After reading some of the other stuff on that site, I'd say it's just a step above the Time cube in credibility.
Although our ears supposedly can do no better than 44.1 KHz, 48 KHz, or whatever, there is no real limit for everyone.
Anyway, back to the original article. Does the article you linked discredit mine for you? What I'm saying is do you find any truth in the article I linked, or just lies? What parts could you agree with and what parts could you reject?
Just because the majority of our ears can't discern sample rates above 44.1 KHz doesn't mean everyone's can't, and I think that was more or less his point in the article. Which would validate his point of CD's, with their sample rate, may not be the best way to preserve music.
We not only absorb vibrations, we also radiate them. For this reason, people in erratic physical states can affect others aro]und them adversely. This may sound cruel, but whenever possible, one should avoid other people who are physically agitated or erratic in their movements. We all have had the experience of being affected by others who were upset, nervous, agitated, lethargic, listless, or in some other undesirable state, but we seldom realize that it is because we are actually being physically affected by the vibrational patterns these people are radiating. It is interesting to note that dentists, who spend the most time around people who are either strongly apprehensive and frightened or in great pain, have the highest rate of suicide among the professions. In this respect, wearing a suitable garment (undershirt, vest, or jacket, for instance) of reflective material, such as the silver material developed by NASA for astronauts, could be of help in isolating oneself from unsettling vibrations in one's immediate environment, especially vibrations from other people, when it would be cruel or professionally impossible to avoid them. We have tried various possibilities, among which are undershirts of reflective material and actual outer garments made of such material (there is an excellent reversible jacket made of the cloth developed by NASA available from Norm Thompson of Portland, Oregon). It is also possible to incorporate reflecting lining in garments such as jackets and vests. This has the distinct advantage of unobtrusiveness, but has many problems to overcome, not the least of which is finding a firm willing and able to work with this difficult-to-handle material (available at better fabric stores or most theater supply stores). The Anstendig Institute will gladly make our experience in this matter available to those interested in this possibility and would appreciate hearing impressions and experiences of others who investigate it. We have also found the use of mirrors or reflective silver foil (commercial aluminum foil, with the reflective, shiny side facing away from oneself) to be effective (on the walls, for instance, to isolate oneself from the influence of neighbors[/b], etc.). Our Institute has found this particularly helpful, since the nature of our work demands observing and being sensitive to extraordinarily fine and delicate nuances that are easily degraded by the effects of outside influences on us.
It seems that the author of that site has never heard of binaural recording, which can accurately record audio as perceived by the listener.
Oh, and they essentially say that you should wear tin-foil hats to avoid bad vibrations radiating from unhappy people:
When two microphones are used, each channel is a single, complete monophonic signal documenting every bit of the particular sound event, but each from a slightly different position (in theory, only about as far apart as our two ears, i,e., the width of a human head).
It is not, nor can it ever be, a duplication of the hearing process.
Of course there limits or "flaws" in 2-channel stereo. That's why 5.1 surround is better!!!!
I'm really surprised to read such a rant. As noted earlier, it seems the writer has no clue about current recording practices.
I don't think anyone doubts that you can hear a difference between stereo and 5.1 audio, so yes, I would say stereo is not sufficient for transparent reproduction of spatially varying sound fields. Hence in the 30 years since that was written we have developed multichannel audio.
