Home Propeller Head Plaza

Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

Re: Another Sample Of An Audio Component That Doesn't Measure Well, But Sounds Great.

Hi Tubeguy

There is a danger in using “realistic” to mean “real” or accurate, which is not necessarily the same thing.
Your ears hear things that may or may not be right.
For example, if one used a drum to evaluate two subwoofers, one finds that the sub with the higher low cutoff sounds more like a drum and of two with the same low cutoff, the more distorted one sounds more like a drum.
The reason is your ears know what a drum sounds like, knows that the subwoofer with more distortion, has more of the spectrum missing from the less distorted one.

Does that mean the more distorted one is more accurate? No, it means you expected to hear something that was missing from the more accurate one.
One often picks realism based on expectation.

So far as digitization of random signals, CD audio is a poor place to look at the state of art.
It is assumed as normal practice that for unambiguous digitization, one must have a sample rate at least 8 times the highest frequency in question.
While audio was one of the first large scale uses of the process, if you’re dealing at 44KHz sample rate, you well into hard compromises.
So, can one hear one compromise over another, maybe, is one more “realistic” than another, maybe but the root problem remains so far as “real”.
Get a decent recorder that allows recording at 16/44K and 24/96K and a decent mic and record noises around the house both ways. With good headphones the difference will be audible with 24/96K sounding much more like the direct sound.

Wish you lived near Chicago, I would have to listen to something.
Best,

Tom Danley


This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Kimber Kable  


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups


You can not post to an archived thread.