96khz 24bit profiling

  • (guitar note is complex and made up of added harmonics)


    Just because a digital converter running at 44.1khz can accurately replicate a sine wave at 20k does NOT mean it can replicate a complex sound wave digitally (say from a guitar) without distortion or aliasing issues.


    This "complex" sound wave of an electric guitar consists of multiple sine waves of different frequency and amplitude, low-passed below 10 kHz through a guitar cab. Yeah, a real challenge for a 44.1 converter :P

  • Quote

    This "complex" sound wave of an electric guitar consists of multiple sine waves of different frequency and amplitude, low-passed below 10 kHz through a guitar cab. Yeah, a real challenge for a 44.1 converter


    I've come to the conclusion this forum is the completely wrong place for any kind of academic conversation on the subject. This is a consumer forum after all.


    Will be keeping an eye out on the kemper for the future.


    Regards

  • Yes, but until the lowest common denominator gets raised a few levels, it'll all be for nothing. Once iBuds have died a death and streaming services/Internet bandwidth catch(es) up, then we can talk ;)


    Sam, I must confess I did not understand a single word of your post! 8|
    If it's a joke, I've completely missed it :/



    Can you post a link to this?


    Hard to find that post again... I'll leave that to those who feel inclined :)


    Here follow a basic bibliography:


    R. Pallocchio, Beyhond The 20 kHz Wall
    AudioReview 347, 10/2013 - NewMediaPro Ed.


    J. Boyk, There's life above the 20 kilohertz!
    California Institute Of Technology, Music-Lab 0-51


    O. Tsutomy Et All., Imperceptible high-frequency sounds influence brain activity: The Ipersonic Effect.
    Journal Of Neurophysiology


    M. NobilE, Study And Development Of A Ultrasonic Acoustic Prosthesis
    Biophysics Institute, CNR


    E. Bellone, Something, Out There
    Codice Ed.


    S. Zeki, Beauty and Misery Of The Brain
    Codice Ed.


    Mind tho, many of the above is specialized\Research publications which might require some effort to find (and reading foreign languages as well to go through). But some of them might have been translated into other languages.
    HTH

  • I've come to the conclusion this forum is the completely wrong place for any kind of academic conversation on the subject. This is a consumer forum after all.


    Will be keeping an eye out on the kemper for the future.


    Regards



    I guess that's always easier than to back up your claims. I for one would be interested in seeing the science behind this.

  • I've come to the conclusion this forum is the completely wrong place for any kind of academic conversation on the subject. This is a consumer forum after all.


    Will be keeping an eye out on the kemper for the future.


    Regards


    Guys, we got Audio Einstein coming down to us from the mountain of AD/DA processing to share his wisdom... :s


    Could you be more condescending? Please?



    For anyone wondering about viabcroce's cryptic hints, your bones and other parts of your body perceive low and high frequencies that you can't hear. So you're "hearing" those sounds, but not with your ears.


    For an example that would benefit Audio Einstein, my b@llsz feels good when they receive frequencies around 22,000-30000 Hz :D

  • I've come to the conclusion this forum is the completely wrong place for any kind of academic conversation on the subject. This is a consumer forum after all.


    Will be keeping an eye out on the kemper for the future.


    Regards


    Haha. So you were just a troll after all.

  • I've come to the conclusion this forum is the completely wrong place for any kind of academic conversation on the subject. This is a consumer forum after all.


    Will be keeping an eye out on the kemper for the future.


    Regards

    OK. Never mind that some of us here have a livelihood that depends on knowing this information in a practical sense inside and out, not just what they feel about it. Nevermind. I was looking forward to proof of your ideas. I don't mind being proven wrong if it also means I learn a thing or two.



    @viabcroce I just meant that consumer systems have a lot of catching up to do before the benefits of ultrasonic frequencies are felt by the masses. :)

  • OK. Never mind that some of us here have a livelihood that depends on knowing this information in a practical sense inside and out, not just what they feel about it. Nevermind. I was looking forward to proof of your ideas. I don't mind being proven wrong if it also means I learn a thing or two.



    @viabcroce I just meant that consumer systems have a lot of catching up to do before the benefits of ultrasonic frequencies are felt by the masses. :)


    Exactly, it is likely to be more of a hit and miss kind of phenomenon. You can't hear those frequencies, so what exactly are you sending?

