Digital recordings

[Divide by Zero]

Even before mp3's a lot of studios started to use digital technology via tapes.
It was a way for them to store things without degradation. Every time you copy analog, it gets worse.

Back in the day when I was big on the music equipment, the good DACs did smoothing. The 44,100 times a second with lets say even just 20,000 or 10,000 steps of volume was smoothed out very easily. Even if it is not 100% accurate, analog mediums aren't either.

The noise of pops and cracks induced by a record or the quality lost through magnetic analog tapes is as disrupting to the waveforms as a badly encoded file. With age, records and tapes develop more imperfections. CD's do too, but they have a crude error correction that can handle up to a certain amount of errors per "frame".

I couldn't think that a tape that has a smaller range of sound or a record played with a bad needle would be any better than the digital copy. Analog itself is "sampling" too, just instead of using a digital source frequency, they used crystals (analog frequency) and tubes (analog amplifiers). If you want to go to pure analog, maybe those record players that used a physical needle and cone amplifier would be the purest, but they did sound pretty bad, lol.

I'm not sure about photography in particular. I think the same applies where the quality of the film would determine the output. Also the compression for digital can kill detail, like in some pictures you can see banding (where there is lines between the shades of blue in the sky for example) but that's depending on how hard you try to make the file small.

As for EMF, any sound can be potentially an EMF. But we don't really push much current on speakers unless you like those crazy subs. But also keep in mind you have both wires together, their induced magnetic fields cancel out. With AC house wiring that is not always so, especially because one circuit can split and feed multiple outlets.

The biggest source of EMF on the amplifier would be from a ground loop (the buzzing you can hear on speakers if you interconnect 2 different devices on different outlets) or the internal power conversion (transformer or those nasty switching power supplies- most of which are unshielded).

I'm convinced the music is messed up by the mixing and not the technology. Maybe in the beginning of itunes/mp3's, yes the encoding compression was very bad on some files- but nowadays they run excess bitrate, or a constant quality encoder.
There is even a format called FLAC which is lossless and can do 24/32 bits, up to 192,000 hz!

 

[BHelmet]

The audible difference lies in our ability to differentiate between the stringent numerical representation (digital) of the prime sound from it's source (analogue).

This gets more accurate, depending on the sampling codec. A lower bit rate will have a less accurate representation of the wave.

Modern day digital formats are more clever, in that they adapt to the variability of the wave and can produce a mixed rate within the same track...

The picture above nails a huge part of it. A smooth curve vs. a pixelated bunch of mini steps. As it was also said, the complexity of the entire signal chain is part of the picture as well as the recording technique.

This:
dude playing guitar > tube amp > mic > to 1inch tape > (tube compression) > master > vinyl
OR
dude playing guitar > tube amp > mic > to a digital board (DAC) - digitally compressed > digitally mastered > DAC to CD

These are 2 entirely different beasts.

That said, the bottom line is how does it sound? How does it feel? The most noticeable difference is in distorted electric guitars. And that is where analog transistor and digital amps fall apart. Transistors clip (distort) in a different way than tubes. Tubes produce more even ordered harmonic overtones and the overtones are way more complex and resonate octaves above and below the note. I think that is where digital loses it. Same thing happens for vocal recordings, and acoustic instruments. It just can't be fully digitized because it is flat out too much information. So it sounds and feels different. Something IS missing.

(there is a reason there are scads of boutique guitar amp makers who produce 'vintage' tube amps that sell for 10-20 times what the originals sold for) (not to mention what the originals fetch these days)

Listen to a recording of say... OK Laura is a big Who fan: Listening to the actual vinyl record of "Live at Leeds" (still have my original copy) vs an MP3 is a joke. In spite of vinyl's flaws, Townshends chords and riffs pack a power and vibration that is just lost in the digital world. Or Hendrix, or the Beatles - the guitars and mixes on the digital stuff just sound all wrong compared to the old tapes and records. Granted, I am using the original analog sound as the gold standard, but then, that is the whole point. When they 'digitally remaster' these tunes they have to bury Harrison's guitar because it sounds so squonky if they leave it cranked to the levels it was on the original. (that is another thing - tube saturation tends to blend everything together in a good way {and tubes naturally compress as well}. They still often use the old $10K tube compressors in high end studios because they just sound good...) but at some point it all gets reconverted to digital. One is the real thing, the other is an approximation.

