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 20th April 2014
  #3481
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ephi82 View Post
I am going to bet that those who like the WA-76 think it's really warm, in a warm , but transparently warm, way.
Haha, indeed.
Old 20th April 2014
  #3482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ephi82 View Post
I think that's fair.

I am going to bet that those who like the WA-76 think it's really warm, in a warm , but transparently warm, way.
Who don't like warm. heh


That darn bogosort keeps explaining things better than me.
Old 20th April 2014
  #3483
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
That darn bogosort keeps explaining things better than me.
Nah, you're il miglior fabbro.
Old 20th April 2014
  #3484
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Now, I'm a huge fan of Neil Young's first decade of recorded music but that's his music -- not his 'science.' It's clear, I think, that Neil doesn't know any better, judging from the incoherent nonsense he spouts about audio. But some of the people behind the making and marketing of this product clearly must know better. And that's what makes it so troubling.
exactly this. I am a great Neil Young fan too ("le noise" is imo one of the best 20 albums I have ever heard), but that has nothing to do with this discussion.

I know, that Neil Young knows nothing about science regarding the whole audio-thing. nothing. he would be the one in this forum who gets the most facepalms. thats a fact.
Old 20th April 2014
  #3485
Lives for gear
Holy **** every few times I come in GS, in these kind of discussions, there are theblue1, bogosort, and their crew coming in and telling to all the other people how dumb they are... you do really live here right? Making fun of people.. come on, keep on.. and I bet you are firmly certain you are right.. in an absolute way

So certain that if someone says something that makes your certainties stagger.. you start fighting endlessly thinking that exhausting the "opponent" makes you some sort of winner

You really seems insecure guys... the best scientists I've known are the ones that continuously doubt the results they are getting and always check them with real word experience, their senses and so on...
Old 20th April 2014
  #3486
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
Nah, you're il miglior fabbro.
Hah... now THAT is fabulism. heh

Flattered though I may be.

(Though I rush to add that I don't share Sig. Pound's politics -- happily -- or, obviously, his editing ruthlessness and rigor -- perhaps considerably less happily.)
Old 20th April 2014
  #3487
Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteaxxxe View Post
exactly this. I am a great Neil Young fan too ("le noise" is imo one of the best 20 albums I have ever heard), but that has nothing to do with this discussion.

I know, that Neil Young knows nothing about science regarding the whole audio-thing. nothing. he would be the one in this forum who gets the most facepalms. thats a fact.
Well, he's a fish out of water in this ocean.

But, you know, that ocean is a drop in the bucket compared to what Mr Young and other musical artists have meant to me. If it wasn't for the music in the first place, I doubt recording technology would have been of any more interest to me than any other interesting technology like the internal combustion engine or the air foil. (Ah, but the internal combustion engine gave me a certain kind of freedom and ease of travel [at a cost that all of us are now sadly paying] and the airfoil and resulting commercial airline system let me see places I might never otherwise have seen... sunset over the Thunersee... utterly priceless. Sorry about the fossil fuels, though. Damn tradeoffs. But that's another thread?)
Old 20th April 2014
  #3488
Lives for gear
 
Dpro's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
No one is suggesting otherwise. The latest compressor or preamp du jour rides the hype wave and then sinks or swims based on its merits. Of course AEs are as susceptible to marketing as anyone else, but the difference here is the timbre of the hype.

We can use the Warm Audio 1176 clone, one of the more recent hype trains, as a case study: when it was first announced, GS was abuzz with excitement. A sub-$600 1176! Huge threads were started, mouths were frothing at prototype pictures, dealers were selling out non-existent inventory on pre-orders. There was genuine excitement among many GS members. Naturally, though, there were some members who were skeptical that a $600 compressor could live up to the hype. They voiced their skepticism, short debates ensued, but ultimately the hype wave washed it all over.

I haven't heard much about the WA-76 since then. I have no idea if its owners are happy or disappointed with the product. But I do know that, for all the hysteria surrounding it, no one expected anything more than an 1176-type compressor. There were no illusions of a musical revolution or metaphors of surfacing from underneath the water. If someone caught in the hype wave had proposed such a thing, he would have been mocked or simply dismissed.

But Pono fever is very different. People are literally hoping it will usher in a new era of music appreciation! This is hardly the same brand of hype that accompanies the latest summing box. It's only natural, then, that the pushback is more vigorous.
Actually let me state something here about you using the Warm products as marketing hype. There was no marketing hype behind Bryce's products from Bryce( the man behind Warm Audio). He stated purely and simply when he made the Pre Amp that it was a recreation of an API 312 circuit with a Cinemag transformer and a few extra tweaks. No outrageous marketing claims.

