PrinceGaz wrote:
I'm sure I would feel it, just crank up the power and we could have the whole
room resonating with the right frequency, but we were talking ultrasonic, not
subsonic. Unless the sound pressure level was high enough to harm and
cause you pain, I doubt anyone on the list
When I was about 17, I could hear the high voltage flyback transformer
whine in a televison set. If I remember correctly that is about 18khz,
and the technical book I was reading at the time said it was inaudible
to most people, but some with very good hearing would be able to hear
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
something that is off-topic
Guys,
Can we conclude that mainstream audio-gear (and hi-end probably to!) is
incapable of producing anything above 22kHz. This means that harmonics
of with a base of 11kHz of higher can't be reproduced! So please lets
return to MD.
Ralph -
Christopher Spalding wrote:
besides which who says we use our ears to detect these "inaudible"
frequencies, we can't hear a 5Hz tone, but we know when it's happening.
Christopher Spalding
Genius, generally excellent and gifted person.
I'm starting to question that a lot!
--
Jim Coon
"J. Coon" wrote:
Christopher Spalding wrote:
besides which who says we use our ears to detect these "inaudible"
frequencies, we can't hear a 5Hz tone, but we know when it's happening.
Christopher Spalding
Genius, generally excellent and gifted person.
I'm starting to question that
"J. Coon" wrote:
It wasn't the 5Hz tone I was referring to. The original post mentioned
frequencies above 20Khz and used the 5Hz as an example. Anyone that has
seen any of the Starwars movies has felt the low freq rumble.
If you play a high frequency sound loud enough you will feel it. I
From: Magic [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"J. Coon" wrote:
Christopher Spalding wrote:
besides which who says we use our ears to detect these "inaudible"
frequencies, we can't hear a 5Hz tone, but we know when it's happening.
I'll sit you in front of my bass tube and play a 5Hz tone at
===
= NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please =
= be more selective when quoting text =
===
Well, if you put enough energy in anything
Question: what sort of speaker did they use to send sounds in (presumably)
the 15-30KHz region. Unless they used specialised ultrasonic transducers
there is little knowing what you were hearing. [Gaz is tempted to mention
sub-harmonics but thinks that is bull and thinks he is in enough trouble
Colin Burchall wrote:
Have you ever been in the presence of
an old ultrasonic remote control and been annoyed by it?
No, thankfully.
Can you hear
the squeal from ultrasonic proximity detectors?
Sometimes the ones in libraries and supermarkets. Its more like feeling it in the back
of
Hi list,
I apologise for suggesting that perhaps Magic popped down to
some dodgy hifi shop or a home diy-electronics freak to have his
hearing tested. I still find it hard to believe you can hear so-called
ultrasonic signals but I obviously have no evidence and therefore
accept that you can.
Magic wrote:
I had my hearing tested at a centre that specialises in auditory testing after I
claimed to be able to hear things many others couldn't. Bearing in mind most of the
doctors at his centre had more letters after their name that you could fit on the
average MD label, and the
PrinceGaz wrote:
Hi all,
Early on (late 70s) I read human hearing typically ranged from 16Hz-16KHz,
and the high frequency limit fell as one aged. Now like any amplifier, speaker
or whatnot the ear might well have a fall off at the high end (a doctor would
be best to confirm this).
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 08:01:36AM -0400, J. Coon wrote:
When I was about 17, I could hear the high voltage flyback transformer
whine in a televison set. If I remember correctly that is about 18khz,
and the technical book I was reading at the time said it was inaudible
to most people, but
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Magic hits the PRINT key when he sees what Ralph Smeets wrote:
Hmm,
some DSP theory (applied in ALL MD equipment cappable of A/D D/A coversion (a
little bit simplified in order to keep the mathematic mungle out):
snip complicated maths stuff
Ok, so it
Magic wrote:
Well I can definately hear the difference between a triangle, square and sine
wave at 14kHz, and I'm no fruit bat! I do have quite acute hearing though, as I
can hear frequencies up to 25kHz, which is quite unusual - certainly surprised
the person testing my hearing anyway!
