How Science Got Sound Wrong


I don't believe I've posted this before or if it has been posted before but I found it quite interesting despite its technical aspect. I didn't post this for a digital vs analog discussion. We've beat that horse to death several times. I play 90% vinyl. But I still can enjoy my CD's.  

https://www.fairobserver.com/more/science/neil-young-vinyl-lp-records-digital-audio-science-news-wil...
128x128artemus_5

Showing 8 responses by ieales

My proofing the digital vs analog thing, was to put the imaginary speakers 8 feet apart...
Is that imaging or imaginary? If the speakers are imaginary, how do the listeners hear the sound?

and put the listener 8 feet back, at the tip of an equilateral triangle, kinda thing.

then fire a signal off both speakers at the same time, a sharp tick or ping sound.

then vary the timing of the signal released off one speaker, vs the other

Humans can generally hear a ’one inch’ shift of the position of the phantom between the speakers ’ping’ sound.

This equates to a perfected zero jitter timing change of 1/100,000th of a second.
Sound travels about 13,500in/s or 74µs/in. Delaying the signal 10µs is ≈0.143in. 

So if the sound is delayed, but constant level, this will contribute phase shift alone, which is not exactly how humans hear.

atdavid: Great explanations. It's incredible these issues are still poorly understood nearly a century on.
in the same general way tuning-forks help experts tune pianos or harps
That's a HOWLER.

The CONN StroboConn came out in 1936.
The CONN ST-6 came out in 1959.
Peterson Model 400 came out in 1967.
Today, tuners clip on a guitar head and run on a watch battery.

In 50 years, I haven't seen a piano professionally tuned with a fork.

Wikipedia article to annoy Mr K
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_tuner
Musicians. Now, there is a group of people who cannot hear!
said the guy who knows one.

Of the hundreds of musicians and engineers I worked with, I'd say most could hear better than your average NASA crank.
dynamic range database
might as well have beats/minute, tracks, musicians, keys, note range, etc.

Dynamic range does not help sh.tty music.
For the math challenged:
billions = billions and billions = billions and billions and billions
    just as
6 = 3 + 3 = 2 + 2 + 2

cleeds: NO AMOUNT OF MONEY will avoid the LP’s host of artifacts. Disk playback can be very good, but it will never fool anyone that it is the master analog tape/digital file. Each step in the process degrades the sonics. Mastering, plating, mothering, stamping along with vinyl formulation each leave their greasy thumbprint. CDs and other digital media are not immune either. We choose our colorations just as we choose our wine, women and song.

PS Audio has a good series of articles on LP manufacturing in the Copper Magazine series Revolutions per Minute in Issue 90-98. https://www.psaudio.com/copper-magazine/
Lack of dynamic range automatically makes the music $hitty.
Nonsense. Sometimes dynamic range manipulation is the only way to capture it to the media.
clearthink: I feel very sorry for you, you're hurt feelings, and whatever disorder you suffer from. You seem unable and/or unwilling to relate, communicate, and discuss with me without engaging in vile, ugly, demeaning personal attacks and my patience with you're dysfunction is now exhausted so I have alerted the moderators, dear sir.
Ditto