Same goes for the compressor. He stated purely that it was a recreation of a 1176 model D. Now the fact is several reputable gearslutz that are known engineers got demo units and did praise them . Though it was nowhere near the hysterical Pono claims and they in fact posted examples of the units in action. No so called hype wave like you are saying.

So while I respect most of what you post , I feel you made a really bad choice in your example of marketing hype analogy.

Oh and just for clarity's sake I own both of these products and bought them out of interest to see if they were what the manufacturer was selling. I expected a API clone and was quite happy to receive a great mic pre for the money. Nothingness less nothing more. You must also remember Mic Pres are like flavors different ones impart different vibes just like Mic's . So of course not everyone will like a particular model but the majority of engineers who have bought them are quite happy and Turing out some great recordings with them.

I also bought a WA76, why because I found it very cool to be able to buy a stand alone (not 500 series) 1176 clone for $600. Did I get what was advertised? Yes because they did not hype it as anything more than a 1176 clone. Does it actually do the job like a original 1176? Yes and in spades. Again no hype from the manufacturer claiming some unproven crap. He stated it was a 1176 clone and that is what it was. Again examples posted of it in action doing its thing prior to purchase.

All of this in no way constitutes an analogy to the hype around Pono. As far as I know Neil has not posted examples of the Pono's sound. Neil has claimed it sounds like something supposedly no one has ever heard except him and his rock star friends. Neil is not saying he has recreated a phonograph for audio playback. He has said he has something that sounds better.
He has also posted teenagers reactions yet has not again give any actual examples of its sound or the sound files showing the differences between Pono sound and non Pono sound.

None of that kind of bull surrounds Warm Audio products . I should also add you may have assumed a hype wave because a lot of gearslutz members are cynical doubters by nature.
So anytime something new for a good price comes down the tubes? They start howling about how it can't be at that price point and expressing extreme skepticism.
Nothing wrong with a healthy dose of skepticism except once you do that you put the other side on the defensive which leads to debate and then ensuing can sometimes be misconstrued as. Hype.
Put any man on the defensive and threads like this will ensue it's almost self perpetuating.
Old 20th April 2014
  #3489
Quote:
Originally Posted by elan View Post
Holy **** every few times I come in GS, in these kind of discussions, there are theblue1, bogosort, and their crew coming in and telling to all the other people how dumb they are... you do really live here right? Making fun of people.. come on, keep on.. and I bet you are firmly certain you are right.. in an absolute way

So certain that if someone says something that makes your certainties stagger.. you start fighting endlessly thinking that exhausting the "opponent" makes you some sort of winner

You really seems insecure guys... the best scientists I've known are the ones that continuously doubt the results they are getting and always check them with real word experience, their senses and so on...
It's absolutely true that I get frustrated with the level of ignorance and lack of logical ability that sometimes manifests in some folks here. And that frustration probably is not always expressed with great charity.

But when someone brings credible evidence to the table that contradicts what I believe I know, that is something I am definitely interested in pursuing.

I'm not afraid of being wrong -- but I'm afraid of STAYING wrong when I could be improving my understanding. That's why I made a point of working through, for instance, the presentation notes posted by JJ in another thread. There were some things in that thread that potentially challenged some of my working conclusions. I could have tuned it out -- it wasn't necessarily all easy to wrap one's head around -- but having seen where JJ is coming from, career-wise, that seemed counterproductive -- if the point is to improve one's knowledge.

If someone wants to suggest that my impatience and frustration sometimes manifest as uncharitabilty or even scorn, I think that's probably entirely fair.

But I'm definitely more interested in being right than having people think I'm right.

And consistency, as they say, is the hobgoblin of small minds. I'm perfectly willing to follow real, credible evidence as far as I can. If it leads me to believe 'everything I knew' in the past was wrong, well, it won't be the first time. It's why I've read through the Oohashi and other studies as well as the critiques and follow-ups. I don't want something real to blind side me. (Mind you, I think there are some real problems and concerns with some aspects of the Oohashi studies but, particularly in the case of his own follow-up, there was considerable rigor and creative effort seemingly devoted to coming up with a test method that would both address prior criticisms and questions raised by others; I think his findings were interesting but inconclusive -- but more importantly, even if we were to throw scientific caution and method aside and accept his findings without little question, they don't really extend our practical understanding of the mechanisms and limits of audio perception, though they may well provide motivation for more study.)
Old 20th April 2014
  #3490
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dpro View Post
Actually let me state something here about you using the Warm products as marketing hype.
Totally agree with you. I didn't mean to imply that Warm Audio was marketing their products like the Pono team; I meant to contrast the GS hype for the two products, which I think we can both agree are on different levels.

Good to hear that the WA 1176 is working out for you!
Old 20th April 2014
  #3491
Lives for gear
 
Dpro's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
Totally agree with you. I didn't mean to imply that Warm Audio was marketing their products like the Pono team; I meant to contrast the GS hype for the two products, which I think we can both agree are on different levels.

