Digital recordings

[BHelmet]

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.

Another good point. I am sure you recall, a Dolbyized recording always had less high end - flip the Dolby B or Dolby C switch off and the highs came back up (somewhat based on the limitations of the equipment). This process was developed to address the complaint that mass produced cheap 1/4 inch tape cassettes played on mass produced cheap equipment had a lot of hiss in the signal.

I think the keynote is that any process (eg, digitization) is going to change, in some way, the thing that is being processed. I think that is scientifically inherent in any sort of processing on any level. You can't manipulate something without changing it in some way.

 

[BHelmet]

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.

It is true that ultimately a digital signal is reconfigured to analog when you listen back to it. But it has gone through a process. It is not the same no matter how high the resolution. Digitization changes analog to digital and back again. This process naturally induces change, an alteration, no matter how faithful, in theory, the capture is. I think that is fundamental physics.

But no matter the theory or thoughts about this, I can hear and feel that there is a difference. Every chip changes the signal. A germanium diode sounds different than a silicon diode, even though they may have the same values and specs. Digitization involves some algorithmic process which also induces alteration.

Even the 4D STS masters of manipulation don't always get the same in/out results with trans dimensional remolecularization. (admittedly a fantastically more complex process, no doubt.)

 

[MusicMan]

Another couple of things to remember about sound is that digitizing actually clips or distorts the sine wave into something like a series of square waves which basically distorts the original signal.
And our ears are not analogue. Your ears are labyrinths which behave logarithmically.
The brain is trained to calculate the meaning of each sound, just as our eyes decode visual signals.
You may note that just as eyes have 'persistence of vision', so do ears use persistence of sound, which the brain decodes using its fuzzy logic, and everybody decodes things slightly differently depending on their own shape and configuration of their particular body parts.
So its not all cut and dried, and the debate rages on.

 

[BHelmet]

Another couple of things to remember about sound is that digitizing actually clips or distorts the sine wave into something like a series of square waves which basically distorts the original signal.
And our ears are not analogue. Your ears are labyrinths which behave logarithmically.
The brain is trained to calculate the meaning of each sound, just as our eyes decode visual signals.
You may note that just as eyes have 'persistence of vision', so do ears use persistence of sound, which the brain decodes using its fuzzy logic, and everybody decodes things slightly differently depending on their own shape and configuration of their particular body parts.
So its not all cut and dried, and the debate rages on.

Yup - for sure. And it is not just variances from individual to individual but also within each individual from moment to moment depending on: humidity; temperature, emotional state, mental state, local acoustics, time of day, ear fatigue - etc etc.

What I meant by people being analogue is that humans have 3D mass, they are electro-bio-mechanical, bio-chemical etc. that humans are not a series of 1's and 0's in a computer programmed memory (which is where digital audio 'happens').... at least not yet, anyway...

 

[BHelmet]

I have another thought that relates back to the original question and the 4th way as well. Digital audio can generally 'convince' most brains and ears, but it can't trick DNA on a cellular level and that is why there is a degradation of therapeutic effect when using sound (for healing) that has been digitally manipulated. Our brains and ears don't have the discernment to differentiate the finest vibrational energy differences and colorations unless we train them rigorously. This kind of extends into the 4th way realm of making use of the finest impressions; that it takes years of training and work to even note that they are present. So, on one level it is necessary to train the senses.

But on another, our DNA and cells can respond on a level (thankfully) beyond our conscious control. So, if the right key is presented to the lock, the door will open. But the 'right key' has to be genuinely pure in its essence to work. A facsimile won't cut it. Not sure i am making this clear...

 

[sitting]

... and everybody decodes things slightly differently depending on their own shape and configuration of their particular body parts.

Yes. I think this is true. But I would put the emphasis on slightly.

At deepest level, I believe there's no contradictory translation of the (inner) sound process. I'm referring here to the chain of intent ... into sound (both audible and inaudible) ... into effects on gravity ... and all else this implies.

