Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Maximum

R

Radium

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hi:

Sorry, I had to start a new thread on the same subject, because some
imbecile decided to add OT crap.

I am asking a technical question. No offense but please don't bring in
irrelevant topics [such as budget]. I was asking in terms of quality
for human auditory perception.

What are the maximum *practical* limits of the following for an FM
synth:

1. Number of voices:

2. Operators per voice:

3. Number of channels**:

**Yamaha's OPL3 has 18 channels

quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_YMF262 :

"Twice as many channels (18 instead of 9)"

Obviously the "40,000-voice, 4,000-operators-per-voice, 10,000-
channeled" [described in many of my previous posts] would be well
above the *practical* limits.

If you think, that the highest frequency a human can hear is 20 KHz,
you are so so wrong.

For the ignorants who believe the obviously-false conventional myth
that humans can't hear pitches above 20 KHz, please read the stuff
below:

On the Threshold of Discovery

NATHANIEL HECHT

SCIENTISTS HAVE QUOTED NUMBERS CONCERNING THE RANGE OF human frequency
perception for years. But it was Drs. Fletcher and Munson, back in the
1920s, who tested thousands of people and stated that humans hear
frequencies from around 20 Hz to 20 kHz. These numbers have been
drummed into our professional collective consciousness by text books,
psychology departments, audio training and manufacturer specs for so
long that, for many years, no one really questioned them.

Yet it has been long understood that musical instruments obtain their
unique sound characteristics due to harmonics or overtones that
require an extended range of frequencies? beyond the instrument's
perceived frequency range. Spectral analysis has proven the presence
of overtone series well above 20 kHz with many instruments? and even
human speech? showing partials up to 40 kHz, and up to 100 kHz for
triangles and cymbals. (J. Boyk, ?There's Life Above 20kHz ? A Survey
of Musical Instrument Spectra to 102.4kHz,? http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk.)

Furthermore, a researcher named Oohashi tested subjects to determine
how brain wave activity is affected by ultrasonic frequencies.

(High-Frequency Sound Above the Audible Range Affects Brain Activity,
AES Preprint No. 3207.) He determined that under blind conditions his
subjects were responding to ultrasonic frequencies up to 60 kHz!
Oohashi determined that the mechanism for transmission was bone
conductivity to a small organ in the inner ear called the saccule,
which is wired to the cochlea, the organ responsible for the majority
of hearing perception in humans.

Another theory of ultrasonic hearing involves the rhythmic pulsation
of the cilia in the inner ear. Prior to the observation of this
pulsing, it was widely understood that the cilia of the inner ear
would vibrate at different frequencies of perception allowing the
cochlea to receive these signals. But when the cilia pulse as a group
or groups, the theory is that this pulse is in response to frequencies
well above the currently accepted audible range.

There are also theories on the way the brain uses ultrasonic
frequencies. It has been proven that profoundly deaf people use
ultrasonic detection to accurately perceive speech and tone (M.
Lenhardt, et. al., ?Ultrasonic Speech Perception,? Science, Vol. 253,
July 1991). Recent theories postulate that ultrasonic frequencies
provide directional cues to non-deaf brains as well. If proven, they
could have wide-ranging implications for any program designed for
placement, such as surround sound effects and sound mixes for various
media. Further exploration into human ultrasonic perception could
change the way manufacturers design their products. Many researchers
are keeping quiet, waiting for more data before presenting their
findings, but we're bound to hear more about this research, and S&VC
will, of course, present the news as it breaks. (Thanks to Dr. Paul
Mills, chief engineer at Tannoy Limited, for additional information.)

Any assistance, understanding, and cooperation on this matter are
greatly appreciated.


Thanks,

Radium
 
E

Ed Edelenbos

Jan 1, 1970
0
Radium said:
Hi:

Sorry, I had to start a new thread on the same subject, because some
imbecile decided to add OT crap.

I am asking a technical question. No offense but please don't bring in
irrelevant topics [such as budget]. I was asking in terms of quality
for human auditory perception.

Let me ask *you* a question... is all this academic or are you making
music (or programming a soundcard perhaps)? I'm asking in terms of wasted
time and effort weeding through your stupid posts.


Ed
 
R

Radium

Jan 1, 1970
0
Let me ask *you* a question... is all this academic or are you making
music (or programming a soundcard perhaps)? I'm asking in terms of wasted
time and effort weeding through your stupid posts.

I am just curious as to what the maximum rational limits of the 3
specs are?
 
H

Homer J Simpson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Sorry, I had to start a new thread on the same subject, because some
imbecile decided to add OT crap.