Magic wrote:
isn't the point that this type of distortion would effect the overall
sound at these frequencies? It
doesn't really make much difference if the end result is a triangle,
square, sine, inverse sine,
or wobbly sine with a pimple on top - the point is that it has changed the
Colin Burchall wrote:
The difference between a sine wave and a square or triangle wave is the
absence of harmonics in the sine wave. For a fundamental frequency of
14KHz, the first harmonic present in a square or triangle wave will be
one octave higher, or 28KHz. Even your somewhat
Hi all,
Early on (late 70s) I read human hearing typically ranged from 16Hz-16KHz,
and the high frequency limit fell as one aged. Now like any amplifier, speaker
or whatnot the ear might well have a fall off at the high end (a doctor would
be best to confirm this).
I can believe a guy about
Magic hits the PRINT key when he sees what Ralph Smeets wrote:
Hmm,
some DSP theory (applied in ALL MD equipment cappable of A/D D/A coversion (a
little bit simplified in order to keep the mathematic mungle out):
snip complicated maths stuff
Ok, so it works vastly different from PC sound
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ralph Smeets [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You're correct here. But the error correction system only accepts
single bit errors... Ie, guessing mode is entered very quicly. (A
dust particle is sufficient!)
Hardly, it accepts long spans of errors, as you would
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
besides which there are those (and from what i've seen, they have a pretty
solid case - my main sources are AudioTechnology Magazine in Australia) who
believe that 44.1kHz, 16bit audio leaves a lot to be desired - the current
top CONSUMER audio is 24 bit 96kHz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But what the accuracy of the data comes down to is that whilst the error
correction my cause the errors on the discs, etc to be unnoticable, it is
still ony the machine's best guess as to what should be there, so it isn't
exactly what the original should sound
Magic wrote (in reply to me)
simon 1) Wot IS a "high frequency dynamic" ?
Think of the opposite - low frequency dynamics. You know those really low
sub-bass sounds you can't actually hear as much as you feel them. The same
can
happen with high-frequency sound, in that they are
On 27 Sep 99, at 8:11, J. Coon wrote:
I and many other listen to music. We enjoye the music made by other persons,
or sometimes the music that we played ourselve. And whether the music
is played on some low-end device or on a high-end device that doesn't
really mather. Well... it does
On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 10:26:46AM +0200, Ralph Smeets wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But what the accuracy of the data comes down to is that whilst the error
correction my cause the errors on the discs, etc to be unnoticable, it is
still ony the machine's best guess as to what
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 10:26:46AM +0200, Ralph Smeets wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But what the accuracy of the data comes down to is that whilst the error
correction my cause the errors on the discs, etc to be unnoticable, it is
still ony the
Ralph Smeets wrote:
Magic, Magic, Magic,
a 22kHz sine-wave sampled at 44kHz stays a sine wave. If you would know
anything about Discrete Signal Processing you would now. (AD/DA conversion
isn't just connecting dots)
Cheers,
Ralph - very sleepy...
That could be a real bastard for
Christopher Spalding wrote:
But what the accuracy of the data comes down to is that whilst the error
correction my cause the errors on the discs, etc to be unnoticable, it is
still ony the machine's best guess as to what should be there, so it isn't
exactly what the original should sound
Eric Woudenberg wrote:
If you have a Sony deck, you can try the procedure outlined here:
http://www.minidisc.org/mds503_test_mode.html
It will be interesting to hear what you find.
I've just performed the test in a Hi-Fi shop - the person there is also an MD
enthusiast. Memorex
But what the accuracy of the data comes down to is that whilst the error
correction my cause the errors on the discs, etc to be unnoticable, it is
still ony the machine's best guess as to what should be there, so it isn't
exactly what the original should sound like. It may only be the
I'm still inclined to say bunk.
