A/D Converter High Res No high pass

[CSP]

32Hz Pipe Organ

Some 'High End' designs eschew capacitors and use DC servo circuits to keep outputs at 0 volts. I find the claims for better fidelity dubious...the MORE so since these same designers often extol the sonic virtures of transformers! The latter will always introduce more distortion than a well specified electrolytic capacitor.

Maybe it's a 'snob' thing? Capacitors are cheap, = BAD! Transformers are expensive, especially really good ones, = GOOD.

I always wonder? Say you have a totally DC coupled path from an AI to a DC servo'ed, DC coupled 200W active monitor and just ONE servo in the chain goes 18 volts ape shit? !!

I cannot remember the last time I had an electrolytic capacitor short?

Oh! BTW BSG, there is a church organ with a 16Hz pedal pipe! In Oz somewhere I think.
Dave.

Dave, You are almost correct !!!

From when I worked there (sound dept management and FOH) for its first 16years and having to have dealings with Ron Sharpe (the organ's designer and builder) the organ in the Concert Hall of the Sydney Opera House goes down to 16.35Hz (32ft).

The largest pipes of the organ belong to the Prinzipal 32 ft, the biggest four are constructed of 50 mm (2 in) thick marine plywood and are hung on the rear wall.

AND being in the room that it is installed into --- full timber paneling walls, about a 90ft high ceiling and timber floors and long enough to almost need binoculars to see the stage from the sound booth that is located almost against the ceiling at the very rear of the Hall -- when played to full extent it sounds nothing but amazing.



Photo taken from Opera House's stock photos.

David

 

[snow lizard]

I bet you could whip out a slammin' version of Louie Louie on that thing!

 

[ecc83]

Hi David, thanks for that do you know of any recordings of the organ? Would need some good headphones to get to 16Hz but would love to have a go!

I have always liked organ music* because dad was foreman of the woodwork shop for "Alfred E Davies & Sons" and from an early age I had the run of the factory of a Saturday morning when dad went in to do jobs for himself. As well as pipe organs Davies' developed a very early electronic organ, polyphonic, one double triode per key! You tuned an inductor with a 6BA nut spinner.

I have a photo of a scale model dad made of the manual of an organ that went to Africa, must dig it out.

*Despite my 'secular' nature. "Why should god have all the best tunes?"

Dave

 

[Ryan Murphy]

FTW!!!

That made my night...especially since you're probably convinced that you do .

Your concept of how digital sampling works, and your argument points...sound the way people thought about digital 20 years ago, when digital was still new to most folks and misunderstood, and there was all kinds of mythical and illogical stuff being tossed out as fact....but it's not unusual for misconceptions to be formed, as some of it can be confusing, especially when you start comparing to analog or to video...it's just that all that stuff has been explained 1000 times by now.

Go read up on it some more...the answers are out there, pretty much the same ones you are getting here.

If you listen to Jam On and Oh Brick Wall why .flac v. oh they try.flac same bass guitar straigt into the studio 9 ips 4 track. then straight into mic input and recorded on Audacity. the first two are 96khz and the third is 384khz. the bass in oh they try is much more bettet sounding. now i dont have any of that equipment anymore. it also looks like ill be getting rid of that current mother board. i like high resolution audio and I also like bass.

 

[miroslav]

If you listen to Jam On and Oh Brick Wall why .flac v. oh they try.flac same bass guitar straigt into the studio 9 ips 4 track. then straight into mic input and recorded on Audacity. the first two are 96khz and the third is 384khz. the bass in oh they try is much more bettet sounding. now i dont have any of that equipment anymore. it also looks like ill be getting rid of that current mother board. i like high resolution audio and I also like bass.

So you're comparing two different songs, two different productions...and assuming the difference in bass quality is just because of a difference in the sampling rates between them...and nothing else?

What's "9 ips"...I never heard of that...???

Honestly...and I don't mean this in any personal way...but your posts come off like you're just rambling and trying to connect totally disconnected things...and then coming to some conclusion from your apples-n-oranges comparisons.

Nothing worse than chasing ghosts that aren't there.

 

[Ryan Murphy]

its the same production, just the bass sounds better in the 384khz recording. like the shape of the notes made from the bass guitar on the track of the 384khz is slightly more round and naturaul better sounding then on the 96khz.


9 ips = 9 inch per second... special high speed cassette for high quality mixing.


i dont know what you are talking about here, but everything musical is not mathematically able to be represented a s pure sign wave here. that is why haveing higher sample rates are more natural sounding.

they cant do pure saw and they cant do pure square.
just like in video games. there is no such thing as a pure 90 degree drop on a map. it is mathematically impossible.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

9 ips = 9 inch per second... special high speed cassette for high quality mixing.

Not to say that it absolutely can't exist, but absent evidence for it we have no reason to believe such a thing does exist. I think you're either very mistaken or just making stuff up.

i dont know what you are talking about here,

That's quite apparent.

but everything musical is not mathematically able to be represented a s pure sign wave here. that is why haveing higher sample rates are more natural sounding.

Actually, you can represent a sine wave, up to any useful frequency, with normal sample rates.

they cant do pure saw and they cant do pure square.
just like in video games. there is no such thing as a pure 90 degree drop on a map. it is mathematically impossible.

There's absolutely no use to representing a square or sawtooth wave. They have harmonics that go way above anything audible.

 

[snow lizard]

There's absolutely no use to representing a square or sawtooth wave. They have harmonics that go way above anything audible.

