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 26th April 2014
  #3961
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
So, exactly what do you mean by 1 time in 10? Do you mean that 9 times out of 10 your answer is random and the 10th is correct? So out of 100 trials, you'll get 45 wrong answers and 55 right answers on average?
Yes indeed, that's exactly what I mean. And I agree working out the math is trivial, but the implications aren't.

Turn it around. Say you've got someone who is getting 55% confidence on a very large number of trials.

At what point is it more likely that they are perceiving a phenomena only present one time in ten, versus making exactly that many lucky guesses on a straight random guess?

I'm only pressing you on this because I have a clear, direct, and what I consider authoritative confirmation (of what I do already know, but folks won't believe it from me) that perception of a thing only present some of the time will directly map to a specific confidence level that is neither 100% or 50%.

This changes the whole ABX dialogue from 'get everything right and claim total proof or disproof' (which you know is nonsense, and you've already corrected people in this very thread on that point) to 'experimentally establish the degree of relevance for fugitive and hard-to-perceive phenomena'.

My sense of it is, the closer you get to 50%, the more unreasonably huge the sample size would have to be to establish there was any chance of correct perceptions at all. And of course closeness to 100% establishes correct perceptions easily.

And consistently getting results in the middle, neither 50% or 100%, suggests there are still some correct perceptions but they are mixed with guesses: you can work out what percentage of the answers must be legitimate perceptions given a large enough sample set. (for values of 'must' that are equally as legitimate as the 'proving it' case, as it's still always probabilities.) And values like 75% or 80%, which fail as proof at sample sizes like 20 trials, require fewer total trials to establish a likelihood that it's not always pure guessing. You could say that as the trials increase, it becomes more unlikely to hit a confidence level like 75% by accident.

Good so far? Because there is a striking conclusion to be drawn from this, namely:

I want digital audio where at NO POINT do I encounter sonic problems I would ever register as a difference in such a test.

I don't want the threshold level of 100% confidence. I want the threshold level where, if I tried to find fault, I would NEVER encounter a legitimate difference I could pick out blind. We have the technology, it's trivial and already present and we're niggling over choice of where to place the bar. I'm just saying it's the 50% point where we set the bar. If anyone manages to pull greater than 50% confidence level over extended trials, it's not enough because it suggests (statistically) that now and then they're still able to pick out faults, correctly. They should never be able to do that.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3962
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
Was it necessary for you to show me that combination of half-truths, straw men, character assassination, false dichotomies, and such?

Yeah, I ***mostly*** agree with the last two sentences he said (he is blocked here for what I hope are obvious reasons, I do not desire to argue with the irrational or intentionally argumentative among other things), I will note that there is a level of total BS in audio that is exceeded only by a few things in life, like "alternative medicine". This BS has caused great harm to the industry, and has provided a reason for many people avoid audio as a research topic, not bother to develop new technology, and in general hold all of the field of consumer audio in abject, raging contempt.

That is hardly positive, and such attitudes most certainly affect everyone's income in this discussion, assuming you're involved somewhere in the audio industry, in one way or another.

If you go to the Heyser Lecture I gave at the last SF AES conference, you will see for yourself my position on this issue, which is that the arrogance, insults, veiled attacks, and "king of the hill" behaviors so prevalent here are one of the major issues that prevent us from moving forward to a better audio experience. Gearslutz is nothing more or less than a microcosm of the rest of the audio industry, where a combination of myth, commercial ambition, and egos simply rule out advances that were (and I mean this literally, not figuratively) known about in the 1930's. YES. We're working on 100 years of ignoring basic evidence and physics, and part of what brought that about was one of the first "meme wars" complete with slogans and extensive, unwarranted ridicule in the 1930's and 1940's. Nothing has changed in the audio world in terms of positive attitude to this day.

There are things that are unknown, but for the most part, that is not what is being argued here, what is MOSTLY being argued here is old news, and involves well established science. Now that does not mean, for instance, Redbook is perfect, despite what some people have misrepresented myself (and others) as saying. It does not mean that no improvement is possible. What it DOES mean is that some particular ideas (again, not necessarily talking about Pono, marketing is marketing, and I am not about to tell anyone what to prefer for their own personal use) need to be dropped and forgotten, so that we can see progress on issues that might make a real difference.


What I see, rather, throughout most of the industry, is still dickering about the same issues, the same issues about digital audio I've seen argued in 1985 and 1990. Different people, different egos, but the same issues. And the issues are mostly not even really issues, they were resolved in the telecom industry by the 1950's. (I refer to the Sampling Theorem, need for dithering, quantization noise floors, how the ear works, and the like.)

It's time to move on and do something that is better for the listener. Really. It's time. That's what will keep audio, music, and radio for that matter, alive for the future.

JJ, if you felt to take it as if it was necessary for you, then perhaps it was. I didn't particularly put that there for you though.

However I agree with Chris in so much as that I feel the way you conduct yourself in this thread doesn't particularly become someone of a certain standing.

I also find it interesting that you bring up medicine, which is very similar I agree, in so much as there being BS aplenty. Only, in my reality much of that BS is in the closed-mindedness of the so called 'real' medicine, as much as charlatans trying to make cash off dodgy alternative medicine, making it worse for everyone as the world is waking up to the virtues of such alternatives and making it seem to many that all alternative medicine is BS. Which it most definitely is not. Something you would know, if you had found the limits of 'proper medicine' by way of own illness and tried alternatives as only things left. I take that to mean you are either very healthy, or too close minded to even give alternatives a shot after normal doctors can't fix something for you, be it whichever. I wish you good health in any case.

I am however not surprised to read you state this, as you regardless of obviously being of a very bright mind come across very closed and rigid, and also aggressive when challenged. This aggression is not at peace. All things that make me lose any interest I might have had in the content of any lecture of yours, so I'll pass, thanks.

Have a look at Tom Campbell (who I posted earlier) for a lesson in openness and candour without BS. But then you likely just think of him as BS.

In any case, that is all I can muster this time round, I am out again, have fun chaps. Feels too much like rolling around in ****e, this.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3963
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
you obviously have an issue with ABX testing. why don't you write a research paper on it and submit it for peer review? i am sure that the likes of Daniel Kahneman would feel privileged to be educated by you and your depth of understanding.
Because this is trivial, first-year stuff, as jj can easily confirm for you. The problem is not in the statistics, the problem is in making unwarranted generalizations not supported by anything:

-that there's a specific bar to clear as far as a threshold of confidence, beyond which a point is 'proved' (jj has already denied that one, but people didn't pay attention)

-that anything below this bar is 'disproved' and thus totally mocked and ignored.

Nobody sensible needs to argue that things which only come around some of the time, still exist. If you don't believe that, please feel free to stand on some train tracks and be educated

But people seem strangely compelled to insist that human perceptions which are not confirmable EVERY TIME as if presented by a robot, do not exist. This, when the whole process of statistical blind testing exists to address the fact that humans can't respond with total predictability to known stimuli.

ABX testing is just fine, but from where I'm standing, every time I see it invoked in audio it is to 'disprove things authoritatively' by establishing they are not 100% confidence. And that's not a legitimate conclusion to draw unless you're able to show not failure to get 100%, but failure even to rise above 50%.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3964
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Timesaver800W View Post
a couple of math formulas and some dsp programming can hardly be called science. the sampling formula does a great job reproducing what you didn't catch in the first place, talk about degree of death!

i have converters from 6 manufacturers, all pro, all current, after reading to much spew on gs i took half a day and did some testing.

i never once mistook the 96k for the 44.1k, the 96k sounds more solid. 192 and 96k is more programme dependent, to me the difference is smaller.

the real easy one, even easier than 44.1 v 96k is a straight wire v adda. it's like fantastically easy to get right.
Thank You! Me and a huge % of see things this way after years and years of listening recording in different situations and formats. All I see here in this thread is the same type of personalities clinging to numbers and calling everyone else unscientific for not ending this discussion with this abx test. Sorry, but there's more to music and sound than this, but it sounds like none of you will be part of figuring out what that "thing" is because you already "know".
Old 26th April 2014
  #3965
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
tactile? in what way? i'm struggling to understand how a sound wave can have an effect on your sense of touch.
This is a metaphor. It sounded more "real", "solid" like you could TOUCH it... more like reality. (live performance) Don't tell me 16/441 sounds like reality.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3966
Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
Thank You! Me and a huge % of see things this way after years and years of listening recording in different situations and formats. All I see here in this thread is the same type of personalities clinging to numbers and calling everyone else unscientific for not ending this discussion with this abx test. Sorry, but there's more to music and sound than this, but it sounds like none of you will be part of figuring out what that "thing" is because you already "know".
So let's clarify a bit here. You've done no testing, no research and offer no evidence, yet imply that those who have are closed minded?

Still tripe.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3967
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nspaas View Post
So let's clarify a bit here. You've done no testing, no research and offer no evidence, yet imply that those who have are closed minded?

Still tripe.
What are you on? I didn't say that I have haven't done any testing or research or had no experience. I have not done the abx test, but I've been making records for 25 years and spent an obsessive amount of time in my own studio pouring over the differences and I know what I hear in that context and trust it. I'm not here to make scientific conclusions, I was speculating and a bunch of you got very uptight about that. You want to end the conversation on sound with this test.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3968
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
Yeah, he's here for an argument, not for a debate. That's very obvious. I wonder why he wants to sully the waters and confuse the actual technical issues, anyhow? Any idea?
I came here to just argue? Here's my first post from yesterday...

Sometimes Nobel winning scientist and leading theoretical Physicists don't even agree with each other. You can't argue the math behind the "anti-Pono" theme, but there's is a lot we don't know about how music affects the human body and psyche. I know you "science people" (WTF is that?) don't want to have this conversation, but perhaps we hear with more than just our ears? For all we know certain frequencies tickles our eyelids which in turn tickles the back your balls which open's your third eye? I'm making an outlandish metaphor to make a point. Quantum mechanics has recently raised a lot of interesting questions about our perception of reality. The book is far from closed. The universe is made of mathematical and musical language. It's obviously not just some inanimate "product" that's only existed in the last 100 + years on wax, vinyl, tape and digital formats. When we really connect with music it affects our whole being, not just your eardrums and certain and separate parts of the brain. In my subjective opinion the digital format as it has existed up to this point. does not bring that experience to as high a level immersion and pleasure as is possible in the reality of a live experience or in some of the other formats such as vinyl and tape (despite their own inaccuracies etc... ) As an experience it goes down a more cerebral way compared to reality, tape etc... Why? I don't know, but let's find out instead of clinging to the numbers.

-"When conflicts of principle arise, that's when major paradigm shifts happen." Theoretical Physicist Leonard Susskind

I was trying to see if it's possible to get beyond this impasse where a bunch of you abx test/Anti Pono people have made your case over and over and shut the door to any further conversation. If the abx test is definitive then just end this thread. But, so far produced sound in any medium doesn't sound like reality. That tells us that there is room for improvement. You say there's not any room for improvement. You've stopped the conversation. Apparently you have also tried to have me blocked from this thread. This thread has become toxic thanks to you and few others who are only able to look at this from one angle. However, no one else on this thread has come even close to your level of pompacity and ridiculousness.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3969
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
I have not done the abx test, but I've been making records for 25 years and spent an obsessive amount of time in my own studio pouring over the differences and I know what I hear in that context and trust it.
Without doing blind tests, how do you know that what you think you know is correct? It may well be, but it also may not be, which is where testing comes into play. You might be right, you might not be, but we just don't know.

Having the skills and abilities needed to make great sounding records does not shield a person from bias during sighted tests.

I'll have no problem at all with the idea that sound at 40Khz affects perception if evidence is published which supports that assertion. Science just want's to be aware of the truth, regardless of what that turns out to be.

EDIT: This means that science is on your side (as much as it's on anybodys side) in that if you're right science will eventually discover that you're right and will support you.

Chris

Last edited by Chris93; 26th April 2014 at 04:25 PM.. Reason: Added more.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3970
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
I was trying to see if it's possible to get beyond this impasse where a bunch of you abx test/Anti Pono people have made your case over and over and shut the door to any further conversation. If the abx test is definitive then just end this thread. But, so far produced sound in any medium doesn't sound like reality. That tells us that there is room for improvement. You say there's not any room for improvement. You've stopped the conversation. Apparently you have also tried to have me blocked from this thread. This thread has become toxic thanks to you and few others who are only able to look at this from one angle. However, no one else on this thread has come even close to your level of pompacity and ridiculousness.
are you saying that the physical limits of human hearing on a biological level is also flawed science? you want more reality in your recordings, concentrate on improving your recording skills. you seem fixated on sample rate as being the answer. j_j has very kindly shared his knowledge and experience for free with you. you don't like his tone, then do not read his posts. it is obvious which ones are his! no one is forcing you to read, believe, think anything. i know j_j's background. who are you? who are you to say, then just end this thread?

also, j_j and others who have participated much in this thread have never said that music recordings could not be improved. quite the contrary, in fact. you want a recording to sound more like real life? how about bringing back dynamic range?
Old 26th April 2014
  #3971
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
in fact. you want a recording to sound more like real life? how about bringing back dynamic range?
That would certainly have dramatically more impact than doubling the sample rate.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3972
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
[...] I will note that there is a level of total BS in audio that is exceeded only by a few things in life, like "alternative medicine". This BS has caused great harm to the industry, and has provided a reason for many people avoid audio as a research topic, not bother to develop new technology, and in general hold all of the field of consumer audio in abject, raging contempt.

That is hardly positive, and such attitudes most certainly affect everyone's income in this discussion, assuming you're involved somewhere in the audio industry, in one way or another.

If you go to the Heyser Lecture I gave at the last SF AES conference, you will see for yourself my position on this issue, which is that the arrogance, insults, veiled attacks, and "king of the hill" behaviors so prevalent here are one of the major issues that prevent us from moving forward to a better audio experience. Gearslutz is nothing more or less than a microcosm of the rest of the audio industry, where a combination of myth, commercial ambition, and egos simply rule out advances that were (and I mean this literally, not figuratively) known about in the 1930's. YES. We're working on 100 years of ignoring basic evidence and physics, and part of what brought that about was one of the first "meme wars" complete with slogans and extensive, unwarranted ridicule in the 1930's and 1940's. Nothing has changed in the audio world in terms of positive attitude to this day.

There are things that are unknown, but for the most part, that is not what is being argued here, what is MOSTLY being argued here is old news, and involves well established science. Now that does not mean, for instance, Redbook is perfect, despite what some people have misrepresented myself (and others) as saying. It does not mean that no improvement is possible. What it DOES mean is that some particular ideas (again, not necessarily talking about Pono, marketing is marketing, and I am not about to tell anyone what to prefer for their own personal use) need to be dropped and forgotten, so that we can see progress on issues that might make a real difference.


What I see, rather, throughout most of the industry, is still dickering about the same issues, the same issues about digital audio I've seen argued in 1985 and 1990. Different people, different egos, but the same issues. And the issues are mostly not even really issues, they were resolved in the telecom industry by the 1950's. (I refer to the Sampling Theorem, need for dithering, quantization noise floors, how the ear works, and the like.)

It's time to move on and do something that is better for the listener. Really. It's time. That's what will keep audio, music, and radio for that matter, alive for the future.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3973
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
are you saying that the physical limits of human hearing on a biological level is also flawed science? you want more reality in your recordings, concentrate on improving your recording skills. you seem fixated on sample rate as being the answer. j_j has very kindly shared his knowledge and experience for free with you. you don't like his tone, then do not read his posts. it is obvious which ones are his! no one is forcing you to read, believe, think anything. i know j_j's background. who are you? who are you to say then just end this thread?

also, j_j and others who have participated much in this thread have never said that music recordings could not be improved. quite the contrary, in fact. you want a recording to sound more like real life? how about bringing back dynamic range?
My recordings sound great. 4 and 5 star reviews in international music press back that up.

As far as our understanding of human perception, the book is way far from closed on that, but once again you put all of your faith in what only has been discovered so far. This changes as science evolves. I know that there are certain people that must feel like they have all of the final answers to life's questions. It's a type of existential insecurity. Those people rarely bring us any new discoveries or invent anything.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3974
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris93 View Post
Without doing blind tests, how do you know that what you think you know is correct? It may well be, but it also may not be, which is where testing comes into play. You might be right, you might not be, but we just don't know.

Having the skills and abilities needed to make great sounding records does not shield a person from bias during sighted tests.

I'll have no problem at all with the idea that sound at 40Khz affects perception if evidence is published which supports that assertion. Science just want's to be aware of the truth, regardless of what that turns out to be.

EDIT: This means that science is on your side (as much as it's on anybodys side) in that if you're right science will eventually discover that you're right and will support you.

Chris
The test sounds interesting, but I'm very curious as to why the results don't square with what overwhelming abundance of people experience in other aspects of our life in regard to audio, recording, listening etc... I think it's worth pursuing wether or not there is some kind of X-factor that science and us recordist haven't been able to put out finger on.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3975
Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
My recordings sound great. 4 and 5 star reviews in international music press back that up.
Awesome!

Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
As far as our understanding of human perception, the book is way far from closed on that,
Totally agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
but once again you put all of your faith in what only has been discovered so far. This changes as science evolves. I know that there are certain people that must feel like they have all of the final answers to life's questions. It's a type of existential insecurity. Those people rarely bring us any new discoveries or invent anything.