The process of course is unbelievably complex. But probably well defined from the universe's point of view. (And some ancients apparently have deciphered it.)

But I could be wrong.

FWIW.

 

[Palinurus]

I have another thought that relates back to the original question and the 4th way as well. Digital audio can generally 'convince' most brains and ears, but it can't trick DNA on a cellular level and that is why there is a degradation of therapeutic effect when using sound (for healing) that has been digitally manipulated. Our brains and ears don't have the discernment to differentiate the finest vibrational energy differences and colorations unless we train them rigorously. This kind of extends into the 4th way realm of making use of the finest impressions; that it takes years of training and work to even note that they are present. So, on one level it is necessary to train the senses.

But on another, our DNA and cells can respond on a level (thankfully) beyond our conscious control. So, if the right key is presented to the lock, the door will open. But the 'right key' has to be genuinely pure in its essence to work. A facsimile won't cut it. Not sure i am making this clear...

Hi BHelmet,

I think your point was elaborated on during session September 13, 2009:

<snip>
Q: (L) Now, Allen acquired some interesting software. (Allen) The choir software. (L) Yes. And we had the idea of making some just regular meditation audios where I could recite the prayer and maybe sing it, or even sing some other songs and he could manipulate them with this software to make it melodic and meditation-worthy type music. So, we were wondering if this was something that was a good idea?

A: Oh definitely!!! In fact, that is a superb way for truly cosmic frequencies to be transmitted via your/our voice!!

Q: (DD) So long as it's not Patsy Kline tunes! (laughter) (L) But I wanted to channel Patsy Kline!!! (Allen) I was actually wondering if my multiplying your voice several times would actual multiply whatever it was they were putting through your voice that many times?

A: Not only that, it will enable us to insert frequency modulation directly between the layers of sound. Why don't you play a sample now?

Q: (Allen) Play a sample of the chorus, or of the music I've been working on?

A: Our voice!

Q: (Allen) How can I play a sample of your voice? I've got some music that I've been working on, but it doesn't have any choral stuff in it yet? Is that the music that you're talking about, or is there something that I'm missing?

A: What did you record today?

Q: (Allen) Ah! So, any particular song?

A: U pick!

Q: (Allen) Okay. So right now, all I have is me playing guitar, and Laura singing with a little reverb sweetening it. Would that do?

A: Yes

Q: (L) I had the idea to take ordinary songs and sing them and then for Allen to take say one ordinary song that was like a familiar melody to people, and then stretch it out to an hour CD. A song that would take 4 or 5 minutes to sing, make it stretched to one hour. And then put a musical track in the background that's more in time. So anyhow, is this a good idea?

A: Very! Try it!

Q: (L) Well, that wasn't very informative. I could have answered that, Jesus. (DD) Hang up on them! (laughter) (Keit) So which song would you choose? (L) Well, just a whole bunch of them.

[Pause while Allen tries to burn music to disc. Everyone then ends up listening to music in the office.]

Q: (Keit) On an emotional level, Amazing Grace had the most effect on me. (Allen) We can have you sing solo and then a choir of us come in and back you up. That's a thought.

A: Many possibilities, eh? Notice the "effect?"

Q: (Joe) Music to soothe the savage the beast!

A: Music to communicate to the soul.

Q: (L) Well, I really don't understand.

A: There are frequencies in your/our voice that are inaudible to the physical ear but affect the spirit.

Q: (Joe) True. (Scott) I wonder if that's why there are certain bands where the people totally can't sing, but everyone thinks they're great - I mean, above and beyond marketing and all that kind of stuff?

A: Yes! And some of them activate "interesting" frequencies!

Q: (L) When you say "interesting", what does that mean?

A: Shall we say that it is planned and deliberate for nefarious purposes.