If you're generating those shapes with a VCO synth, I don't know why you wouldn't be able to recreate them with a PCM Fourier transform.

I have serious doubts about doing that by connecting random gear to a 1/8 mic input.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

If you're generating those shapes with a VCO synth, I don't know why you wouldn't be able to recreate them with a PCM Fourier transform.

They are composed of an infinite series of harmonics. The sawtooth or square waveforms will be approximated, with everything above the Nyquist frequency filtered out by the LPF of the converter. I would expect that even in the analog domain they're already approximations.

 

[snow lizard]

Here's a paper by Dan Lavry where he's using sine, square and saw waves to describe sampling. He describes the examples as band limited.

Let's investigate a more complex waveform. We can repeat the above process for a band limited "saw tooth" wave. Below is such a wave, made by adding 16 harmonics. All harmonics above 22KHz are set to zero.

Both the ringing and the finite rise time are a result of band limiting. A perfect saw tooth would take infinite bandwidth.

http://lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-sampling-theory.pdf

Of course for any practical purpose that has to do with human hearing it would make sense to band limit within that range. One way or another it's going to happen anyway.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

I think the conclusion of that article is relevant to this thread (I bolded some text):

Conclusion:

There is an inescapable tradeoff between faster sampling on one hand and a loss of accuracy,
increased data size and much additional processing requirement on the other hand.

AD converter designers can not generate 20 bits at MHz speeds, yet they often utilize a circuit
yielding a few bits at MHz speeds as a step towards making many bits at lower speeds.

The compromise between speed and accuracy is a permanent engineering and scientific
reality.

Sampling audio signals at 192KHz is about 3 times faster than the optimal rate.
It compromises the accuracy which ends up as audio distortions.

While there is no up side to operation at excessive speeds, there are further disadvantages:
1. The increased speed causes larger amount of data (impacting data storage and data
transmission speed requirements).
2. Operating at 192KHz causes a very significant increase in the required processing
power, resulting in very costly gear and/or further compromise in audio quality.

The optimal sample rate should be largely based on the required signal bandwidth. Audio
industry salesman have been promoting faster than optimal rates. The promotion of such ideas
is based on the fallacy that faster rates yield more accuracy and/or more detail. Weather
motivated by profit or ignorance, the promoters, leading the industry in the wrong direction, are
stating the opposite of what is true.

 

[ecc83]

I think the conclusion of that article is relevant to this thread (I bolded some text):

Amen to that BSG...And, if our strange poster does not know? Lavry converters are at THE cutting edge of the technology. It don't get better than them!

Dave.

 

[jimmys69]

WOW! Haven't seen crap like this in a few years!

 

[miroslav]

9 ips = 9 inch per second... special high speed cassette for high quality mixing.

I know what "ips" refers to...I work with tape regularly...but to date, I have never heard of any tape recorders using 9 inches per second for audio purposes...and if indeed there is some cassette tape deck that runs at that speed...I find it hilarious that you can talk about "high quality mixing" in the same breath.

The speed is less relevant than the tape track width, which is why true high quality mixing to tape is done with either 1/2" tape running at 15 or 30 ips (which is considered the highest quality format)...or 1/4" tape at either of those speeds, which is the most common and second best option for high quality mixing to tape.
There are also some custom built 1" 2-track mixdown machines...but not a very common thing, and very expensive...but the real point being...it's the tape format, the increase in tape track width, not an increase in speed that makes the real difference.

Ryan...either you're misguided in your perspectives...or you're here to troll with BS stuff just to get a rise out of everyone.

Can you provide the high speed mixing cassette deck brand/model that runs at 9 ips...?

 

[bouldersoundguy]

The only tape I'm aware of that doesn't run at some halving of 30ips is DC International, a short lived competitor to Compact Cassette. DC International tapes ran at 2ips. Pretty much everything else I've heard of runs at 30, 15, 7.5, 3.75 or 1.875.

 

[Ryan Murphy]

My perspectives aren't misguided at all. You gus are either unable to listen or just plane ignoring me. It is clear that the 384khz audio is much higjer quality than the 96khz audio coming from the same Yamaha MT 100 4 track Cassette. The fact that I jave to e en explain all these things merits that your opinions dont weigh as much to me. Just because you guys have pages and pages and years worth of material to digest is bologny bevause 384khz audio sounds better than the 96khz audio comming from the exact same equipment. It's just math here.

No matter how complex their alogorithm gets he who hath the most sample will end up with the more detailed auido. It is simple math there more data in the file fornone to recreate some of these complex sounds which are well with in the range of human hearing.

so please stop all this troll trash calling nonsense

 

[bouldersoundguy]

Yamaha MT 100 4 track Cassette.

Yeah, the manual says the high speed is 9.5 cm/second, which is 3.75 ips. So now we know where you got that bogus 9 ips figure.

 

[Farview]

Yup, all of us (including the guy that designs the best converters in the world) are wrong. You with your simple more is better theory are obviously completely right. That makes a lot of sense...

Obvious trolling.

 

[gecko zzed]

Assesssing whether one particular sampling rate is better than another is best done using a double-blind test, i.e. neither tester nor assessor knows which rate is being used before the test. That way you remove subjectivity from the exercise. Confirmation bias is when you decide something is true because you want it to be.

Whether better quality is achievable with high sampling rates may be mathematically possible, but that doesn't mean that it is possible in practice. Knowledge of physics reveals why the possibility doesn't actually exist.

 

[snow lizard]

What motherboard audio chipset are you using? Why are you using the mic input?