Well if you had any knowledge, experience or indeed any valid opinion whatsoever on this subject you'd be well aware that this is not possible yet. Have you ever actually heard a combination of equipment like this in real life? Have you ever tried using that ridiculous cabinet simulation equipment, or VST valve emulators?

Of course we can't 'hear' above 22k.. we all agree that bit depths above 15 or 16 become hard(er) to differentiate.. Science and good mearuring has proved as much.. but just because we can't hear them, doesn't mean that frequencies greater than 22k or lower that 18 Hz aren't playing their part in the 'experience'...

Quote from: PKI on 2007-01-13 17:22:32

Of course we can't 'hear' above 22k.. we all agree that bit depths above 15 or 16 become hard(er) to differentiate.. Science and good mearuring has proved as much.. but just because we can't hear them, doesn't mean that frequencies greater than 22k or lower that 18 Hz aren't playing their part in the 'experience'...

How does something that nobody can detect, ever, in a decently designed test, affect anything?

You're arguing for something that looks frankly parapsychological. If it affects the person in any way, it will show up in a decently designed test.

I'm totally with those who feel this is not the thread to be discussing this, the original topic has long run its course. And without some better science, probably not the forum to be discussing it. I'm personally interested in more science behind immersive music reproduction (beyond "crank it to 11" and "add two more channels"), though, if someone will start a new thread.

Well I have a lot of knowledge, experience, and if there is a "valid opinion" on this planet I'm one of them, and yes, it is possible. It takes more processing than most people imagine (and by the way, LTI is not the approach taken, either, but you start by oversampling by 4 or 8...).

I don't quite understand your hostility. You might expect some people to be annoyed when you barge in and say a collection of inaccurate things.

Which brings me to the question - have you abxed the two? recorded a riff through your cab and head, and abxed it with the emulated equivalent?

PKI simply isn't nearly as good at explaining himself as 2Bdecided.

We, at Hydrogenaudio, *only* care about what is audible, and verifiable.

24bits may however have valid use if one is to simulate tube distortion on the dry electric guitar signal due to the gain used in the simulation.

Quote from: JAZ on 2007-01-13 20:38:20

We, at Hydrogenaudio, *only* care about what is audible, and verifiable.

This rules out any more 'what if' debate then..

Edited: Correct quote box error.

' date='Jan 14 2007, 17:46' post='464121']

Quote from: knutinh on 2007-01-14 16:35:49

24bits may however have valid use if one is to simulate tube distortion on the dry electric guitar signal due to the gain used in the simulation.

Just adding that:
Digital signal processing with software is done, at least, with 32bits floating point precision, if not 64bits (double precision). Hardware is a different story, but floating point processors are appearing more and more on these too (no longer limited to integer arithmetics).

My hostility was because a certain user was downright rude, and patronising. In a personal social situation his address to me would have caused a conflict without question, when if you read my posts it was not deserved. I had already addressed my "inaccurate" comments, and admitted that it was a poor analogy anyway.

That you'd present such arguments as they were news here on HA.org, given its rather explicit TOS and history of threads about hi rez formats, sampling rates, blind tests -- and present them in the Scientific/R&D subforum no less --  might itself be interpreted as an aggressive act, perhaps even rude and patronizing...a suspicion supported by your subsequent Mel Gibson moment.  It was by me.

I play the Hammond organ, and I can tell you that it is a great experience. It weighs about 200kg, makes all kinds of noises and smells like old sewing machine oil and hot tubes. Oh, and you need a loan as well as hefty, frequent repairs. No digital simulator has ever given me the same feeling as playing the Hammond organ. Does this mean that those simulators cannot recreate the sound with sufficient accuracy for my ears and abilities? Does that mean that Nyquist, Shannon, ABX etc is all B.S.?

One could argue that the smell and looks of an instrument never appears on a record and therefore are "luxury" stuff.

On the other hand, the musician will probably perform differently if he is satisfied with the sound (even if it is all in his head), and that will most certainly change what is recorded.

In much the same way, the listener experience in practical hifi is intertwined with sound, vision, knowledge etc.

So why would we want to tell a hifi-listener that his experience is based on superstition and that he cant hear anything at below -80dBFs, or above 22kHz? I feel no need for doing this, but I think that when discussing these matters it is important to get the facts as right as possible.