Q: (Joe) What music were you thinking about, Scottie? (Scottie) I was just thinking after our talk the other day about objectively and subjectively good music and everything. I was thinking about some of the popular music, like pretty much everything... Like my workout music, grunge music, electric guitar music, rap music - all these different types of popular music. And some of it is actually done by somebody who can't even sing at all and people just absolutely love it. So there are all these different genres where some bands become popular, whereas you can go to a bar and here's somebody singing a song and they're ten times better, but... (L) But they're not famous. (Scottie) So why do these people who have absolutely no talent become famous, beyond the fact that they were "discovered", or advertising, etc...

A: Laurel Canyon anyone?

Q: (laughter) (Keit) We were just talking about it today! (Joe) Yeah, they were all picked. (C**) So would Laura's voice be kind of what Gurdjieff called "objective music"?

A: Yes

Q: (Joe) I've got a great name for your album: Laura Canyon! (laughter) (L) I think I'll pass on that one. Unless you want to put an echo in so it sounds like I'm singing across the canyon. (PL) So, those bands in Laurel Canyon, those singers like the Mamas and the Papas, those bands that were obviously sponsored, because, through their music, they could put a kind of spell on some listeners, manipulate them, generate some negative emotions...?

A: "Spellbinders."

Q: (Keit) Maybe you can ask about movies? (L) What about movies? (Keit) We were talking about Laurel Canyon in relation to movies, and we see this same effect. (L) Did Laurel Canyon do movies? (Keit) Because it has that lab. (Allen) Oh, it has that CIA lab at the top of Laurel Canyon. (DD) Which is the spook lab. The spook's cinema lab. (Allen) It's all part of that same thing. (PL) They did some horror movies.

A: Yes. All part of the same programs.

Q: (PL) Does it generate just general negative emotions in listeners, or is it more specific nefarious purposes?

A: More specific...

Q: (Joe) Dissociation. (PL) To trigger some kind of programmed murderers or stuff like that?

A: In some cases. Like an audible "Catcher in the Rye."

Q: (C**) What's Catcher in the Rye? (Allen) Catcher in the Rye was the book that the guy who shot John Lennon had in his hands when he shot him. (L) Yeah? (Joe) Sirhan Sirhan. (L) And also the guy that shot John Lennon. (DD) It's supposedly a kind of MKULTRA trigger thing.

A: Many triggers for many programs. Now you have the means to cancel much of this.

Q: (L) What do you mean "means to cancel much of this"? (PL) Counter-music. A counter-signal. (L) You mean it's gonna be the Battle of the Bands?! (laughter)

A: You got it! On a cosmic level too!

Q: (L) I think it's strange. (PL) One of the triggers is for murderers. But they say it's one of the specific nefarious purposes. Are there examples of other specific nefarious purposes? Can they trigger suicide in people?

A: Yes

Q: (Joe) General association among young people, ya know what I mean? Turn their brains into... (Keit) Like psychopathy, and violent... (Allen) I don't think it has to be that serious. It's part of the frequency fence, the music...

A: Frequency fence! [spelling at the same time Allen is speaking)

Q: (L) So you read their minds, Allen. (PL) But this music is available all over the world. (L) Yes. And our music is not. We haven't even made it! (laughter)
<snip>

Scattered throughout the ensuing forum discussion are several contributions as well which seem pertinent to this current topic, but they are spread far and wide so citing them would be a bit troublesome.

Hope this helps a bit. :)

 

[Palinurus]

Just read the May 7, 2016 session which ads a little extra explanation:

Quote
------------------------------
I found this article that sums up a widespread belief about digital vs analog audio, IE CD vs turntable.

I have tested many thousands of phonograph recordings made over a period of more than eighty years, and have found that almost most examples have been therapeutic, often highly so.[3] In 1979 this changed. I suddenly found that I was not achieving the same therapeutic results as before, that playing records of the same compositions to the same patients was producing a completely contrary effect! Instead of their stress being reduced and their Life Energy being actuated, the opposite was occurring! For instance, music that I had long used to promote sleep now seemed to be actually aggravating the insomnia. I found in one case that instead of the music helping a patient withdraw from tranquilizers, it seemed to increase his need for them. Special tapes for businesspeople to use during their rest periods seemed suddenly to increase rather than reduce their stress. These findings were very alarming.