Digitized guitar distortion tends to sound Buzzy, Fizzy, Harsh and Raspy (the Digital Dwarves? Don't forget Blatty and Splatty!) on digital equipment and recordings.

And it all gets boiled down to a 44.1 sample rate...sounds like the a440 vs a432 thing. Why not sample at 48? Somebody (lizzies?) messing with us.

The bottom bottom line: I can feel and hear the difference. Yes digital can be good - especially synthesized music that starts out digital to begin with - I will give it the edge there. But digitizing an analog signal causes a loss of that "Je ne sais quoi".

Then again, ANY recording is not the same as 'live'.

Hm - another thought just crossed my mind - didn't the Philly experiment with cloaking/time travel involve tubes/counter-oscillating magnetic fields or something? I am thinking that wouldn't work with transistors and digitizers. Just a hunch.

 

[Archaea]

This might be relevant, from Session 16 November 1994.

Q: (L) We are aware that we are being manipulated by the media. We would like to know what types of methods do they use and what is their objective?

A: More precise.

Q: (L) What kind of technical means do they use to project mental manipulation by way of TV or movies?

A: Simple bombardment visual and verbal.

Q: (L) Do they use subliminal implantation of ideas?

A: Not needed most often.

Q: (L) The music that kids listen to, is there any effort to program them in this media?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Do they use subliminals?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Do they use electronic signals?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Do they use electronic signals on television programming?

A: Have but not that often.

 

[sitting]

I've always had the intuition that the most powerful means to record the 'original' energy of something is the tape-based ferrite, with their characteristic background noise (sea of white noise from which information fields are formed).

Hi Javi,

That's a very interesting bit of intuition.

And my question is: Is our original source "information field" digital ... or is it analog?

The answer may not be so obvious or simple. The various hints I've gotten from esoteric literature -- leads me to think it's the latter. Not the former.

A Mother, full of love ... singing to her child -- is analog. Not digital.

But I could be wrong.

FWIW.

 

[Tigersoap]

Here is a video that was posted on createdigitalmusic.com which might perhaps shed some light on the issue

http://<iframe width="617" height="...uM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

“Analog versus digital” – the discussion, it seems, is everywhere. The problem is, many people simply don’t understand what these terms mean. In one 25-minute video – engaging and entertaining to watch straight to the end – the biggest myths all get busted.

In short:
1. 16-bit, 44.1 kHz really is okay for many tasks. (You’re saving that data for the computer and processing rather than your own ears. Hope to talk about this question in more detail soon.)
2. Digital audio doesn’t involve stairstepping.
3. Digital signals can store and be used to reproduce sound that’s identical to what’s stored in analog form.

“Choosing” between analog and digital, as categories, therefore doesn’t make any sense at all. Now, choosing between individual filters, for instance, or caring about the physical design of electronic instruments, or recognizing that you can screw up a digital or an analog recording – all those things do matter. In fact, they matter so much that obscuring them with misinformation is a very bad thing.

The video is the work of Monty Montgomery at xiph.org. (See also: http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml and http://xiph.org/video/) Watch the video, but here’s some discussion:

Digital technology is fairly simple to define. A system using digital signal simply represents information as discrete, sampled values. An analog signal use a continuously-varying electrical signal. Both are means of encoding – neither is the literal sound. A digital system is so-named because those discrete values are akin to counting (hence “digits,” as in counting on your fingers), whereas an analog system uses an electrical signal that is analogous to – though not literally – the original, in that it varies in the way that (for sound) pressure would.

The problem is, people imagine digital signals to be something other than what they are in reality. Ubiquity can breed ignorance. Before digital became so widespread, recording and photography were the first revolution. And perhaps part of the problem is that our society has become so comfortable with those processes – ones that would have seemed magical to someone just over a century ago – that we have failed to distinguish between the representation and the real. But any photograph, any recording is distinct from its original subject.

Analog and digital signals are, like words and numbers, a means of encoding information. Each has limits. In sound, those limits are measured in the dimensions that measure audio, frequency and amplitude.

Digital is no less “real” than analog – and because we listen, in the end, to sound and not the signal, the two can achieve the same results. That means that you don’t have to choose. This is not a religious matter. It’s an implementation detail.

That’s not to say that the difference between analog and digital itself is irrelevant – implementation details can be very important. If you realize that fundamentally, digital and analog signals can create and capture the same sounds, then you turn instead to all of the other potential decisions a designer might make. There are many varieties of different filters, for instance, each with different characteristics. The choice of analog or digital circuitry then becomes dependent on what is most economical, most logical, and what desired sound and usability characteristics a circuit would have.

