blue2blue

Hey, I'm sensitive about the point on my head! But otherwise, I agree with this. I am quite partial to Don B's story, The School. What I like most is that it takes some effort to pull meaning out of it, but even if you don't get the meaning, the images and the rhythm of the story are enjoyable in and of themselves. "And the trees all died." "It wouldn

I don't think anyone knows the answers to those not-so-undying questions any more today than they did when people might have some clue what the hell you're talking about. One of the songs I really hated when I was a kid growing up was "Mairzy Doats." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mairzy_Doats... It (presumably) grew out of the double talk fad of the 40's (itself a presumed successor to the earlier pig latin fad)... Mairzy doats and dozy doats and liddle lamzy divey A kiddley divey too, wouldn't you? [...] If the words sound queer and funny to your ear, a little bit jumbled and jivey, Sing "Mares eat oats and does eat oats and little lambs eat ivy."

Absurdism and surrealism, of course, are not just writing whatever comes to the top of one's pointy little head. I was a big Barthelme fan, too. I think it's worth noting that I never once felt like he was just spewing out nonsense and figuring that was good enough. (Now, In His Own Write... That one does stretch one's patience, no matter how much we may have loved Lennon -- or Lear.) It's like Joyce... it might strike some folks as nonsense but it's pretty clear that a huge amount of work went into the intricate interconnections that interlace and unify what might at first just seem absurdist ramblings. What bugs me are folks who read a few paragraphs of Joyce and say, I could do that! No. No you couldn't.

The only thing that moved me about the song was the riff... and I thought it was kind of cheezy. And I had a big appetite for psychedelia. (Big Pete Brown fan. But when you read Pete Brown's decidedly out there lyrics for Cream, you certainly get the sense that they're about something, no matter how aggressively arty the construction may be.) I loved the Beatles work in the Rubber Soul period but, with few exceptions, I didn't have much use for their later work. From Sgt Pepper's on it seems more and more marred by sloppiness and laziness.

But the listener has to feel like there's actually a message or story of some kind there, I think, or he/she probably won't put in any effort at all. Who wants to waste time with a puzzle if he really thinks there's actually no answer to the puzzle or that it makes no sense? That just feels insulting. Granted, I think there is a small subsection of listeners who simply don't care about lyrics and don't pay any attention to them. But they're a minority, even if not necessarily a negligible one, and the fact that they don't seem to care about lyrics one way or the other seems to suggest that folks who do write songs where the lyrics matter can simply ignore those for whom they don't.

I prefer lyrics that make little or no sense. I like lyrics in other languages for similar reasons. If I can't understand it, then it's as though the vocals just blend in as another instrument. When I listen to music, I want to think about melodies, harmonies and rhythm. If I want to complicate things with words, I'll read a book. Just kidding...I don't actually read:) I prefer lyrics in a foreign language to those in my own that don't make sense. I have to say, if I think a writer is just stringing together nonsense -- and I have that feeling more than a little -- I feel cheated, like the guy/gal just doesn't care enough to put in the effort. That said, I don't think the meaning has to come out and hit you over the head. There are a lot of cryptic lyrics out there that can be fun, interesting, and thought-provoking to take apart and try to make sense of. But if you do that and you start getting the feeling that you're just being pulled along by the lyrical equivalent of a conversa-bot, who needs that?

I dunno. Doesn't seem like it would give a troll much satsfaction. If it's not a troll, there certainly a lot of these guitars turning up. I guess it's no surprise. As a cheap Pac-Rim import there's probably thousands in closets and in basements. After 30-40 years it's time Johnny's old guitar goes to the yard sale. People get a guitar from an unfamiliar maker and Google for info on it. The first article up (just now) in Google is a Wikipedia article, then two mentions from vintaxe.com and then there's Harmony Central at return 4...