What's with the cross posting?
 
H

Homer J Simpson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Radium said:
They are cross-posted only to relevant groups

sci.electronics.basics,comp.music.midi,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.audio.tech,alt.music.midi,alt.audio.equipment,alt.music-lover.audiophile.hardware

??
 
E

Erik de Castro Lopo

Jan 1, 1970
0
Radium said:
Hi:

Sorry, I had to start a new thread on the same subject, because some
imbecile decided to add OT crap.

They're selling these all encompassing solutions to people who aren't
programmers and don't understand the workings of the systems.
I am asking a technical question. No offense but please don't bring in
irrelevant topics [such as budget]. I was asking in terms of quality
for human auditory perception.

When you got sold on W2k, did you know that IE7 wouldn't work on it?
Did you know that in 5 years you would either have to upgrade or use
old applications on the system at great expense?
What are the maximum *practical* limits of the following for an FM
synth:

1. Number of voices:

You can't simply recompile IE7 or any other newer application for your
old system on Windows. When your tier of technology is gone on windows,
that's it. Like the VS6 stuff with asp and vc6 cpp libs. It means
almost a total rewrite, and another huge investment 5 years down the
line. Unix is a way more stable development and business environment
in my opinion, and I've been coding for a while. Linux and companies
like Redhat and Novell provide platforms you can base portable posix
code on that will last for another couple decades with upgrades.
2. Operators per voice:

Sure it may cost more to make your system on linux, but when it's done,
it will last forever. Well, you know what I mean, you'll add stuff and
change it, but the base will never be wiped out, like when MS asked
people to recode all their apps with C# and .NET
3. Number of channels**:

These aren't technology or computer people that run these businesses
and they're taking the words of sales people which happen to be microsoft
partners. If only there was a way they could get the facts. To know
exactly what using MS over *nix really means for them in the future.
Thanks,

Radium

No, thank you!

Erik
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
"If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them
down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason."
-- Jack Handey
 
R

Radium

Jan 1, 1970
0
<snip>

Look dude, not trying to be cruel but if you're not going to add
relevant info to the thread then please pound sand where the sun
doesn't shine.
 
H

Homer J Simpson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Radium said:
On Mar 12, 4:50 pm, "Homer J Simpson" <[email protected]> wrote:
Look dude, not trying to be cruel but if you're not going to add
relevant info to the thread then please pound sand where the sun
doesn't shine.

You're the one who is whining about the responses here. Try picking one
group.
 
R

Robert Wm Watson

Jan 1, 1970
0
"In conclusion, our findings that showed an increase in alpha-EEG
potentials, activation of deep-seated brain structures, a correlation
between alpha-EEG and rCBF in the thalamus, and a subjective preference
toward FRS (Full Range Sound), give strong evidence supporting the existence
of a previously unrecognized response to high-frequency sound beyond the
audible range that might be distinct from more usual auditory phenomena.
see - http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548
 
R

Radium

Jan 1, 1970
0
"In conclusion, our findings that showed an increase in alpha-EEG
potentials, activation of deep-seated brain structures, a correlation
between alpha-EEG and rCBF in the thalamus, and a subjective preference
toward FRS (Full Range Sound), give strong evidence supporting the existence
of a previously unrecognized response to high-frequency sound beyond the
audible range that might be distinct from more usual auditory phenomena.
see -http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548

Exactly.

"(J. Boyk, ?There's Life Above 20kHz ? A Survey of Musical Instrument
Spectra to 102.4kHz,? http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk.)"

That is why the sample-rates in any digital audio system must be at
least 3x 102.4 khz. Mathematically, the sample-rate must be at least
2x the highest frequency signal. However, due physical phenomenon, its
safe to set the sample rate to at least 3x the highest-frequency
signal.

So get rid of that 44.1 KHz sample-rate and replace it with 307.2 KHz,
since the highest-frequency currently known to be in the range of
human hearing is 102.4 KHz.

All CDs should be re-formatted from their primitive 44.1 KHz sample-
rate and 16-bit resolution to 307.2 KHz-sample-rate and 24-bit-
resolution.

I demand that the audio industry make the above increase ;-)
 
M

Mr.T

Jan 1, 1970
0
Radium said:
"(J. Boyk, ?There's Life Above 20kHz ? A Survey of Musical Instrument
Spectra to 102.4kHz,? http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk.)"

That is why the sample-rates in any digital audio system must be at
least 3x 102.4 khz. Mathematically, the sample-rate must be at least
2x the highest frequency signal. However, due physical phenomenon, its
safe to set the sample rate to at least 3x the highest-frequency
signal.