When I investigated these and many other paradoxical phenomena, I found that in all cases they were related to the use of digital recordings. These were vinyl records (and later CDs) made from digital masters.[4] When I substituted analog versions of the same work, sometimes even with the same performers, the positive therapeutic effects were again obtained. There seemed to me little doubt that something was “wrong” with the digital process. Apparently the digital recording technique not only did not enhance Life Energy and reduce stress, but it was actually untherapeutic; that is, it imposed a stress and reduced Life Energy. Through some mechanism, some severely detrimental effect on the Acupuncture Emotional System, the digital process was somehow reversing the therapeutic effects of the music!

------------------------------

A: If one is depending on a 3rd density effect, analog is best. If one is attempting to tap higher or "other" realms, digital is more likely to capture the effect.

Q: (L) So if you just want a 3rd density thing like giving somebody drugs or something, you use something analog like records that deliver actual physical vibrations or whatever to the individual. But if you're trying to capture or transmit other realms or other-density effects and so forth, then digital is better. Let's face it, if you're trying to make a recording of ghosts for example, and you leave some kind of recording device in a haunted house and it is supposed to make a record, that would require a kind of cross-density type of energy that would be pretty momentous, I think. It's mechanical. So mechanical effects happen with analog. Digital can be very subtle, electromagnetic...

(Joe) It can be more easily used to convey non-3d stuff.

 

[monotonic]

That's really interesting Palinurus. There is a lot to think about there. Something I've noticed is that different equipment may sound better or worse, but sounding more accurate doesn't mean it will actually be engaging on an emotional level. And that is a crucial difference. You may get a system where you can make out every detail and hear everything, but it will be boring to listen to. And then you may find another system that's just as accurate, but is so emotionally engaging that a good singer sounds like they are singing to you, as though it's personal attention. It makes good music so much better, and bad music so much worse. So I wonder if it affects the signals the Cs are talking about?

 

[Palinurus]

So I wonder if it affects the signals the Cs are talking about?

To be honest, I wouldn't know for sure.

I've followed the analog/digital 'controversy' from the start (late 70's/early 80's) and always have been skeptical about all arguments pro and con on both sides of the equation -- simply because as the saying goes: beauty is in the eye/ear of the beholder/listener. So in my view the greatest uncertainty vis-a-vis these matters lies within the listener himself: his receivership capability at any given moment is of cardinal importance and it varies greatly with his/her circumstances, inward as well as outward. This has much more influence on the end result (emotional engagement) than anything else, I would think.

Moreover, from personal experience I've gathered that --given equipment of reasonable good quality all around-- recordings which have great impact are rare, maybe very rare even. They don't need super quality stuff per se but thrive on what is called "the spur of the moment", when all things that are important somehow come together in synergy and 'click' to form a convincing result -- often despite some things lacking here or there. Those are the real treasures I would say.

 

[monotonic]

So I wonder if it affects the signals the Cs are talking about?

Moreover, from personal experience I've gathered that --given equipment of reasonable good quality all around-- recordings which have great impact are rare, maybe very rare even. They don't need super quality stuff per se but thrive on what is called "the spur of the moment", when all things that are important somehow come together in synergy and 'click' to form a convincing result -- often despite some things lacking here or there. Those are the real treasures I would say.