Good to hear that the WA 1176 is working out for you!
Cool ya you had me paused for a moment. All is good, ya the WA is a great product and would have thought someone would deliver an 1176 model D repro for under 1k let alone $600?

Ya the Pono thing is almost scary to me. It's like no product super fantastic claims and from an engineering standpoint really quite possibly nothing people have not had access to all ready.
Plus the fact that from all I have learned about digital audio 192k has absolutely no inherent value for audio reproduction in the range of human hearing.
The whole apodizing filter thing is perhaps th only reason but according to a lot of the science that is a flawed filter idea that has been around for years as well

Of course this is none the less fascinating thing at least for me going on in the possibility of them making apodizing filters perform better.

My father got his PHD from Purdue in Semiconductor Physics. He pioneered Silicon transistors among other things. When he started out his Professor told him he could work with Germanium which at the time was the standard. Or he could work with this nasty substance called Silicon which no. One really liked and everyone was having a hard time getting any viable results with. As you might guess my father chose Silicon and made a Silicon transistor for his thesis. He went on to create and invent many things of which I will not go into detail here. Suffice to say we today stuff that we might not have if we're not for my father.

Yet I digress, the analogy in the story lies in the outside possibility that just maybe these guys have turned the whole apodizing filter thing on its head and made it work this time. This is the only thing that scientifically could give any credence to the purported great sound of Pono. In essence supposedly you do need 192k to make that filter function properly though in the end it's actually throwing out anything above the audible range inits process.
So that leads one to question why would even need it in the first place in lieu of very high quality modern filters.
I am not a EE or a Physics major. I am just a sound engineer and the son of someone who has big shoes to fill.
Up until the apodizing filter aspect came up I felt the Pono thing was utter and complete crap. Now that it came up I am fascinated. Though I do still hold quite a healthy dose of skepticism. I also defer to JJ for he is truly a educated giant in the field. I would take his word sooner than almost anyone else in this thread because he has the proof to back it up.

In other words while I have found something possible if not fascinating about Pono? I still don't believe it or believe it's needed. It's more just a curiosity for an inquisitive mind.
Also an item that is way Overhyped.
Old 20th April 2014
  #3492
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
It's absolutely true that I get frustrated with the level of ignorance and lack of logical ability that sometimes manifests in some folks here.
Well then you understand how I feel reading you and your crew.. so that's why I usually end up giving up

Quote:
But when someone brings credible evidence to the table that contradicts what I believe I know, that is something I am definitely interested in pursuing.
A part from the fact I didn't notice this because every time I've contradicted you or some of your crew, I didn't get listened, but people were reading trying to think how to dismiss, in an easy way, what I was saying instead trying to understand.

Quote:
But I'm definitely more interested in being right than having people think I'm right.
If you are really interested in this and FOR THE SAKE OF IT, meaning because you enjoy knowing things, well... I think you should rethink about the previous quote...

A part from the fact that I too look for objective things to have coordinates etc, I would like you to think about "Evidence" and "Music"... because in my opinion and following the dictionary.. music has nothing to do with evidences and so the way the sound is perceived, which is how music communicates, isn't objective.

So... if you, and many other people, could just take these two things in consideration... well.. you'll be much more relaxed and much less feeling the need to prove something... because you'll understand "everything is possible" and define something that changes for every human being on the planet etc.. well.. even though the process could be useful.. in the moment we have a definition.. well.. it is probably already surpassed by something new that came up

Example.. just the way we perceive very low level sounds.. and how it changes the way we are perceiving music, sound, would be enough to make people doubt their certainties about digital, mp3, lower vs higher sample rates and so on... just the scientific fact that the height of a growing person changes its equilibrium, balance abilities, so even a different height of a chair changes the way people are able to discern thing (very little I can agree.. but depending on other added factors, can be the difference between hearing something or not)... if we then consider that the most predictable result of a blind test is necessarily RANDOM... unless the blind test is conducted in a very very accurate way, with trained people in a very very comfortable listening environment to which all the people involved are very very used to.. etc... you understand that probably a blind test is only valid if done privately between a small number of very well trained ears, each one in their own private studio or the place where they listen to music like 8 hours a day for the last, I don't know, 10 years. If you also consider that most of the people listens with eyes open or not in an ambient that's completely dark without lights stimulating ours eyes... and that means they are using like 40% less of the part of the brain entitled in discerning sounds... well... talking about shoot outs or stuff like that on the net would be like a scientific blasphemy (IMO)

But most importantly, to describe the differences two people are hearing, they should firstly know rationally how is the effect they are perceiving.. because most of us cannot discern rationally with their brain what their are hearing.. unless it is something they have a lot of experience of.