Christopher Spalding wrote:
But what the accuracy of the data comes down to is that whilst the error
correction my cause the errors on the discs, etc to be unnoticable, it is
still ony the machine's best guess as to what should be there, so it isn't
exactly
besides which there are those (and from what i've seen, they have a pretty
solid case - my main sources are AudioTechnology Magazine in Australia) who
believe that 44.1kHz, 16bit audio leaves a lot to be desired - the current
top CONSUMER audio is 24 bit 96kHz (this is the DVD Audio format).
Christopher Spalding wrote:
But what the accuracy of the data comes down to is that whilst the error
correction my cause the errors on the discs, etc to be unnoticable, it is
still ony the machine's best guess as to what should be there, so it isn't
exactly what the original should
Christopher Spalding wrote:
Rupert Neve (if you have to ask who that is, don't bother responding to
this
email), ...
Red rag to a bull, mate!
Who is this guy, and why should we care what he says ?
aside from swearing that the best analogue will always sound better,
feel better an
But what the accuracy of the data comes down to is that whilst the error
correction my cause the errors on the discs, etc to be unnoticable, it is
still ony the machine's best guess as to what should be there, so
it isn't exactly what the original should sound like. It may only be the
No.
- Original Message -
From: Christopher Spalding [EMAIL PROTECTED]
besides which there are those (and from what i've seen, they have a pretty
solid case - my main sources are AudioTechnology Magazine in Australia) who
believe that 44.1kHz, 16bit audio leaves a lot to be desired - the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* "Wei Zhang" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 24 Sep 1999
| What kind of educational background does he have ? He is very wrong. I work
| with people who have PhDs in audiology and engineers who have a sound
| educational background and experiments with
Just as I figured. He must write for What Hi Fi.
I say double bunk.
Christopher Spalding wrote:
Rupert Neve (if you have to ask who that is, don't bother responding to this
email), aside from swearing that the best analogue will always sound better,
feel better an generally be better
Christopher Spalding wrote:
Rupert Neve (if you have to ask who that is, don't bother responding to this
email), aside from swearing that the best analogue will always sound better,
feel better an generally be better than any analogue,
The guy is an analog designer. What do you expect him
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Christopher Spalding wrote:
... thus the higher quality the media the more
likely it is that the reproduction will match the orriginal.
Simon Barnes replied :
This does not follow. "Better" quality media MAY experience less errors (or
may be
Jim Coon wrote:
Bunk
which bit(s) ?
simon
-
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't think they make bunk bits, Simon. You have it confused with
bunk beds.
Simon Barnes wrote:
Jim Coon wrote:
Bunk
which bit(s) ?
simon
-
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
I'm not entirely certain about the validity of Sony's claim although I do
have a tendancy to believe that the more reliable the media the more
accurate the reproduction will be (this applies to all data, sound and
video
formats digital and analogue).
That belief is flawed, at least for
I'm not entirely certain about the validity of Sony's claim although I do
have a tendancy to believe that the more reliable the media the more
accurate the reproduction will be (this applies to all data, sound and
video
formats digital and analogue).
That belief is flawed, at least for
Christopher Spalding wrote:
It actually takes a metal class tape to store digital data on, and even on
these you will notice that DAT occasionally will have glitches and it
You can store digital data on any medium you like, for instance, knots in a
string (you might need a lot of
Christopher Spalding wrote:
... thus the higher quality the media the more
likely it is that the reproduction will match the orriginal.
Simon Barnes replied :
This does not follow. "Better" quality media MAY experience less errors (or
may be entirely marketing hype), but as
At 05:17 AM 9/18/99 PDT, you wrote:
I'm not entirely certain about the validity of Sony's claim although I do
have a tendancy to believe that the more reliable the media the more
accurate the reproduction will be (this applies to all data, sound and video
formats digital and analogue).
That
Well given some peeps on this list probably *do* believe certain
colour / coated discs sound better or whatever, I don't blame Sony
for continuuing this nonsense. Personally give me a handful of
HiSpace blanks and I'll be happy-- I've *NEVER* had a duff disc
since I bought my MZ-R3. That's
49 matches
Mail list logo
