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 22nd April 2014
  #3601
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dpro View Post
Oh I am sure a lot you would claim Dan Lavry does not know what his talking about. Even when he states that through his own research 60k is probably the maximum one needs for accurate good sounding audio production and or playback.
Yet he has the technical background, experience and knowledge to speak from. But you will all call bull**** on that without even possibly possessing the learned knowledge or the trained ear.
Pono may sound great but that is not the gist of this whole discussion. The gist lies in the fact that they are saying everything else sounds like **** except Pono because it's using 192k. Therefor it's the new paradigm.
Not at all. I think Dan is correct: something like 48K oversampled at enough word length should be enough for anything human. I've mentioned Eric Sarafin hearing insanely quiet noises: that was 11K. Within his context, Dan Lavry is absolutely right.

Within the context of what we know about the moving average thing, Pono is effectively a new paradigm in 48K oversampling. It's oversampling using REAL data, rather than upsampled. It's also akin to the rather flaky experiments with DACs with no reconstruction filter, but with four times the ability to control where phase lies relative to a 48K DAC trying to do that. And it's going to give six db better resolution than ordinary 24 bit DACs due to the averaging, within the passband that you, me and Lavry agree is the only one that matters. That's actually going the opposite direction of the real problem with ultrahigh sample rates: that you are working so hard trying to reproduce the supersonics that the audible band suffers. This thing just captures at 192K (ideally) but plays back as if it's 48K with a very fancy upsampling.

It IS using 192K, but not in the way Lavry objects to. He may still not like it, but it's not the same objection as if it was generic digital. It's something else. You might say a new paradigm, except you've been able to buy CD upsampling (with a quarter the data going on) for many, many years, and it's gone over very well as a rule.
Old 22nd April 2014
  #3602
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dpro View Post
Even when he states that through his own research 60k is probably the maximum one needs for accurate good sounding audio production and or playback.
Doesn't this go against 80% of the posts here that contend 44.1 is all that is needed? And he isn't even confirming that 60k is enough, he qualified it with "probably".

Man, the CD is sure starting to take a beating in this thread.
Old 22nd April 2014
  #3603
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
Why do people sell expensive wines even though they can't tell the difference?

...because companies stay in business giving the people what they want.
Not at all.
You are paying for the skill of the winemaker. Maybe the organic, biodynamic methods. The tiny harvest = supply and demand. The history of the wine (Chateau Margaux or Mouton Rothschild).
You really can't make an average wine, call it 'Blanc De Nuthinupmysleeve' and expect to charge $100 a bottle for it.

Quote:
192 was, as others said, another way to convince you to buy a new device. Pure capitalism.
Well firstly, 192khz has been standard for several generations of interface by now.
Secondly, I agree it is capitalism, but if you are going to pour vitriol on the music industry version of capitalism, you really need to be as cynical about Apple, Samsung and Sony.
Old 22nd April 2014
  #3604
Gear Maniac
 
Decompress's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
SIDEBAR: the fact that someone on this board is belittling science by a silly misspelling is EXACTLY what I was referencing above... there really IS a glorified anti-science bias among some people here, which is exactly what I'm talking about
You sure it was science being belittled?

Silver Sonya wins at the internet, and has made me want to hear his Fugazi remasters.

Maybe I'll get to listen to them playing from a Pono through some teflon-insulated , solid-core , silver-conductor cables . Maybe I'll even have the cables cryo-treated first. heh

Old 22nd April 2014
  #3605
Lives for gear
 
stinkyfingers's Avatar
 

i found the perfect speaker to plug into pono...

"This Wireless Speaker Supports Features That Don’t Exist Yet"...

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/this-wire...429117943.html

maybe these features that don't exist yet are responsible for audio anomalies that can't be measured by any science yet...
Old 22nd April 2014
  #3606
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
The truth is that some posters have criticized you personally to try to discredit your opinion about Pono;
the only thing people criticized was his "methodology". His isolated opinion is less than useful to the discussion because he made NO direct comparisons of Pono to anything else! Is it coincidence or conspiracy that Pono has yet to go head-to-head with ANYTHING in a fair test?