  • I just meant that consumer systems have a lot of catching up to do before the benefits of ultrasonic frequencies are felt by the masses.


    Well, most consumer system aren't even able to be transparent and flat in the basic audio range. This is not a reason to block progress, or to refuse to came at grips with new knowledges or technologies.
    It's like saying "bacteria are not visible to naked eye, so why bothering with microscopes".
    Progress and development have never feared limitations and ignorance, they have fought them both in fact.
    :)


    Exactly, it is likely to be more of a hit and miss kind of phenomenon. You can't hear those frequencies, so what exactly are you sending?


    Just the original, as possible untouched signal. There are parts of that signal that are perceived through ears, others are perceived through skull and head.


    Interesting enough, experiments quoted in the bibliography I've posted here above have been run with live music recorder through existing audio devices (sampling rate: 1,92 MHz). Many instruments produce an appreciable amount of energy above 20 kHz (trumpet 2%, claves 3.8%, Rimshot 6%, cymbal 40% and so on). Volunteers have listened (double-blind) to recordings played back through an audio system which was linear up to 100 kHz while being scanned through Alpha-ECG and PET.
    The brain reacted differently depending on which version of the recording they were listening to: uncut (up to 50 kHz), low-pass (20 kHz), high-pass (20 kHz).


    This is only a small part of the experiences and tests that have been carried on in the third millennium... Something to examine in depth for sure.
    It's definitely time to rejuvenate 50-year-old knowledges and believes.

  • sambrox wrote:
    I just meant that consumer systems have a lot of catching up to do before the benefits of ultrasonic frequencies are felt by the masses.



    Well, most consumer system aren't even able to be transparent and flat in the basic audio range. This is not a reason to block progress, or to refuse to came at grips with new knowledges or technologies.
    It's like saying "bacteria are not visible to naked eye, so why bothering with microscopes".
    Progress and development have never feared limitations and ignorance, they have fought them both in fact.


    It's always tough to bring about changes like these that are dependent on both "new" technology (for consumer market, at least) and new infrastructure - and which the market is not ready for. It will be interesting to see what happens in ten or twenty years.



    Interesting enough, experiments quoted in the bibliography I've posted here above have been run with live music recorder through existing audio devices (sampling rate: 1,92 MHz). Many instruments produce an appreciable amount of energy above 20 kHz (trumpet 2%, claves 3.8%, Rimshot 6%, cymbal 40% and so on). Volunteers have listened (double-blind) to recordings played back through an audio system which was linear up to 100 kHz while being scanned through Alpha-ECG and PET.
    The brain reacted differently depending on which version of the recording they were listening to: uncut (up to 50 kHz), low-pass (20 kHz), high-pass (20 kHz).


    Yeah, I skimmed that article. It was an interesting read. One thing I was missing was how these results correlate with actual "pleasure" listening to the music. I.e. there were measurable differences (provided the experiments were sound - pun not intended), but how does it relate to the actual listening experience? Also I'd like to see the same experiment repeated with a much larger sample base.

  • I've come to the conclusion this forum is the completely wrong place for any kind of academic conversation on the subject. This is a consumer forum after all.


    Will be keeping an eye out on the kemper for the future.


    Regards


    So, Monotone, what exactly are your academic credentials? Just curious.


    Cheers,
    John

  • Are we maybe staring at the metaphorical finger?
    There's proof that we are sensitive to ultrasonic frequencies, and this is wonderful in itself. We're about to demolish one century of scientific believes... I can easily state that we can deal with the consequences later.


    What matters most is that Science (and "scientists") keep their mind open, and don't treat their knowledge as dogmas, and don't bash "others" like heretics.


    As an important person said, "you can't not believe to something you've never seen". This is, paradoxically, my scientific approach to things.
    IMO, the greatest of all the scientists is not the one who knows of every single test and statistic and can prove things wrong, but the one who lets their fantasies and imagination drive their researches and tests.


    Ad majora semper!

  • I agree with everything you say in principle, @viabcroce. It truly is an interesting and potentially paradigm-shifting prospect for the world of audio, if it proves to significantly enhance the listening experience. If history has taught us anything though, it's that the cheapest, easiest and not necessarily most high fidelity option always wins in a technology war. Unless the consumer experiences enough of a benefit to warrant the adoption of a new technology, it invariably fails. I'd love there to be enough of a reason to force change. Evolution is good!