Talking digital, my opinion, is that we are getting experienced now about the way the digital sound, sounds.. because the digital from the 80s and 90s had a lot of analog around it, to make it sound good. Now we have the specs to make it sound decent alone... still.. some people are more intolerant about digital sound, other less.. mainly because digital is something that doesn't exist in the real world.. so.. things like non-random noise and stuff like that.. to some people.. sound really unreal in digital compared to analog.. and that's because it is part of how analog is obtained.. where everything is random, like in the real world, like in any room except an anechoic room... and that's one of the reason why certain people, whom are not crazy, not snob, not lazy, nor necessarily ignorant (even though being ignorant doesn't make any difference in that case).. are looking for things that sound better than 44.1 or mp3 or iPod etc..

Following that way of thinking, meaning caring about everything and choosing what I prefer sonically, what for me sounds good, and what for people I like how their work sounds, sounds good.. well.. I've been sitting here.. and seeing after 10 years people coming to my same conclusions.

We live in times were objectivity, facts, proof, science, are dominating everything and even though people could say that's a positive thing.. well, I partially disagree because the drawback is that science could even mislead us if misinterpreted.. something that usually happens when we don't trust our senses, our intuitions, our experiences, which is what make us realize that eventually we need other tests to prove what we are perceiving.. instead thinking we are not perceiving it
Old 20th April 2014
  #3493
elan -

I can only answer for myself. And I already did.


With regard to music -- I'm pretty much totally intuition driven. I'm an old hippie and I play like an old hippie. From the heart, from the gut.

One of the great things about knowing something about the tools I use and the science behind them is that I don't find myself tormenting myself with doubt and indecision like a lot of folks seem to. I don't sit around agonizing about this sample rate or that when I'm working on music. Far, far from it.

For years I did live, all-improv performances before audiences. You can't let it all just pore out if you're obsessing on tech stuff. I say get all that crap out of the way up front, get your rig right, and then concentrate on music. That works for me.


PS... Once and for all - yeah, right heh -- 'blind testing' does NOT refer to blindfolds. (Though, of course, in some forms of it, blindfolds have been used -- but blindfolds are generally not liked for audio testing because there are almost always better ways of preventing the subject from knowing which test object is which and blindfolds and especially the full goggles that prevent any possibility of seeing can physically change the sound reaching the subject's ear.) How long will it be before we can even get the most basic terms straight?
Old 20th April 2014
  #3494
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
elan -

I can only answer for myself. And I already did.


With regard to music -- I'm pretty much totally intuition driven. I'm an old hippie and I play like an old hippie. From the heart, from the gut.

One of the great things about knowing something about the tools I use and the science behind them is that I don't find myself tormenting myself with doubt and indecision like a lot of folks seem to. I don't sit around agonizing about this sample rate or that when I'm working on music. Far, far from it.

For years I did live, all-improv performances before audiences. You can't let it all just pore out if you're obsessing on tech stuff. I say get all that crap out of the way up front, get your rig right, and then concentrate on music. That works for me.
That's exactly my approach and those are exactly the benefits I got trusting my ears and if knowing the science behind a tool and "what makes sense" tells me that tool must be the one that sound best in that case... but my ears tell me that it is another one.. I'll use the other one and get the result done (even though doing what science has proved and what makes rationally sense.. would be a more comfortable choice)

The way you have described makes you feel secure because you are going in a road that has already been driven.. so you stop asking question to yourself and, while good from a certain point of view, because you are there for making music, not science.. it is, by definition, and anti-progress approach

The way I described makes me feel secure.. because.. anyhow.. they could have been right or wrong.. but I have done the choice that works better for me, to get the result I'm after.. and a part of me keeps noticing things.. keeping track, instead telling myself what I'm hearing doesn't exist because hasn't been scientifically proven.. and after years.. I get a much better picture of what I was hearing and why..

So skills improve and results gets done.

Then in 2013 Daft Punk came out.. 10 years later since when I started having certain feels about how I was perceiving music, instruments, in digital.. and they pretty much confirmed every feel I had.. "proving it" by doing an album that, for me, it is probably the best sounding of the last 25 years

Quote:
PS... Once and for all - yeah, right heh -- 'blind testing' does NOT refer to blindfolds. How long will it be before we can even get the most basic terms straight?
I don't get this PS.. I know what's blind testing and what means being blindfolds. I was telling you that if you do a blind test with eyes open and with lights in the room or a screen turned on, I won't accept it as valid, because we are using almost half of our hearing abilities with eyes opened.
Old 20th April 2014
  #3495
elan, looks like, musically, we come from a similar musical sensibility.

I honestly do not care what approach folks want to take or what their personal beliefs are. If they work for them, that's great.

