to
take out the 19kHz stereo pilot tone. But of course the distribution
standard to all the BBC FM transmitters is NICAM, which is sampled at
32kHz, so 16kHz is very much the upper limit of possibility.


There is audio above 16kHz, and something must happen to it. Even if it
can't be 'heard' in the conventional sense, can it be experienced in
some other way?

The reason for asking is a little more involved than the fact that I can
no longer hear a 15kHz signal :-)

The problem with audio that is not heard is that it is probably not
controlled either. A great deal of it will make itself known by
aliasing back down into the audible band in unpleasant ways. Much
better to chop it out early in the signal chain so it can do no harm.


Is it necessarily unpleasant? Could it not 'colour' the sound in ways
some people like?

In any event, if people pay enough they're likely to want some manner of
difference. You'd hope it'd be improved sound . . .

Anyway - what is your reason for asking? I'm intrigued now.


Nothing too informed I'm afraid - just a hunch that something like this
might go some way to explaining the subjective differences between, say,
CD players.


--
Cheers, Rob

MQA alternative - open source
 

On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 17:14:37 +0100, RJH wrote:

On 09/09/2016 20:33, Don Pearce wrote:
On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 17:21:39 +0100, RJH wrote:

On 09/09/2016 15:41, Don Pearce wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 13:32:50 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Vir Campestris wrote:
A quick rummage in my tracks seems to show brick wall at 16kHz.

Just for info, 16kHz was regarded by the BBC as the upper limit needed for
the highest quality radio transmissions.

On any true programme material, there was no useful information above this.

And of course they had to leave room for an analogue notch filter to
take out the 19kHz stereo pilot tone. But of course the distribution
standard to all the BBC FM transmitters is NICAM, which is sampled at
32kHz, so 16kHz is very much the upper limit of possibility.


There is audio above 16kHz, and something must happen to it. Even if it
can't be 'heard' in the conventional sense, can it be experienced in
some other way?

The reason for asking is a little more involved than the fact that I can
no longer hear a 15kHz signal :-)

The problem with audio that is not heard is that it is probably not
controlled either. A great deal of it will make itself known by
aliasing back down into the audible band in unpleasant ways. Much
better to chop it out early in the signal chain so it can do no harm.


Is it necessarily unpleasant? Could it not 'colour' the sound in ways
some people like?

In any event, if people pay enough they're likely to want some manner of
difference. You'd hope it'd be improved sound . . .

Anyway - what is your reason for asking? I'm intrigued now.


Nothing too informed I'm afraid - just a hunch that something like this
might go some way to explaining the subjective differences between, say,
CD players.

Somehow improved? Well, there are two ways the HF can climb back into
the audible band - one is noise, and the other is discrete dissonant
tones. I don't see either of those improving sound. They certainly
won't for me.

As for subjective differences between CD players, the very first
examples certainly had them - to put it bluntly they sounded horrible.
But later offerings, and certainly any available now? No. I'm 100%
certain that you couldn't tell any two apart in a blind test.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

MQA alternative - open source
 

On 09/09/2016 08:21, Don Pearce wrote:
Brickwall at 16kHz usually means lossy compression - MP3 or somesuch.
Limiting the top end this way makes compressing the rest a much easier

Pat on the back that man! I brought a real CD from this millennium out
with me. Audacity assures me there are signals all the way up. I still
can't hear them though!

Andy

MQA alternative - open source
 

On 11/09/2016 17:24, Don Pearce wrote:
As for subjective differences between CD players, the very first
examples certainly had them - to put it bluntly they sounded horrible.
But later offerings, and certainly any available now? No. I'm 100%
certain that you couldn't tell any two apart in a blind test.

Blind? Didn't do that. But we recently bought a new CD player. The Arcam
sounded better to me than the one we bought. Definitely different.

SWMBO vetoed it on the grounds that it also streamed music. (No, I don't
understand either!)

We borrowed one of our kids (under 30) for his ears. We all think the
new player sounds better on our 30YO amp than the
umpteen-thousands-worth in the shop. Perhaps it's our B&Ws.

Andy

MQA alternative - open source
 

On 11/09/2016 10:40, Jim Lesurf wrote:
The main problem from my POV in recent years is a move away from publishing
anything "too technical".

I've gone off any hifi magazine that attempts to tell me a replacement
mains lead will make a difference. Which most of them seem to.

If it does I have a fault in my gear. It ought to filter that out.

Andy

MQA alternative - open source
 

On 11/09/2016 21:02, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 11/09/2016 17:24, Don Pearce wrote:
As for subjective differences between CD players, the very first
examples certainly had them - to put it bluntly they sounded horrible.
But later offerings, and certainly any available now? No. I'm 100%
certain that you couldn't tell any two apart in a blind test.

Blind? Didn't do that. But we recently bought a new CD player. The Arcam
sounded better to me than the one we bought. Definitely different.

SWMBO vetoed it on the grounds that it also streamed music. (No, I don't
understand either!)

We borrowed one of our kids (under 30) for his ears. We all think the
new player sounds better on our 30YO amp than the
umpteen-thousands-worth in the shop. Perhaps it's our B&Ws.


Double-blind tests for this are incredibly difficult IMHO - the need to
recreate exactly the same environment for each sample. That said, you
can keep hammering away until you have something statistically significant.

But I'd guess one of the key issues in comparing things like CD players
is output level. They are likely to vary, so an accurate way of
measuring consistent levels is needed.


--
Cheers, Rob