  • I feel you, but in my perception having discovered that ultrasonic frequencies do something to me (or I do something with them) is much more touching than what the industry is going to do with it :)


    Now, whenever I listen to some music, I can't but think of what I'm perceiving w\o even being aware of it, and wonder how I am reacting w\o even noticing.
    Maybe this is the reason why live (acoustic) music can be so exciting or catchy?


    And we have just talked about ultrasonic frequencies, let's not forget the infrasonic ones ;)

  • Both monotone and Snowy appeared to have missed or deliberately avoided the point:


    There can be no benefit in recording a signal source whose bandwidth is only half that of what a 44.1kHz AD can capture, at a higher rate. None whatsoever.


    The only exceptions, as I outlined earlier, would have to involve interaction with room reflections, where frequencies not present in the source can be produced through wave filtering (materials) and addition and cancellation (sum and difference frequencies).


    Since the Kemper ignores and doesn't reproduce any reflections of the original profiling space, it can be safely said that what one is recording when using Profiles is the severely-restricted high-frequency response of a guitar cabinet, and nothing else.


    (guitar note is complex and made up of added harmonics)


    Just because a digital converter running at 44.1khz can accurately replicate a sine wave at 20k does NOT mean it can replicate a complex sound wave digitally (say from a guitar) without distortion or aliasing issues.


    Missed my point, did you? You're barking up the wrong tree, mate. Practically all your arguments are moot points, because a guitar cabinet's bandwidth is limited by definition; there's not one exception that I'm aware of.


    This "complex" sound wave of an electric guitar consists of multiple sine waves of different frequency and amplitude, low-passed below 10 kHz through a guitar cab. Yeah, a real challenge for a 44.1 converter :P


    Exactly.


    Many instruments produce an appreciable amount of energy above 20 kHz (trumpet 2%, claves 3.8%, Rimshot 6%, cymbal 40% and so on).


    Hmm... trumpet and percussion, eh Gianfranco?


    Just what I said in what I thought was my definitive post on the previous page, where I'd hoped to nail the root of the OP's concerns.


    Interestingly (for me), I didn't read about their bandwidths anywhere; I forwarded those instruments as examples based upon what is the bleedin' obvious... to my ears. Cheers bud.


    EDIT: If monotone returns, I'd like to see him apologise for his condescending attitude towards us.


    I saw no acknowledgement of the restricted-bandwidth argument; instead we were collectively lumped into the luddite bin. This sort of intellectually-elitest, high-browing, holier-than-though pontification and condescension seriously gets my goat up.


    A simple "sorry", Mr. monotone, and all will be forgiven!

  • Since the Kemper ignores and doesn't reproduce any reflections of the original profiling space


    sorry, not true.
    While the Profile won't capture the reverb of a room, it will however capture the influence the profiling space has in the frequency domain.
    very(!) close mic'ed setups will obviously have less of that influence present (the direct signal is much, much stronger) - but give the mic(s) a chance to pick up some of the room information (remember, no reverb, just frequency-wise) and it will be present in the profile.
    Otherwise the A/B comparison wouldn't work as well as it does on these profiles.

  • As far as i'm aware it's analogue outputs at 44.1khz. Pointless


    It is news to me that analog audio has a sample-rate 8)


    Seriously, I'd understand arguments such as a higher sample-rate leading to potential reduced latency or that a higher "resolution" may affect the effeciency and effect of audio-processing algorithms, but any improvement to the audio-quality of anything above 44.1kHz for digital audio coming out of a box is negligible. I'd like 96k, but only because of the potential for lower latency.

    Edited once, last by heldal ().

  • Oh dear!.. this topic of 44k vs 96 debates etc. - my take on it, is IF YOU have a bad AD/DA then higher rates will sound better. - Good AD/DA are designed strictly around 44. - and 96 is a thing of the past. - studios today, (me included) use 44 because what you hear is what you get and this is important. plus the AD/DA has improved hugely over the years and is not a concern anymore.


    So my advice is if you really do hear a better sound at 96k then its time to really upgrade your converters.. otherwise there really is NO benefits in modern day recording, the Kemper is no exception.