But I do start getting itchy when folks publicly present, as fact but without credible evidence, what are really personal theories/worldviews that diverge substantially from the generally accepted understanding of our world/universe that we've derived from scientific observation. Maybe those theories WILL prove to be closer to reality in time, but until we have credible evidence arrived at through carefully applied science, those personal theories should remain labeled as such.


PS... I did, indeed, misunderstand your comment about listening to test material. I get it now that you're talking about removing visual distractions -- and THAT is, indeed, a very interesting field of thought and endeavor. I often will 'disengage' my visual sense when I'm really listening to music. I mean, my field of vision flattens out into a bunch of blobby shapes that I'm not paying any attention to. And sometimes I do, indeed, close or cover my eyes with my hand when I'm concentrating on the music. I don't know about others, but such strategies DO seem to help me at times concentrate my not-unlimited analytical powers more directly on the music.
Old 20th April 2014
  #3496
Lives for gear
 

It might be totally off-topic, but how and what did Daft Punks Random Access Memories prove to you Elan?
Old 20th April 2014
  #3497
Lives for gear
 
Ephi82's Avatar
 

This is completely surreal.......................
Old 20th April 2014
  #3498
I'm a huge fan of Bunuel and Fellini. Much less so, Daft punk.


heh
Old 20th April 2014
  #3499
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Elan, I just go back to the fact that a double blind test will tell me everything I need to know about an acoustic guitar. I will tell me everything I need to know about a microphone. Or about two vocalists or two drum sounds.

if these abx tests need to be perfect to have any value, well, like I said, they have major value to me when they are imperfect. When you hear the difference between sample rates and the difference is suddenly tiny if any at all... only then does one need perfect conditions to do a valid test? Hey, maybe you are right. But it sure seems to me my ears and my brain both agree you are wrong.

I agree this thread has very much illustrated the willingness people have for magical thinking and the little regard some people have for basic science and logic.
Old 20th April 2014
  #3500
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

I might add I'm also very surprised how often people will refer to the magic and subjectivity of music as a way to illustrate their opinion about audio quality. Music greatness can not be measured. What the human being experiences when listening to music can and will continue to be measured. If you believe there is something we don't yet know about audio that might make high sample rate beneficial, I can even respect that. But the intense effort people will put into trying to justify their magical thinking is what turns me off to Pono.
Old 20th April 2014
  #3501
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
Elan, I just go back to the fact that a double blind test will tell me everything I need to know about an acoustic guitar. I will tell me everything I need to know about a microphone. Or about two vocalists or two drum sounds.
I think it's extremely hard to apply science to creative decisions.
I wouldn't 'double blind test' two acoustic guitars or two drum kits. There are too many other factors and emotions involved. One day you want the trashy drums, the next the high end drum sound.
Double blind testing takes the joy out of arbitrary, subjective choices.
Here are two drum kits for todays recording session. One is visibly a budget kit, one is an expensive pro kit. You know what, let's live dangerously and use the budget kit.

Proving the worth of 96khz or not can be a useful way of 'double blind testing'.
Although I feel bad about the way anyone who has questioned the 44.1khz standard has been generally derided and poked fun at over the course of the thread.
In the end, music and creativity is all about making multiple, subjective decisions, with often no solid evidence to back up the choice you've made.
Devolving everything down to scientific testing is deeply depressing.
Sure, prove your point about specific sample rates with scientific data, but leave acoustic guitars and vocalists alone!
Old 21st April 2014
  #3502
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
I know for a fact there are guys bugged by stuff that didn't just get by me in a double blind test, but when I knew what to listen for, was told what to hear, and wanted very much to say that I heard the thing in question.

Getting back to Eric Sarafin and the faint 11.025K tone. Drove him up the wall, he turned to me, I could NOT hear it whatever I did, and I showed it on a sonogram by boosting the gain on that. It was there.

I'll never go by just what _I_ can double-blind test I hope some of the time I can pick out some of the stuff that exists, even if it's unreliably.
Old 21st April 2014
  #3503
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post

Getting back to Eric Sarafin and the faint 11.025K tone. Drove him up the wall, he turned to me, I could NOT hear it whatever I did, and I showed it on a sonogram by boosting the gain on that. It was there..
I sent some audio to a friend in London.
He immediately heard a high frequency ringing I had never picked up on.
The problem for me was even after he told me, I still couldn't hear it, and as such couldn't determine where the problem was in my set up.
Eventually, after several weeks detective work, including stripping everything back in my studio and re-installing equipment piece by piece, I found a grounding issue on one synth.
Old 21st April 2014
  #3504
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
I honestly do not care what approach folks want to take or what their personal beliefs are. If they work for them, that's great.