For the most important facets of life, "subjectivity" is probably highly beneficial and necessary to lead a good life and have offspring.

Quote from: knutinh on 2007-01-11 10:19:45

I play the Hammond organ, and I can tell you that it is a great experience. It weighs about 200kg, makes all kinds of noises and smells like old sewing machine oil and hot tubes. Oh, and you need a loan as well as hefty, frequent repairs. No digital simulator has ever given me the same feeling as playing the Hammond organ. Does this mean that those simulators cannot recreate the sound with sufficient accuracy for my ears and abilities? Does that mean that Nyquist, Shannon, ABX etc is all B.S.?

What's playing got to do with sampling rate or sampling bitdepth?

You're not only comparing apples to oranges. You're comparing apples to ladybugs, which are not only different kinds of fruits, heck one is not even a fruit!

Your satisfaction of playing a real Hammond obviously cannot be replaced by playing a digital keyboard. BUT, record the Hammond you played, and record the digital keyboard capable of reproducing the Hammond's sound exactly... AND LISTEN to them, using ABX. Now that's comparing apple to apple.

I suggested that the sound samples we all have available aren't truly representative of the sounds they were recording,

and that if they were better one day - perhaps 96/24 would come into its own.

I actually think it would be very cool if the hearing was proven to be more than the scientists have proven so far. Interesting. But as long as the alternative/subjectivist camp is incapable of providing coherent lines of thought that would pass the scruitiny of a 5-year-old, I suspect that any such revelations will appear from elsewhere.

This is sad because it is always more interesting to discuss with smart people than angry people, even if you disagree on everthing.

-k

If PCM and AD/DA technology can outperform our 1-dimensional hearing capabilities, and we only have two ears that can be properly stimulated using headphones... How can one practically put a person into a live concert hall, let him hear live music, then playback music recorded in the same spot using binaural tech, and do some kind of ABX?

-k

Quote

and that if they were better one day - perhaps 96/24 would come into its own.

So, why use twice the data in a way that is well understood and known to be very close to threshold if not below it, when you could double the number of channels, and attack a known problem?

Quote from: knutinh on 2007-01-14 11:22:10

If PCM and AD/DA technology can outperform our 1-dimensional hearing capabilities, and we only have two ears that can be properly stimulated using headphones... How can one practically put a person into a live concert hall, let him hear live music, then playback music recorded in the same spot using binaural tech, and do some kind of ABX?

-k

Some things to consider. 

Ears/heads/bodies have HRTF's. So they are not "1-dimensional" in very real ways.

We have two ears. They move around a lot.

If you do a binaural recording, the playback head position will not match the recording head position.

When you move around, you sample a lot of the soundfield around you. Next time you're in a non-rock, mostly acoustic concert, watch people's heads, watch how they hold them, move them, hold their bodies, etc.

Try it yourself. Watch what happens when instruments change, even with the same mono'ed PA.

Well, at the entry-point to the ear they are one-dimensional. The movement in 3d space, interactions with body etc are of course as 3d as sound itself.

A proper 2x 1-dimensional headphone, fed the right signal, should be enough to simulate any physical soundspace that we may encounter except sound traveling through our body.

Quote from: Woodinville on 2007-01-15 22:57:55

Quote

and that if they were better one day - perhaps 96/24 would come into its own.

So, why use twice the data in a way that is well understood and known to be very close to threshold if not below it, when you could double the number of channels, and attack a known problem?

To add to this, I don't care if you model a guitar and amp combination using 192/48.  When it comes to playing it back, 44/16 will not sound any poorer than "hi-rez" ESPECIALLY with a precious PRS through an over-driven Marshall.

I too have been playing guitar for a very long time and have some very nice equipment, just as good as anything you'll get from a roadie from Genesis, I assure you.  This does not give me any more or any less credibility when it comes to discussing things in this thread that are actually ON-TOPIC.

Quote from: knutinh on 2007-01-16 09:26:27

A proper 2x 1-dimensional headphone, fed the right signal, should be enough to simulate any physical soundspace that we may encounter except sound traveling through our body.

Except that your head moves around. The "headphone" would have to capture that from a very complex original source. There are some examples of this, they are presently a wee bit complex.

And you'd have to have a lot of information about the original soundfield, not two channels.

I'm sorry I poked holes in your baby.

To think Michael Gerzon was doing this stuff 30 years ago - how little we learn!

Cheers,
David.