Don't laugh - not an expensive or reputable brand. As a matter of fact there are NO CARLOS guitars on ebay OR listed at Harmony Central in the reivew database - not one. Now bear in mind I have owned nearly 150 guitars (maybe more) in the last 15 years, including many Gibsons, Taylor, Ibanez, Washburn, etc. I know my guitars pretty well. That said, I bought a CARLOS II model 240K acoustic 6 string at lunch today from a pawnshop for $50. It's Korean made, probably late 70s I'm guessing. It has what appears to be *original* brass nut, brass bridge/saddle and instead of pearloid dot inlays it has actual brass studs inlayed. Despite needing some serious work on the action and a truss rod adjustment, and the strings being ancient, the guitar actually had a good sound and feel. I'll be working on it tonight when I get off work and then can give a real assesment. But initially, I think it's going to be a great guitar. A web search revealed that several recording studios have CARLOS acoustics on hand for recording, but other than that I found nothing online. Can anyone tell me anything? If you have one how old is it, and does it suck? Is it just oK? Is is good? Thanks, Daniel I bought a Carlos 12 string dread from a pal for $75. It's not a bad sounding guitar but the nut really, really needs to be replaced, since the string spacing is wack, per my thinking. The individual strings of the pairs are way too far apart and the sets of pairs too close together. As a consequence, fretting accruately is difficult. Makes a decent 12 string slide, though. Finger picking accurately is a bit of a pain because of the string spacing (better than the fretting though, as the bridge spacing is ok.) Tone is really pretty OK.

It's not nearly as effective as proper treatment, which will work to combat early (side) reflections as well as to minimize standing waves resulting from room resonance (which often result in booming resonance in the bass range in some spots while other spots cancel out in the same range -- making the room potentially a mine field for mixing in). Carpet will tend to absorb some frequencies while bouncing others while proper anti-reflection materials will be more effective across a wider range.

While discussing lyrics in another thread, I remembered how it was that I started writing and I was wondering if anyone had a similar story. I think it would be interesting to know how other writers caught the 'writing bug' if any of you wouldn't mind sharing your story. Here's mine: During my teen years, writing became a way for me to say what I was feeling when I didn't think I could just come out and say it or didn't know exactly how to express my feelings. I had a very strict upbringing and would have been in a world of trouble if I said what I sometimes thought. However, for example, if I disguised my longing to spread my own wings as a song about a bird, I could say whatever I wanted...pretty sneaky, huh? tee, hee... So...who's game? Anyone? I think it was a rainy day in 7th grade English, when the teacher said, Well, we're all going to try out hand at writing short stories today. Being a big fan of spy stories and sci-fi, I wrote a terse and schematic story about a NATO like alliance attacking an international terrorist conspiracy. If that sounds like the plot of a James Bond/Man from UNCLE type scenario, well, art imitates art. If it sounds like current events... I hear ya. When I first read about Osama bin Laden almost two decades ago, I thought he and al Qaeda sounded just like a James Bond plot... Anyhow, the rest of the stories must have been really, really bad... because me and one or two others were singled out for praise. I went out and bought a copy of the then current issue of Writer's Digest, realized there were some markets where a guy could pull some serious bank, and plunged into my new career. I was so serious about it that my folks bought me a typewriter for my 14th birthday. Later I discovered blank verse and drifted into poetry as well. In college, I was part of the poetry scene, did a number of readings, edited a poetry anthology (that got its funding pulled at the last moment due to budget cutbacks) but soon enough realized that the guys playing guitars under the trees in the quad were getting all the cute girls -- including some of the poet girls. It was clear I would have to extend my horizons... PS... Actually, come to think of it, my real start was a year or two earlier when I scripted and performed a couple of radio-style parody skits into my ultra-primitive battery powered tape recorder. (No capstan. That's how primitive.) I did my own 'mic 'n' mouth' sound FX, too, a la (the coincidentally named) Tom Keith on Prairie Home Companion.