And as people over-emphasize the difference in signal and fundamental sound characteristics, they also ignore everything else.

The choice of analog control or digital control, for instance, is significant. (In short: without smoothing, digital controls can cause stair-stepping effects, and likewise analog controls may be more limited in terms of features like automation.)

This also puts in sharper relief the other reasons people favor analog technology. Analog’s “warmth,” for instance, may not be a fundamental characteristic of analog signal, but it is characteristic of other tendencies of analog designs. It tells us in part that having more literal data fidelity is not always better. Analog gear also behaves in unique ways, susceptible to variations in climate, age, dirt, and other features – something that can be positive in some cases and negative in others, but that is harder to model in digital form.

Most of all, it’s unfortunate that the term “analog” has substituted for “physical,” particularly outside sound contexts. No hardware is truly “digital.” All of it incorporates some amount of analog circuitry, for one, and it’s also the sum total of many design decisions. The fact that we think of computers as not having physical interfaces is perhaps itself a critique of the physical interaction design of computers – we’re in a way used to the mouse and keyboard that we may forget we’re having a tangible experience at all. The advantage of other designs can be to remind people of that experience.

When people describe the appeal of vinyl records, hardware synths covered in knobs and switches, patch cables and modulars, and other “analog” experiences, what they’re really saying is that they like the physical qualities of these things. And there’s no reason digital technology can’t be involved. Increasingly, it is: music is now very often digitally recorded, mixed, and mastered before being pressed to vinyl, and digital instruments are making use of more knobs and switches and even patch cords, rather than focusing on “virtual” experiences of screens and the like.

Instead of getting stuck in meaningless debates like whether analog or digital is “better,” in other words, we need to have very meaningful debates about design, sound, music, and art. But that sounds, by contrast, like a good use of time.

Spend the 25 minutes – you won’t regret it, even if this stuff is review. Thanks to Chris Randall for the tip.

source:

http://createdigitalmusic.com/2013/07/video-explains-why-difference-between-analog-digital-isnt-what-most-people-think/

 

[luc]

This is a very good question. On many occasions I am asking the same question for good reason: I use digital homeopathy, that is, EM recording in distilled water of homeopathic frequencies that are recorded in digital mode. Many of these work positively for me, but it is true that if I resample the contents of these records (for example from 44 kHz to 48 kHz) lose much of their effectiveness. So it is possible that in an analogue recording, they were best.

On the other hand, I've always had the intuition that the most powerful means to record the 'original' energy of something is the tape-based ferrite, with their characteristic background noise (sea of white noise from which information fields are formed). You could record healthy intentions on tape (with your voice or thought) and put on water for drinking in mode listen to...

I agree with sitting, this is an interesting thought.

As a teenager, I sometimes recorded my CDs to tape because I found they sound better that way. This probably also has to do with the natural saturation/compression that occurs when the tape is magnetized: if I understand this correctly, there are only so many particles that can be magnetized on a tape, so if the volume/audio energy exceeds a certain amount, there is a natural threshold, which leads to a very subtle compression/"smoothness" of the sound. Also, the tape recording process leads to a compression of the higher frequencies, which can take out the "harshness" associated with digital recording. In fact, some audio engineers use this effect on purpose by recording the digital master to a good tape machine and then back to digital.

Somehow, the process of tape recording strikes me as rather interesting: you create an AC current straight from the microphone, amplify it, and use an electromagnet to "align" particles on a tape. This seems rather direct and straightforward... Let's also not forget that until about the late 90ies, every studio used multiband tape machines to record their clients, and some studios still do so because of the perceived better sound.

Here is a video that was posted on createdigitalmusic.com which might perhaps shed some light on the issue

I just read the blurb - while he does say some good things, he comes across to me as a bit of a "materialist science guy", dismissing any deeper aspects out of hand. Fact is, by definition, with any conversation from analog to digital, you lose some information. Of course, this is also true for analog recording. However, as far as I understand it, an analog recording can theoretically be perfect, and is only restrained by the "real world" - how many particles can be magnetized on a tape depending on the signal, line loss, noise etc., while a digital recording is imperfect by definition (resolution, sampling rate). The question then becomes: what kind of information is lost in each case? It's true that this analog vs. digital debate is sometimes described as "religious" - maybe there is a reason for that?