But I do start getting itchy when folks publicly present, as fact but without credible evidence, what are really personal theories/worldviews that diverge substantially from the generally accepted understanding of our world/universe that we've derived from scientific observation. Maybe those theories WILL prove to be closer to reality in time, but until we have credible evidence arrived at through carefully applied science, those personal theories should remain labeled as such.
Ok, I'll explain you my "crusade" because I think you are more worthing than others..

Forums influence you, mostly in the learning period.

Because of forums:

2003 I got my first interface, I tried it out.. used for a while, later the year I got an RME Fireface 800 cause I was not satisfied and I started enjoying recording.. I tried different sample rates after a while and I was like.. playing bass guitar at 96 or 192 really sounds like from the amp.. not the response, nor the tone, but I somewhat recognize the feel of my bass guitar..

Forums: NO NO NO stick with 44.1 there's no point because of bla bla bla..

2008 Dan Lavry states that's best to use 96k because of bla bla bla.. (we all know it)

I don't care.. I stick with 44.1 sometimes 48 depending on other reasons.. I just wouldn't care.. as you, I'm doing more important things I don't have to care to that stuff..

In the mean time I got good.. and I was quite happy with the results.. except.. I always got certain things in the sound that I didn't like, that gave me a sort of fake sound.. in the processing stage and yeah.. "you are overprocessing etc".. all the things that can come to mind.. That pushed me harder to get better results in other ways, I tried hybrid with a lot of success.. but I created a sound in analog (at the end) and mixed it (refined, cut the crap) in digital...

One day I got a guy asking me to mix a project that was at 96.. I didn't bother.. I was like "yeah now I'm going to convert it at 48 otherwise it'll suck all the cpu"... but for some case I didn't (the day ended and the next day I forgot).. so I just started mixing (and I didn't know it was 96).. and it went very good. I was like.. wow that's the first time I've been able to not get this "fakeness".. after some days I realized it was at 96.

Since that day, just to try.. I started doing recordings at both 48 and 96 (tracking from sequenced stuff) and then ABed them blindly, not only me.. but also a guy I trust more than anything who lives at 1500km from me and didn't have a clue which was what, but we are alike and we like the same things and look for the same results, each one in their very well known listening environment, and we got them every time. That's not scientific, I mean anyone would tell me.. and how could I trust you? But I don't care.. since that moment I stopped hearing those things that bothered me processing digitally.. now (after years) I recognize those things that bothers me at 96 are not completely out, but much much less than 48 or 44.1.. and when today I do a project at 44.1 it feels bad.. like there's no headroom (and I know it is not technically headroom.. but thing start sounding blurred very fast compared to 96)

So.. in the end I'm using less than half the CPU I was using at 48 because I don't have to take off what I don't like.

Thanks to the forums dogmas/trends I've been using 44.1/48 for like 11 years.. and I got frustrated by this a lot.

Thanks to the forums I've been using softsynths and soft samplers.. etc. since I don't know 2001.. the mantra "what's the reason to use an old pain in the ass sampler in 20XX whatever?" or "what's the reason in getting old unreliable dusty synths when you can get anything in the computer?".. I came from an electric bass, with a tube amp, with a couple of analog pedals.. and I didn't know the digital feel.. since I got digital I was amazed with the possibilities.. but it didn't sound music what came out.. and I thought I was getting crazy.. so I thought the problem was me because anyone would tell you "DIGITAL/PLUGS" are the only thing worth it, there's no sense in getting anything of that old dirty bags

And I was really believing it, because it makes sense. Technology is getting better, obviously what you can do today with the latest technology will be much better than what you could make in 1978!

So I thought it was my fault.

Then.. by case.. I listened to an ms20... I listened to some other stuff... and I was like.. ok.. that's in the ballpark of what I like in certain sounds from certain records I love.. that's what I would call instruments, that's what I would call music...

Uhm

So I started doing the thing that doesn't make sense... also because I was really down with inspiration and I was thinking about quitting, I started hating music... and I got an ms10... and other toys.. that made me happy.. because I could get the sound I was looking for and it sounded like something that was really happening.. and instead being there processing the hell out of it to get a decent sound.. seemed like anything I could do to them.. was making them sound even better or more interesting.. no worry to damage anything

After some years I discovered Innerclock System that explains me exactly why from a scientific point of view. Actually one part of it, but a part that usually people say things like "who cares..." and that little part was responsible of me losing interest on music and instruments.

So I got one and.. even thought I had a "sort of fight" (or people would call it like this) with David here on GS.. it just served the purpose and it is one of those things you'd say.. it doesn't make sense to not have it, how could I've lived without it till today?.. because it just catches my performances and you don't know what this means unless you are used to tape or you have a Sync Gen.

Today I know tons of reasons to explain all this and the world is moving accordingly.. but only because I started caring more of what I feel, today I'm still doing music.

Today, since I started "doing the wrong thing" I'm more inspired than ever. I do things ruthless. I get results I like 10 thousand times more.

So, when I say "let yours ears be the last judge and don't feel fool if you are not in line with the crowd" I mean.. exactly that. You could have lost much less time following you instinct... to discover years later the trends were wrong and you were actually right (and even if you were wrong.. there's no drawback because you were happy because you were getting the results you were after)

And today actually people ask me.. "how do you get a rid of that harshness.. blurriness.. 2dness.. that comes from Ableton Simpler or Drum Rack?".. simple.. I just don't put it in.

Quote:
PS... I did, indeed, misunderstand your comment about listening to test material. I get it now that you're talking about removing visual distractions -- and THAT is, indeed, a very interesting field of thought and endeavor. I often will 'disengage' my visual sense when I'm really listening to music. I mean, my field of vision flattens out into a bunch of blobby shapes that I'm not paying any attention to. And sometimes I do, indeed, close or cover my eyes with my hand when I'm concentrating on the music. I don't know about others, but such strategies DO seem to help me at times concentrate my not-unlimited analytical powers more directly on the music.
See.. that's just a little thing that would be able to invalidate almost every shoot out out there... and on shoot outs are based most of the claims like "our plugs sound indistinguishable from the original" (and you have no idea how much money I lost in plugs when I was learning.. I could get a used console)

Think about that with me.. seems today science says actually blind people have not a better hearing than us.. they are just not distracted by visual impulses.. that's enough to lower our abilities of A LOT (I don't exactly remember the percentage, I think it is 40%).. and there's a video with Frank Filippetti you all know who talks about the same thing.

So.. just being distracted visually makes us sort of dumb from the ears.. when we are doing shoot out.. it is a test.. we are all inevitably sort of invalidated by anxiety.. which makes us more "thinking" (oooh what it will be the right one..?) finding objective reasons to say this must be it. The more thinking.. the less perceiving.. works in that way.

So if in a shoot out you are "invalidated" by anxiety (which is a normal thing that happens more or less to anyone) and/or by lowering of around 40% your hearing abilities because you have your eyes opened (or there's light in the studio, from the monitor or so that trigger your eyes even if closed)... well.. we are all quite dummy in a shoot out.. and an ABX test.

So.. following this reasoning, we shouldn't give that much importance to a public ABX test... because... when we are creating, when we are in creative mood.. we are not anxious.. we are busy doing other things and our ears just listen without questioning what they are listening...we are not thinking "oooohh what will it be..? I'm worried to do a mistake.. get proves so even if someone tells me I'm wrong I got a good excuse"... we are just producing, performing.. being one thing only with music.. we are like "superheroes" we have "superpowers"... and mostly than not.. when we are making critical decisions.. when we are making the performance of our life... if you pay attention.. we have our eyes closed.

So all this to say: I take science very seriously.. but in the end I do it the way I feel because I'm the one responsible and I can't blame science to be wrong 10 years later, because they are just trying to learn and explain.. what we felt.
Old 21st April 2014
  #3505
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Much less so, Daft punk.
heh
Have you heard the last one? Totally different from the others.. I think you'd like it a lot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
I sent some audio to a friend in London.
He immediately heard a high frequency ringing I had never picked up on.
The problem for me was even after he told me, I still couldn't hear it, and as such couldn't determine where the problem was in my set up.
Eventually, after several weeks detective work, including stripping everything back in my studio and re-installing equipment piece by piece, I found a grounding issue on one synth.
Chrisso I totally agree with you!!! These are the kind of experiences that actually forge your skills

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
I might add I'm also very surprised how often people will refer to the magic and subjectivity of music as a way to illustrate their opinion about audio quality. Music greatness can not be measured. What the human being experiences when listening to music can and will continue to be measured. If you believe there is something we don't yet know about audio that might make high sample rate beneficial, I can even respect that. But the intense effort people will put into trying to justify their magical thinking is what turns me off to Pono.
Why does magic always come up when no one is talking about magic?

Oh about the sample rate thing.. there are a tons of scientific reasons why one could not notice a difference and another one could.

Or even why most can't hear a difference and someone can.

There's no need to make fun of people calling them believing in magic or sort of things

Oh another couple of things: 1st Audio Quality is subjective as it is all the rest. You could say the physics of sound are objective (even though if in 100 years we'll learn more.. that will be more objective). 2nd.. shoot out tells you everything.. a part from the fact that I'm totally not against shoot outs and they tell me A LOT myself too!! I consider them a private thing because the moment they become public is really easy to take advantage of them. When two things are so much alike... our brain hear much more the things two tracks have in common instead in what they differ... and that's a thing to keep in mind. Another thing to keep in mind is the proportion. Shoot outs between sample rates are usually done between two or more tracks at different sample rates... the difference is very subtle probably indiscernible.. but a 24 tracks mix at different sample rate is much more noticeable and a 24 tracks mix with processing a much greater difference.. then it is up to you how it is important for you... do you have a console? A summing mixer? You'll already hear much much less the difference.
Old 21st April 2014
  #3506
At the end of the day, you have to do what's good for you on your gear.