Very nice, sir. I do science for living, and know a little bit about it, but I try not to comment on the field I don't know deep. But one thing I can tell for sure (or at least in a general sense) is, it is much harder to prove something "doesn't exist" than to prove something "do exist" by experiemnts in science. So, yeah, who knows what happens in the next 100 years in science. Somebody may show synaptic ends releases molecules called "xxx" in response to 20MHz ultrasound wave, which has an impact on music perception....things like that. And, also thanks for Android suggestion. Yeah, I've been looking at that too. Particularly, I'm interested in Skype mobile which allows me to show my backyard here to my mom 5000 miles away, who survived WWII in her teens. Unfortunately my dad passed away few years back, without seeing these tech stuff developed by former enemies (that's what he always told me) and benefit of seeing talking with his son over the screen. I might buy Droid for my son when he goes to college, so that I can "police watch" what he's doing?? No, just to see his face, you know. College kids can get in trouble -- no question -- but they also have to learn how to make their own mistakes. It's a big, dangerous world and it can, no doubt, scare the heck out of parents... but if you try to protect them too much, you just hobble or cripple their own ability to think and act sensibly for themselves. (I'm very good at giving advice to parents, since I've been able to concentrate on it without the distraction of having my own children. ) Sounds like we're roughly from the same generation. My mom was a teenager during WWII, as well. My dad in the Army Air Corps, attached to a squadron of B-25 "Mitchell" light, two engined, split-tail bombers. (Sort of like a scaled down B-24, actually.) My first GF was, coincidentally, a sansei Japanese-American. Her parents both nisei; her father spent some time during WWII in an internment camp for Japanese-Americans -- an institution that was a shameful overreaction to wartime threats, real and imagined, it's always seemed to me -- and then, like many Japanese-Americans, he volunteered to fight the Third Reich in Europe.

Yeah... it was interesting at the sort of open house, there were a number of young Vietnamese guys there and I was thinking, man, didn't they fly B-24's in Vietnam jungle bombing support? It was tough, 65 years later, on a sunny tarmac in Long Beach, talking to a B-24 pilot who was there for a couple of days -- a guy who must have been pushing 90 -- to imagine the hell that the guys in the planes went through -- a lot of planes got shot down in those days and even when they didn't, the crew often got shot up pretty bad. Losing a couple members of a close knit team was not uncommon. But they were soldiers. It's even more painful to imagine the horror of innocent civilians caught up in the war. War. It's not a good use of human energy. I'm convinced. It may be unavoidable at times but... there's nothing good about it, except ending it. Anyhow... some amazing old planes. ___________ Sounds like your common sense approach to your son's phone situation is a good one. I think maybe you have to make some of your own mistakes -- not, mind you, that an iPhone is a mistake, but it might not be worth it to him in the long run or he might decide in 6 months that he wants an Android so he can participate in the whole web. (Or he might just kick himself that he bought when he did and wish he'd waited for the latest, greatest iPhone. I'm told that's a common situation. Part of learning how and when to spend, I'm thinking.) With regard to his discomfort with the ultrasonic Doppler, I'm positive he's not hearing that but he could well be hearing or discomforted by very high frequencies in or around the range of audibility that are generated by electronic components in the hardware -- much like old fashioned TV hardware (particularly the cheap stuff) often produced acoustic noise around ~16kHz by such pats as the "horizontal flyback transformer, deflection yoke, other transformers, [or] even ferrite beads in the horizontal deflection circuits." (High pitched whine or squeal from TV with no other symptoms) Here's the thing, your son might be near the top range of human hearing -- but more than a half century of extremely rigorous scientific testing has failed to reveal any humans capable of hearing any higher than around 25 kHz -- and most perceive a lot less, particularly with age. The problem with one-off, somewhat informal tests is that there are so many variables (like mechanical component noise, for instance), as well as the familiar problems of cognitive bias/distortion. That's the reason that even extremely rigorous scientific testing is expected to be revisited and replicated in order to make sure that there were experimental mistakes or other anomalies, and then the data from those tests is frequently analyzed and reanalyzed both in order to see if other conclusions may be drawn from those of the experimenters. Human perceptual testing is a minefield of potential gotchyas and perceptual scientists actually spend much of their formal education simply learning how to set up meaningful testing of perception. This latter is exemplified by the informal findings of those working from data from the Oohashi study (which had noted some unexpected results relating to subjects wearing actual blindfolds [blindfolds are almost never used in conventional 'double blind' testing as they are generally deemed unnecessary with proper experimental design and conditions]) who noted that the apparent ability of one of their subjects to perceive extremely high frequencies disappeared when they put heavy goggles on her. (I think I noted above that they supposed that it might be related to physical excitation of the subjects forebrain through the soft tissue of the eyes.) Fascinating stuff, no question.