All in all, I find it interesting that so many people seem to like "analog sound" and even "analog fotos" - maybe there is something to all this, but I could be wrong...

 

[BHelmet]

I guess any reproduction of the original is going to lose something in the translation be it digital or analog. In a live performance a slight inflection in the voice could come across with some nuanced feeling, or meaning that is felt and thought by the performer and communicated to the audience that is lost in any recording because you really had to 'be there' in the presence of it, to 'get it'.

That said, the question remains: just what IS lost? If a therapeutic effect is lost, it suggests that there IS an essential difference between analog and digital reproductions regardless of what the bit-crunchers say. Therapeutic sound, it seems to me, would have to operate in a very subtle, specific way, eg, very fine frequencies and their interaction with each other (and the listener's cells, mind, soul, FRV). A digital recording CAN sound very good, but it may not tingle those teeny little hairs inside the ear in quite the same way as an analog sound.

 

[Javi]

Well, I did a little experiment.
I recorded my voice on my pc in the closest manner that can to analog (in this case to the highest resolution I could, to 384000hz-32 bit, in the 'Audacity' software).
After I resample it, first to 44100 Hz 16 bit (a music CD standard), and then to mp3 160kbts.

Attached an analysis of frequency of the three cases, made in 'Audacity' (I think is done via FFT). As you can see, it is undeniable that occurs a fairly profound change, especially in the case of mp3. You yourselves can replicate the experiment, since 'Audacity' is a free software.

 

[Javi]

This is a very good question. On many occasions I am asking the same question for good reason: I use digital homeopathy, that is, EM recording in distilled water of homeopathic frequencies that are recorded in digital mode. Many of these work positively for me, but it is true that if I resample the contents of these records (for example from 44 kHz to 48 kHz) lose much of their effectiveness. So it is possible that in an analogue recording, they were best.

On the other hand, I've always had the intuition that the most powerful means to record the 'original' energy of something is the tape-based ferrite, with their characteristic background noise (sea of white noise from which information fields are formed). You could record healthy intentions on tape (with your voice or thought) and put on water for drinking in mode listen to...

I agree with sitting, this is an interesting thought.

As a teenager, I sometimes recorded my CDs to tape because I found they sound better that way. This probably also has to do with the natural saturation/compression that occurs when the tape is magnetized: if I understand this correctly, there are only so many particles that can be magnetized on a tape, so if the volume/audio energy exceeds a certain amount, there is a natural threshold, which leads to a very subtle compression/"smoothness" of the sound. Also, the tape recording process leads to a compression of the higher frequencies, which can take out the "harshness" associated with digital recording. In fact, some audio engineers use this effect on purpose by recording the digital master to a good tape machine and then back to digital.

Somehow, the process of tape recording strikes me as rather interesting: you create an AC current straight from the microphone, amplify it, and use an electromagnet to "align" particles on a tape. This seems rather direct and straightforward... Let's also not forget that until about the late 90ies, every studio used multiband tape machines to record their clients, and some studios still do so because of the perceived better sound.

Here is a video that was posted on createdigitalmusic.com which might perhaps shed some light on the issue

I just read the blurb - while he does say some good things, he comes across to me as a bit of a "materialist science guy", dismissing any deeper aspects out of hand. Fact is, by definition, with any conversation from analog to digital, you lose some information. Of course, this is also true for analog recording. However, as far as I understand it, an analog recording can theoretically be perfect, and is only restrained by the "real world" - how many particles can be magnetized on a tape depending on the signal, line loss, noise etc., while a digital recording is imperfect by definition (resolution, sampling rate). The question then becomes: what kind of information is lost in each case? It's true that this analog vs. digital debate is sometimes described as "religious" - maybe there is a reason for that?

All in all, I find it interesting that so many people seem to like "analog sound" and even "analog fotos" - maybe there is something to all this, but I could be wrong...

Coincidentally, I also remember that when I was a teenager I enjoyed going to the nearby mountains with my audio tapes of classical music. I never after returned to experience the feeling of connection with the forces of nature that provided me those tapes to listen to them in the forest with headphones (for example listening 'Peer Gynt' of Grieg) . Then never already a cd sound has been able to provide me that feeling, despite the apparent quality of the music. I remember when I bought my first cd of music with enthusiasm, when listening to them I felt a strange feeling, as if I had a metallic 'taste'. I guess over time I got used.

