Re: The Limits of the LP


"Steven Sullivan" <ssully@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dtdf9k$b1l$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Harry Lavo <hlavo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<nyob123@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:kEpKf.1306$S25.1180@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Jenn" <jennconducts@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:jennconducts-77CCB4.20492619022006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <dtbdlu$ibs$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Steven Sullivan <ssully@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

MINe 109 <smcatut@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <dtapsk$m1p$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Steven Sullivan <ssully@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Jenn <jennconducts@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their
reproduction of
acoustic music.


That's too bad for you, given how much easier it is to find works
on
CD
than
LP these days.
But in any case, you do realize that this is all you'll ever be
able
to
say,
right? IT's the
answer you always end up giving, no matter how much about digital
to
analog
is explained to
you. It's no sort of *rejoinder*, it's simply a statement of
preference
that
says as much, or
more, about YOU as it does about the formats. If you think LPs
sound
better
than their CD
counterparts, but still want to hear 'LP sound' on CD, I suggest
you
carefully record your LPs
to CD. That way the euphonic distortions you're enjoying so
much,a
nd
which
are missing on
well-made digital recordings, will be rendered in an exremely
faithful,
yet
far more
convenient and damage-proof, format.

I hope you sneered as you wrote that. I don't remember you being
such
a
bully-boy. Maybe there's something about Jenn that encourages your
brutal propensities.

*You* hope I sneered, but *I'm* the brutal one? Amazing. It's like
you
guys
don't
even read what you write sometimes.

As for Jenn, she's been posting her 'it doesn't matter what you say,
I
HEAR
IT' non-argument
for months on rahe.

OK, you win. I now "know" that CDs sound better, so I'll just ignore
what my ears tell me, since that's a "non-argument".

You keep saying that LP versions of violin recording sound better to
you,
that's a prefernce, but the simple fact is that a CD recording of
violins
is an exact copy of what the violin sounded like when recorde to a
master
tape.


Are you aware that with its 20khz cut off, the CD cannot perfectly
reproduce
a square wave above 2000hz.


Cut the crap, Harry. This square wave bullshit has been debunked AGAIN
AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. On numerous forums, where someone like you ALWAYS
shows up with this bogus argument.


Oooh, guess we hit a nerve.




Heres' one debunking from several years ago:

http://www.musicplayer.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=print_topic;f=3;t=000822

"Yes, this is true, we do use square waves and triangle waves in many
things.

The reality, though, is that these are only complex waveforms that have
harmonic structures such that the addition of all of the sine waves
creates a wave that is so complex as to be a square. If you filter
everything above 20k from that square wave, however, you will end up with
less than a true square. The closer your fundamental is to the 20k, the
less your ear actually hears a square and it actually hears a sine wave.
This is why the ear can't hear timbres above 10k - because it filters out
all of the overtones and all it leaves is a sine wave.

So even though a synth may be able to create a square wave at 60hz, it is
only a square wave to the point that the harmonics start to get above 20k
for our ears' sake. For this reason, if we limit the frequency to 20k, the
square wave can't be perfectly square and the triangle wave can't have a
perfect peak. The sides of the square will actually slope up to the top in
a perfect sinusoidal fashion of a 20k waveform. Just the same, the peak on
the triangle wave will actually be perfectly sinusoidal of a 20k waveform.
For this reason, the higher the fundamental, the less of a triangle and
the more of a sine wave it is. At 20k, you can't have a triangle waveform.
You can only have a sine wave. The same is true with the square waves. The
same is true with any complex waveform."

...


The bottom line with the point above is that, depending on the quality and
design of the filter, 44.1 or 48k are perfectly adequate to COMPLETELY
represent any signals under 20k. Thus, for the sake of what is commonly
accepted as our ears' hearing ability (from 20Hz to 20kHz) 96kHz recording
is totally unnecessary. For further information on the theories of the
potential validity of 96kHz, see the topic that I referred to above in my
original post. There are indeed some theories that are worth exploring,
only one of which is the "psychoacoustic" theory that we can percieve
information that our ears are not attributed to being able to hear. I must
tell you that this is, I believe, the weakest of all of the theories.

As for the notion that things that we can't hear can affect the things
that we can hear, the answer is "no". Defiantly "no". Your ear acts as the
same type of filter that we discussed above. If we take a 1kHz sine wave
and then add all kinds of processing to it of very high frequencies (50k
and such) so that in the end it doesn't really look like a 1kHz sine wave
at all, and then put a filter on it that filters out everything over 2kHz,
all you'll be left with is your 1kHz sine wave. I don't care how much junk
you added. Once you add that 2kHz filter, it's right back to a 1kHz sine
wave."


Let me point out, Steven, that this says virtually nothing about the
ear/brain's ability to pick up accurate transient information versus
distorted transient information. And before you say, "sine-wave because..."
let me point out the the ear/brain provides all kinds of ways to "adjust"
perception to account for its own limitations...for example, adjusting
perceived frequency response and stereo imaging even if one ear is
substantially difficient in high frequencies, versus the other. If the
ear/brain can do that, why do you suppose it can't interpret the beginning
of a transient and fill in the missing overones when it comes to its own
built-in physical ear limitations, but still perhaps be sensitive to the
artificail truncation of the high frequencies that nature normally allows as
input into those ears. Do I have to once again point out that "square
waves" are a man-made artifact which may be perceived as "sine waves' by the
brain, but that does not necessarily mean that the brain interprets natural
sounds the same way (you might want to reread Oohashi as to when and when
not the ear/brain can perceive ultrasonics).


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Limitations of Recommended UPS Usage
    ... engineer who has worked for power supply companies (which also made ... wasn't a sine wave, but I was expecting a better approximation). ... To your comment "Square wave would be a different story, ... transformers and motors, etc. gets a big break around 70% of the time. ...
    (comp.sys.laptops)
  • Re: Hang-Time??? Ping: Rich Koerner
    ... that everything is based on the application of the SINE wave. ... We have an amp operating at max rating. ... tracks the square wave on the left. ...
    (alt.guitar.bass)
  • Re: fourier anlysis of square wave...
    ... I convert a sine wave to a square wave using a zero crossing detector ... his zero crossings that align with sample points. ...
    (comp.dsp)
  • Re: fourier anlysis of square wave...
    ... I convert a sine wave to a square wave using a zero crossing detector ... lowpass filter on the hard-clipped continuous signal. ...
    (comp.dsp)
  • Re: Harmonic composition of a square wave-related question
    ... >>I know you can make a square wave from the sum of sinusoidals, ... infinite series of sine waves to fully define it. ... indeed to be able to consider it as a series of sinewaves. ...
    (sci.electronics.basics)