absolute statements are a lot harder for me to swallow than all this gibberish about your so-called new-fangled flying machines. My great grandmother was already in her 60s when these were a common sight in the skies over southern California during World War II -- they were made in Long Beach, in fact. She didn't have any good answers for me when I would ask her what all those planes in the sky were. There were still plenty flying out of the old El Toro Air Station in the 50s and early 60s... She passed away a few months before John Kennedy was assasinated -- and then the planers really got thick as the Vietnam war effort accelerated. Believe it or not, they were still flying WWII vintage bombers during the Vietnam war, B-24s, B-29s, others. Of course, we're still using B-52's (designed not long after the end of WWII) today because the 'modern' bombers simply can't carry the payloads and are woefully expensive to fly and maintain, with cost of manufacture and maintenance making them thousands of times more expensive (per pound of payload). A B-17 "Flying Fortress" cockpit: I got to crawl around in this one and in a B-24 "Liberator" last week. I also got to film them right after takeoff... part of the Collings Foundation's WWII Warbirds tour. More pix: http://picasaweb.google.com/tkmajor/WWIIWarbirds#

Well... we always have to be careful about using absolutes like all, none, never, and... always.... In the past, before oversampling, when there was a much greater reliance on conventional anti-alias filtering, it was possible to see a cheaper unit that could sound better at a higher SR than at 44.1 because there was greater headroom, and, hence, more likelihood that the anti-alias filter could be effective. So, while a more expensive converter might sound just fine across the nominal range at any rate from 44.1 up, the cheaper unit might sound better at the high rate than the low one -- even though it might not even have any extra high end -- but it might be cleaner. And, while modern converters should be as I described, who know what's going to cause some anomalous behavior in a given converter? Stuff happens. That's why I try to talk about principles rather than particulars. Because the particular so often diverges from the principle. PS... Using qualifiers like many, most, usually, and the like is pretty well second nature to me now (after arguing about everything from audio to politics online for a couple decades [dial up BBs before the www]... well, actually, mostly about audio and politics) but after writing all that... I had to go back above and check to see I hadn't made any rash, all-inclusive, absolutist statements... You know... stuff happens.

Well, I think the world is flat. I see it that way so it must be so. I don't care that it's been proven otherwise. My great-grandmother, born in the decade after the US Civil War (that would be the 1870's, for those hazy on their US history), insisted that she firmly believed the earth was flat. (Not only that, she said she didn't believe airplanes actually flew.) It used to drive me crazy. There were no accepted facts or conventional logic that could persuade her. My great-grandmother, of course, was a product of a very limited education in backwoods, one-room school houses and didn't get past grammar school. She could probably be forgiven for her obstinacy and intransigence. But what are we to think of people today who have (theoretically) had the benefit of 9-12 years of mandated public or private education -- and have access to the most amazing information ever created, the internet -- yet who willfully remain as intransigent in their lack of knowledge and unwillingness or inability to use logic and common sense as my great-grandmother?

