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
  #3991
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
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.
you make a massive assumption about me. is this your style? you use words like 'faith' without having any knowledge of me or, it seems, the etymology of words. i'm insecure, am i? list your credits. i'm interested in your reviews. i'm not setting myself up as an expert, but i have done some testing on my own perceptions and biases. you seem fixated with your perceptions. you don't need to test by removing bias. you are infallible to it. it would seem that you think you know the answers.

dynamic range? you did not respond to that.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3992
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
You think I'm going to present my musical work here to a bunch stone throwing reactionaries?
why not? if it proves your credibility, why wouldn't you present?
Old 26th April 2014
  #3993
Not going to happen.

Ironically i only see one "stone throwing reactionary" in here ATM.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3994
Old 26th April 2014
  #3995
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post

As far as our understanding of human perception, the book is way far from closed on that,
agreed. the ear though, is that understood? the physical limits, the structure, etc.? do you have new scientific data on its abilities? sound has to pass through it before it gets to the perception and interpretation stage of the brain. would you insist that a microphone, with a specified range of frequencies it is able to register, is also able to register frequencies outside of its determined range?
Old 26th April 2014
  #3996
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
I appreciate you posting your results. I find it confusing why you didn't choose to use the free abx programs that already exist... Not sure why you wouldn't.

But thanks for posting anyway.
I thought I explained it. I wasn't going to put any confidence in some test from a link on the internet. I don't know enough about who put it together, how it was set up, if there was any upsampling for the higher rez files, or even how honestly the test is being presented.

I want testing that I know the facts behind every part of it. What better way than to set one up myself! And my conclusions were mixed, with my coming away with a lot more respect for conformation bias.

What I really want is a proper test for DSD. As I've always said, I'm not that convinced that higher PCM rates add that much over CD. I believe (and my test sort of confirmed) that I can hear a difference, but it still has the same PCM issues. The biggest one being, i.m.o. is a reduction in space between notes, sounds, attacks, decays, ect. Some how PCM kind of closes the sound in. Again, this is how I hear it and I look forward to comparing PCM to DSD in a proper test to eliminate my confirmation bias out of what I think I am hearing.

I've never thought that 44.1 is lacking from frequency range, my gripe is what happens in PCM within the range we do hear/perceive/etc.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3997
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
why not? if it proves your credibility, why wouldn't you present?
Because it has nothing to do with the conversation. The fact that you're suddenly interested in my artistic and musical output shows me that you guys are not seriously interested in taking this conversation beyond what's "known". Your hoping I'll give you a stick to bash me with that has nothing to do with this. Sorry I'm not that stupid. There's no way I subject something I cherish and love to hostile crowd like this. Unfortunately this has become personal and a waste of time so I'm checking out.

Lastly, I don't get the Neil Young bashing. You think he's been chasing $$ his whole career? I don't. I admit I'm a fan. A lot of you probably aren't. Many of you lost cred. with me when you start going down that road. No one is impeachable, but for 50 years it's seems like the man has done what he does out of love and passion and not out of trying to squeeze money out of the public by deceiving them. He turns his amp up loud to create overtones. A lot musicians and guitarist don't know how to do this or don't care. Even a lot of loud playing full-on Metal heads don't get this. It's one of the things that makes his work stand out over the years. It's really hard to get this to translate in recordings and has been even harder for some reason with digital recording. People who make music using sampled loops and beats rarely think about this stuff unless maybe they re-amp stuff back through a P.A. system or something. For those of us to do get into that kind of "sonic alchemy" it's frustrating when what we're playing back on the studio monitors gets bounced down to a cd and loses some of the "magic". You guys don't get this, don't care and want to attack people who sense these differences as believing in Unicorns and fairies. I'm just glad your not the ones writing songs because there is a real lack of intuitive reasoning in all of this number clinging.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3998
LOL. I agree that mellotronic's RE expertise or lack thereof has no bearing on either the evolving topic of this thread or his technological knowledge... but... he is the one who brought the subject up as though it could prove something...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic

My recordings sound great. 4 and 5 star reviews in international music press back that up.
You put it on the table, mellotronic. Are you gonna show your cards or fold?

