[Abmolech]

I'd say that physics says that statment is wrong.

And just what part of physics would you use to show that?

 

[WRX/Z28]

Are you asking because you don't know, or because you think I don't know? I'll assume both.

The principle in physics that would prove this would be the "Superposition Principle". The "interference principle" would also show this. All sound interacts with itself through reflections, diffractions, acoustic coupling, cancellation, and so on.

 

[Abmolech]

http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos.html

 

[dtviewer]

Are you asking because you don't know, or because you think I don't know? I'll assume both.

The principle in physics that would prove this would be the "Superposition Principle". The "interference principle" would also show this. All sound interacts with itself through reflections, diffractions, acoustic coupling, cancellation, and so on.

You are really reaching now..........where is any 'proof' that the cut-off frequency of a cd has any affect on what we hear? Where does it say or even imply in what you posted that the frequencies that are cut off by a cd's filter interact in a way that could be heard?

Your original argument was
"The sound above human hearing levels still interacts with sound within hearing range, why do you think they raised the range on SACD and DVD-Audio?"

Also, what makes you think they raised the range on SACD and DVD because it affects the sound?

 

[WRX/Z28]

You are really reaching now..........where is any 'proof' that the cut-off frequency of a cd has any affect on what we hear? Where does it say or even imply in what you posted that the frequencies that are cut off by a cd's filter interact in a way that could be heard?

Your original argument was
"The sound above human hearing levels still interacts with sound within hearing range, why do you think they raised the range on SACD and DVD-Audio?"

Also, what makes you think they raised the range on SACD and DVD because it affects the sound?

Reaching for what? The truth? Scientific principle? I don't understand where the "reaching" is. I've sat through many vendor releases including those of SACD and DVD-Audio. One of the benefits they touched on in depth was the effects raising the frequency range had on human hearing, and everything below the improved ranges. I can't recite it word for word unfortunately, my memory is not that good. I can tell you that the impact 20k-30k has on 20-20k is greater than you would expect. If you are resistant to this belief, you are probably the same person who doesn't beleive that 33's sound better than cd's, and that MP3's have no impact on sonics if you keep the bit rate up.

Human hearing is a much more sensitive instrument than most of you guys give it credit for. If it wasn't, most of us would all own identical systems in our cars, the subtle differences in speakers would be inaudible. Fortunately, most of us do have good hearing, and can appreciate those differences.

Think of it this way, a 10hz tone is supposedly inaudible, however, you can still tell when one is being played. There are other effects...

 

[dtviewer]

Reaching for what? The truth? Scientific principle?


*What scientific principle? You havent posted any.

I don't understand where the "reaching" is. I've sat through many vendor releases including those of SACD and DVD-Audio.

*Vendor releases? So marketing is where you are getting this from? I didnt know vendor releases were based on 'scientific principle'.

One of the benefits they touched on in depth was the effects raising the frequency range had on human hearing, and everything below the improved ranges.

*Who is 'they'? Someone with an interest in pushing a product?

I can't recite it word for word unfortunately, my memory is not that good.

*I feel you on that one....mine either!

I can tell you that the impact 20k-30k has on 20-20k is greater than you would expect.

*YOU can tell me, but I dont usually believe without some scientific evidence to back it up.

If you are resistant to this belief, you are probably the same person who doesn't beleive that 33's sound better than cd's,

*You are right there...I dont believe 33's sound better than cds.

and that MP3's have no impact on sonics if you keep the bit rate up.

*Of course they sound worse than the originals...

Human hearing is a much more sensitive instrument than most of you guys give it credit for. If it wasn't, most of us would all own identical systems in our cars, the subtle differences in speakers would be inaudible. Fortunately, most of us do have good hearing, and can appreciate those differences.

*No, I understand how sensitive our hearing is. Thats the whole of my argument. Human hearing is understood VERY VERY well. It was understood very well when the standards for the CD were written also.

Think of it this way, a 10hz tone is supposedly inaudible, however, you can still tell when one is being played. There are other effects...

above

 

[WRX/Z28]

I haven't posted any scientific principle? Please see post #144.