Of course there limits or "flaws" in 2-channel stereo. That's why 5.1 surround is better!!!! He seems to be saying that mono is more accurate than stereo. I'd generally disagree... I think most audio experts & professionals would also disagree. I'd say stereo is usually closer to reality... That's assuming a good stereo recording that's supposed to sound real... Most modern-popular recordings are not supposed to sound "real" or "live", they are recorded/mixed/produced to sound "good" (an artistic judgment).The frequency-limit is not a statistical normal-distribution.... It's skewed down. i.e. If the average or median limit is 15kHz (just a made-up number), there are far-more people who can't hear above 10kHz than can hear above 20kHz.... There are plenty of people who are hearing impared or deaf, and far-fewer people with super-human hearing. (20kHz is not the average limit. 20kHz is the generally accepted approximate limit for young people with good hearing.) But it also turns-out that with music, the highest frequencies are very-low level and are masked by higher-power lower frequencies. So, even if someone can hear to 25kHz (under laboratory conditions), and if there are harmonics up to 25kHz on the recording the listener can't hear those high frequencies while music is playing... You can filter-out everything above 20kHz or so and the listener can't hear the difference... Maybe you can hear a fly buzzing around, but you can't hear a fly buzzing around during a rock concert (unless it flys into your ear). The sound of the fly is still there, but it's masked (drowned-out) by the music and no matter how good, or how sensitive, your hearing is, you can't hear it.One thing I'm sure of... There are more people who think that CD is not good enough than can actually hear a difference in an ABX test!
It seems that the author of that site has never heard of binaural recording, which can accurately record audio as perceived by the listener. Oh, and they essentially say that you should wear tin-foil hats to avoid bad vibrations radiating from unhappy people:
I'm really surprised to read such a rant. As noted earlier, it seems the writer has no clue about current recording practices.QuoteWhen two microphones are used, each channel is a single, complete monophonic signal documenting every bit of the particular sound event, but each from a slightly different position (in theory, only about as far apart as our two ears, i,e., the width of a human head).I don't really know why saying that the two channels from stereophonic sound are mono themselves invalidates the notion of a stereo pair. Furthermore, most accepted recording practices don't feature a distance that is derived from the width of a human head: ORTF is close, but that is merely a coincidence, a Decca-tree has a spacing of several meters, XY has no spacing at all. In fact, a few of the very first stereo recordings (Mercury's Living Presence and RCAs Living Stereo) were done with Decca-tree like setups, so with large microphone spacing.QuoteIt is not, nor can it ever be, a duplication of the hearing process.The article is built on the notion that stereo is an illusion. That's right, stereo is an illusion that can be tampered with, and is usually not a true representation of what happened. But then, neither were all monophonic recording before the introduction of stereo, because even in the pre-stereo era, multiple microphones were used, so the 'sound' you got wasn't an exact duplication of what happened.It seems the rant states that when using stereo, it has to be perfect. All or nothing. It is not explained why. While there is some truth in the article, it seems the author wasn't happy with the introduction of stereo (like there are people now against introducing 3D-TVs I presume?) and tries to find facts that support his/her opinion.
Quote from: ktf on 27 June, 2013, 03:00:06 AMI'm really surprised to read such a rant. As noted earlier, it seems the writer has no clue about current recording practices.Well it is 30 years old . . .
the Time cube
Quote from: Rotareneg on 26 June, 2013, 03:37:05 PMthe Time cube Whoever wrote that must be taking an INSANE amount of drugs.
What if subconsciously it has an effect?
Well it is 30 years old . . .
To play devils advocate; so even if the sound is there (20kHz+) and we can't hear it, should it not be included? What if subconsciously it has an effect?
The article says stereo recording tries to emulate human hearing, but it clearly doesn't.
Quote from: almostmitch on 27 June, 2013, 10:12:36 AMWhat if subconsciously it has an effect?There are a lot of things one might entertain from the fanciful world of What If.I'm more interested in things you can prove than things you can dream-up.
Quote from: almostmitch on 27 June, 2013, 10:12:36 AMTo play devils advocate; so even if the sound is there (20kHz+) and we can't hear it, should it not be included? What if subconsciously it has an effect?To play devils advocate:What if the subconscious effect was to induce one to go on a mass killing spree?
He talks about classical music, i.e. acoustical music performed in a concert hall or so, and
he IMHO rightfully claims it's impossible to reproduce such performances with two (or more!) speakers regardless of listener physique or location.
Nowadays it doesn't...
headphone reproduction and, in particular, binaural recordings