There are some decidedly incautious -- and therefore likely inaccurate -- statements above. Whenever one finds oneself using words like all, always, never, 100%... it should ring alarms. Almost nothing in this world is absolute. Lavry's extremely informal 'optimal' sample rate suggestion was simply one that would have afforded ample 'headroom' for gradual anti-alias filtration above even the highest frequencies reported as audible by humans. While most adults hearing trails off between 10kHz and 18kHz, some youngsters and young adults have been tested as hearing as high as 22 kHz or a trifle more. But, as he points out, advances in oversampling and filtration have obviated the need for these exaggerated frequency head rooms in large part. He does allow that there's probably 'little harm' in using so-called double rates (88.2 and 96 and that some FX and other DSP processes may deliver preferable results at such rates, but he adds that one can track at 44.1 or 48, upsample for processing, and then downsample for output). However, he is quite pointed in his dismissal of so-called 'quad' rates like 192kz, pointing out that there is a trade-off that exists between the number of samples taken and the accuracy of their measurement. (One may recall that sample measurement is accomplished by comparing the signal voltage very rapidly against a series of known voltage values; the more time devoted to this process, the more accurate the result.) With regard to sound transmitted through air (as opposed to bone conduction), there is virtually no accepted science that suggests humans can tell the difference between two otherwise identical signals, one with ultra high frequency componts intact and one with them removed. In other words, if you can't hear a given frequency of sound in the first place, its presence or absence in a full range signal is not going to make a noticeable difference to your perception. Or, if you can't hear it, you can't perceive it.* Guys, I've had enough of this. You are not getting an accurate reproduction of waveforms at the upper limit of human hearing when sampling at 44.1 or 48kHz and it DOES make a difference to the quality of the audio. This is backed up by Lavry's paper above and is the one point that I've consistently made that none of you have been able to successfully rebut. Lavry himself says that the optimum sample rate for audio is around 62-63kHz taking into account that the only reason that sample rates higher than this are not optimal is due to machine speeds not yet being fast enough so clearly there is a benefit from recording with a higher sample rate. That's all I've been saying for the last 2 days. I've read the math and it backs up what I'm saying so take it or leave it people, higher sample rates = better quality audio Not exactly. Higher sample rate means higher Nyquist frequency (the uppermost frequency limit of sound which can caputred and reconstructed). And, as noted earlier, before advances in sampling technology made oversampling and advanced filtration the rule, a higher Nyquist frequency meant more headroom for gradual filtering. But those concerns are eased by such advances. And there is NO science or theory that suggests a higher sample rate improves sample accuracy within the sub-filter frequency bandwidth. A properly designed, modern AD running at 44.1 should be able to deliver just as great accuracy in the nominal hearing range [20-20kHz] as one operating at 88.2 or 96. (And, as noted, increasing the SR to a quad rate may well degrade accuracy.) And with regard to frequencies above the nominal range or the discredited notion of 'High Frequency Transients,' Lavry himself wrote in his old PSW forum: Listning to transients: It is a well accepted fact that even a very good ear does not hear much above 20KHz, that most mics do not pick up energy much above 20KHz, and that most speakers will not generate sound much above 20KHz. It is also well known that most of the energy generated by musical instruments is at frequencies not much higher then 20KHz. For some reason, many ear types seem to have bought into the notion that all that I have stated above is true for some of the music, and there is also another part of the signal which they refer to as “high frequency transients”. The concept of transient energy is well accepted by all EE’s (not just in audio) to differentiate between signals made of repetitive cycles and signals that have little or no repetition. EE's and math types make the distinction between steady state and transients (non steady state) because the math and analysis of steady state signals is simpler and easier. Non steady state analysis (transient analysis) requires much more complicated tools. However, the non repetitive audio signal behaviour (transients) does NOT contain frequencies higher than audio. Non-repetitive behaviour DOES NOT require, imply or call for high frequencies. The fast attack of sound, be it drum, bell or a muted trumpet may have some low energy at frequencies above human hearing. But if your system could pick 100KHz transient energy, it would certainly be able to pick up and react to 100KHz sine wave! Why bother with 100KHz energy? If you can not hear 30Khz sine wave, you can not hear 30khz transients. The whole concept of “high frequency transient” has been repeated over and over numerous times in the audio industry, in audio magazines, in marketing material and by people intend on finding "some sort of an explanation" for various fallacies they are trying to explain or promote. After so much repetition of that faulty concept, I would not be surprised if many ear types will simply refuse to hear what I am saying but I am stating the FACTS! Example – “multiple choice test question”: Which case yields the fastest voltage change you can archive with say a 22KHz bandwidth system (such as a 22KHz mic, ear or speaker)? I am talking about the steepest slop, thus the fastest changing signal. A. 100Hz 1V peak square wave B. 1KHz 1V peak square wave C. 5KHz 1V peak square wave D. 10KHz 1V peak square wave E. 22KHz 1V peak sine wave The 5 waves are plotted below: A. 100Hz 1V peak square wave is the red trace B. 1KHz 1V peak square wave is the blue trace C. 5KHz 1V peak square wave is the green trace D. 10KHz 1V peak square wave is the purple trace E. 22KHz 1V peak sine wave is the black trace The fastest signal slope you can ever get in a 22KHz bandwidth system is not a transient. It is the slope of a steady state tone sine wave at the edge of the bandwidth - it is a 22KHz sine wave. The fastest signal in a 30Khz bandwidth system is a 30KHz sine wave, and so on. It is faster then the fastest transient you can create within the given bandwidth! I know that many in audio “became attached” to that MISCONCEPTION about high frequency transients. Sorry to burst the bubble, but it is long overdue to have that nonsense cleared up. It is time to refocus on the activity to what happens WITHIN the audio band, and put an end to that fantasy about things that do not matter and things that do not exist. If you want to test your system or your ear for "the fastest signal it can handle", go for the highest sine wave frequency within the available bandwidth. That is true for ears as well as speakers, amps and everything else. There is no such a thing as high frequency transients extending beyond the audio bandwidth. A mic that can not capture a steady state signal above say 20KHz, can not capture transients above 20KHz. The same is true for the ear, speaker or anything else in the system. We can argue about how high an ear hears, and be sure it never gets higher then 30KHz. For most people it is well below 20KHz, be it steady state or transient energy. Regards Dan Lavry www.lavryengineering.com http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/4097/0/ * The Oohashi study is often cited by those holding out for the possibility that sounds above the hearing threshold may somehow still affect perception. The conclusions of that study, initiated by a commercial interested vested in HF technology, is held in a certain amount of skepticism and it has not been replicated, as far as I know. One highly informal follow-up test from a tech- and testing-oriented audiophile group did turn up some interesting results in the case of one individual, who appeared to be able to differentiate between two otherwise identical signals, where one contained ultra HF components but the other did not. Interestingly, the subject's ability to differentiate disappeared entirely when she was wearing goggles, whether opaque or translucent. From that tidbit it was speculated informally that the highly directional UHF sound components may well have been physically stimulating her forebrain through the soft tissue of the eyeballs. With her eyes sheilded by the goggles, she was unable to differentiate between the test sounds.

Two crucial things seem to be absent in this entire thread; oversampling and reconstruction filters. Modern converters do not employ the old AD method of successive approximation as suggested in one of the posts on this page. That method required rigorously matched resistors and was spotty at best, compared to the more modern methods where you sample at (for example) 256x baserate as in a digidesign 192 interface. Working with very high sample rates and very low bit depth, the resulting signal (which shares a lot of traits with DSD) is then mathematically winded down to baserate (32, 44.1 or 48 kHz, or any of the multiples thereof). This enables us to construct better anti-aliasing filters. In other words, the selection of 44.1 or 88.2 or even 176,4 kHz sample rate is simply an instruction to the A/D converter telling it what we want out of it. It's still, to the best of my humble knowledge, working at the same speeds more or less internally. Also, at least the first four pages of discussion could have in great parts have benefitted from the mention of the reconstrucion (D/A) filter used. These are the golden item making sure that the reconstructed analog signal is close to a perfect representation of the audible frequencies going into the digitalization. I'll gladly defer to those with greater/deeper knowledge. I was basically just trying to paraphrase what Lavry had written at some points, but I believe you are certainly correct in that new oversampling strategies have changed how we approach AD and DA (and Lavry has written at length about them, as well; if there's a failure to keep up, here, I'm positive it's mine. )

PPS... I'm sure this has also come up: problems with very high sample rates. At first blush, it sounds quite reasonable to say, well, even if it's overkill, why not use very high sample rates? The problem becomes apparent when we look at how a sampler works. A sampler's clock circuit 'gives' it a certain amount of time to take a measurement of the signal voltage at the AD, approximately .000023 seconds at 44.1 kHz sampling rate or .000010 sec at 96, and .000005 seconds (5 µs) at 192. The way that measure is taken is by comparing the incoming voltage against a series of known voltages until you run out of time and have to move on to the next sample. If you are trying to take so many samples that you do not give your circuit enough time to do its work accurately, you could actually have a significantly less accurate signal -- all for the ostensible purpose of being able to reproduce frequencies that the overwhelming preponderance of solid evidence suggests are not perceivable. EDIT: My take on it is that 96 kHz is probably a pretty good compromise, if you've got the resources to support it. The aforementioned Dan Lavry has suggested that a standard sample rate in the 60-70 Hz range would have been optimal, giving plenty of headroom for the critical anti-alias filter (which, at 44.1 kHz, must do the herculean job of being wide open at 20 kHz and completely closed at 22.05 kHz -- a very steep filter under normal design considerations). However, various oversampling and filter advances have greatly improved the ability of lower sampling rates to cover the nominal range well. BTW: I also suspect the subject of DSD, which Sony originally developed as the core technology of their failed SACD push has arisen. Lavry (and others) have some very pointed comments on DSD that suggest that it's actually not much improvement at all and is probably a step backwards from conventional digital audio with higher sampling rates. http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/3002/0/?srch=dsd#msg_3002 http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/18762/974/ http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/42652/0/

