The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Launch of Pono Studio Headphones
Old 15th April 2014
  #3121
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobro View Post
Would you say that what is apparent in abx testing does not fall under "magical thinking"?
"apparent" as in: "reproducible" is not magical at all.

I would say that if "millions of people" can hear something, at least one or two of them should be able to ace an Blind test on that subject. One or two should be even willing to TRY - if only as a demonstration of the sincerity of their convictions. Perhaps I am being overly harsh and "skeptical" but it does not seem to be a lot to ask!
Old 15th April 2014
  #3122
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobro View Post
Would you say that what is apparent in abx testing does not fall under "magical thinking"?
Of course! There was an interesting study posted earlier that also talked about ways the body might sense higher frequencies, but no successful abx testing had been conducted so far.

My mind is open. But science is settled for the moment.
Old 15th April 2014
  #3123
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
Of course! There was an interesting study posted earlier that also talked about ways the body might sense higher frequencies, but no successful abx testing had been conducted so far.

My mind is open. But science is settled for the moment.
But is reality divided between science and magic? I don't think so. I've been ABXing for years and come to my own conclusions. That's not magical thinking, but it's not science either, because science requires that results must be reproducible in laboratory conditions, peer review and so on, much more than one guy alone in the dark with a beer and a smoke, even if he is ABXing.
Old 15th April 2014
  #3124
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobro View Post
I've been ABXing for years and come to my own conclusions. That's not magical thinking, but it's not science either, because science requires that results must be reproducible in laboratory conditions, peer review and so on, much more than one guy alone in the dark with a beer and a smoke, even if he is ABXing.
True, no scientific journal will publish your impromptu ABX results, but that's not really the point, is it? The guy in the dark with the beer could well be doing good science, or he could be committing the most egregious experimental design errors. As far as Science (with a capital-S) goes, either way it's just anecdote. But if he's put reasonable effort into making the trials as scientific (little-s) as possible, then the results can certainly be useful to him, as an individual. Discussing his methods and results in a public forum like GS is a cheap and easy way to get some peer review, too.

Good science is more about habits and diligence than fancy laboratories or famous journals.
Old 15th April 2014
  #3125
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobro View Post
But is reality divided between science and magic? I don't think so. I've been ABXing for years and come to my own conclusions. That's not magical thinking, but it's not science either, because science requires that results must be reproducible in laboratory conditions, peer review and so on, much more than one guy alone in the dark with a beer and a smoke, even if he is ABXing.
Say more please... what are your observations?

I am open to other people hearing more than I can and/or picking out things I cannot in a/b/x testing. The key is to understand how expectation bias works, and ensure when you are testing you are doing the things necessary to not introduce tells in the process. You need to have the files level matched, ensure there are no subtle cues, etc.

If you're doing this and still noticing things in abx testing I'm sure you would have many of us curious to understand more. Certainly I am..

There is a big difference between doing a/b/x testing yourself well (as above with no tells) and the magical thinking that others here are doing. For example, the people who swear there is something else not being captured but they haven't done an a/b/x test themselves. Or those who refuse to test. It's silly.
Old 15th April 2014
  #3126
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by bandpass View Post
Whether they really hear it or not, millions of people say meh: HDCD, SACD, DVD-A, Pure audio Blu-ray, all barely blipped the radar of public conciousness.
Just like pocket PC and Palm. Sorry, all those formats are the "google plus" of hifi.

No buzz factor.

Get the record industry+ The right "hype", you get things like MTV, which led to Mj's Thriller vid, which led to ridiculous sales, which led to more business in studio world..

Think about it: The only reason we have smart phones are 100% the result of apple and record companies uniting.
Old 15th April 2014
  #3127
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by 21doors View Post
Think about it: The only reason we have smart phones are 100% the result of apple and record companies uniting.
Absurd.
Old 15th April 2014
  #3128
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
Say more please... what are your observations?

I am open to other people hearing more than I can and/or picking out things I cannot in a/b/x testing. The key is to understand how expectation bias works, and ensure when you are testing you are doing the things necessary to not introduce tells in the process. You need to have the files level matched, ensure there are no subtle cues, etc.

If you're doing this and still noticing things in abx testing I'm sure you would have many of us curious to understand more. Certainly I am..

