Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[CCC]

Johnny B wrote on Mon, 26 December 2005 18:08

I've simply posted links to some valid and direct evidence, evidence which would be admissible in any court of law

Oh, good, now you're a lawyer too.

Tell me, Oliver Wendell Holmes, what do you think happens to someone's credibility on the stand when they ignore direct questions repeatedly, or merely offer half-baked evasive responses? I don't think the right against self incrimination extends to sock puppets, so no pleading the fifth...or the 11(c) [in case you are a country-man of mine - and I do ardently hope not].

Questions currently before the witness, awaiting an answer;

1. are you a recording engineer? have you at least ever been inside a recording studio?
2. what is your name?
3. assuming you are a recording engineer then what is the media budget for your next recording project. please elaborate on the projected breakdown between 2", your choice of 2 track media, and dats/cds you might burn through. do you plan to archive/safety to 2" or perhaps 48 dig or something else?
4. how do you rationalize your fetish for that part of the spectra above 20k with your purported fetish for band-limited recording and playback media?
5. how do you rationalize your disdain for those postings in which you are derided with your own bitter vitriolic postings? is abuse only 'professional' when it comes from a non-professional like you? and is it only un-professional when directed at you by actual professionals?

Now I'm guessing your answers will be something along the lines of "multidisciplinary pleasure centres are important and analog is awesome, digital fan boy, I should know because my father-in-law is an accountant", but if you can struggle against your basic nature and actually answer at least a couple of direct questions without embarrassing yourself (do sockpuppets blush?) that would be stunning.  

[canada]

it burns IT BURNS

[J.J. Blair]

Make Believe Fan Boy

Emmm, so far, the data strongly suggest that young women have far better ears than old, middle-aged, white men.

That must be why they prefer boy bands, Kenny G and Michael Bolton.

[t(h)ik]

Johnny B wrote on Tue, 27 December 2005 00:50

sixtiksix, Emmm, so far, the data strongly suggest that young women have far better ears than old, middle-aged, white men. Whether or not this holds true for various groups of women of different ages or national origins is an "open question." .... And, that's all good science! Cheers.

Sir,

I think this point is brilliant!  Because it is a very open question.  If a woman was say, twenty-five and her national origin was say, Canada she could still be young and hear differently than a middle aged man, or not, a very open question.
Conversely a filly of twenty-one would still be young and may or may not be Canadian and could be deaf as a fukken door nail.  This line of reasoning is extremely intriguing and I stand corrected; from my brief interlude with science at the chemistry lab at university and as a systems technician for twenty-three years I find your posts to be very scientific if not cutting edge.

Your new fan,

lemme nough

tik

[Tidewater]

J.J. Blair wrote on Mon, 26 December 2005 23:53

Make Believe Fan Boy Emmm, so far, the data strongly suggest that young women have far better ears than old, middle-aged, white men. That must be why they prefer boy bands, Kenny G and Michael Bolton.

-snork-

Ok, this thread is locked!

(I don't have admin privs, so just pretend like it's locked)


M

[John Ivan]

sixtiksix wrote on Tue, 27 December 2005 02:49

Quote: Emmm, so far, the data strongly suggest that young women have far better ears than old, middle-aged, white men. Whether or not this holds true for various groups of women of different ages or national origins is an "open question." .... And, that's all good science! Cheers.   Sir, I think this point is brilliant!  Because it is a very open question.  If a woman was say, twenty-five and her national origin was say, Canada she could still be young and hear differently than a middle aged man, or not, a very open question. Conversely a filly of twenty-one would still be young and may or may not be Canadian and could be deaf as a fukken door nail.  This line of reasoning is extremely intriguing and I stand corrected; from my brief interlude with science at the chemistry lab at university and as a systems technician for twenty-three years I find your posts to be very scientific if not cutting edge. Your new fan, lemme nough tik

Oh Man,, TIK,,,  Don't mention 25 year old Canadian Women . I LOVE the women in Canada!!! Of course, I'm off the market now and I'm a good boy but,, Canada and 25 year old women bring back great memories..    { I think I'm gona cry}.

Ivan..............

[t(h)ik]

The problem is they're all 52 now...

LMAO










just kidding brough


tik

[Johnny B]

If some people do not want to better understand the sound frequency spectra that the science shows has a positive influence on human beings, and whether or not specific populations around the world are influenced any differently, and to utilise good science conducted by unbiased multidisciplinary teams of qualified experts to determine "How much?" of the frequency spectrum is truly important, is their own decision.

However, that will mean that they will likey remain in a state of ignorance as to this particular issue. Moreover, if they should go off and repeat the myth that all human hearing is limited 20Hz to 20kHz, and then jump to the inappropriate conclusion that "ONLY 20-to-20 is important" for digital sound capture and reproduction purposes, they shall do so without valid evidence. Further, the attidude that "We already know it all" is the kind of attitude that holds back scientific inquiry which normally leads to needed technological advances.

People have been complaining about the sound of digital for years. This continuing digital state of "not quite right sound" (to put it mildly) raised some serious questions, many of which remain unanswered. When you have people making comments such as "Listening to digital is like sticking an ice pick in my ears," despite 25 years of "efforting" by the chip makers, then it's clearly time for digital proponents to do some rigorous re-thinking, if not, some rigorous soul-searching.