He is just a guy who listened to it casually (as 'casual' as 124 dB can be anyway! ) without doing the one thing that even the most anti-scientific people in the thread want to hear about: a direct comparison with the same material on other formats.

he is certainly entitled to his "opinion" about Pono. But his opinion is not "evidence" of anything, because no comparisons were even attempted.
Old 22nd April 2014
  #3607
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Doesn't this go against 80% of the posts here that contend 44.1 is all that is needed? And he isn't even confirming that 60k is enough, he qualified it with "probably".

Man, the CD is sure starting to take a beating in this thread.
Why don't you be the judge yourself and test how much you can hear?

Mr. Lavry wasn't suggesting that sample rate because of the frequencies people could hear. It was more about filter slope and other filter related issues.

I tested it in material I didn't know and I couldn't hear the difference. I tested it on material I am intimately familiar with and I couldn't hear the difference. I listened on solo acoustic guitar and piano and couldn't tell.

For the record, many people I have worked with have complimented my ability to hear details they miss. I don't consider myself a golden ear but I can hear pretty well. I'm saying I'm not inexperienced. I'm no Bob Katz or Dan Lavry though.

For someone like yourself who is interested in the topic and has such strong opinions, I still don't understand why you haven't done such a simple test yourself. Just do it yourself in the privacy of your own home. You don't even need to tell anyone your results, just do it as a learning exercise. It was fun and very enlightening to me.
Old 22nd April 2014
  #3608
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
You really can't make an average wine, call it 'Blanc De Nuthinupmysleeve' and expect to charge $100 a bottle for it.
Not only can I, I could also find a way to effectively market it and turn it into a real sensation. It has definitely been done. There is plenty of wine that has been marketed with different labels and at different price points. Same wine.

Quote:
Well firstly, 192khz has been standard for several generations of interface by now.
Secondly, I agree it is capitalism, but if you are going to pour vitriol on the music industry version of capitalism, you really need to be as cynical about Apple, Samsung and Sony.
Chrisso, please explain ONE similar thing that apple has claimed in their marketing that is as obviously bad as "underwater listening?" Apple has stretched the truth about x times faster when it comes to processors, sure. They use a lot of superlatives in their marketing materials that are arguable.

BUT there is NOTHING like "underwater listening."

Well, maybe I missed it.
Old 22nd April 2014
  #3609
Gear Head
 
bandpass's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Not a straw man at all. Either the format produces a flawless recreation of the original, or it doesn't. So which is it? You can't say it does, but "under normal listening conditions". As soon as you admit that there are conditions where you CAN hear a difference, your argument is gone. And it looks as if that is what you have just done.

Case closed.
Here's a little side diversion to play: Sounds Great Bingo

The score sheet is here: The Art of Being Right - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Each time one of the 38 items occurs, tick it off the list; other than that, normal Bingo rules apply. It's only a short game; currently getting several per post!
Old 22nd April 2014
  #3610
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Not a straw man at all. Either the format produces a flawless recreation of the original, or it doesn't. So which is it? You can't say it does, but "under normal listening conditions". As soon as you admit that there are conditions where you CAN hear a difference, your argument is gone. And it looks as if that is what you have just done.

Case closed.
Do you actually understand that there is a difference between capture and presentation? That there must be processing, perhaps compression, EQ, mixing, etc?

All of those can use up noise floor and headroom, so your entire argument is based on completely mistaken premises, making it quite clear that you need to go back and find out what your equipment actually does.

In logical terms, your "either/or" is a false dichotomy, as well as an extraction from context. Then you try to justify your attack by exercising another extraction from context (under normal listening conditions) followed by another false dichotomy, a completely false claim of triumph, and then an uwarranted, insulting dismissal.