There is a big difference between doing a/b/x testing yourself well (as above with no tells) and the magical thinking that others here are doing. For example, the people who swear there is something else not being captured but they haven't done an a/b/x test themselves. Or those who refuse to test. It's silly.
I've posted an example of the kind of ABX tests I do, and it is as clean as it gets.

The conclusion I've come to just as Bob Ohlson described: 20 something bits, something like 50-60kHz SR, for delivery. Say 24/64 and call it a day. 16/44.1 is too low, 24/192 too high.

Back tomorrow, gotta sleep some time....
Old 15th April 2014
  #3129
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
Absurd.
True. Sometimes the truth is absurd.
Apple's rebound was all about having a monopoly on access to the record companies library.
Old 15th April 2014
  #3130
Lives for gear
Steve Jobs "genius" was creating exclusive easy access to downloadable portable music. I'm sure there were no bribes involved, lol
Old 15th April 2014
  #3131
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobro View Post
I've posted an example of the kind of ABX tests I do, and it is as clean as it gets.

The conclusion I've come to just as Bob Ohlson described: 20 something bits, something like 50-60kHz SR, for delivery. Say 24/64 and call it a day. 16/44.1 is too low, 24/192 too high.

What about DSD? It is superior to any PCM format, by a lot.
Old 15th April 2014
  #3132
Gear Maniac
 

In what ways?
Old 15th April 2014
  #3133
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
What about DSD? It is superior to any PCM format, by a lot.
No idea, never tried it. Love to try it in a blind test. But I'd like to hear things recorded to DSD, not to PCM then converted to DSD. If it is a great format, then it would capture the PCM reocording accurately, so why bother.
Old 16th April 2014
  #3134
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobro View Post
No idea, never tried it. Love to try it in a blind test. But I'd like to hear things recorded to DSD, not to PCM then converted to DSD. If it is a great format, then it would capture the PCM reocording accurately, so why bother.
I have a bunch of SACD's that did not involve PCM.
Old 16th April 2014
  #3135
Gear Maniac
 

I see this as great news

A device with a high data throughput and more storage means, even if FLAC doesn't pan out, it could be eventually used to play back music with multiple channels instead just 2. (The next step after stereo?).

Even more importantly, the fact that Young's superstar status attracted a whole bunch of people to Kickstarter means, that now you and I have a better chance to successfully crowdfund some innovative new music.

So ultimately FLAC might be the least important part in all of this.
Old 16th April 2014
  #3136
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
I have a bunch of SACD's that did not involve PCM.
Those would be very interesting to hear. Don't know anyone with a player, though.
Old 16th April 2014
  #3137
Lives for gear
 
O.F.F.'s Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
I have a bunch of SACD's that did not involve PCM.
The problem with DSD by someone who knows much more about these things than myself:http://sjeng.org/ftp/SACD.pdf
Old 16th April 2014
  #3138
Gear Head
 
bandpass's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by O.F.F. View Post
The problem with DSD by someone who knows much more about these things than myself:http://sjeng.org/ftp/SACD.pdf
That's describing a problem with (now obsolete) single-bit ADCs, not DSD per se. AFAIK, modern DSD is adequate (but inefficient compared to PCM) for transparency—I wouldn't expect a modern DSD recorder inserted into CD or Pono playback path to audibly degrade it.
Old 16th April 2014
  #3139
What's going to be awesome about itunes having hi-res files is their match system. You get to access your entire catalog from any apple device or PC with itunes. You don't need a lot of storage since you can just DL or stream whatever you want to listen to and erase music if your device is full, DL it later or stream it still.

If Apple does this and I assume it's a valid rummor, Pono is done. Don't think I am cheering for Pono's demise but I think it's inevitable.

At home my music streams from my Apple TV which can access mine and my wifes music right from Apple's servers, or other people can stream their music over my wifi to my apple tv, it connects hdmi to my Yamaha receiver, which has fine conversion.

