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 24th April 2014
  #3721
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
So the science has been understood but no-one (apart from ellisr63) has actually heard it yet? That's a tough test for 'science' - 'Pono cannot sound as good as they say because science says it cannot'
Hearing the machine has nothing to do with it. The machine may be marvellous: it might be the best portable player ever made. It might have a wonderful DAC and analogue circuitry to make audiophiles (and perhaps even engineers!) drool! Science is not going to change that. But nor is the porno machine (sorry, I refuse to spell it any other way, even if only because of the stupid, naively ridiculous name) going to change sample theory.

If it does turn out to be wonderful, they nobody will be able to grumble about the machine. The attempted fraud by the music industry, however, is another matter entirely.



(I'm just a listener who tries to be an audiophile and remain sane at the same time!)
Old 24th April 2014
  #3722
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
i haven't done anything to science. the science stands on its peer review and probability. i'm saying that this is another attempt by the record labels to sell back-catalogues. it is not the first attempt piggybacked onto some technical mix of mumbo-jumbo and fact. hopefully, it is their last dying attempt.
This throws me. When I was growing up, I got a lot out of my vinyl records. I clung to 'em in fact, because they gave me a whole other world, an experience I don't find easy to reproduce with mp3s and digital audio (i.e. with generic bad digital audio). The record labels brought me that. Maybe they didn't give that opportunity to every single artist (sometimes it seems like they gave it to every single artist in LA!) and I know they shortchanged a whole lot of artists and caused bitterness, but for a while there the system produced stuff to dream on and aspire to.

Do you really want the music industry/record labels to die, just because some of the dinosaurs dare to claim that people can hear more than you think they can hear?

I disagree. If the record labels die, they will be replaced by NOTHING useful, and something will be lost. (I also disagree with the insistence that human hearing is a neat binary equation between easily hearable and totally inaudible, but that's all the rest of this thread)
Old 24th April 2014
  #3723
Don't blame the whole music industry.
This is the initiative of Young and a few artists, a few major labels seem happy to go along with it.
Old 24th April 2014
  #3724
Lives for gear
 

It probably sounds great, but so does a 16 bit 44.1Khz wav file, as long as it's a good recording, well mixed etc etc.

Saying "it uses a higher sample rate and bit depth" is true, saying "it sounds great" is also probably true. The mistake is in thinking that one is exclusively because of the other and that therefore nothing else can sound equally good unless it meets the same criteria.

Chris
Old 24th April 2014
  #3725
Lives for gear
 

Double post
Old 24th April 2014
  #3726
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post

Do you really want the music industry/record labels to die, just because some of the dinosaurs dare to claim that people can hear more than you think they can hear?
This is interesting, are people debating the science because they think the science is actually wrong, or because they don't like the consequences of finding out that it's correct?

Not an attack, it would clarify a lot of the discussions in this thread though.

Chris
Old 24th April 2014
  #3727
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post

Do you really want the music industry/record labels to die, just because some of the dinosaurs dare to claim that people can hear more than you think they can hear?

I disagree. If the record labels die, they will be replaced by NOTHING useful, and something will be lost.

an emphatic yes. i want the present model to die. it has little to do with pono or how much you, or i, or science think the human ear can hear. the industry as it stands is a cartel, a monopoly. break it up. breathe some new life into the system.

how do you know what will replace the big three if they die? are you keen on the idea that 192/24 is going to save music? selling again recordings done in the past? some high frequency content? if you think the labels serve music, then i am shocked. they serve themselves to the dwindling profits bought about by their own hubris and greed. really, Chris? you have no imagination beyond the current label control? if they go, so does the music scene? so does people's desire to be moved by music, emotionally or physically? REALLY?
Old 24th April 2014
  #3728
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Don't blame the whole music industry.
This is the initiative of Young and a few artists, a few major labels seem happy to go along with it.
how do you know this? i am quite shocked by the naivety in this statement.
Old 24th April 2014
  #3729
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
how do you know what will replace the big three if they die? are you keen on the idea that 192/24 is going to save music? selling again recordings done in the past? some high frequency content? if you think the labels serve music, then i am shocked. they serve themselves to the dwindling profits bought about by their own hubris and greed. really, Chris? you have no imagination beyond the current label control? if they go, so does the music scene? so does people's desire to be moved by music, emotionally or physically? REALLY?
I'm with Jaron Lanier. What will replace the big three is Google. Google cares nothing for anything beyond furthering the transmission, searching, and ad-wording of data on a massive scale, and are so big that it's impossible to replace them at this point.

