Subject: Re: Frequency response was Re: [linux-audio-user] Audiophile CD's
From: Gary Counsellor (sineigs_AT_eskimo.com)
Date: Mon Jan 28 2002 - 00:28:21 EET
On Sunday 27 January 2002 12:00, you wrote:
> > I believe the nyquist theorem is correct as far as it goes but did not
> > take into account that the sounds created by an instrument that are
> > outside of our hearing range.
>
> Um... the Nuquist Theorem doesn't really have anything to do with sounds,
> in particular. It's something that is true for *all* waveforms. It
> doesn't need to take into specific account freqencies we can't hear - I can
> apply it to light waves and it still works.
I've no doubt that it works or is usable but I kinda liken recording mediums
and the methods we use to the "worlds longest tube of differing diameters".
You're no wheres near the source of what your hearing, but under such
restrictions as your media or listening device constraints you to. BTW Just
outa curiosity, I'm not wanting to start any major OT discussions but ..
Is light actually wave, partical, both, niether, one or the other with
properties of both???? I've always been really confused about the findings
and never clear on the results or conclusionsions. It has often made me
wonder (OK totally untrained mind with severe lack of discipline admitted to)
>
> Weisstein says in the CRC publishing of his website (which I purchased
> before they sued him for the site...) under the entry for the Sampling
> Theorem that to reproduce all of the Fourier frequencies for a waveform,
> one must sample at a frequency f, where f >= 2B. Sampling at f = 2B is
> called Nyquist Sampling. Sampling at f > 2B is called Oversampling, and
> does not add artifacts or lose any information.
Does sampling at f=2b loose any information?
>
> A quick Googling for "nyquist theorem proof" turns up few precise proofs,
> but also more mathematical analysis of Shannon-Nyquist than I could shake a
> stick at.
>
> Twice the bandwidth - not just a good idea: It's the law.
Being persuaded more by morality than legality and both being relative aside,
I'm all for capturing what I feel is necessary for a great take, the more the
merrier I always say. But I agree empty space is just that (under these
circumstances).
>
> > I haven't
> > heard of too many tools being created to measure what we don't hear and
> > how it's persistance in existing affects what we can hear.
>
> Well, if a sound outside of my hearing range affects a sound inside my
> hearing range, I don't need to study the sound that was too high - if I
> could hear artifacts of the interaction, I can simply study the
> interaction.
I was under the impression the resonant harmonics, artifacts etc. can be the
result of unheard as well as heard sonics interacting and that the playback
(percieved sound) of subsequent recording would suffer if that data was not
included with the recording or alter by adding it after the fact. similar to
the phono preamp mentioned earlier for the "vinyl warmth" effect.
>
> > (you try playing a trumpet quietly (chuckle) but it don't sound much like
> > a real trumpet).
>
> As a student of classical trumpet, I resent the implication present here!
> ::-)
>
> Ross Vandegrift
> ross_AT_willow.seitz.com
Never in a million years would I ever wish to offend anyone purposedly.
(this is a lie but I try to resist, really)
(by the smiley I'm assuming you understood my meaning) ( a trumpet needs x
amount of air traveling throught it to create a proper note and there is a
mininum volume that can be sustained and still produce that note but one
should never try to reduce that volume by half and still sound like a
normally played trumpet. Although breathy, half played trumpets sound cool
in their own right.) And in reality, in our homes we do not wish to listen
to a trumpet at reular volume but we want to hear it as if we were.
But I'll risk it again Is classical trumpet related to 'regular' trumpet
much the same as classical guitar is related to 'regular' guitar?
Or do you mean classically trained? I've heard of Bach trumpets, which I
assume were played with Bachs 'classical' music... I'm glad I hired for my
results. though if I were to be paid according to how much I don't know, I'd
be rich!
I don't mean to upset anybody but I don't believe I've ever heard the
playback of a recording that captured the actual instrument. Pro, vinyl,
digital or other. Great recordings are made that I'll listen to over and
over again wether based on real instuments or not but to me it isn't the
same as listening to the instuments being played right there. This makes me
happy when ever I get into an elevator.
As far as recording goes we always master a mix to sound as we (or the
producer or the customer) feel it should be percieved to sound. Wether, in
reality, you could hear the highhat over everthing else is of little
consequence to it's needing to be heard during playback.
I guess I feel sometimes we get wrapped up in details that we feel may make
a difference. To capture realistically all the sound, sibilance, harmonics
of an instrument that would never be heard in reality under real
circumstances is the quest we're on?
Or just to have something sound the way we want it to with the best quality
we can muster with what we have to work with at the time.
-- Gary Counsellor http://www.musician2000.com sineigs.all.attitudes_AT_eskimo.com Please remove.all.attitudes before replyingIn 1977, there were 37 Elvis impersonators in the world. In 1993, there were 48,000. At this rate, by the year 2010 one out of every three people will be an Elvis impersonator. (Source: N/A)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Jan 28 2002 - 00:13:46 EET