Converter design legend Dan Lavry talks about various aspects of ultra high frequency considerations in this thread (which becomes an epic because of folks trying to argue away the science of the issue -- but Lavry lays out his case solidly, as one might expect from possibly one of the most deeply experienced digital audio technology guys out there. (Lavry designed digital measuring devices for medical use in the early 70s and was central to the initial efforts of filter maker Apogee in moving into converter manufacture, being responsible for some of their earliest designs and one of the two people who, as I understand it, helped design Apogee's touted UV22 noise shaping technology. He had a falling out with Apogee long ago and for years has been a source of top-end converters.) http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/mv/msg/4097/47658/0/ He talks about all the favorite issues of those who suggest that the ability to capture and reproduce 'supersonic' frequencies impacts reproduction of fequencies that can be heard. I haven't read all 230 posts here, but I feel certain at this point that the Oohashi study has been brought up, since it's a new staple of the supersonics partisans. Briefly, Japanese researcher Oohashi, working for a Japanese manufacturing concern and interpreting brain scan technology (an imperfect endeavor at the time, as it remains), performed a study which seemed to suggest -- in contradiction to years of repeated tests -- that very high frequencies well above the nominal range of human perception -- which could not discerned separately in testing by themselves -- could have a subtle impact on reported perception in a small number of people when reproduced as part of an otherwise audible signal. However, this affect disappeared in headphone tests, leading some to suspect that it wasn't an auditory function. Subsequent, far less formal tests (on non randomly selected 'expert' listeners) seemed to show that several people in a small test appeared to be able to differentiate material with and without these frequencies... but, again, as I recall it, the apparent ability to differentiate disappeared when the test moved to (very wide-range) headphones. Even more provocatively, in this informal subsequent test, when the participants wore thick goggles, they were not able to differentiate between signals with and without such supersonics. This -- and remember, this was an informal, only quasi-scientific experiment -- led some to postulate that the socalled "supersonic effect" postulated by Oohashi (but which was not backed up by subsequent studies replicating his work) might be related to a direct physical stimulation of the forebrain through the opening of the eye sockets, which might then be postulated to account for the suggestive Oohsashi results. But, again, Oohashi is one study, performed for commercial interests. And it contradicts hundreds of rigorously pursued 'pure science' research (untainted by commercial motivations). It relies on interpretations of a then less understood technology. And it has not, as far as I know, been replicated by established, reputable perceptual scientists. PS... The other arguing point that the supersonics folks often take involves bone conduction testing of supersonics -- which is central to the function of a certain form of bone-conduction hearing aid implant. But the bone conduction tests made at the behest of hearing aid manufacturers, while they showed the ability to differentiate signals with and without supersonics when 'hearing' through bone conduction, did not show any such differentiation in free air.

Hey everyone!! I figured I'd share this with you...this morning I found out that three of my photos were selected for the Top 100 Travel Photos from LA Times readers for 2009!!! I have had the photos here on my Ken Lee Photography website and my personal Eleven Shadows website for a while, and there are links from my sites to the photos, or you can click on the links below!! http://www.latimes.com/travel/photos2009/ My three photos selected for the Top 100 Travel Photos on the LA Times website: My photo of us floating through the Amazon My photo of monks in Ladakh covering their ears from the clattery sound My photo of the otherworldly Lamayuru Monastery in Ladakh, of this earth, not of this earth. OK, Ken... I usually cut you a lot of slack but I have to say... ... on this front you cheat... ... I mean, you go to all these amazing looking places... :D Congrats!

Speaking of crossfading clips... Some DAWs offer automatic crossfading -- but don't have it set by default. I've found it to be a very handy thing to have going, most of the time. Mind you, I almost always then adjust the crossfades manually, although sometimes it's not necessary. But it's a big time saver to have it happen automatically -- and then you can adjust if it doesn't sound optimal.

What Dramatic said. With regard to editing previously (and through-) recorded parts, I often do what Todd does, grabbing anywhere from a few beats to a whole measure in front of the new section. Of course, this is more oriented to a single instrument or grouping. If I'm editing the overall structure (removing/inserting a verse, chorus, bridge, etc), I often tend to break things up into that which can be sliced on the bar marker and that which needs special attention. The great thing is that, unlike when I was working with tape (where I also did my fair share of editing), you aren't working a 'zero-sum game' -- you can grab a few bars in front of a section without "paying back" by giving up a few bars at the other end (although, of course, you have to watch out that any overlaps make sense).

