omichalis
Date: Fri Aug 13, 2010 1:03 pm ((PDT))
On 13 =CE=91=CF=85=CE=B3 2010, at 8:54 =CE=BC.=CE=BC., James Shatto wrote:
> But they are a significant part of the sound.
if you ask me, no they are not that significant..
> If you strip them out and are familiar with the live and not recorded sou=
nd, you are very likely to notice that something is missing.
you will notice that sth is missing but not because of these frequencies mi=
ssing.. again if you ask me, this happens for a lot of other reasons - but =
this is really a huge subject to discuss here.
> Not quite right, and otherwise odd. Does a mic with a 150Hz to 15kHz ran=
ge sound the same as one with 20Hz to 20kHz?
thinking in numbers doesn' t give the field-recordist a clue about how thin=
gs sound.. The most important feature of a microphone is how it sounds and =
how it reacts to sound. A neumann 184 doesn' t sound at all like a rode nt=
-5 for example - even though their specs are very similar..
there are a lot of myths and misunderstandings on digital audio and a lot o=
f marketing tricks. Just think of this - a lexicon TC500 reverb operates @=
16/44.1 and still sounds FAR better than any behringer or mackie or simila=
r 24/96 machine..
an old nagra ARES is only 16b and I think is able to deliver better actual =
dynamic range than a lot of compact devices.. Even when we measure noise in=
dbs we tend to ignore how this noise actually sounds.. some people might p=
refer a type of noise in respect to another.
scientifically speaking I am aware of no reason that a 192Khz recording sho=
uld sound better than a 44.1. It is of course very useful to be able to rec=
ord in these rates for several applications. I have to admit as I already w=
rote that I' ve felt several times when lowering sampling rate some change =
- but without AB test I can' t say for sure whether this is an idea of mine=
or not.
then most - actually not most ALL - 24b machines do not operate @ 24b as Da=
n wrote.. Bob Catz explains this somewhere in his book - that most AD conve=
rters deliver 18-20b at its best. so even this is allways misleading. Don' =
t expect a mikrotrack to operate @ 24b for example.. uder no circumstances =
is such a machine able to deliver 140dbs of dynamic range..
What I do tend to believe is that while humans are not able to hear such so=
unds - that they are still perceivable but not as sound - I tend to believe=
that we might be able to subconsciously sense them in some other way - but=
this is just a hunch and not some scientific knowledge - we don' t have no=
proof of something like that ! and we need years of experiments to even c=
ome up with some indication of such a fact..
m
|