Unless Pono does all that, I see the device as a step backward in regards to technology, especially in regards to convenience.
Old 16th April 2014
  #3140
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Are we all on the same page regarding the following:

-analog noise floor is noise with a given RMS amplitude
-dithered digital noise floor is one bit of resolution (with tpdf, possibly more) but can't be distinguished by ear from the analog noise, if done correctly
-you can hear a tone or other musical information far under the RMS amplitude of this noise if it's played alongside it: certainly 'under' the amplitude, otherwise we'd be constantly be going deaf to other sounds anytime noise was played. Our ears evolved TO hear signal out of noise, for survival purposes.

Then a step beyond these:

-you can't really bury a tone inside the digital noise floor in the same way that you can hear an analog tone alongside analog noisefloor, because the quantization tends to screw it up. It may or may not be totally opaque to carrying information, but it's a lot harder to hear signal in that noise when it's all got to be delivered over basically one bit of resolution.

And Bob Ohlsson's observation:

-the noise floor of truncated musical information, being correlated with the intended music, is more effective at masking subtleties than simple noise would be.

My own guess is that it's because the truncation noise is broadband but 'pretends' to be content rather than noise, producing artifacts that are more recognizable than noise is. We hear past noise by our ears' design, but presented with truncation artifacts our ear goes immediately to them telling us things like 'something is buzzing against the string of that instrument!'. In essence, truncation gives us garbage data that swamps our ability to perceive on a low level, replacing simple noise/randomness with large amounts of false and unpleasant content. Thus we can't pick out details through it because it IS a mass of detail, just wrong detail falsely representing unpleasant and undesirable 'content'.

The distortion of something being smoothed out (as with moving average filter inadequacy) is just as 'false' as the noise of tiny buzzing scraping sounds accompanying all low level detail (as with raw truncation), but they're not at all equal in terms of musical enjoyment. Some sonic lies are more harmful than others.
Old 16th April 2014
  #3141
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
there's widespread interest in things like apodizing filters on the grounds that pre-ring of the filter is particularly annoying.
In the community were apodizing filters etc are popular, there is also wide-spread interest in cable lifters and green markers to make CDs sound better.

I think the whole filter thing, though very real, isn't as big an issue as many make out. I see it more as the last bastion of the "hi-rez" proponents after all the even crazier stuff has been so thoroughly debunked.

One thing many people don't always realise is that the filter ringing happens at the transition band. I believe I posted some ADC/DAC specs in this thread (might have been the iTunes "hi-rez" thread) and if you look at those numbers you see that all the ringing happens at above 20Khz (Well, 19999 Hz ).

Also, another important point, is that the ringing is dependent on the energy in the signal. If there is no signal, you can filter all you want, there will be no ringing. That means that in any normal mix, we are not talking about a lot of energy up there at 20 K.

This also brings me back to the apodizing filter story: It is marketed as removing ringing from production. The only way to do that is to have a cut-off lower than the filters used during production. In other words, they have to affect the audible band to remove a problem that, until the contrary is demonstrated, isn't even audible.

People should not forget that all these audiophile companies have great pressure to keep releasing new products. (Or they have nothing to sell anyone). And to sell these new products, they have to come up with some fancy story to warrant the high-prices or even the existence of the new product! How many of these types of companies are likely to just close shop because they are not offering anything useful to their customers? (Well, they offer status... but you know what I mean).

Quote:
Me and UnderTow agree strongly on the problem of intersample overs (I think this, more than anything else, is what gives people the impression of 'digital glare in the highs' because analog output doesn't give you output swings significantly beyond 0db, and digital driven into stress and intersample overs does that continually while the rest of the audio is limited and clipped to provide a contrast to this; in practice, hyperloud and bright CD audio constantly puts out extreme high frequency peaks in excess of everything else, when working as designed. This is an unintended consequence of a design decision that became ubiquitous, in a format never designed to be abused in that way.
To be clear, the processing the sample values rather than the signal approach to DSP was a necessity due the limitations in processing power. Companies could have waited until we had more processing power but then the digital revolution would have taken much longer of course. (Or we would have had very limited DAWs with very limited track/plugin counts).

The question now is what we do with all the extra processing power we enjoy today? Do we blindly keep increasing the sample rates to infinity or do we deal with the actual problems? I think my views are clear by now.