Don't try to put THIS nonsense off on anyone else.
Old 26th April 2014
  #3999
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
[/QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
Because it has nothing to do with the conversation. The fact that you're suddenly interested in my artistic and musical output shows me that you guys are not seriously interested in taking this conversation beyond what's "known". Your hoping I'll give you a stick to bash me with that has nothing to do with this. Sorry I'm not that stupid. There's no way I subject something I cherish and love to hostile crowd like this. Unfortunately this has become personal and a waste of time so I'm checking out.

Lastly, I don't get the Neil Young bashing. You think he's been chasing $$ his whole career? I don't. I admit I'm a fan. A lot of you probably aren't. Many of you lost cred. with me when you start going down that road. No one is impeachable, but for 50 years it's seems like the man has done what he does out of love and passion and not out of trying to squeeze money out of the public by deceiving them. He turns his amp up loud to create overtones. A lot musicians and guitarist don't know how to do this or don't care. Even a lot of loud playing full-on Metal heads don't get this. It's one of the things that makes his work stand out over the years. It's really hard to get this to translate in recordings and has been even harder for some reason with digital recording. People who make music using sampled loops and beats rarely think about this stuff unless maybe they re-amp stuff back through a P.A. system or something. For those of us to do get into that kind of "sonic alchemy" it's frustrating when what we're playing back on the studio monitors gets bounced down to a cd and loses some of the "magic". You guys don't get this, don't care and want to attack people who sense these differences as believing in Unicorns and fairies. I'm just glad your not the ones writing songs because there is a real lack of intuitive reasoning in all of this number clinging.
considering your complaints about belligerence from other posters, i'm surprised by your rhetoric. you're a fan of Neil Young. fine. please explain the reduction of dynamic range in his re-releases of Harvest. screen shot attached again for your perusal.
Attached Thumbnails
Launch of Pono-screen-shot-2014-04-26-8.40.47-pm.jpg  

Last edited by paul brown; 26th April 2014 at 09:36 PM.. Reason: argumentative
Old 26th April 2014
  #4000
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
Because it has nothing to do with the conversation. The fact that you're suddenly interested in my artistic and musical output shows me that you guys are not seriously interested in taking this conversation beyond what's "known". Your hoping I'll give you a stick to bash me with that has nothing to do with this. Sorry I'm not that stupid. There's no way I subject something I cherish and love to hostile crowd like this. Unfortunately this has become personal and a waste of time so I'm checking out.

Lastly, I don't get the Neil Young bashing. You think he's been chasing $$ his whole career? I don't. I admit I'm a fan. A lot of you probably aren't. Many of you lost cred. with me when you start going down that road. No one is impeachable, but for 50 years it's seems like the man has done what he does out of love and passion and not out of trying to squeeze money out of the public by deceiving them. He turns his amp up loud to create overtones. A lot musicians and guitarist don't know how to do this or don't care. Even a lot of loud playing full-on Metal heads don't get this. It's one of the things that makes his work stand out over the years. It's really hard to get this to translate in recordings and has been even harder for some reason with digital recording. People who make music using sampled loops and beats rarely think about this stuff unless maybe they re-amp stuff back through a P.A. system or something. For those of us to do get into that kind of "sonic alchemy" it's frustrating when what we're playing back on the studio monitors gets bounced down to a cd and loses some of the "magic". You guys don't get this, don't care and want to attack people who sense these differences as believing in Unicorns and fairies. I'm just glad your not the ones writing songs because there is a real lack of intuitive reasoning in all of this number clinging.
I enjoyed reading that post, for what it's worth. Do the right thing, check out!