By vendor releases, I mean the release on the specifications and such for SACD and DVD-Audio, although I have sat through many vendor "trainings" as well. Alot of the better vendors actually go through the mechanicals of their product quite well, not all of them do though. Think of sound waves as waves in a pond. Small waves interact with big waves and peaks and trough's cancell each other out to varying degrees. Every sound interacts with other sounds, and sounds that strike an object will even create heat to a small degree. The effects of sounds above 30k may not be as great as 20-20k, but they are still there, and in the relentless search for perfect SQ, it's something to think about.

 

[dtviewer]

*OK one more try...........

I haven't posted any scientific principle? Please see post #144.

*I saw post #144. Where is there anything in post 144 that in any way proves or even implies that sounds above the cut off point on a cd affects the sound we hear?

By vendor releases, I mean the release on the specifications and such for SACD and DVD-Audio, although I have sat through many vendor "trainings" as well.

*Means nothing....where is proof that the higher cut off freq. of a dvd or sacd is audible?

Alot of the better vendors actually go through the mechanicals of their product quite well, not all of them do though.

*I'm sure monster and bose do as well......not sure I would call that proof of anything.

Think of sound waves as waves in a pond. Small waves interact with big waves and peaks and trough's cancell each other out to varying degrees. Every sound interacts with other sounds, and sounds that strike an object will even create heat to a small degree. The effects of sounds above 30k may not be as great as 20-20k, but they are still there, and in the relentless search for perfect SQ, it's something to think about.

*Again, that is in no way proof that, as you claim, sound above the cut off point of a cd would affect the sound, or that the higher cut off on sacd is audible. I'm still waiting for facts.......

Posted

 

[WRX/Z28]

Ok, well, if you don't want to bother to educate yourself further, unfortunately I don't have the time to sit down and put together a presentation on it for you. I tried to make it as easy as possible to see, but lets face it, what could I possibly gain from you understanding that 20k-30k info will affect sub 20k info? Nothing. If you research those two priciples, you might be able to educate yourself on why this is true. How much it makes a difference is all up to the music content.

 

[dtviewer]

Ok, well, if you don't want to bother to educate yourself further, unfortunately I don't have the time to sit down and put together a presentation on it for you. I tried to make it as easy as possible to see, but lets face it, what could I possibly gain from you understanding that 20k-30k info will affect sub 20k info? Nothing. If you research those two priciples, you might be able to educate yourself on why this is true. How much it makes a difference is all up to the music content.

Lol-a presentation? I asked for just one link, one fact other then you claiming it to be so. You came up with nothing.
I am all for learning new stuff. If what you claimed is true, I would love to hear it.If there is truth to the argument, I would like to educate myself about it. But instead of you proving anything you throw out things like "thats what they said at a vendor release".
So I ask, where did you "try to make it as easy as possible to see"?
I still stand by my post that the high frequency cut off on cd's does not affect the sound.

And, once again, your original argument was
"The sound above human hearing levels still interacts with sound within hearing range, why do you think they raised the range on SACD and DVD-Audio?"

I have seen nothing to back that up.

 

[pikers]

No
Music is subjective.
Sound reproduction is science.

Apologies for mixing the statements up. This is absolutely true. The issue is that people tend not to be identical in their perception due to auditory, psychological, and environmental variables. To focus on audibility only is the easy way out, but leaves too much on the table.

The only people that try to make it subjective are the people who have little or no qualifications to make objective statements.

I would say there is a gap between people that have a ton of experience with a wide variety of equipment and content, and those who understand the physics of it all in a more complete manner. Unfortunately, the two tend to be mutually exclusive.

Let me guess, your a qualified electrical engineer right?
Or at least SOME electrical training. This is basic physics.

Well, I know enough to not kill myself with current, and to be a successful systems designer for over a decade. One doesn't need to be a meteorologist to tell when it's going to rain, either.

The only mystery is why people can't grasp basic physics, and even worse, turn around and try to lecture EE on cables.