You have written nothing but unjustified, antiscientific, illogical propaganda. How does this help the discussion, anyhow?

Hint: It doesn't.
Old 22nd April 2014
  #3611
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
Within the context of what we know about the moving average thing, Pono is effectively a new paradigm in 48K oversampling. It's oversampling using REAL data, rather than upsampled.
Except that it is the least efficient form of oversampling. Each doubling of sampling rate is only going to get 3dB of gain in noise.

As to phase, the resolution of a standard Redbook CD is (to one order of magnitude) 1/(65536*2*pi*44100) of a second, which works out to .0025 degrees at 20kHz.

There is no direct phase or time delay problem in Redbook as far as the ear is concerned. Please look elsewhere.
Old 22nd April 2014
  #3612
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
someone else who is making it up as he goes along...
Quote:
Originally Posted by bandpass View Post
Here's a little side diversion to play: Sounds Great Bingo

The score sheet is here: The Art of Being Right - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Each time one of the 38 items occurs, tick it off the list; other than that, normal Bingo rules apply. It's only a short game; currently getting several per post!

And the personal attacks begin. When all else fails, attack the messenger.

Real class.
Old 22nd April 2014
  #3613
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
Do you actually understand that there is a difference between capture and presentation? That there must be processing, perhaps compression, EQ, mixing, etc?

All of those can use up noise floor and headroom, so your entire argument is based on completely mistaken premises, making it quite clear that you need to go back and find out what your equipment actually does.

In logical terms, your "either/or" is a false dichotomy, as well as an extraction from context. Then you try to justify your attack by exercising another extraction from context (under normal listening conditions) followed by another false dichotomy, a completely false claim of triumph, and then an uwarranted, insulting dismissal.

You have written nothing but unjustified, antiscientific, illogical propaganda. How does this help the discussion, anyhow?

Hint: It doesn't.
Antiscientific is not a word. That would be unscientific. heh

Man, I sure have you worked up. Is it me you are trying to convince? Or perhaps yourself?
Old 22nd April 2014
  #3614
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Antiscientific is not a word. That would be unscientific. heh
Those are two different things.

antiscientific - definition of antiscientific by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

unscientific - definition of unscientific by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Quote:
Man, I sure have you worked up. Is it me you are trying to convince? Or perhaps yourself?


Alistair
Old 22nd April 2014
  #3615
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Antiscientific is not a word. That would be unscientific. heh

Man, I sure have you worked up. Is it me you are trying to convince? Or perhaps yourself?
I think he refers to antiscience Antiscience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

edit: damn, that undertow guy is fast...
Old 22nd April 2014
  #3616
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
Mr. Lavry wasn't suggesting that sample rate because of the frequencies people could hear. It was more about filter slope and other filter related issues.
Of course. I've never suggested people could hear above 20k. Most people don't come anywhere near that. But obviously "filter slope and other filter related issues" effect the sound in the range we do hear, or Lavry wouldn't be concerned about them, and conclude that 60k is the lowest range to work with to minimize any possible audible issues. You can't choose to use him as an expert and then discount his conclusions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
I tested it in material I didn't know and I couldn't hear the difference. I tested it on material I am intimately familiar with and I couldn't hear the difference. I listened on solo acoustic guitar and piano and couldn't tell.
Ok, you couldn't hear a difference, I can't argue with that. My experience is different.
Old 22nd April 2014
  #3617
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

It was warning me of spell check, and the search comes up with:
Quote:
Did you mean: anti scientific
Old 22nd April 2014
  #3618
Lives for gear
 
Ephi82's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
the only thing people criticized was his "methodology". His isolated opinion is less than useful to the discussion because he made NO direct comparisons of Pono to anything else! Is it coincidence or conspiracy that Pono has yet to go head-to-head with ANYTHING in a fair test?