Quote:
Choosing, as Pono has, such a different approach also has consequences. A naive moving-average calculation will result in a pretty lame EQ by accuracy standards, or consistency to a pre-intended curve. It may still be rolling off a bit at 20K, depending on how it goes. That will adversely affect sounds that are both bright and close-miked: definitely not 'reverb tails' because all supersonic frequencies die away long before the reverb even is a 'tail', you don't get supersonic highs out of even a second of transmission through open air.
To be clear: I was joking about the reverb tails. That said, the reverbs, just like everything else, will be affected if the filter reaches down into the audible band. (Just as with any low-pass filter that affects the audible band).

Quote:
But another characteristic of that decision is optimal averaging of lower frequency data: in fact at 192K using four samples (that's not confirmed, though, it could be three) you're doing some nice averaging of frequencies 16K and up.
Why do you want to average anything in the audible band? We are talking about a player. It should take the signal as it is provided and play it back as accurately as possible! Not filter it in a way that affects the audible band!

Quote:
Given that people tend to hear 10K and up as 'super-highs' (and rightly so), getting this level of added accuracy on them could be an advantage, in the event that ADCs need help at capturing the full quality of the sound.
What on earth are you talking about? This is a player. It should output what it is given! Not average stuff out or otherwise process the signal.

Quote:
You're basically helping the ADC do its job: if in some frequency range it's more fuzzy and not really delivering the accuracy, it becomes four times as accurate even if the converter itself is at its limit.
No it doesn't. It just averages everything, basically just low-passing in laymen terms, regardless of what you put into it.

Quote:
In images we do this through taking the same digital picture repeatedly and then averaging to deepen color richness, or scanning repeatedly and doing the same thing.
That is processing! That is changing the image/signal! That is something people might want (like some people like a loudness button on their boom boxes) but it is not what a DAC should do! This is about decreasing the fidelity of the signal (to achieve arguable subjective taste improvements) not about increasing the fidelity!

Quote:
In audio, the examples are staggered very slightly but it's the same principle as taking four simultaneous samples from four converters and then averaging them.
Are you being serious?

Quote:
If we were doing this at 16 bit capture,
Chris, the operative word here is Pono player . (And if 16 bit capture isn't enough, just use 24 bits).

Quote:
the technique Pono's using gives us four times that amount of data, with a total and utter lack of time domain weirdness like ripple. If I'm not mistaken, it'll be rounding off the corners of squarewaves and delivering perfectly flat squarewave tops with no ripple at all,
You are very mistaken! You are talking about the Gibbs phenomenon. This is what you want! Because this is how they are supposed to behave! Those so called ripples you are talking about are what happens when you sum sine waves to create a square waves: (or filter out harmonics from square waves).



There is nothing wrong at all with this. This is also what happens in your ear (which works as a low-pass filter). This is just the nature of reality. Nothing we can do about it (nor should we want to do anything about it).

Quote:
even the natural ripple that's a part of lowpassing. It'll effectively synthesize a 'smooth line' output through whatever the audio waveform must be, even if it means rounding off some of the corners at frequencies approaching 20K.
You will achieve is MORE "rippling" of the square wave! (And rounder corners). You are basically just filtering out high-end of the signal within the audible band.

Quote:
Traditional digital audio ignores ripple so completely that by design it produces extensive pre-ring as well as very severe supersonic ripple. The apodizing filters and alternate approaches put the ripple behind the attack transient, but it's still there, because it's the brick wall filtering and that is the shape of that audio condition when done properly. It's not the sound of digital, it's the sound of really high filter slope and it means 'full frequencies up to 22K, and then none'.
As I wrote above, the filter ringing is happening in the transition band, outside the audible range. It is not an issue in itself. The proposed solution (for a problem that doesn't exist) affects the signal in the audible range. It is actually breaking something that wasn't broken in the first place.

Quote:
it turns out ripple is the key factor to aversion to digital highs…
No, that is just the marketing from companies desperate to sell people something they don't need.

Quote:
then we've learned something interesting that the initial creators of sampling didn't know at the time.
No we have not. Nothing has changed except there is yet another product coming to the market trying to solve a non-existing problem.

Chris, on another note, I am a little confused about your Righteous product but based on your marketing and the video on your site, it seems like this product is basically a Tube emulation, right? That's it? Or am I (or your marketing) missing something?