You Just slip out the back, Jack
Make a new plan, Stan
You don't need to be coy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Hop on the bus, Gus
You don't need to discuss much
Just drop off the key, Lee
And get yourself free

Old 26th April 2014
  #4001
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
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.
But you can do an abx test yourself as another data point. There is no need to be afraid of it as so many appear to be.

You can give the results as little or as much credence as you choose. Many of us think it's pretty good evidence even if it's not perfect. But there are others who don't think so. Either way... It's an interesting exercise.

Again, just do a little reading on expectation bias. It's quite amazing how little you can trust your own perception, especially as you seem to have so much trust. It goes against reality.
Old 26th April 2014
  #4002
And the thread goes round and round.
None of which is going to stop Pono going to market.
So it will be interesting to see if it changes anything about the music industry and music retail over the next 12 to 24 months.
What's interesting to me is the long and diverse list of artists (quoted on about page two of this thread I think?) supporting Young and Pono.
I mean they are either hearing something they like, they are obsessed with making money, or they are very naive. I like to think it's that they're hearing something. Maybe it's the remastering, or just the way the player is put together, not just a factor of a higher sample rate.
Old 26th April 2014
  #4003
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
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 think we need to clarify a few things. First, an ABX test can have one of two results: either the null hypothesis is rejected, or the test is inconclusive. The null hypothesis is always that the choices were made randomly (i.e., because there is no perceivable difference between A and B). The alternative hypothesis can be anything, but usually we consider it to be that there is a perceivable difference between A and B.

An ABX test cannot prove the alternative hypothesis; it can only reject the null hypothesis.

So how does one reject the null? Before the test we agree to a number, the statistical significance level. This number represents the maximum probability we're willing to accept of the results being determined by chance (the null hypothesis). In other words, the significance level is the cut-off point: If the result of the test is lower than this significance level -- i.e., has a lower probability of being the result of random chance -- then we can reject the null hypothesis. (We have not proved anything; all we have done is agreed that it's unlikely that our results were due to chance.) On the other hand, if the result of the test is higher than our significance level then we cannot reject the null hypothesis and the results of the test are inconclusive.

A typical significance level for these type of tests is 5%: if the results of a test have less than 5% probability of being due to random chance, then we reject the null. (Or said another way, there is better than 95% probability that the results are not due to random chance.)

Now back to your issue: when you say "55% confidence", I think you mean a 55% correct result, with the implication that if one has enough trials (some very large N), then the probability of random chance should approach 50% and any discrepancy must be due to "fugitive" perception of differences.

But that is not how binomial probabilities work. Consider this: if I flip a fair coin 100 times, what is the probability that I will get exactly 50 heads? You're probably thinking somewhere between 40% and 60% right? It's actually 8%. How about if I flip it 1000 times, what is the probability of getting 500 heads? It's only 2.5%! The probability of getting exactly half right actually goes down with more trials.

It might seem counter-intuitive at first, but if you think about random processes it makes sense: the more trials you have, the more opportunity for crazy runs to happen, which make it less likely to end up with the expected value (the mean). Put another way: in a binomial distribution, variance is proportional to N.

This is the point of establishing a statistical significance: because pretty much anything can happen over N trials, we need to ignore any results that aren't statistically significant. What we cannot do is look at a 55% result, no matter how large the N, and conclude that some people heard a difference some of the time.
Old 26th April 2014
  #4004
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post

There were 5 files of 16/44.1 on the left and 24/96 on the right. Then I had my daughter come in, I left the room, and I had her rename the files and randomize the order, so I didn't know which was which. I made a chart of the new layout to record my test.

I attached the test chart. You can see the results.

The first time I took the test I got 4 out of 5 right. But it was harder to tell the difference than I thought it would be. I then hid those results
eventually you are going to 'learn' the names your daughter made up.
Quote:
So I could tell a difference, but only it seems when the volume was steady, fairly loud, and my ears were fresh. I would like to hear the Pono with a similar test. My test involved some pretty old and relatively cheap converters.

Regardless of all that, I did learn that I am just as susceptible to confirmation bias as the next guy. When I first listened to these files before I took the test it seemed like there was a big difference and I was sure I could ace the test easily.

I think you actually might have a better chance of doing well on the test if you actually went and got an ABX software program. That is to say your test is to my way of thinking "harder". The software will not only scramble the files when it is time to "guess", it will also give you the labeled A, and the labeled B - IOW you can "practice". You may begin to learn consistent differences when you "know" and then when you are given "X", you may be able to apply your knowledge of those differences.
Old 26th April 2014
  #4005
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
the following is included in an in-depth article on 192/24:

The human eye sees a limited range of frequencies of light, aka, the visible spectrum. This is directly analogous to the audible spectrum of sound waves...

In our hypothetical Wide Spectrum Video craze, consider a fervent group of Spectrophiles who believe these limits aren't generous enough. They propose that video represent not only the visible spectrum, but also infrared and ultraviolet. Continuing the comparison, there's an even more hardcore [and proud of it!] faction that insists this expanded range is yet insufficient, and that video feels so much more natural when it also includes microwaves and some of the X-ray spectrum. To a Golden Eye, they insist, the difference is night and day!

Of course this is ludicrous.

No one can see X-rays (or infrared, or ultraviolet, or microwaves). It doesn't matter how much a person believes he can. Retinas simply don't have the sensory hardware.

Thanks Paul. That article's a great read. I knew someone must have asked that before. I also found his comments on the complications of ultrasonics interesting, leading to this conclusion:

"192kHz digital music files offer no benefits. They're not quite neutral either; practical fidelity is slightly worse. The ultrasonics are a liability during playback.....Unfortunately, there is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format. Its playback fidelity is slightly inferior to 16/44.1 or 16/48, and it takes up 6 times the space."

But I also think we're probably stuck with 192 since HD Tracks has been selling it for some time, and nearly all audiophile DACs support it. And Pono will probably just continue that trend until they bother to do some proper scientific tests to confirm their claims about 192.

Last edited by walter88; 26th April 2014 at 11:59 PM.. Reason: added "leading to this conclusion"
Old 26th April 2014
  #4006
It's no surprise that artists are more open to a 'gut feeling' or a 'hunch' than they are to statistics or scientific data. For decades people have been trying to apply absolutes to the creative process and it has never worked.
You can't programme into a super computer every factor of a Lennon & McCartney song and get it to spit out a song of it's own that moves people.
No one knows why Shawshank Redemption consistently rates as one of the top ten movies of all time, not even the people who made it.
I get that the science is the science, the data is the data. But I also see a few people in the thread saying they are open to judging how Pono sounds for themselves.
If you work a certain way and it feels good, your music gets great reviews, and your music is popular with an audience, it's hardly surprising you aren't that much interested in ABX testing. That's fine IMO. If anyone here wants to test themselves using ABX software, they are free to do so.
I guess what is wrong is to refuse to play the ABX game, but be convinced Pono and 192khz is the answer. But what I'm seeing here is a few people being open to Pono, and being beaten about the head and often personally ridiculed, just for being open to the idea.
Again, they could be entirely wrong. But the point is, most people who have survived in the industry for a number of years have learnt not to rely on statistics, or science. they make a million decisions a day based on a gut feeling and a hunch. That's how the creative mind works.
Old 27th April 2014
  #4007
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
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.

Go read this deck:

www.aes.org/sections/pnw/ppt/jj/heyser.pptx

It will explain very clearly just why sighted results with any form of expectation involved simply do not mean what you think they mean. The 'X' factor your are appealing to is how human sensation and perception works, and the reason for the apparent dispute is quite obvious, and can be demonstrated to you without much difficulty if you can find a recording of that lecture.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo

That is a visual example. It only works once, so if you've seen it, sorry.