The music scene's already gone and has been for years. No new one is going to arise if it's all about Google sitting people in front of their computers to download meaningless mp3s until they die. And Google doesn't care about anyone's desire to be moved by music.

Know what Google does with YouTube? Both upthumbs and downthumbs increment the same number, corresponding to 'involvement'. They don't care if you like or hate what you saw as long as you paid some attention and interacted with it in a way. When you move beyond the flawed and hubristic world of the greedy record executives and their self-aggrandizement, sometimes seeking to inflate their own meanings through grooming the celebrity of others (and taking a big chunk of the profits), you get this sort of cold megacorporate calculating where it no longer matters if a thing is liked or hated. We're all gray goo to Google, we're a statistic.

You honestly have a better shot at a humanistic viewpoint if you go with the record label robber barons. The funny thing is, net neutrality is threatened, yet the same companies we see as 'bad' and liable to exploit such a thing (Disney, or whatever) are being eclipsed. Google could buy all of the record industry out of petty cash and have no interest in doing so. And the world of these megacorporations is more faceless than a Disnified world, more faceless than you could possibly imagine. You think, oh no, we lose net neutrality and Saul Zaentz steps in and starts dictating how culture should go. Walter Yetnikoff picks what bands get to be downloaded quicker. Yet those guys are, by now, completely out of the picture and it's faceless committees, autistic nerds (and I _am_ one so I get to say it) and unknowable corporate entities that run things now.

They would happily throttle everything but what they 'want'. Trouble is, the record label execs wanted to grandstand. Google wants Rebecca Black's 'Friday'. The numbers say that got people interacting with that data, and more of the same is on the menu. And downthumbs are as good as upthumbs in this brave new world of all data, all the time.

Me, I'm going to record various musics and noises in probably 48/24 and very likely come up with a way to upsample to 96K more interestingly, and I'm going to try to sell that stuff to Pono listeners. I may be very seriously handicapped by not being a megacorporation, but for now neither my software or my music have literally gone dark to the internet.

I really think you're trusting the wrong megacorporations. The bad old days of record label exploitation offered more to musicians than today's situation does.
Old 24th April 2014
  #3730
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
How many people want to carry a gadget that only plays music?
18,220
Old 24th April 2014
  #3731
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris93 View Post
This is interesting, are people debating the science because they think the science is actually wrong, or because they don't like the consequences of finding out that it's correct?
there certainly seems to be a very high correlation between these unscientific and antiscientific beliefs and the overtly expressed desire for a "revolution" or "paradigm shift" or "new ecosystem" and so on, that Pono will supposedly bring about.

Take 'ultrasonic perception' (please! ). Since, for example, humans can't hear sounds that by definition humans can't hear, then one of the biggest potential rationales for high sample rates goes out the window. The "underwater" metaphor is exposed as a fraud, the product flops, the 'kids' continue to listen on crappy earbuds, and our "revolution" never comes!

My personal view is that even if the product is a success, this "revolution" will not come. The modern generation will still have the attention span of goldfish, 99% of all music will still be played as wallpaper. Video games, social media, and so on will still suck up huge chunks of people's leisure time that once went to music.

They might as well hope for Big Band Jazz to 'come back' while they are at it.
Old 24th April 2014
  #3732
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
I'm with Jaron Lanier. What will replace the big three is Google. Google cares nothing for anything beyond furthering the transmission, searching, and ad-wording of data on a massive scale, and are so big that it's impossible to replace them at this point.

The music scene's already gone and has been for years. No new one is going to arise if it's all about Google sitting people in front of their computers to download meaningless mp3s until they die. And Google doesn't care about anyone's desire to be moved by music.

Know what Google does with YouTube? Both upthumbs and downthumbs increment the same number, corresponding to 'involvement'. They don't care if you like or hate what you saw as long as you paid some attention and interacted with it in a way. When you move beyond the flawed and hubristic world of the greedy record executives and their self-aggrandizement, sometimes seeking to inflate their own meanings through grooming the celebrity of others (and taking a big chunk of the profits), you get this sort of cold megacorporate calculating where it no longer matters if a thing is liked or hated. We're all gray goo to Google, we're a statistic.

You honestly have a better shot at a humanistic viewpoint if you go with the record label robber barons. The funny thing is, net neutrality is threatened, yet the same companies we see as 'bad' and liable to exploit such a thing (Disney, or whatever) are being eclipsed. Google could buy all of the record industry out of petty cash and have no interest in doing so. And the world of these megacorporations is more faceless than a Disnified world, more faceless than you could possibly imagine. You think, oh no, we lose net neutrality and Saul Zaentz steps in and starts dictating how culture should go. Walter Yetnikoff picks what bands get to be downloaded quicker. Yet those guys are, by now, completely out of the picture and it's faceless committees, autistic nerds (and I _am_ one so I get to say it) and unknowable corporate entities that run things now.

They would happily throttle everything but what they 'want'. Trouble is, the record label execs wanted to grandstand. Google wants Rebecca Black's 'Friday'. The numbers say that got people interacting with that data, and more of the same is on the menu. And downthumbs are as good as upthumbs in this brave new world of all data, all the time.

Me, I'm going to record various musics and noises in probably 48/24 and very likely come up with a way to upsample to 96K more interestingly, and I'm going to try to sell that stuff to Pono listeners. I may be very seriously handicapped by not being a megacorporation, but for now neither my software or my music have literally gone dark to the internet.

I really think you're trusting the wrong megacorporations. The bad old days of record label exploitation offered more to musicians than today's situation does.
It is staggering how someone can be so completely wrong about so many things. (Including what should be your field of expertise, audio processing).

Google are doing much more for the world than the big record labels ever have.

Here are a few things they do:

Google.org - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google.org
Google.org's current major projects, as of July 2012, are:[9]
  • Google Crisis Response which includes: Google Person Finder, Google Public Alerts, and Google Crisis Maps, all supporting disaster relief efforts with critical tools and information.
  • Google Flu & Dengue Trends showing near real-time estimates of disease activity, based on aggregated search results
  • Google for Nonprofits providing free or discounted access to some additional Google products for nonprofit organizations.

    Past Google.org projects included:
  • Develop renewable energy cheaper than coal (RE<C): create utility-scale electricity from clean renewable energy sources that is cheaper than electricity produced from coal. This project began in 2007 and was dropped in 2011. Though technical advancements resulted, it did not meet its ambitious goal.
  • Accelerate the commercialization of plug-in electric vehicles (RechargeIT): seed innovation, demonstrate technology, inform the debate, and stimulate market demand to foster mass commercialization of plug-in vehicles.
  • Predict and Prevent: identify "hot spots" and enable rapid response to emerging threats, such as infectious disease and climate risk.
  • Inform and Empower to Improve Public Services: use information to empower citizens and communities, providers, and policymakers to improve the delivery of essential public services (such as education, health, water and sanitation) in the developing world.
  • Fuel the Growth of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: increase the flow of risk capital to small and medium-sized businesses in the developing world.
Google for nonprofits

Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.google.com/nonprofits/community/charity-water.html
Mission

Nearly 800 million people worldwide live without potable water. At charity: water, the mission—no, the passion—is to change that by bringing clean, safe drinking water to people in developing countries. The organization works with dozens of local partners overseas, and has completed over 6,000 clean water projects in impoverished communities all over the world.
Google launches new campaign to help 30,000 smaller charities go online | Voluntary Sector Network | Guardian Professional

General Science - Research at Google

Google Award Programs


Google Student Support

Give me these smart nerds over record label execs any day!

PS: And of course a thumbs up and thumbs down are both 'involvement'. Duh!


Alistair
Old 24th April 2014
  #3733
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
Take 'ultrasonic perception' (please! ). Since, for example, humans can't hear sounds that by definition humans can't hear, then one of the biggest potential rationales for high sample rates goes out the window. The "underwater" metaphor is exposed as a fraud, the product flops, the 'kids' continue to listen on crappy earbuds, and our "revolution" never comes!
Wow. Pack it up and go home, huh? We're done. I shall learn to be a stockbroker, and never make another noise besides 'SELL!".

I've explained this already. Real data at 192K means you can run a moving-average filter (for good or ill, that's what they say they're doing). It's much like if you upsampled to 192K to do that, except it's real data. Bits are cheap, why not? Then, you're filtering it back to around 20K again, but getting better resolution in the audio band, and suppressing noise in the audio band through this averaging.

You can do it at 96K, but I think it's going to touch the audible band a little bit more than if you go from 192K. I believe this is where they get the 'surface of the water' business: same 'liquid, seamless' sound but the total extension beyond the audible band is faintly rolled.

Kind of a cheat. They could take real 96K and upsample that and do the larger moving average filter and it would be just fine. But that's complicated to explain…

If you don't think 128K mp3 sounds underwater by comparison, try 64K. On cymbals.

The underwater metaphor makes sense to people who've heard washy cymbals on bad mp3, they listen to Pono over cheap boutique headphones like Beats, the Pono drives the inaccurate but euphonic headphones very well, they attribute all the improvement in sound from remastering and better hardware to the hardware alone or maybe the sampling rate alone, and become obsessed with finding new sorts of music that can do what the old dinosaur recordings can do. Studios with tape machines hastily snatch up cheap 192K converters and get a new lease on life (even if their machines are poorly set up!) and a lot of new attention floods in to what's been nearly forgotten, traditional recording and performance. A fair amount of this comes from sources like street performers, singers (heard Pentatonix?) and beatboxers (heard Beardyman?).

The revolution comes, and it's televised and commoditized, but once again people have something to think about and aspire to, and music you can bathe in and get excited about.

My fantasy's just as plausible as your totally nihilistic fantasy. I'm betting on my fantasy, not yours.
Old 24th April 2014
  #3734
Lives for gear
 
TREMORS's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post

The music scene's already gone and has been for years. No new one is going to arise if it's all about Google sitting people in front of their computers to download meaningless mp3s until they die.
Are they meaningless just because its mp3?

https://archive.org/details/MLKDream

This is a site with FLAC, OGG, WAV, and MP3 versions of this speech.

The meaning is unchanged.

In addition, I live only 45 miles from Wash, DC and there are still people that do not have access to broadband due to lack of infrastructure in rural areas.
"bits are cheap" is not true for everyone.
Some people only get access at McDonalds, or Starbucks or wherever.
Old 24th April 2014
  #3737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Two points: one, as Pono isn't released yet and tests haven't begun the science isn't strong enough to support the claims that some are making in advance IMO; two, if many people anecdotally report that Pono sounds great then I'm going to listen even if the science says it shouldn't.

As was yours.

Either way the consumer should be getting a better listening experience - that's no bad thing IMO.
I hope I'm not going to regret this -- but just what are these 'claims' that the science isn't strong enough to support?

I've read a few statements from some Pono-skeptic types that I thought were unsustainable, but those folks mostly sort of dropped in and moved on, seems to me.

I'm not doubting such unsupportable claims have been made -- I'm just wondering about which claims you felt were unsupportable by the science.

Because I don't think I've seen such unsupportable claims from folks like JJ, Alistair, Dpro and a number of other stalwarts in what I'll call here the Pono-skeptical camp who you seem most engaged with.

