Noob hifi question

viz

Phil_aka_Pip said:

What happened to the notion that if you filter out everything we're not supposed to be able to hear, you lose the effects of these things modulating the things you can hear? has it been discredited?

Nope. To me it’s the oil in the single malt, the vibrating strings in the piano. It’s what makes an analogue delay pedal sound natural where a digital pedal would sound pristine. 

Phil_aka_Pip

so if 2 supersonic frequencies can produce a beat frequency in the audible range, and you filter the supersonic frequencies out, you'll be aware there is something missing?

Sporky

Phil_aka_Pip said:

so if 2 supersonic frequencies can produce a beat frequency in the audible range, and you filter the supersonic frequencies out, you'll be aware there is something missing?

No. The beat frequency is captured at recording if it exists in the audio range.

The hypersonic aren't going to be recorded anyway. 

TheBigDipper

Phil_aka_Pip said:

What happened to the notion that if you filter out everything we're not supposed to be able to hear, you lose the effects of these things modulating the things you can hear? has it been discredited?

You'd enjoy a chat with my hifi guru, John. He's my mate and the man who sold me a Cyrus system at staff rates and still has private clients now he's "retired". We often have ultimately pointless but highly enjoyable conversations about this sort of stuff.

Anyway, what I wanted to say was this...  My Cyrus/Mission CD-based system is pretty decent, but not stupidly expensive. Johns CD-based system IS stupidly expensive. When I play my CDs on his system, they sound better and I can hear stuff in the recording that my own system doesn't expose. Those things add to the music being played. Which makes me believe that there's plenty of information left on a CD that most systems fail to find and amplify. 

Back to the OP. +1 from me for a decent headphone amplifier to drive those phones properly when you're spinning those CDs. 

Winny_Pooh

Phil_aka_Pip said:

so if 2 supersonic frequencies can produce a beat frequency in the audible range, and you filter the supersonic frequencies out, you'll be aware there is something missing?

Please define supersonic frequencies? Frequencies either exist or not. If they are not in the audible range it makes no difference. I think you might perhaps be quoting the argument about sampling rates? (It's argued that sampling at 48khz or over in recording equipment allows better performance in the audible audio range due to the way some converters handle A/D)

Phil_aka_Pip

Winny_Pooh said:

Phil_aka_Pip said:

so if 2 supersonic frequencies can produce a beat frequency in the audible range, and you filter the supersonic frequencies out, you'll be aware there is something missing?

Please define supersonic frequencies? Frequencies either exist or not. If they are not in the audible range it makes no difference. I think you might perhaps be quoting the argument about sampling rates? (It's argued that sampling at 48khz or over in recording equipment allows better performance in the audible audio range due to the way some converters handle A/D)

I meant frequencies too high for the human ear to detect, but which produce an audible beat frequency. when mixed. Apparently thats how we hear some bird song. Anyway, @Sporky said the audible beat would be recorded even if the high frequencies are filtered out, so that kind of helps.