Alistair
Old 16th April 2014
  #3142
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
Some sonic lies are more harmful than others.
it is also quite possible that some sonic lies are more irritating to specific individuals, and other kinds of sonic lies are more irritating to other individuals

still, factors like "irritation" and "unpleasant artifacts" - even if extremely subtle - should show themselves statistically over a large number of trials of abx
Old 16th April 2014
  #3143
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
-you can't really bury a tone inside the digital noise floor
You sure can. It is demonstrated in this post: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/7142575-post4.html

Quote:
And Bob Ohlsson's observation:

-the noise floor of truncated musical information, being correlated with the intended music, is more effective at masking subtleties than simple noise would be.
I think it makes things clearer if we call it quantization distortion rather than quantization noise.

One way of looking at this subject: Dithering "linearises the quantization steps" while truncation (with no dithering) just drops everything below the Least Significant Bit. (And the error that this represents manifests itself as SR correlated junk which isn't very nice to listen to).


Quote:
We hear past noise by our ears' design, but presented with truncation artifacts our ear goes immediately to them telling us things like 'something is buzzing against the string of that instrument!'. In essence, truncation gives us garbage data that swamps our ability to perceive on a low level, replacing simple noise/randomness with large amounts of false and unpleasant content. Thus we can't pick out details through it because it IS a mass of detail, just wrong detail falsely representing unpleasant and undesirable 'content'.
Indeed. Quantization distortion is wholly unnatural thing that shouldn't be there. It is also higher in peak level than TPDF dither. A bad thing all round.

Quote:
The distortion of something being smoothed out (as with moving average filter inadequacy)
Are you coming to your senses Chris?

Alistair
Old 16th April 2014
  #3144
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
-you can hear a tone or other musical information far under the RMS amplitude of this noise if it's played alongside it: certainly 'under' the amplitude, otherwise we'd be constantly be going deaf to other sounds anytime noise was played. Our ears evolved TO hear signal out of noise, for survival purposes.
How "far" you can hear under the noise is a function of time (or, equivalently, samples). If you have one sample whose amplitude is below the noise, then you will hear only noise (this should be obvious: noise will have every amplitude randomly, so it is impossible to determine whether any particular amplitude is signal or noise). As we add more samples (all below the noise floor), a "natural" averaging occurs for any detector (whether it's a voltmeter or your ear) which smooths out the noise, allowing the signal to be detected inside the noise. This can be quantified: as the number of samples increases, the error between the signal and noise falls with the square root of the number of samples. Theoretically, if you had enough time/samples, you could have "infinite" resolution.

Quote:
-you can't really bury a tone inside the digital noise floor in the same way that you can hear an analog tone alongside analog noisefloor, because the quantization tends to screw it up. It may or may not be totally opaque to carrying information, but it's a lot harder to hear signal in that noise when it's all got to be delivered over basically one bit of resolution.
The entire point of dither is to eliminate the effects of quantization. Once dither is added, the quantization steps are decorrelated from the signal and you're left with signal + noise, just like analog. This has nothing to do with being "a lot harder to hear signal in ... one bit of resolution." That's not how it works. The only catch is that your pseudorandom number generator has to be up to the task; Paul Frindle (whom I trust implicitly on these matters) has reported hearing the effect of correlated dither due to not enough randomness. Granted, it took incredibly careful listening, but he heard it.

Quote:
-the noise floor of truncated musical information, being correlated with the intended music, is more effective at masking subtleties than simple noise would be.
This is what happens when you don't use dither, which I think everyone agrees is a big no-no. If you're not dithering, you're not quantizing properly so all bets are off.
Old 16th April 2014
  #3145
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
...My own guess is that it's because the truncation noise is broadband but 'pretends' to be content rather than noise, producing artifacts that are more recognizable than noise is. .
When you turn it up, it sounds like a fuzztone and not hiss. It's called "noise" by the same marketing bozos who measure DACs with the converter chips in mute.

In JJ's Heyser lecture he makes the point that S/N specifications are utterly meaningless.
Old 16th April 2014
  #3146
Quote:
Originally Posted by bandpass View Post
That's describing a problem with (now obsolete) single-bit ADCs, not DSD per se. AFAIK, modern DSD is adequate (but inefficient compared to PCM) for transparency—I wouldn't expect a modern DSD recorder inserted into CD or Pono playback path to audibly degrade it.
Um...