Examples? Just so we know what we're talking about. I might well agree on some, as noted.
Old 24th April 2014
  #3738
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
I've explained this already. Real data at 192K means you can run a moving-average filter (for good or ill, that's what they say they're doing). It's much like if you upsampled to 192K to do that, except it's real data. Bits are cheap, why not? Then, you're filtering it back to around 20K again, but getting better resolution in the audio band, and suppressing noise in the audio band through this averaging.
You have said it again and again but it is simply not true! Either the filter is filtering high frequencies out of the audible band or causing phase shifts in the audible band or it is not affecting the audible band. It certainly does not give any better resolution in the audible band.

Alistair
Old 24th April 2014
  #3739
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
If you don't think 128K mp3 sounds underwater by comparison, try 64K. On cymbals.
Their image shows 96khz PCM IS STILL UNDERWATER.
Old 24th April 2014
  #3740
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
I'm with Jaron Lanier. What will replace the big three is Google. Google cares nothing for anything beyond furthering the transmission, searching, and ad-wording of data on a massive scale, and are so big that it's impossible to replace them at this point.
Record companies (at least the big ones) are ALSO just big megacorporations. They haven't cared about music for a LONG TIME.

I don't see a real difference most of the time.
Old 24th April 2014
  #3741
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
Google Crisis Response which includes: Google Person Finder, Google Public Alerts, and Google Crisis Maps, all supporting disaster relief efforts with critical tools and information.
Google Flu & Dengue Trends showing near real-time estimates of disease activity, based on aggregated search results
Got me there, it makes sense that the Google nerds could do very positive things in those terms. However, note that the other stuff you list is in PAST Google projects. I guess they're done trying to promote electric vehicles and express climate risk, huh? These people are unanswerable. You're cherrypicking seemingly good things from a vast array of arbitrary activity. They will do stuff of great benefit and then DROP it, which is like salting the earth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TREMORS View Post
Are they meaningless just because its mp3?
It's a continuum, and it depends on what you get out of sound. If you are ONLY concerned with the arrangements of notes, you can listen to your Bach on a Commodore 64 for all the difference it would make. If you're into old blues singers (or blues-derived stuff, like Jethro Tull around 'Aqualung') then it's all about the emotiveness and 64k mp3 butchers that, and 256K mp3 still does damage to the expressiveness, and 16/44k isn't total perfection. 16/44k is utter perfection if you only care about the notes and lack of extraneous noise. Certain things aren't well served by these low and medium-quality digital formats (and fixing the loudness war alone won't help).

That said, if you handle 16/44K JUST RIGHT and do everything else utterly perfectly, you can get a huge amount out of it. But it's foolish to stake everything on such virtuosic handling of a limited format, when it's so trivial now to just bump it up a couple notches. At even 24/48K, things are a lot more resilient.
Old 24th April 2014
  #3742
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
You have said it again and again but it is simply not true! Either the filter is filtering high frequencies out of the audible band or causing phase shifts in the audible band or it is not affecting the audible band. It certainly does not give any better resolution in the audible band.
Alistair
Oversampling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Combining 256 consecutive 20-bit samples can increase the signal-to-noise ratio at the voltage level by a factor of 16 (the square root of the number of samples averaged), adding 4 bits to the resolution and producing a single sample with 24-bit resolution."

"This is an interesting counter-intuitive example where adding some dithering noise to the input signal can improve (rather than degrade) the final result because the dither noise allows oversampling to work to improve resolution (or dynamic range). In many practical applications, a small increase in noise is well worth a substantial increase in measurement resolution. In practice, the dithering noise can often be placed outside the frequency range of interest to the measurement, so that this noise can be subsequently filtered out in the digital domain--resulting in a final measurement (in the frequency range of interest) with both higher resolution and lower noise."

You are welcome to try to correct Wikipedia, and Lord knows Wikipedia isn't an arbiter of absolute truth, only of general consensus and commonly accepted (and attributable, verifiable) information.