But one should also understand that what works for oneself may not work for everyone. And what makes sense to one may not make sense to the many. And that everyone tends to view things from their own perspective inevitably, which is why we have a system of objectively maintained understanding that attempts to be able to deliver the most accurate information possible at any given time. But we all know that already, right?

It's a nice day and relatively quiet (a house is being built adjacent to me and it's made me even less charming than usual, not to mention less able to actually record when I want) so I'm going to put down my slide rule (just kidding, it's lost in the bottom of my oldest, most untouched desk drawer) -- and pick up a guitar. Which I play by the seat of my pants, I hasten to add. Er... wait... I mean I play by ear... wing it, improvise. I don't play with my back pockets. Though I've seen someone do that. But that's a story for some other time...
Old 21st April 2014
  #3507
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by elan View Post
Think about that with me.. seems today science says actually blind people have not a better hearing than us.. they are just not distracted by visual impulses.. that's enough to lower our abilities of A LOT (I don't exactly remember the percentage, I think it is 40%).
"today science" shows nothing whatsoever of that sort.

The rest of what you have to say seems more an expression of contempt to me than anything else, couched in terms of your personal experience.

As to things like "invalidated by ..." sorry, that's not how any decent subjective test works. If you're anxious, something is wrong.

You go ahead and prefer what you like, but please don't continue with the whopper quoted above, which completely confuses sensory training with the NAME of a test, and a test that implies nothing about actual blindness.
Old 21st April 2014
  #3508
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by elan View Post
Oh about the sample rate thing.. there are a tons of scientific reasons why one could not notice a difference and another one could.
A "ton". How about you tell us about some of them, then? Please leave out equipment malfunctions, we all agree that can and does happen much more often than it should.
Old 21st April 2014
  #3509
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
"today science" shows nothing whatsoever of that sort.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytX1Hf4Xkxg

min 21.50 and on..

min 25 and something "70% of our brain activity is busy on visual information when the eyes are open"

Quote:
As to things like "invalidated by ..." sorry, that's not how any decent subjective test works. If you're anxious, something is wrong.
So you are telling me when you go to university to do a test you have not even a slight bit of anxiety? You are very lucky because of example in Australia tests in university are forbidden to not penalize people more incline to get anxious. I'm not talking about pathology here.. I'm talking about simple anxiety.. and I was referring at it as just one variable that influences the way we perceive sound. Another day you do the same test without the urge or without caring of the result.. and you perfectly hear the difference.

The chrisso example is one of those in which these things happen.. his friend was probably more into music in that moment while he was more in "closed mode" doing the engineer, fixing stuff and a bit anxious because he couldn't find the problem.. and he could hear it.

And I'm out because, you see.. I really don't like when people start getting aggressive and telling you you are telling a ton of bull**** without knowing what they are talking about

See ya

p.s. Oh and just to be clear I didn't talk about Pono in any way and the things I've wrote were only referred to the quote I quoted, so I was talking in general.. but now I've seen joeq is in the house so I have to leave.. not enough space to breath and I predict fights if I stay... so be there joeq and your crew.. continue making fun of people calling them magician.. talking about bats.. and not understanding a damn thing not even making an effort
Old 21st April 2014
  #3510
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cakewalk View Post
Take a look at the quote from joeq just above mine for an example. It seems like most of the defenders are saying its possible it will sound great, just like I am.
in this thread there absolutely ARE a number of people who have stated in no uncertain terms that they believe Pono will usher in a new era of 'conscientious listening' or something to that effect. That this is not merely another high resolution file player but a "paradigm changing" invention.

In this thread there are a number of people who have gone beyond reminding us that it is possible that Pono will sound great, even beyond saying that it will absolutely sound great! Instead they have thoughtfully provided us with pseudo-scientific reasons WHY it is going to sound great! These reasons include bat-like ultrasonic perception by humans and their personal theories about what they feel Nyquist and Shannon "missed". (Minus any math or proof.) And various speculations about what kind of magical converter technology it will employ - technology that apparently exists in no other device!

To object to these formulations is not the same thing as "objecting to Pono".

Though some people are saying "what do you expect, it's marketing" there ARE people in this thread (who ought to know better) talking just like the people in the video even though they they personally did not even get a ride in the Cadillac.

I see that as buying into and even reinforcing the very hype that you say they are adopting an even-tempered "wait and see" attitude about. Why not "wait and see" IF it actually sounds better before making up Bad Science about HOW it manages to do that?
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