I think, for most of us in audio, the most familiar use of 1 bit sigma-delta is DSD/SACD.

Delta-sigma modulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Old 16th April 2014
  #3147
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
That is processing! That is changing the image/signal! That is something people might want (like some people like a loudness button on their boom boxes) but it is not what a DAC should do! This is about decreasing the fidelity of the signal (to achieve arguable subjective taste improvements) not about increasing the fidelity!
No indeed. The signal is the original source (being sampled at 192K, and played back with averaging). The signal is NOT the samples, still less the set of audio content defined as '0-96000 hz played back using the normal digital reconstruction techniques'.

The signal is the original analog source…
and sampling at 24 bit/192K with moving average reconstruction is the same as sampling at 25 bit/48K.

This is nothing but oversampling in its most basic form, with the playback providing the most basic averaging ( Oversampling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ). It gives you 6 db of improved S/N ratio and is not changing the signal at all, because the signal's not '94000 hz audio phenomena' unless you insist it is. The signal's 20K and down, in practical terms more like 18K and down, word length is more relevant to people's appreciation of the audio than supersonic audio content, and the whole scheme ought to work very nicely to radically increase the fidelity to the original, analog signals we want to capture and play back.

From all accounts of those actually hearing prototypes, it does that, which I think is a natural consequence of correct design trade-offs. It's fascinating that this performance doesn't actually involve audio content at 96K except as an intermediate stage. You COULD also play that stuff back to reproduce the massively supersonic stuff with 24 bit accuracy. They're just not, but the data's there nevertheless. Any redesign of a thing like an iPhone to play back 192K directly would likely be using the more traditional technique and putting 96K audio content (what there is of it) through very inadequate analog stages and power supplies geared for miniaturization and low power consumption… making it vulnerable to the issues Monty raised of intermodulation distortion from the very high frequency content, trashing the analog stages and being worse rather than better.

What that would mean is, Pono would continue to sound audibly better than even an iPhone upgraded to play back 192K FLACs.

As such, I wonder if it's an intentional tactic to trick manufacturers into 'competing' by trying to implement traditional digital audio at the higher sample rates just to say they have it supported.
Old 16th April 2014
  #3148
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
it is also quite possible that some sonic lies are more irritating to specific individuals, and other kinds of sonic lies are more irritating to other individuals

still, factors like "irritation" and "unpleasant artifacts" - even if extremely subtle - should show themselves statistically over a large number of trials of abx
And some sonic lies are more profitable...


Oh, wait... different kind.
Old 16th April 2014
  #3149
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
[...]Quote:
And Bob Ohlsson's observation:

Quote:
-the noise floor of truncated musical information, being correlated with the intended music, is more effective at masking subtleties than simple noise would be.
I think it makes things clearer if we call it quantization distortion rather than quantization noise.

One way of looking at this subject: Dithering "linearises the quantization steps" while truncation (with no dithering) just drops everything below the Least Significant Bit. (And the error that this represents manifests itself as SR correlated junk which isn't very nice to listen to).

[...]
EDIT: I earlier totally misunderstood the quote within a quote above. You'd think I'd be better at following the implicit logic. My bad!

I can now say: I see what he did there.



Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj
From all accounts of those actually hearing prototypes [...]
Every single one, huh? Now that is some very impressive uniformity of perception not to mention description of experience across a presumably wide selection of subjects. Damn!

heh

Like I think I said earlier... we've all been in here a long time. I think people may be getting a little dotty without realizing it.


BTW... signal exits all the way through a signal chain. If it didn't... well you know...

Sample values within the context of format and protocol information represent signal in the strictest sense of the word. Signal does NOT stop at ADC and magically start up again at DAC. Folks who don't understand THAT are also wanting in the conceptual understanding department.
Old 16th April 2014
  #3150
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Every single one, huh? Now that is some very impressive uniformity of perception not to mention description of experience across a presumably wide selection of subjects. Damn!

heh

Like I think I said earlier... we've all been in here a long time. I think people may be getting a little dotty without realizing it.
There was that one guy in the background of one of the Pono videos not smiling. He listened to it, and he said 'I don't get what's such a big deal'.

They took him out and killed him. Now all the rest of the listeners are suitably impressed!
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump