Veri
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2018
- Messages
- 9,603
- Likes
- 12,047
Comedy goldWow, how come that doesn't make Mr Watts' ears bleed? Those spikes are (at least) 160 dB above his hearing threshold.
Comedy goldWow, how come that doesn't make Mr Watts' ears bleed? Those spikes are (at least) 160 dB above his hearing threshold.
...
...
Am I wrong? The person who asked the question got nothing other than sarcastic comments.
See John Atkinson wrestling with that very question. You tell me what his conclusion is. https://www.stereophile.com/content...ler-upsampling-digital-processor-measurements
I believe he concluded that it did indeed improve recreation of the original music?
Sorry to repeat myself here, but I DID sit in on a Chord-presented (including Mr Watts) M-Scaler dem. ...really did show a 'difference' which I have to admit I like... It turns out (if I have it correct), that the M-scaler offers different mean output levels by a couple of dB or so depending on whether it's in situ or passthrough mode. That 2dB would *definitely* make the change in sound I perceived.
And I answered that in my post #294 above.
Quote:-
Frequency response. If it's flat to 20kHz at 0dBFS, then transient response can't be audibly any better than that, for anyone, except possibly audiophile bats.
S.
End Quote.
If you don't accept that, then you have a different definition of 'transient response' to what I have, and to what most audio engineer understand by transient response. It is entirely defined by the frequency response, it can't not be.
S.
So only frequencies in the commonly accepted audible range (which are probably quite a bit below 20KHz in an adult) are all that matter? Anything above 20KHz (perhaps even 15KHz in an adult of a certain age) has no impact upon how we perceive music?And I answered that in my post #294 above.
Quote:-
Frequency response. If it's flat to 20kHz at 0dBFS, then transient response can't be audibly any better than that, for anyone, except possibly audiophile bats.
S.
End Quote.
If you don't accept that, then you have a different definition of 'transient response' to what I have, and to what most audio engineer understand by transient response. It is entirely defined by the frequency response, it can't not be.
S.
So only frequencies in the commonly accepted audible range (which are probably quite a bit below 20KHz in an adult) are all that matter? Anything above 20KHz (perhaps even 15KHz in an adult of a certain age) has no impact upon how we perceive music?
I wonder if I will get banned from the thread again for asking this question.
Yes, that is the definition of the word audible.So only frequencies in the commonly accepted audible range (which are probably quite a bit below 20KHz in an adult) are all that matter? Anything above 20KHz (perhaps even 15KHz in an adult of a certain age) has no impact upon how we perceive music?
It gets trotted out regularly. It is not taken seriously and has failed confirmation.Thoughts on this, measuring brain responses to sound outside that range?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10848570/
I had not seen it before.It gets trotted out regularly. It is not taken seriously and has failed confirmation.
It’s been beaten to death here. And just about everywhere else. A few minutes of searching should satisfy your curiosity.I had not seen it before.
Why is it not taken seriously and can you point me to data that refutes those findings?
I am genuinely curious about this topic and I wouldn't assume that everything about how the brain perceives sound is known and fully understood, given the accepted complexity of the brain (some more than others).
Thanks. That's very helpful.It’s been beaten to death here. And just about everywhere else. A few minutes of searching should satisfy your curiosity.
That comment isn’t sufficient evidence for me to dismiss the findings though and what about the other links?Yes. Oohashi has a long history of questionable stuff.
That comment isn’t sufficient evidence for me to dismiss the findings though and what about the other links?
I had not seen it before.
Why is it not taken seriously and can you point me to data that refutes those findings?
I am genuinely curious about this topic and I wouldn't assume that everything about how the brain perceives sound is known and fully understood, given the accepted complexity of the brain (some more than others).
That's the subjective part, but it seems the physiological part is accepted, so the brain is detecting frequencies outside of the audible range.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersonic_effect
Like so many pieces of research it seems that sadly the results cannot be reproduced.
I'd want to confirm that from more than one source but nonetheless noted.One more rule of thumb: be very very skeptical of anything published in the Frontiers journals. Very low standards of review, and they have essentially become the place to stick things that won’t get acceptance in high impact journals if one needs to pad one’s publication count.
Chord specs say it uses Xilinx XC7A200T, did a quick search on the Xilinx website I found this:
...Then I found an XC7A25T on a new RME HDSPe AIO Pro
https://www.sweetwater.com/store/de...-pro-multi-format-pci-express-audio-interface
So looks like much slower but this card can run TotalMix FX with tons of channels.
Also Apollo X16:
So XC7A200T should be pretty high-end right? I don't understand why artifacts at -140dB, again not about audibility, but why.