Still: Pono gets as much as 6 db increased resolution over regular 24-bit playback through averaging the oversampled information. This is on purpose, it's in the audible band, and it's noticable from all accounts of hearing the actual device. That's why I say that it is 'using' 192K but not the way you'd think it is. Again, it's the same as upsampling only better because it's using real data, not just SRCing to such a high rate. You don't 'keep' supersonic frequencies, but on the other hand you get to suppress noise from the original AD converter that you wouldn't be suppressing through ordinary playback.
Old 24th April 2014
  #3743
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Excellent, thanks for this link!

Quote:
Hiatt referenced a study by the industry-based Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), in which 90% of consumers indicated that sound quality was the most important factor to them. Of those, 60% said they are willing to pay more for it.
Well there it is, a (scientific?) study that goes in the face of all the nay-Sayers here that say the public doesn't care about audio sound quality.

Quote:
Inevitably, talk of Pono emerged. Acknowledging that, influenced by Pono, Sony is looking at how to best address the HRA portability experience in everything from audio-only playback devices to phones, Hiatt noted that Neil Young's declaration that it's all about the music is good for everyone.
Well there you have it, as many (from both sides) have said, even if Pono is not all it's cracked up to be is got the talk about audio quality going for a lot of people, this is a good thing any way you look at it.
Old 24th April 2014
  #3744
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
Got me there, it makes sense that the Google nerds could do very positive things in those terms. However, note that the other stuff you list is in PAST Google projects. I guess they're done trying to promote electric vehicles and express climate risk, huh? These people are unanswerable. You're cherrypicking seemingly good things from a vast array of arbitrary activity. They will do stuff of great benefit and then DROP it, which is like salting the earth.
I'm not cherry picking anything. That is just the list on the Wikipedia page (which hasn't been updated since 2012). Here are some current projects:
Desafio de Impacto Social Google I Brasil
Google Impact Challenge, India
Google Impact Challenge, UK
Google Impact Challenge, Bay Area
And on and on it goes.

They dropped the RE>C project because, in their words, "At this point, other institutions seem better positioned than Google to take this work to the next level. Therefore, we’ve retired our engineering work on RE<C and are sharing our key findings." Their findings are viewable to anyone interested here: RE<C – Google.org

They don't need to promote electric vehicles any more. Elon Musk is doing a great job at that. And major car manufacturers are joining in. Not all projects need to be open ended to do good.

How you can construe their efforts as salting the land is mind boggling. Your response was really ridiculous but making up non-sense and misunderstanding the available information is your normal modus operandi so I really shouldn't be surprised.

Alistair
Old 24th April 2014
  #3745
Lives for gear
 
Arksun's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
You have said it again and again but it is simply not true! Either the filter is filtering high frequencies out of the audible band or causing phase shifts in the audible band or it is not affecting the audible band. It certainly does not give any better resolution in the audible band.

Alistair
Not to split hairs but filters can also impact time based errors in terms of impulse ripple, pre and post ringing etc...
Old 24th April 2014
  #3746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
I'm not basing my whole platform on one bloggers comments: I'm just quoting (without any comment) what his impression of Pono was. I'd say that was another positive review in addition to the comments in the Pono video and those of ellisr63.
Not all swans are white; I'm not making a case that Pono must sound good because of a handful of favourable comments - but they are favourable comments nonetheless.

Obviously in time many more people will get the chance to hear Pono - and test it. I'm not sure I buy the implication by some that the reason there are no controlled comparisons is because they have something to hide...that kind of supposition doesn't help...there could be other reasons too. Time will tell.
Quoting without comment?

You said flat out that it sounded 'great' and when it was pointed out you hadn't heard it, you cited the sole person in this thread who had had a chance to hear one of the prototypes.

That's not exactly quoting without comment. That's accepting second hand, informal observation in a marketing context as veritable fact.

Seems to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Totally - AFAIC it doesn't really matter what comparisons are drawn...the main point is that it sounds outstanding.