He is just a guy who listened to it casually (as 'casual' as 124 dB can be anyway! ) without doing the one thing that even the most anti-scientific people in the thread want to hear about: a direct comparison with the same material on other formats.

he is certainly entitled to his "opinion" about Pono. But his opinion is not "evidence" of anything, because no comparisons were even attempted.
The title of the thread is "Launch of PONO", not

"why there is no scientific proof that Hi Res files can be differentiated from CD's"

However, I certainly accept that the discussion on formats is one of the many things relevant to the original thread title.

The poster who reported his experience with a demo of PONO wasn't making a claim that he was engaged in a scientific test.

He never said that he believes that the quality of his listening experience was due to it being a hi res file.

He simply said its the best listening experience he has had.

This guy was then crucified by you because of his "methodology" and you go on to say "His isolated opinion is less than useful to the discussion because he made NO direct comparisons of Pono to anything else!"

I say Horse Hockey!

Of course he's comparing it to "something else", that being whatever playback device(s) he has been using all along.

How consumers perceive and experience the sound of a PONO, without rigorous scientific controls will have much impact on the "launch of PONO".
Old 22nd April 2014
  #3619
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
It was warning me of spell check, and the search comes up with:
Attached Thumbnails
Launch of Pono-screen-shot-2014-04-22-5.17.44-pm.png  
Old 22nd April 2014
  #3620
Quote:
Originally Posted by stinkyfingers View Post
i found the perfect speaker to plug into pono...

"This Wireless Speaker Supports Features That Don’t Exist Yet"...

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/this-wire...429117943.html

maybe these features that don't exist yet are responsible for audio anomalies that can't be measured by any science yet...
LOL



Some people read People or Huff Post... my trash reading is Wired Magazine.

They have the stupidest consumer sound reviews since... I don't know when. They're worse than the old bachelor pad gimmick reviews in the old Playboy. (Still in biz? I don't think I've heard their name in years.)


Anyhow, the interns or whoever they have writing 'reviews' and news on audio stuff -- which they have a fair amount of -- are almost universally bereft of any knowledge or understanding or passion for audio and seem universally to have a rather pathetic and short-sighted approach to gimmick-lust, even.

And they're ALWAYS writing about tatty little Bluetooth speakers and stream media boxes without addressing any tech or performance details. (The latter it's easy to see why. You don't get advertising and nice 'promotional considerations' for writing that the latest glittery object sounds like a transistor portable radio from 1968... under water. heh )
Old 22nd April 2014
  #3621
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
(image)
Your point? 95% of the seach results come up with anti-scientific or convert it automatically. So I'm not sure what it is you have to prove to me. Yes you can find antiscientific if you search hard enough, but it doesn't seem to be a universally accepted word. And it always kicks in spell check, so...


Regardless, to assume it is an accurate description of my beliefs of science is preposterous, though I wouldn't expect any less from this discussion.
Old 22nd April 2014
  #3622
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
It was warning me of spell check, and the search comes up with:
This is the point where an honest, open person without fear of being wrong just does a mea culpa.

Bandpassed has you well defined, apparently.
Old 22nd April 2014
  #3623
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Ok, you couldn't hear a difference, I can't argue with that. My experience is different.
You are anti science because you refuse over and over to do an abx test to test your conclusions.

You seem to believe you are the only human in history not subject to confirmation bias.
Old 22nd April 2014
  #3624
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great

Not a straw man at all. Either the format produces a flawless recreation of the original, or it doesn't. So which is it? You can't say it does, but "under normal listening conditions". As soon as you admit that there are conditions where you CAN hear a difference, your argument is gone. And it looks as if that is what you have just done.

Case closed.
Do you actually understand that there is a difference between capture and presentation? That there must be processing, perhaps compression, EQ, mixing, etc?

All of those can use up noise floor and headroom, so your entire argument is based on completely mistaken premises, making it quite clear that you need to go back and find out what your equipment actually does.