On the other hand, once came me to mind the crazy idea that, perhaps, to take hands a blank recording tape, and projecting certain thoughts or intent through the hands, that something is recorded on the tape. So when playing the natural background of the blank tape noise, could re - projected energy information field in some way. It was just an idea without applying, since at the end the reasoning leads me to think that it is nonsense. However, the ferrite has very similar to magnetite magnetic properties. And the theme of magnetite has dealt with several times in the cassiopaean transcripts, but I can not remember where.

 

[Divide by Zero]

Well, I did a little experiment.
I recorded my voice on my pc in the closest manner that can to analog (in this case to the highest resolution I could, to 384000hz-32 bit, in the 'Audacity' software).
After I resample it, first to 44100 Hz 16 bit (a music CD standard), and then to mp3 160kbts.

Attached an analysis of frequency of the three cases, made in 'Audacity' (I think is done via FFT). As you can see, it is undeniable that occurs a fairly profound change, especially in the case of mp3. You yourselves can replicate the experiment, since 'Audacity' is a free software.

If you checked a tape or record, you would have differences too. The major difference I see is in the low frequency which actually looks to have clipped in the original top file. Clipping is usually avoided by digital encoding.


Bhemet, the difference you explain is based on how dacs and amps play back the sound. The modern day cheaper digital /transistor based amps clip differently. But I feel if a recording is clipping, it was done the wrong way in the first place and perhaps the blame of those guitar amps designed to make distorted notes.

The who mp3s are indeed inferior because record companies change the dynamic range / remaster them before encoding.

 

[monotonic]

Coincidentally, I also remember that when I was a teenager I enjoyed going to the nearby mountains with my audio tapes of classical music. I never after returned to experience the feeling of connection with the forces of nature that provided me those tapes to listen to them in the forest with headphones (for example listening 'Peer Gynt' of Grieg) . Then never already a cd sound has been able to provide me that feeling, despite the apparent quality of the music. I remember when I bought my first cd of music with enthusiasm, when listening to them I felt a strange feeling, as if I had a metallic 'taste'. I guess over time I got used.

The distortions of different recording mediums are unlikely to be reproduced by each other except intentionally. There are probably programs available to simulate tape distortion in software, but the problem with that is that nonlinear distortion simulation requires mathematical integration, which causes a lot of it's own errors.

So then take a digital system, and use software to simulate tape distortion. Does the "life" come back? What if you take digital music and then record it onto tape?

If tape sounds better, is it because it's distorting in a pleasant way or is it because it's doing something right? I would say that the above quote indicates the tape was in some way better than CD, even if it had more absolute distortion. To the ear/brain system, it was more accurate at least in certain ways.

 

[BHelmet]

Bhemet, the difference you explain is based on how dacs and amps play back the sound. The modern day cheaper digital /transistor based amps clip differently. But I feel if a recording is clipping, it was done the wrong way in the first place and perhaps the blame of those guitar amps designed to make distorted notes.

The who mp3s are indeed inferior because record companies change the dynamic range / remaster them before encoding.

This is starting to get kind of funny. The problem is that clipping IS the sound you are trying to capture!

Guitarist windmills a guitar with hot pickups too close to the strings that overload the amp input; preamp tubes overload AND overdrive the rest of the amp; rectifier sag creates natural compression and more distortion; power tube overloads because volume is on "11" AND it was hot-rodded to run at a higher voltage than it was designed for; speaker 'breaks up' because, well, they are mechanical and if you hit them hard enough, they just do; AND there is massive feedback. The whole rig is running at 10% distortion AT LEAST. (15% and higher is a more realistic figure) (and a good hi fi maybe runs at what .01%?)

Here is where it gets funny. This is not the wrong way! It is the right way! In fact many great classic albums were recorded this way.

It sounds good... no... FANTASTIC! (if it is your kind of thing) at the right volume level. The notes are searing and they sing, scream and wail into your solar plexus and chest and brain - whole body and soul, really, (assuming you are listening to a true artist - perhaps David Gilmour playing live).

I am saying that this just can't be captured digitally. (yes, you get a rough approximation that can sound 'pretty good') Analog can't really do it justice either but it comes MUCH closer than digital. Why? The complexities of all that distortion. Magnetic tape is going to get most of what confronts your ears/brain AND capture it in a way that translates back to the brain in a similar manner.

Sound is analog. Tape is analog. Our brains are analog. We are analog beings, and we are being herded into a digital world. Interesting meme, eh?

Even though you can digitally capture the distorted tone without it clipping the DAC, it sounds like a hollow imitation.