Having a complete, comprehensive, freely-accessible, scientific database that has been compiled by unbiased multidisciplinary teams of qualified experts and has been properly "peer reviewed," as has been suggested above, will clearly aid those who want to improve digital sound quality.

Some people here seem to have an irrational fear against even making more accurate scientific inquiries, let alone, an irrational fear against the coming digital technological advances. Perhaps part of their irrational fear and lashing out at the messenger is based upon the knowledge that "All digital gear is obsolete on the day it was designed" and that they will sooner, rather than later, be forced to junk what digital gear they have and buy new gear, I dunno

"Why" do I prefer the sound of analogue over digital? That's a good question. I suspect, I cannot now prove, that analogue technology captures the emotions and translates them to the listener better. As a direct result, people like me, and many musicians prefer the sound and the expereince of analogue.

As for analogue technology's so-called "limitations" being thrown up again, I see that as a smokescreen, an attempt to deflect attention away from honestly acknowledging the many deficiencies in digital, including, but not limited to, math errors, inadequate communication speed, total system thoughput problems, and the poor CD and MP3 formats. The attempt to throw up such a smokescreen rests upon a logical fallacy and is being used by some to try to hold back both scientific progress and digital's coming technological advancement.

I suspect, but cannot prove yet, that removing the artifical and arbitrary 20-to-20 frequency barriers from digital, thoroughly examining the data of the "important" frequencies for human populations to experience pleasure compiled by unbiased multidisciplinary teams of qualified experts, will result in the clear need to increase digital sound's sample rates. The decision to do so will thus rest upon a solid foundation of peer-reviewed science.

I also suspect that the bit-depth in digital sound will need to be increased far beyond the mere representation of the sound wave, there will be some waste in the form of additional unused bits, but this "bit waste" will be more than offset by corresponding boosts in overall system performance. As it is, inadequate bit-depth is something of a barrier to system throughput, it reminds me of the old 640K memory barrier, where the intermediate process of memory bank-switching could not be eliminated and slowed the system down having a negative impact on system performance. In any event, whether I'm right or wrong about getting more overall system throughput by bit-depth expansion, bit-depth expansion in digital sound will still need to be addressed. Any bottlenecks that can be removed, should be.

In the meantime, people can hire wonderful analogue facilities all over the world. This is a great idea because even the digital advocates admit they like the sound of analogue and one also can satisfy the needs of those who still prefer the sound of analogue, such as, many musicians.

Happy musicians means better performances, therefore, hiring an analogue facility makes a lot of good sense.

Cheers.

         



   

[CCC]

I rest my case.  

[acorec]

Johnny B wrote on Tue, 27 December 2005 13:17

... "Why" do I prefer the sound of analogue over digital? That's a good question. I suspect, I cannot now prove, that analogue technology captures the emotions and translates them to the listener better... Cheers.

I always wondered why pro machines used 2" tape. I guess 1" is for musical tracks and the other 1" is for the emotions.
I learned something today. Thanks!

         



 

[Jon Hodgson]

Johnny B wrote on Tue, 27 December 2005 18:17

I also suspect that the bit-depth in digital sound will need to be increased far beyond the mere representation of the sound wave,

I'd love to know what else it is we're supposed to be representing in a sound recording. The thought waves of fairies perhaps?

[TotalSonic]

acorec wrote on Tue, 27 December 2005 18:46

Johnny B wrote on Tue, 27 December 2005 13:17 "Why" do I prefer the sound of analogue over digital? That's a good question. I suspect, I cannot now prove, that analogue technology captures the emotions and translates them to the listener better... Cheers.   I always wondered why pro machines used 2" tape. I guess 1" is for musical tracks and the other 1" is for the emotions. I learned something today. Thanks!

The thing you have to do with digital is go to the system menu and then choose
File -> Preferences -> Recording ->
and then unclick "Always Remove Emotions"

Most people don't know about this button - which is too bad considering how much "damage" has been inflicted to date.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Malcolm Boyce]

Jon Hodgson wrote on Tue, 27 December 2005 17:25

I'd love to know what else it is we're supposed to be representing in a sound recording. The thought waves of fairies perhaps?

I think JB said something about the musical intent of the players, or something like that.  I don't know what the sample rate or bit depth would have to be for that.

[Tidewater]

Just in case you guys are looking for the next really big thread, I thought I'd chime in with one I am watching.

PHNT: Potentially Huge New Thread


M

[Johnny B]

For all you digital advocates, get ready to spend gobs more money if you want to keep up. This new and burdensome expenditure in more digital gear will, if proper cost-accounting principles are applied, make the hiring of an analogue facility all the more cost-effective.    

Now, some people seem skeptical that digital sound will have to undergo some serious change and add exciting new technology insuring that existing digital rigs are now obsolete. Important to note is that the "hot new stuff" will not use the old burst tech found in the old Intel CPU's; instead, it is based on an entirely new architecture.

Perhaps this recent quote from Intel's CEO will shed some light on the darkness and get some people to reevaluate their current "state of denial."

"You're going to see Intel combine its R&D innovation, manufacturing and technology leadership with energy-efficient micro-architectures and powerful multicore processors to deliver unique platforms best tailored to individual needs," Intel's Otellini said. "We will deliver 'factor of 10' breakthroughs to a variety of platforms that can reduce energy consumption tenfold or bring 10 times the performance of today's products."

Intel's Mr. Otellini is, in essence, telegraphing the message:

All the existing digital gear is obsolete.

Cheers