The problem is, with musical reproduction, there is far more going on in the ear/brain connection that simple electrical theory. This is where EEs get confused to the point where they think understanding one element is to understand all.

Spend your time doing something more productive, like cooling the Sun with your breathe.

lol I know, trying to talk to people with their cookie-cutter EE degrees to defend is a waste of time.

 

[Abmolech]

There isn't anything to discuss, the science of transmitting a 20 Hz- 20 KHz signal through a transmission line is incredibly well documented.

If it is NOT well documented, it should leave the field wide open for someone to complete their doctorate in.

Point
I believe we can eliminate transmission lines from the "weak link" category, and move onto more important matters.

 

[Daishi]

There isn't anything to discuss, the science of transmitting a 20 Hz- 20 KHz signal through a transmission line is incredibly well documented.

And this is the statement that makes me laugh at those that try and argue that cables impart some immeasurable addition to sound reproduction. It's like somehow cable manufacturers have found the mythical addition and refuse to tell anyone else about it and that all scientists in the world are idiots I guess they forget that the EE's are the ones that have built the equipment they use.

 

[pikers]

And this is the statement that makes me laugh at those that try and argue that cables impart some immeasurable addition to sound reproduction. It's like somehow cable manufacturers have found the mythical addition and refuse to tell anyone else about it and that all scientists in the world are idiots I guess they forget that the EE's are the ones that have built the equipment they use.

The problem is, with musical reproduction, there is far more going on in the ear/brain connection that simple electrical theory. This is where EEs get confused to the point where they think understanding one element is to understand all.

I'll repeat this until it gets through.

 

[ca90ss]

Wise man once said "IF they measure the same they will sound the same".
Words to live by.

 

[dtviewer]

The problem is, with musical reproduction, there is far more going on in the ear/brain connection that simple electrical theory. This is where EEs get confused to the point where they think understanding one element is to understand all.

I'll repeat this until it gets through.

Through in what way? We are discussing an electrical signal though a wire. No mystery there at all-and hasnt been for many many years.

Simple electrical theory sums it up pretty well.

 

[pikers]

Wise man once said "IF they measure the same they will sound the same".
Words to live by.

If they measure the same they SHOULD sound the same (provided two scopes measure the same; calibration is a factor). Alas, we are not all created equal. Not only that, but pride in ownership, appearance, and brand cache all matter in the psychological aspect. These are things that admittedly broaden the discussion, but are critical considerations when discussing any purchase in audio, cables or otherwise.

 

[dtviewer]

Wise man once said "IF they measure the same they will sound the same".
Words to live by.

Exactly. I dont understand why this is so hard for some to grasp. It has been PROVEN MANY MANY MANY times over, (not only with cables but with amplifiers also.) PROVEN. If it measures the same, it sounds the same.
There is no disputing that there have been numerous tests and challenges done-literally thousands. And guess what-they have all had the same result.
No one has ever been able to tell the difference in a double blind test.

 

[ca90ss]

pride in ownership, appearance, and brand cache all matter in the psychological aspect. These are things that admittedly broaden the discussion, but are critical considerations when discussing any purchase in audio, cables or otherwise.

We're talking about the science of cables. None of that stuff matters in a double blind A/B/X test. We already know that there are plenty of people who buy into the snake oil and hype of high end cables and other useless tweaks and no amount of scientific data will change their minds.

 

[pikers]

Exactly. I dont understand why this is so hard for some to grasp. It has been PROVEN MANY MANY MANY times over, (not only with cables but with amplifiers also.) PROVEN. If it measures the same, it sounds the same.

It really hasn't been proven, because the people that pose the tests really have little to no experience with anything other than their test samples and subjects.

Not only that, but these assumptions are a little naive. To assume that everything that measures the same sounds likewise is to basically negate the millions that observe the difference (and have done so) for years. So if you want to replace millions of consumers with a few thousand tests that predisposed to a certain result, that's up to you.

No one has ever been able to tell the difference in a double blind test.

You people still think this? This myth has been zapped for years. It's still clung to because there hasn't been a sanctioned white paper to prove otherwise, but oh yes, it's done.