I see what you mean, but I also know that having a good system or not makes or breaks the phenomenon to a large extent. And many times, when you find a recording that sounds good on everything, it's not necessarily because it's a good recording, but it's been manipulated to get around the flaws of most systems. It's also possible that the music is just not challenging to reproduce. Recordings with very few instruments playing at the same time tend to sound good because they are simple for a system to play. What ends up happening here is that you limit your musical variety to music that doesn't excite the flaws in your system. There are some tracks that on most systems sound like a crashing mess, and everyone leaves the room when you play. But if you fix your system, you'll discover that all that crashing is a collection of individual instruments playing in a complex harmony with skillful layers of percussion. It will sound completely different, not necessarily because it's more accurate, but probably more because the distortions present are benign to the ear/brain system.

I also know that there seems be be a wide variety in how people perceive flaws in a system. Some people seem to be able to hear through the flaws amazingly well and don't feel like they need something better. One thing that you find happens is that you'll listen to someone talking about subtle details in a track, and you'll try to listen to them and not find them. But if you fix something in your system, you will suddenly start noticing them. I think this may be similar to the variety of responses to heavy metal poisoning and mold exposure. People are affected in different ways by something having to do with the playback system.

 

[Divide by Zero]

Palinurus, I wholeheartedly agree with your thoughts and feelings on this subject.

A lot of times the lyrics matter more than worrying about tiny imperfections.
In fact I wonder if obsession on "perfection" opens one up to hypnotic suggestion much like modern art and it's obsession with some ideal of genius etc.

I think the most hypnotic part of modern music is the low frequency bass which had been used in drumming ceremonies in order to induce alpha theta and gamma states in the brain. The irony is that lower frequencies are less affected by equipment be it analog or digital as the wave is "slower" (in the order of below 500hz).

 

[Palinurus]

So I wonder if it affects the signals the Cs are talking about?

Moreover, from personal experience I've gathered that --given equipment of reasonable good quality all around-- recordings which have great impact are rare, maybe very rare even. They don't need super quality stuff per se but thrive on what is called "the spur of the moment", when all things that are important somehow come together in synergy and 'click' to form a convincing result -- often despite some things lacking here or there. Those are the real treasures I would say.

I see what you mean, but I also know that having a good system or not makes or breaks the phenomenon to a large extent. And many times, when you find a recording that sounds good on everything, it's not necessarily because it's a good recording, but it's been manipulated to get around the flaws of most systems. It's also possible that the music is just not challenging to reproduce. Recordings with very few instruments playing at the same time tend to sound good because they are simple for a system to play. What ends up happening here is that you limit your musical variety to music that doesn't excite the flaws in your system. There are some tracks that on most systems sound like a crashing mess, and everyone leaves the room when you play. But if you fix your system, you'll discover that all that crashing is a collection of individual instruments playing in a complex harmony with skillful layers of percussion. It will sound completely different, not necessarily because it's more accurate, but probably more because the distortions present are benign to the ear/brain system.

I also know that there seems be be a wide variety in how people perceive flaws in a system. Some people seem to be able to hear through the flaws amazingly well and don't feel like they need something better. One thing that you find happens is that you'll listen to someone talking about subtle details in a track, and you'll try to listen to them and not find them. But if you fix something in your system, you will suddenly start noticing them. I think this may be similar to the variety of responses to heavy metal poisoning and mold exposure. People are affected in different ways by something having to do with the playback system.

Monotonic, I appreciate your concerns as they have been mine as well in the past. I will only say: beware to get obsessed by those, as Divide By Zero already mentioned.

After much reading, searching and trying out different systems for reproduction of music I've come to the conclusion that nothing can beat attending a live performance of any type of music. My prime interests are classical music (mostly large orchestras), chamber music and classic jazz (small combos mostly). I've learned to concentrate on listening to my music in stead of listening to my equipment (which is quite decent, btw) and its inherent flaws (which are fully known to me), or to the technical aspects of the recording process which sometimes shine through -- mainly when exceptionally awesome or truly bad.