In logical terms, your "either/or" is a false dichotomy, as well as an extraction from context. Then you try to justify your attack by exercising another extraction from context (under normal listening conditions) followed by another false dichotomy, a completely false claim of triumph, and then an uwarranted, insulting dismissal.

You have written nothing but unjustified, antiscientific, illogical propaganda. How does this help the discussion, anyhow?

Hint: It doesn't.
I notice this interchange between a deeply experienced, rather legendary expert on the intersection of technology and human perception with four decades of deep experience in technology design for Bell Labs and others and... a guy we're not sure what he does or what he's done yet who continues to make pronouncements of what he claims are facts that fly in the face of accepted scientific understanding. I find it troubling that so many people in this forum don't see 'the problem' implicit in these exhaltations of personal fabulism and idiosyncratic, evidentiarily unsupported speculation.
Old 22nd April 2014
  #3625
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
This is the point where an honest, open person without fear of being wrong just does a mea culpa.

Bandpassed has you well defined, apparently.

Actually I was doing a scientific analysis of the word and its official acceptance seems to be in question. heh
Old 22nd April 2014
  #3626
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ephi82 View Post
Of course he's comparing it to "something else", that being whatever playback device(s) he has been using all along.

How consumers perceive and experience the sound of a PONO, without rigorous scientific controls will have much impact on the "launch of PONO".
Ya know, he can believe whatever he wants to believe. But what can often appear to be a night and day differerence can fall down in analysis. I don't blame the guy for reporting his experience. I just think it's important to be accurate and understand the limits of your own perception which leads to a certain amount of humility.

We all have experiences where we discover our night and day differences are just our perception... If we are paying attention.
Old 22nd April 2014
  #3627
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Actually I was doing a scientific analysis of the word and its official acceptance seems to be in question. heh
Any attention is good attention I guess.
Old 22nd April 2014
  #3628
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
You are anti science because you refuse over and over to do an abx test to test your conclusions.
I've never refused, in fact I have said I would love to do one. Some program on my computer is not going to be a proper test. I have a friend that has a real nice studio here in MN with very high end converters. As soon as I have the time and money available I am going to ask him to set up a true abx test and see if I can get some of the other local slutz to join me. I don't think he has any DSD capabilities, but we did compare 44.1 to other PCM formats and we all though it can sound better. I am more than willing to start with that test, which i.m.o. offers a much more modest upgrade compared to DSD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post

You seem to believe you are the only human in history not subject to confirmation bias.
I don't believe that at all. However it is also not prudent to discount all human perceptions of reality without an abx test because of potential confirmation bias.
Old 22nd April 2014
  #3629
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
I've never refused, in fact I have said I would love to do one. Some program on my computer is not going to be a proper test.
The simplest answer is usually the best. In the case of a test like you are outlining, you are testing different converters and multiple variables. With the test I have outlined you are only really testing one variable.

I really don't understand what you are so afraid of. It's a data point, it doesn't need to be proof. It will likely just help you see how incredibly small the differences are, if any even exist.

Quote:
I don't believe that at all. However it is also not prudent to discount all human perceptions of reality without an abx test because of potential confirmation bias.
If you admit you are subject to confirmation bias like everyone else... why not test? Nobody is saying whether you can or cannot hear the difference. Nobody in this thread is discounting anything. Instead we're discounting the anti science belief factor. Let go of your belief and test. Let go of being wrong and understand we have all been wrong, many of us about things we were certain about and were very important to us.

It's all well and good to suggest there is something there that cannot be measured, but deal with the now. Deal with what is known. Only with sound methodology can we move beyond the known and try and understand the unknown. We don't understand the unknown by employing belief or magical thinking.
Old 22nd April 2014
  #3630
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Antiscientific is not a word.
it most certainly is and it is quite distinct from unscientific

your posts have traveled the distance from merely unscientific to rabidly anti-scientific as one by one, the science has exposed your statements to be incorrect.
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