So get rid of that 44.1 KHz sample-rate and replace it with 307.2 KHz,
since the highest-frequency currently known to be in the range of
human hearing is 102.4 KHz.

All CDs should be re-formatted from their primitive 44.1 KHz sample-
rate and 16-bit resolution to 307.2 KHz-sample-rate and 24-bit-
resolution.

But since we are happily ignoring scientific, physical, and human auditory
reality, why stop there?
Lets go for 1MHz and have another huge degree of overkill, "to be sure, to
be sure"
(in the finest Irish accent :)

MrT.
 
R

Rick Massey

Jan 1, 1970
0
Radium said:
Hi:

Sorry, I had to start a new thread on the same subject, because some
imbecile decided to add OT crap.

I am asking a technical question. No offense but please don't bring in
irrelevant topics [such as budget]. I was asking in terms of quality
for human auditory perception.

What are the maximum *practical* limits of the following for an FM
synth:

1. Number of voices:

2. Operators per voice:

3. Number of channels**:

**Yamaha's OPL3 has 18 channels

quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_YMF262 :

"Twice as many channels (18 instead of 9)"

Obviously the "40,000-voice, 4,000-operators-per-voice, 10,000-
channeled" [described in many of my previous posts] would be well
above the *practical* limits.

If you think, that the highest frequency a human can hear is 20 KHz,
you are so so wrong.

For the ignorants who believe the obviously-false conventional myth
that humans can't hear pitches above 20 KHz, please read the stuff
below:

On the Threshold of Discovery

NATHANIEL HECHT

SCIENTISTS HAVE QUOTED NUMBERS CONCERNING THE RANGE OF human frequency
perception for years. But it was Drs. Fletcher and Munson, back in the
1920s, who tested thousands of people and stated that humans hear
frequencies from around 20 Hz to 20 kHz. These numbers have been
drummed into our professional collective consciousness by text books,
psychology departments, audio training and manufacturer specs for so
long that, for many years, no one really questioned them.

Yet it has been long understood that musical instruments obtain their
unique sound characteristics due to harmonics or overtones that
require an extended range of frequencies? beyond the instrument's
perceived frequency range. Spectral analysis has proven the presence
of overtone series well above 20 kHz with many instruments? and even
human speech? showing partials up to 40 kHz, and up to 100 kHz for
triangles and cymbals. (J. Boyk, ?There's Life Above 20kHz ? A Survey
of Musical Instrument Spectra to 102.4kHz,?
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk.)

Furthermore, a researcher named Oohashi tested subjects to determine
how brain wave activity is affected by ultrasonic frequencies.

(High-Frequency Sound Above the Audible Range Affects Brain Activity,
AES Preprint No. 3207.) He determined that under blind conditions his
subjects were responding to ultrasonic frequencies up to 60 kHz!
Oohashi determined that the mechanism for transmission was bone
conductivity to a small organ in the inner ear called the saccule,
which is wired to the cochlea, the organ responsible for the majority
of hearing perception in humans.

Another theory of ultrasonic hearing involves the rhythmic pulsation
of the cilia in the inner ear. Prior to the observation of this
pulsing, it was widely understood that the cilia of the inner ear
would vibrate at different frequencies of perception allowing the
cochlea to receive these signals. But when the cilia pulse as a group
or groups, the theory is that this pulse is in response to frequencies
well above the currently accepted audible range.

There are also theories on the way the brain uses ultrasonic
frequencies. It has been proven that profoundly deaf people use
ultrasonic detection to accurately perceive speech and tone (M.
Lenhardt, et. al., ?Ultrasonic Speech Perception,? Science, Vol. 253,
July 1991). Recent theories postulate that ultrasonic frequencies
provide directional cues to non-deaf brains as well. If proven, they
could have wide-ranging implications for any program designed for
placement, such as surround sound effects and sound mixes for various
media. Further exploration into human ultrasonic perception could
change the way manufacturers design their products. Many researchers
are keeping quiet, waiting for more data before presenting their
findings, but we're bound to hear more about this research, and S&VC
will, of course, present the news as it breaks. (Thanks to Dr. Paul
Mills, chief engineer at Tannoy Limited, for additional information.)

Any assistance, understanding, and cooperation on this matter are
greatly appreciated.

I'm going to answer this so that you will finally shut up about this, even
though I already told you (several times) that until you actually study the
field in some detail a lot of our responses to you won't mean anything.