It is much more rewarding to concentrate on the content of the signal than to obsess over technical imperfections of any kind. Or so I think. ;)

 

[monotonic]

Well if my goal was to get the Cs to guide my hand towards the perfect home theater system, then I would agree with you, because that's an exercise in futility, pretty unimportant, and not really a topic for this forum. What I want to know is what it is we are perceiving and how we perceive it. Does the effect come from actual sound or does it come from something else? What kind of signal is it? Why do some systems seem to filter it out? Is this obsessing?

As for details going missing in music, that probably rarely has anything to do with these signals. Emotional engagement? Maybe, but that also depends on other things. Or is it completely unconcious? Do we "feel" it at all, on a conscious level?

 

[weasel3d]

I found this article that sums up a widespread belief about digital vs analog audio, IE CD vs turntable. I have always wanted to know what the Cs would have to say about this.

I have tested many thousands of phonograph recordings made over a period of more than eighty years, and have found that almost most examples have been therapeutic, often highly so.[3] In 1979 this changed. I suddenly found that I was not achieving the same therapeutic results as before, that playing records of the same compositions to the same patients was producing a completely contrary effect! Instead of their stress being reduced and their Life Energy being actuated, the opposite was occurring! For instance, music that I had long used to promote sleep now seemed to be actually aggravating the insomnia. I found in one case that instead of the music helping a patient withdraw from tranquilizers, it seemed to increase his need for them. Special tapes for businesspeople to use during their rest periods seemed suddenly to increase rather than reduce their stress. These findings were very alarming.

When I investigated these and many other paradoxical phenomena, I found that in all cases they were related to the use of digital recordings. These were vinyl records (and later CDs) made from digital masters.[4] When I substituted analog versions of the same work, sometimes even with the same performers, the positive therapeutic effects were again obtained. There seemed to me little doubt that something was “wrong” with the digital process. Apparently the digital recording technique not only did not enhance Life Energy and reduce stress, but it was actually untherapeutic; that is, it imposed a stress and reduced Life Energy. Through some mechanism, some severely detrimental effect on the Acupuncture Emotional System, the digital process was somehow reversing the therapeutic effects of the music!

My question is, if the effect is real, what makes the digital recordings bad? Is the problem the sound or is it something else that affects the listener having to do with the electronics? Is digital fundamentally flawed or can it be fixed?

I'm posting this here, as it seems appropriate to the discussion, though I made the same post as a reply to today's Cs session:

A: If one is depending on a 3rd density effect, analog is best. If one is attempting to tap higher or "other" realms, digital is more likely to capture the effect.

Q: (L) So if you just want a 3rd density thing like giving somebody drugs or something, you use something analog like records that deliver actual physical vibrations or whatever to the individual. But if you're trying to capture or transmit other realms or other-density effects and so forth, then digital is better. Let's face it, if you're trying to make a recording of ghosts for example, and you leave some kind of recording device in a haunted house and it is supposed to make a record, that would require a kind of cross-density type of energy that would be pretty momentous, I think. It's mechanical. So mechanical effects happen with analog. Digital can be very subtle, electromagnetic...


I remember years ago, in the beginning of digital recording and the arguments for and against, a very interesting friend had read a research paper talking about the problem with digital sound recordings. I don't know what academic wrote the paper. But it stated that the analog sound was continuous. On the other hand, digital square waves went up, delivered sound information and then instantly cut off information, before the next square wave presented the following bit of sound information. The two packets were disconnected, but at a rate fast enough for the brain to tie them together and make continuous sense of them. At the the time, the bit rates were not as fast as they are now and it was reasoned that this sort of listening caused a stress on the human system, the brain being used to hearing complete continuity in sound. We used to joke that digital music had an empty factor, in the fraction of a second between the square waves, cutting off and turning back on---that you could reach in and there was actually nothing there that you could touch and hold on to.

I can see where that empty space, though smaller than it was in those days, could provide the higher mind a focal point, as the conscious mind is captivated with the square wave musical input. The brain perceives much faster than the digital bit rate. Perhaps we can 'see' through the millisecond windows in digital sound.