It all depends on project, context, players... I'm kind of an old school guy in my own projects but when I was coming up and working in other people's studios I worked with a fair number of experienced studio types who tended to break a song up into parts and record the different parts in sections. The thinking there was that, even if, on stage, a number of sections might be handled by the same guy on the same guitar (maybe flipping p/u's, adjusting tone, etc) or other instrument, to get the most effective studio construction of a given song that it was often better to track each part separately so that amp/instrument settings as well as mic position and input chain settings could be tinkered especially for that part and set up optimally. Making studio records is (often) like making feature films: you're not necessarily trying to capture reality -- you're trying to communicate the feeling of reality. Two very different things. When I made my first visit to someone else's studio in the talent role late last year after a couple decades or so of self-producing, he had a classic studio approach and, once we found our groove, he had me doing my vocals in sections. Normally, it would by my practice to sing through and comp. But that's often time-consuming (not to mentione discouraging, at times, listening to all one's mistakes and fallings-short) and, all too of often, I've found myself with pass after pass with one particular verse with problems. Lately, I've tried to absorb that lesson and take a page out of my pal's producer play book on that point...

EDIT: Looked into it a bit now that I have time, and I've been misinformed. I was under the impression that all converters worked like DSD audio (1 bit/2.8224 MHz). But all that is really beside the point, which is that regardless of the way you get to 44.1 kHz, there will be filters applied to the audio that can potentially sound terrible. Therefore, two different ways of getting to 44.1 kHz can potentially sound different. And in this case, they do. I suspect what you were thinking of is that most modern AD design involves oversampling. (DSD/sigma-delta is a little different in how it approaches oversampling, but there are certainly parallels.) A great place to read about the nitty gritty of AD and DA issues is Dan Lavry's old forum at ProSoundWeb... but it can be frustrating working your way through the posts, since there were many folks posting in there who were every bit as confused as you or I might be. One thing I do is keep an eye out for posts from Lavry himself. Here's a thread that covers at least some of these issues -- but a thorough search of his forum will undoubtedly reveal more and probably better threads on same: http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/195800/0/

Funny you'd post that, this site was the inspiration for these tests! I guess people either aren't hearing a difference in these clips or are too worried about being 'wrong' (not that there is a 'wrong' here) to post, so I'll spill the beans on what the differences are. Until now, I've always just recorded at 44.1 kHz and left it at that. The files are smaller and they don't have to be sample rate converted to become CD quality, just bit truncated. I figured this was saving me some audio quality loss but I guess I never really thought it through till now, because even if I'm not converting in software, my A/D conversion is still sample rate converting to 44.1 kHz! So you can't really get around it. Either way, you're sample rate converting at some point. Knowing this and seeing how differently software can test from the site you just posted got me wondering... I changed Cubase (and therefore my converters) to record at 48 kHz. Then I downloaded Voxengo r8brain (which tests extremely well on that site) and used that to convert to 44.1 kHz. I compared that to a clip just recorded at 44.1 kHz as I have always done before. That's what's going on in the clips I posted. Can you hear it? Which one do you think is which? As long as you're asking for more attention to this thread and your tests, I need to say that I'm not at all sure what you're getting at in this post. What do you mean that your "A/D conversion is still sample rate converting to 44.1 kHz"? Your AD is converting analog to digital at its nominal sampling rate. It's not doing a sample rate conversion. (Although there are interfaces out there that do offer onboard SRC for various purposes.) I'm not entirely sure I'm following the logic of your concerns here. I understand that you're trying to test sounds with the most direct path from original analog sound source to the test file -- which I presume is the reason you don't feed your test with the theoretically perfectly reproducible analog output of a (good, reliable) CD player. But because of the difficulties in making a meaningful comparison between two different recordings of two different performances, it's my quite strong sense that your purposes would be much better served by using the analog output of such a reliable/accurate CD player as the analog sound source for your 44.1 and 48 kHz (and any other) AD, which you could then do a proper ABX blind test comparison on, quickly sorting out real perceptions from various forms of confirmation bias. Admittedly, your common sound source would not as 'pristine' as live analog sound -- but it is virtually perfectly reproducible, making a 'level playing field' comparison possible. At least that's how I'd do it, assuming I'm really tracking the purpose of your testing.