What you need to understand is that there are ways to make improvements, but going down a long-eliminated path is not one of them. In order to move forward, we must discard dead ends.
Old 27th April 2014
  #4008
j_j
Lives for gear
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.
Where in what I write do you get "anti-Pono"? I'm certainly in favor of properly executed ABX tests.
Old 27th April 2014
  #4009
Lives for gear
 
Silver Sonya's Avatar
 

If I recommend a restaurant, I do it by saying "The food there is FANTASTIC. Check it out!"

Does anyone say "Yes, but did you know where you were eating? Maybe you were pre-inclined to like it..." etc.?

- c
Old 27th April 2014
  #4010
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
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%.
There is ***never*** a 100% confidence in either confirmation or rejection, only probabilistic results.

And there is NEVER 100% fact in science, only "the best current understanding".

Again, for some others here, that does not mean 'we know nothing' and furthermore, it does NOT mean we can "reject nothing", either.

Science is the best possible current, falsifiable understanding of how things work (or worked). No more, no less.

And saying "it's just a theory" is nonsense, all accepted science is THEORIES. Accepted theories, but still theories. Period.

"scientific fact" is an oxymoron.
Old 27th April 2014
  #4011
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
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.
So in other words, it's somehow wrong to object strongly to absolute BS?

No, I don't think so. <SNIP - getting political>
Old 27th April 2014
  #4012
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
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.
No, no, that's not the case. Ditto for things like quantum interaction wherein probability is our only recourse.

There are many tools to extract as much information as possible from a probabilistic or stochastic process.
Old 27th April 2014
  #4013
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by nspaas View Post
That would certainly have dramatically more impact than doubling the sample rate.
Oh, please, give us back our natural dynamics. PLEASE!!!!!

Causing instant listener fatigue is NOT the way to sell music.
Old 27th April 2014
  #4014
Old 27th April 2014
  #4015
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
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.
Well, first, his metaphor is quite appropriate.

Second, the "subject is closed" argument comes from your assertions of "easily heard" and such. You have stated your opinion as dogma, and you require us to have faith.

Ain't got none.
Old 27th April 2014
  #4016
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by nspaas View Post
Not going to happen.

Ironically i only see one "stone throwing reactionary" in here ATM.
Yeah, mellotronic playing the victim is getting kind of old. He talks a lot, but I don't think he's actually reading.
Old 27th April 2014
  #4017
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
So in other words, it's somehow wrong to object strongly to absolute BS?
Not sure how you came to construct that one, JJ. I'd call THAT BS!

And confirmation of your aggression. Pack it up. It's boring.
Old 27th April 2014
  #4018
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
I thought I explained it. I wasn't going to put any confidence in some test from a link on the internet. I don't know enough about who put it together, how it was set up, if there was any upsampling for the higher rez files, or even how honestly the test is being presented.
As someone else said, with a good ABX setup you'd probably get more sensitive results.

I can't speak for any one program, I haven't used them extensively. What I've used previously was in-house and written to spec by an expert or 3. It also included careful attention to time alignment, gain, and included "learning" mechanisms as well as both positive and negative controls.

Well, or that's what was done AFTER we could use computers. That was a big win.
Old 27th April 2014
  #4019
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver Sonya View Post
If I recommend a restaurant, I do it by saying "The food there is FANTASTIC. Check it out!"

Does anyone say "Yes, but did you know where you were eating? Maybe you were pre-inclined to like it..." etc.?

- c
Sigh ...

What's your point? We aren't testing restaurants to see if there are perceptible differences, are we?

Completely different problem. I don't expect a restaurant review to be done blind. Part of a restaurant experience IS the tablecloth.

That's not what we're arguing here.
Old 27th April 2014
  #4020
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
Not sure how you came to construct that one, JJ. I'd call THAT BS!

And confirmation of your aggression. Pack it up. It's boring.
More ad-hominem attacks, based on your preference for how one presents an argument.

Don't confuse your preference with anything but that, and don't confuse "aggression" with scientific discourse.

If I was actually being aggressive, you would have really noticed. Everyone else would have noticed, too.

You confuse advocacy with aggression, basically, and that's going to make it hard for you to ever engage in discourse with science types.
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