Operators per voice: FM is a less processor intensive way to get some of the
benefits of Additive. Synthesis. But when you get to the point where you can
do things with additive, then the headaches and randomness of FM becomes not
worth the effort. This happens, depending on the harmonic structure of the
sound, somewhere between 52 and 64 operators, less if you have white noise
as an oscillator option along with the sine waves.

Number of voices: This is wholly dependent on how much density and weight
your composition requires. There is no easily quantifiable answer to it. How
many notes do you want to play at once?

Number of Channels: Again, this is a fuzzy thing. How many different timbres
do you need for your composition?

One more thing. Imbecile is a fairly rude term. If you want people to
respond to you, don't be insulting.

Oh, and this will be the last time I cross-post a response to you. In the
future, all responses will have the other groups removed, as I have done in
the past in many of my responses to you. So if you're looking to read what I
have to say, you're going to have to start reading the newsgroup I post
from. I strongly suggest that all other responders do the same, so that we
can stop all this annoying crossposting.
 
Y

Yoda

Jan 1, 1970
0
One more thing. Imbecile is a fairly rude term. If you want people to
respond to you, don't be insulting.

Oh, and this will be the last time I cross-post a response to you. In the
future, all responses will have the other groups removed, as I have done in
the past in many of my responses to you. So if you're looking to read what I
have to say, you're going to have to start reading the newsgroup I post
from. I strongly suggest that all other responders do the same, so that we
can stop all this annoying crossposting.

Better yet, just stop responding to this troll. He REALLY WILL go away
if you ignore him.
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
Sorry, I had to start a new thread on the same subject, because some
imbecile decided to add OT crap.

I am asking a technical question. No offense but please don't bring in
irrelevant topics [such as budget]. I was asking in terms of quality
for human auditory perception.

What are the maximum *practical* limits of the following for an FM
synth:

Well, I'm sorry too, because you've just specified conflicting
requirements.

The only way to determine what's "practical" is to ask "how much money do
you have to spend on it?", IOW, "budget" is the most important factor.

There are no theoretical limits. (well, other than those imposed by
Physics itself). If you have $3,000,000,000.00 to spend on it, you can do
pretty much anything you want to.

Tell us what your _budget_ is, and we'll (well, those who deign to grace
you with their assistance) will be happy to tell you what's "practical".

If that's "not good enough", then bon voyage.

Good luck!
Rich
 
B

Bob Myers

Jan 1, 1970
0
Radium said:
That is why the sample-rates in any digital audio system must be at
least 3x 102.4 khz. Mathematically, the sample-rate must be at least
2x the highest frequency signal. However, due physical phenomenon, its
safe to set the sample rate to at least 3x the highest-frequency
signal.

As usual, nonsense from Radium.

Exactly what "physical phenomenon" require a 3X
sample rate? Admittedly, there is a theoretical reason
not to sample at *exactly* twice the highest frequency
(actually, twice the maximum bandwidth, but let's not
get into that right now) of interest, but 3X is nonsense.

For that matter, let's assume that there IS something in
audio of interest above 20 kHz, just for the moment.
What makes you think that you have any useful information
above that frequency in any electronic sound system, or
any transducers which would do it justice if you did?

Bob M.
 
M

Mr.T

Jan 1, 1970
0
Bob Myers said:
For that matter, let's assume that there IS something in
audio of interest above 20 kHz, just for the moment.

Depends entirely on your definition of "interest" of course :)
What makes you think that you have any useful information
above that frequency in any electronic sound system, or
any transducers which would do it justice if you did?

Or more to the point, a personal auditory system that can *actually* respond
to it in any meaningful and repeatable way.

MrT.
 
R

Richard Crowley

Jan 1, 1970
0
"Bob Myers" wrote ...
As usual, nonsense from Radium.

Maybe its time to start plonking people who QUOTE "Radium"
as not being sensible enough to plonk him themselves.
 
F

Fred DeRosa

Jan 1, 1970
0
Homer J Simpson said:
You're the one who is whining about the responses here. Try picking one
group.

Wow! Peter Larson chided me for NOT cross-posting. This group just kills me.
HAHAHA
 
J

jasen

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hi:

Sorry, I had to start a new thread on the same subject, because some
imbecile decided to add OT crap.

I am asking a technical question. No offense but please don't bring in
irrelevant topics [such as budget]. I was asking in terms of quality
for human auditory perception.

What are the maximum *practical* limits of the following for an FM
synth:

1. Number of voices:

2. Operators per voice:

3. Number of channels**:

If the price is not relevant it should be possible to have enough of each to
emulate as many full symphony orchestras as you want.




Bye.
Jasen
 
Top