2. digital
  3. 158378-116029

to my ears digital audio does not sound natural? something is wrong!

lf Digital audio is man made how can I expect the brain to recognize it as natural sounding?

lf I re-encode digital audio with the earths natural frequencies will the brain now recognize it as a natural source allowing the digital audio to harmonize with my brain creating an entirely new listening experience?

This might sound crazy however it sounds perfectly logical to me so i went to the park at 3am to record the frequencies of nature using the built in mic on my cheap mp3 player in wav 16/44 and uploaded the wav file to my pc and while the file from the park was playing on my windows media player i made a simple copy of a commercial digital album flac 16/44 on my desktop and here are the results using the same audio source.

commercial release flac 16/44 http://u.pc.cd/PmXctalK

commercial release  with earth frequencies http://u.pc.cd/7d7

lt may be the placebo effect and i'm hearing what i want to hear however i think the music is now in harmony with my ears?

guitarsam
guitarsam OP
179 posts
 
Sam here again and i want to post another audio sample using my earth frequency technic. 

fleetwood mac landslide 1975.

(1) 2017 digital remaster 16/44 flac: http://u.pc.cd/LHWctalK

(2) 1975 1st press vinyl flac 24_96 http://u.pc.cd/cq87 + lineage:   https://postimg.cc/n9bqK6MJ

(3) 2017 digital remaster 16/44 earth frequency encoded:   http://u.pc.cd/LFLctalK
crustycoot
642 posts
 
Around 1985 my house full of audio geeks set up a live vs. digitally processed test using a Nakamichi ADC (tweaked Sony PCM-F1) in the signal path, an ABX comparator, and a rotating listening panel.  The speakers were Maggie MG-3 Ribbon dipoles, and the amp a Tandberg low-TIM Matti Ottala design.  Results were that running the live feed (acoustic guitar trio w/ cello & violin) through the ADC/DAC process did no audible harm to the live signal.  The live performers were in another room, miked with a Nak Tri-Mic setup, and were local professional musicians.  From this we concluded that in theory and practice, 16/44.1kHz sampling was good enough for live-to-2 track mastering of a high quality music signal...at least one as simple as a chamber ensemble.
But we all heard lots wrong with commercial CDs of the day.  From this we believed the fault lay with how multi-tracked analog recordings were being digitally mastered and mass produced as CDs...not the digital process itself.  The fact is CDs did get better over time.  Our reference for "analog" were live-to-2 track tapes of classical concerts, not LPs (far, far, inferior, even with a SOTA Sapphire and Dynavector Ruby Karat).
zerobias's avatar
zerobias
73 posts
 
It sounds just fine, thank you very much.  Certainly on a par with the click, pop and skip technology.
danvignau's avatar
danvignau
935 posts
 
If music is man made, how can the brain....  Please?
robert_1
50 posts
 
I have digital and analog  front ends, they both sound great to me "depending" on how good the recording was made. The only difference to me is that on the digital front system with certain recordings after a while I get tired. It's like pass certain time My brain cannot take it anymore.  

With  my analog system, it doesn't matter how bad the recording is I can take it, but I'm not enjoying it as it should be.

More to discover