This is where you are getting into trouble. It's a projection and utterly untrue.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3976
Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
My recordings sound great. 4 and 5 star reviews in international music press back that up.

[...]
Great. Links?
Old 26th April 2014
  #3977
Lives for gear
Mellotronic, here is an analogy to the argument you are making

Mellotronic: I think 25, 000 Albanians fought in the American Civil War. I look at the pictures and I read the stories and if just feels Albanian

"Science people": But there is absolutely no evidence to support the contention that 25, 000 Albanians fought in the American Civil War! In fact, ALL the evidence points the other way.

Mellotronic: you're being close minded. There may be forms of evidence history has yet to discover! Pulitzer prize winning historians disagree!


See it's not a good argument. It's not "open minded," it's just evidence-proof
Old 26th April 2014
  #3978
Lives for gear
Or maybe this makes it clearer

ME: I think Mellotronic is not a person, but a sophisticated chatbot. It feels that way to me, I have very sensitive forms of perception that science has not yet discovered

MELLOTRONIC: I am too a real person! All the evidence supports that plus what you are describing does not exist

ME: You are being close-minded. Because you are a chatbot.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3979
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PB+J View Post
Mellotronic, here is an analogy to the argument you are making

Mellotronic: I think 25, 000 Albanians fought in the American Civil War. I look at the pictures and I read the stories and if just feels Albanian

"Science people": But there is absolutely no evidence to support the contention that 25, 000 Albanians fought in the American Civil War! In fact, ALL the evidence points the other way.

Mellotronic: you're being close minded. There may be forms of evidence history has yet to discover! Pulitzer prize winning historians disagree!


See it's not a good argument. It's not "open minded," it's just evidence-proof
Your lousy at metaphors which is why you should leave that to poets and song writers, but your are making my point. You think the subject is closed... "history". Of course there is more for the science on audio to discover in the future.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3980
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Great. Links?
I knew you couldn't stop yourself. You think I'm going to present my musical work here to a bunch stone throwing reactionaries? Let's just stick to the conversation. I'm sure you'll get another bandwagon to jump on one of these days to keep blood pumping. You and me are done, dude.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3981
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nspaas View Post
Awesome!



Totally agree.




This is where you are getting into trouble. It's a projection and utterly untrue.
You're right. I made a huge generalization for the sake of making a point.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3982
But it doesn't make your point. It shreds you of any credibility you would hope to project.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3983
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nspaas View Post
But it doesn't make your point. It shreds you of any credibility you would hope to project.
What your saying is that not agreeing with you shreds my credibility. That's insane.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3984
Your projecting again.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3985
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nspaas View Post
Your projecting again.
You lost me. Have a nice day.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3986
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
I wanted to set up my own test that I could trust, and could take all by myself.
Hey, I just wanted to give props. Regardless of whether we agree or disagree on the conclusions, I respect the effort. Cheers.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3987
Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
I knew you couldn't stop yourself. You think I'm going to present my musical work here to a bunch stone throwing reactionaries? Let's just stick to the conversation. I'm sure you'll get another bandwagon to jump on one of these days to keep blood pumping. You and me are done, dude.
You cited your own productions as evidence of your expertise. I didn't.
Quote:
My recordings sound great. 4 and 5 star reviews in international music press back that up.
But it seems to me if they get 4 and 5 star reviews in the international music press -- AND you cite them to 'prove' your expertise to us, maybe you shouldn't be so shy.

Mind you, I've often said that technical knowledge is no guarantee of RE expertise and that many RE's who do fine work seem to have little technical grasp. I think the the two do relate -- but there is far, far from any sort of direct correlation. So, even if I'm deeply impressed with your tracking/mixing skill, it won't actually change my estimation of your technical understanding.

I'm just curious.


FTR, anyone who wants to hear my music can find links to it in my sig (also on my GS profile page).
Old 26th April 2014
  #3988
Lives for gear
 

I'm not sure why we can't discuss viewpoints, scientific or otherwise, without being assholes... We'd get a lot further into distilling the facts and thinking of things to consider if it weren't for all the name calling.

Chris
Old 26th April 2014
  #3989
Lives for gear
 

*******ing double post again

Chris
Old 26th April 2014
  #3990
Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
You lost me. Have a nice day.
This.

Quote:
What your saying is that not agreeing with you shreds my credibility. That's insane
That was clearly not what I was saying, rather it is a lame projection to give you a victim stance. Rather weak if you ask me.
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