[...]
[bold added] link to post
Old 24th April 2014
  #3747
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
if Neil Young is so concerned about the listeners' experience of his music, why has this happened? the 1983 cd release has more dynamic range than his DVD-A release of 2002.
Wow...

It is both hilarious and tremendously sad that Harvest has been released twice in versions with some tracks compressed down to an average dynamic range of 9 dB.
Old 24th April 2014
  #3748
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
if Neil Young is so concerned about the listeners' experience of his music, why has this happened? the 1983 cd release has more dynamic range than his DVD-A release of 2002.
Wow...

It is both hilarious and tremendously sad that Harvest has been released twice in versions with some tracks compressed down to an average dynamic range of 9 dB.

Weirder still? The recent HDCD version has 2 dB LESS dynamic range on its most squashed track than earlier releases... oops!

Clean up your own kitchen, first, Neil.
Old 24th April 2014
  #3749
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
Oversampling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Combining 256 consecutive 20-bit samples can increase the signal-to-noise ratio at the voltage level by a factor of 16 (the square root of the number of samples averaged), adding 4 bits to the resolution and producing a single sample with 24-bit resolution."
This is about ADCs. It is the typical oversampling approach used by modern ADCs. You sample at very high SR with a few bits and then decimate down to lower sample rates with more bits. No magic going on there. The Pono on the other hand is a player. You can't add any resolution that wasn't already there.

Quote:
"This is an interesting counter-intuitive example where adding some dithering noise to the input signal can improve (rather than degrade) the final result because the dither noise allows oversampling to work to improve resolution (or dynamic range). In many practical applications, a small increase in noise is well worth a substantial increase in measurement resolution. In practice, the dithering noise can often be placed outside the frequency range of interest to the measurement, so that this noise can be subsequently filtered out in the digital domain--resulting in a final measurement (in the frequency range of interest) with both higher resolution and lower noise."
Again, you can't extract more resolution than has already been captured. Whether that is done with more bits to start with or more bandwidth doesn't really matter. (That is an engineering choice more than anything else). But once the signal is captured, you can't add resolution that wasn't there to start with.

Quote:
You are welcome to try to correct Wikipedia
In this case, upon cursory glance, Wikipedia is correct but it doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.

Quote:
Still: Pono gets as much as 6 db increased resolution over regular 24-bit playback through averaging the oversampled information.
No it doesn't. It is a trade-off. Either you have more bandwidth or you have more resolution. You can't magically increase both starting from the same source. Anyway, their "averaging filter" is just a non-optimal low-pass filter. (Nor are they the first to use this approach). Why can't you wrap your head around that simple concept?

Quote:
on the other hand you get to suppress noise from the original AD converter that you wouldn't be suppressing through ordinary playback.
You can only suppress noise in the audible band by filtering out frequencies in the audible band that we want to hear. That is also how these oversampling ADCs work: They filter out frequencies within the Nyquist bandwidth. Of course as they start at 5.6 Mhz (or 6.1 Mhz) there is a lot of room for filtering without affecting the audible band but once you do get to the audible band, you stop filtering if you don't want to affect the signal that you actually want to capture.

What you most certainly can not do is somehow filter out the noise in the audible band without affecting the frequency and/or phase response in the audible band.

Alistair
Old 24th April 2014
  #3750
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arksun View Post
Not to split hairs but filters can also impact time based errors in terms of impulse ripple, pre and post ringing etc...
Indeed but keep in mind the the filter ringing is happening in the filter's transition band. That means above the audible range in well designed converter. As for the Gibbs phenomenon, that isn't a real issue. That is the natural state of affairs when you filter frequencies out of signals. It is also what happens in our ears (which act as low-pass filters too).

You can also remove previous filter ringing by filtering lower and less steeply. That is the principle behind the so called apodizing filter: They set the filter lower to remove stuff but they do that by filtering out part of the audible band! Luckily most audiophile product purchasers (due to their age) can't hear high enough to be bothered by this.

Alistair
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