The comedy is that the goal is to capture and reproduce distorted sounds in a pleasing and effective manner where it is a given that distortion is fundamentally unpleasant in most circumstances.

(all stemming from the original question of why therapeutic sound is less effective when digital as opposed to being analog)

As for mp3's and dynamic range.. I also find this comical in an ironic way: most of those old recordings didn't have any dynamic range to begin with. If I am not mistaken, digital has WAY more dynamic range than analog. That may be part of the picture as well.

 

[liffy]

I am saying that this just can't be captured digitally. (yes, you get a rough approximation that can sound 'pretty good') Analog can't really do it justice either but it comes MUCH closer than digital. Why? The complexities of all that distortion. Magnetic tape is going to get most of what confronts your ears/brain AND capture it in a way that translates back to the brain in a similar manner.

Sound is analog. Tape is analog. Our brains are analog. We are analog beings, and we are being herded into a digital world. Interesting meme, eh?

Even though you can digitally capture the distorted tone without it clipping the DAC, it sounds like a hollow imitation.

I find this unlikely, given that the digitalisation is being done at a sufficiently high resolution. It will then faithfully document what happened when the guitarist did his thing. And when digital sound is played through speakers, it is of course then being turned into analog sound again. In strict terms you can't listen to digital sound, because that is only a way of encoding information, whereas all sound waves that move in air by definition are not digital.

As for mp3's and dynamic range.. I also find this comical in an ironic way: most of those old recordings didn't have any dynamic range to begin with. If I am not mistaken, digital has WAY more dynamic range than analog. That may be part of the picture as well.

There are some nuances here. Digital audio has the potential for a much larger dynamic range, due to the noise floor being a lot lower, than with analog gear. How the musicians and sound engineers end up using this range will determine the dynamic range on the final sound. If the track is heavily compressed and "maximised" then there will hardly be any dynamic range, even though the technology allows it.

 

[sitting]

On the other hand, once came me to mind the crazy idea that, perhaps, to take hands a blank recording tape, and projecting certain thoughts or intent through the hands, that something is recorded on the tape.

That idea might not be so crazy after all.

Allow me to pull something from a slightly different thread -- but one with great relevance to sound. And how it impacts our very being. (Aside from our bodily perception of its harmonic fidelity & beauty.)

From C's:

Q: (L) Does sound produce gravity?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Can sound manipulate gravity?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Can it be done with the human voice?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Can it be done tonally or by power through thought?
A: Both.
Q: (L) Then, is there also specific sound configurations involved?
A: Gravity is manipulated by sound when thought manipulated by gravity
chooses to produce sound which manipulates gravity.

This is HUGE!

We know gravity is the binder of all things. ALL things!

Now we're told sound produces gravity. And manipulates gravity. Can you imagine anything more central than that??? This potentially has relevance to both individuals AND the Divine Cosmic Mind. Sound driven (as its basis?)

(When music -- sound, touches our souls ... it's literal.)

Now consider this (from Seth):

The same kind of sound built the Pyramids. It was not sound you would
hear with your physical ears. Such inner sound forms your bone and flesh.

The sound is formed by your intent, and the same intent -- will have the
same sound effect upon the body regardless of the words used.

The conclusion is inescapable: Through our intention, we generate (interior) sound. Which then can create and manipulate gravity. And gravity is the binder of all things. Imagine that!

That said, the degree of mental coherence & concentration needed -- is probably orders of magnitude beyond what most of us currently possess. Many of us, have at best muddled intentions ... and discordant sound. But 200 or so of the properly tuned types, apparently can stop 4th D STS dead in its tracks.

If one can manipulate gravity ... then all else is rather simple I guess.
For this reason, I believe a serious effort in meditation is not a bad thing.

I could be wrong.

FWIW.

 

[MusicMan]

There was a guy named Dolby who used to suppress the volume of the recordings until the sound was barely audible above the noise floor and then reamplified that portion which was above the noise floor, thus eliminating a lot of the inherent 'noise' in the recording.
Another trick used in order to eliminate hum was to insert pulses using a 'HDB3' code into the pulse train so that there was 'equality' between the positive and negative pulses, which averaged out and eliminated the DC hum. This is particularly useful if the pulse train is to be communicated over some distance.
Guitar recordings are particularly prone to scratches and clicks as the guitarist fingers his frets. George Harrison recordings will show this. So a real HiFi recording would include them, but the digitising takes them out.