That's certainly plausible, but again, it's how high this frequency is what seemed odd to me. It's in the range of frequencies where a middle-aged person probably wouldn't even be able to hear it, so it seems odd to me that a musical choice would be made involving frequencies that are barely audible or not audible at all to a significant part of the population.
One of my neighbors couldn't understand a high pitched vocalist on the radio but her daughter could and this singer was in her early twenties and the daughter was in her preteens. The vocalist is one of the biggest names in the type of music she produces and has even been in a few T-Mobile commercials, the last couple of years.
The vast majority of people just listen to their music to enjoy it and don't even think about looking at the spectrogram. Because someone is unable to hear certain high-pitched sounds because of their age doesn't mean that can't enjoy it. If the music is produced by someone that is young, then it's likely that they weren't even aware or cared if some middle age person could hear all of it or not.
I tend to think of music as one's (or a group's) auditory art and crafts.
All of this in principle is true (as I said, the music sounds fine), but again, look at the spike in the Audacity frequency analysis and how high it is in frequency. Using your example of a high-pitched vocalist — to put this into perspective, a standard 88-key piano's highest note is the C8, corresponding to a (fundamental) frequency of 4.186kHz. The vocalist your neighbor couldn't hear certainly sang lower than this, and our frequency (the spike in the song) is closer to 18kHz!
I've thought about this, but aren't those sorts of tones a continuous line throughout the spectrum, and at a somewhat lower frequency? Also, as was stated before, since this album is mostly "artificial" (made with synths/VSTs), I'm not sure where in the mixing/mastering/production chain such a spurious interference could have found its way onto the track.
I'm going with a (benign) bug in the percussion synth.
Conceivably, if the synth is based on a sample, then it could be an interfering tone captured with the sample, but this seems less likely to me.
Hm, now that's quite possible. As far as "benign" goes, well, for me I guess it is (I am close to middle-aged, and according to a test I did a few months ago, I can't hear past about 17.2kHz, so this tone for me would be inaudible), but as it happens with those flyback transformer on the back of TVs that are accidentally captured, for some people it can be audible and even annoying, so assuming this wasn't an intentional artistic choice and indeed some bug/glitch in the sample/VST that was used, I wonder how many people noticed and found it unmusical.
EDIT: I reiterate, if a 30-second sample can be legally uploaded (in accordance with TOS9) that could help elucidate this situation, by all means, let me know.
I'm using to play CDs (direct from disc, not rips) to Pioneer N-P01. For the most part, it works perfectly.
When I choose 'pause' in foobar, an error appears about an unsupported operation. Since I cannot do anything about this, it would be nice to have an option to suppress the error. A bit more annoying issue: foobar does not remember the paused position, it will start the track again from the beginning.
Last post by chawinupara -
Hello! I'm thinking of buying a bluetooth over-ear headphone to use for listening to music and also for gaming on my Nintendo Switch.
Ideally, I'd like a headphone with good audio quality for listening to music, but also with low latency for gaming (I mostly play RPGs, not FPS so multiple audio driver for different sound position is not a necessity). Therefore, a headphone supporting AptX-LL codec with good audio quality might be what I'm looking for (the AptX-LL supported bluetooth transmitter for my Switch is a problem I can probably solve later on after finding the right headphone).
So, I'd really appreciate any suggestion for the headphone, or any points I might have missed . I'd like it to be no more than $200 as well if possible. That's as much as I can afford at the moment.
I actually have my eyes on a Sony WH-CH700N for now (no AptX-LL support, only AptX and AptX-HD). The audio quality seemed to be alright and the price is just right for me (I don't really needed ANC but its there). Sadly it's still missing AptX-LL. If I can't find a better alternative, I'll probably end up buying this and give up on bluetooth gaming if the latency on AptX-HD is that bad.
However, to be intellectually honest -- that information that the human brain can synthesize, the ability to use the shape/structure of the ears' environment and the hard-core physics of the environment -- that is GREATER than just the two sensors. That is why more information can be gleaned.
Right. You could put it this way: There are a lot of assumptions built into human hearing. Some of them are learned, others are "wired in". This is a reason why hearing can be fooled and occasionally produces wrong impressions.
Stereo only works because of this. A phantom source isn't anything physical. There is no phantom source in the sound field. It is the post-processing of the signal from our two sensors (ears), which creates (the impression of) the phantom source.
You could say that with stereo, human hearing gets it consistently wrong. Stereo is a way of using a specific deficiency of human hearing to fool it into hearing a 3D sound field that isn't there. We all know that this illusion breaks down easily (sweet spot etc.).
Good -- that is the kind of point that I was trying to make. We all (including me) have this trouble of seperating real (simple) physics from what our minds can do. Normally, to me, the real world is how I perceive it -- but that is actually not true. The same kind of thing applies to audio perception.
All of this said - even though we have clarified the difference between HEARING and SOUND, for the purposes of audio ENJOYMENT, hearing is more of the goal than sound. Sound (I mean, the physics and technology to reproduce) is important -- making a lot of hearing enjoyment possible, so we cannot discredit either.
Where we get in trouble is doing the reverse of 'Sound directly helping to make hearing work' -- which is valid. Trying to describe the real world (reality) by depending solely on what one simply hears can cause confusion -- as you implied above, perceptual errors.
It is so very nice that English (and probably a lot of other languages) allow us to distinguish between SOUND (the physics) and HEARING (what our brains perceive.) If we don't distinguish between the two, audiophile-land can be very confusing, and is probably a major reason for all of the 'audio-religion', and wine-tasting-esque descriptions of audio out there. There are real technical descriptions available, but until the idea of SOUND and HEARING are seperated, then a lot of people are going to stay confused, but not know it.