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 27th April 2014
  #4051
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
The difficulty with that is bandwidth. Presently, radio stations are using very low-rate AAC-HE in the USA, at least, and the quality is, at least to my ear, repugnant.

How would you send a higher-sample-rate signal over the air without compression in a channel that is at best 96kb/s? It's not going to be easy!
I didn't know the transmission scheme for radio had changed so dramatically. Back in the day LP's played over FM sounded fantastic.
Old 27th April 2014
  #4052
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
So, you don't wish to have your passive-aggressive personal attacks responded to? Well, I can't say as I would want that in your shoes, given the completely silly kind of claims you make, and the maniacal arrogance you exhibit.

Note, I'm not attacking YOU, I am attacking your inappropriate actions.

Learn the difference!
case in point.
You really don't think quoting people then calling them liars, a waste of time, and claiming they are causing you actual harm is aggressive???? Forget passive aggressive.
I think you added the voice of reason with regard to the science of audio earlier in the thread, but then for some unexplained reason started verbally bullying anyone who questioned your posts - even if they were wrong you had no need to go down that road.
Given your credentials, reputation and obvious expertise I wonder why it felt warranted to get into character assassinations yourself.
Old 27th April 2014
  #4053
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Sad days.
No ****.
Old 27th April 2014
  #4054
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
I didn't know the transmission scheme for radio had changed so dramatically. Back in the day LP's played over FM sounded fantastic.
Even analog is impaired by the digital transmission. You could do better on analog, now, but you'd need receivers better able to reject the digital sidebands than most older equipment.

The digital transmission is, at least in my opinion, pretty terrible. It is literally "worse sound to fewer people" in that it's often 32kb/s HEAAC, and the transmission radius is often smaller. Yes, it takes less transmitter power, but that doesn't help the listener a whole lot.

If (big IF) we had abandoned the current setup and gone to pure digital, it could be quite otherwise. 160kb/s AAC (not HEAAC) is quite good, we could have about 4 times as many stations, and we could eliminate stoplight fades except in cases like tunnels and such where there is broadband signal loss. But we didn't do that, we created a system that was more impaired than the one that it replaced.

Don't blame me, I had my fill of that committee after 2 meetings, when it was evident that it was all about preserving station license value and not about sound quality.
Old 27th April 2014
  #4055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
Didn't think about the Pono connection??? What on earth did you think Silver Sonya was getting at?? Maybe the fact you were to busy jumping in to argue with it before even stopping to think about what he might mean says something about something.
I'll admit it was an odd oversight, but I assure you it was guileless. Now, for sure, I hadn't completely forgot 'where' I was -- but I really was not intending any sort of linkage of NY with the fictional brother-in-law. I mean, that would be a rather inept analogy, if that were the case. I mean, in some other possible dimension (speaking highly figuratively), Neil might have ended up living in his brother-in-law's spare bedroom. But that's a long, long way from this one.

Anyhow, I thought Silver Sonya and I were having sort of a light, bantering moment. Maybe not. This subjective stuff is hard to pin down.

Old 27th April 2014
  #4056
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
...Don't blame me, I had my fill of that committee after 2 meetings, when it was evident that it was all about preserving station license value and not about sound quality.
FWIW my friend on the HD-TV committee had exactly the same experience. Today's FM and digital sounds worse than AM radio did during the '60s. Who'd-of-thunk...

P.S. I'm streaming a live guitar/vocal mono 128 MP3 from the living room at the moment. Amazing what just a single km-84 and a top quality converter can do.
Old 27th April 2014
  #4057
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Wow, I thought it was just that they had gone to MP3s. So there is no longer any hope for radio.
Old 27th April 2014
  #4058
Lives for gear
 
Timothy Lawler's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
Today's FM and digital sounds worse than AM radio did during the '60s. Who'd-of-thunk...
I've heard both and I agree.
Old 27th April 2014
  #4059
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

I understand most broadcasters are using 48kx24 audio because it will probably be encoded several times before the listener hears it. This is possibly the most important reason to not clip music masters.
Old 27th April 2014
  #4060
Digital radio is available in the major cities only in my country, and not even all parts of the city I believe.
This would be based on budgetary factors i think.
We are on a completely digital tv system, with the analog signal having been turned off last year.
I would love to have digital radio, but it isn't available in my area.
Old 27th April 2014
  #4061
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
I was sure that it was a drastic improvement and that I would easily tell the difference in a test between the two, but then found out it wasn't so easy, that the difference was slight at best.
Much respect for posting this.
Old 27th April 2014
  #4062
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Another thing that should be considered is the potential for radio to grab onto this. That would be huge! Even if the increased fidelity over CD is marginal, it is pretty extreme over the sound of the MP3's all the broadcasters seem to have adopted.

Radio seems to exacerbate any format deficiencies that may be present. Listening to MP3's on FM radio is an excruciating experience.
FM radio has a dynamic range of about 50dB and the highs cut off at about 15kHz. We have already established that Hi-Res Digital has none of the coloration of vinyl or tape, so what benefit of 24/192 would even be audible through such a bottleneck?

And when you listen to digital radio, you are listening to mp3's! Sirius I believe is 128 kbps TOPS. Like so many other things, they want to fit more channels rather than better sound. It's one thing to have a huge file living on your own player, but what would it "cost" to have that level of bandwidth streaming at you? And what if they are playing something you are not interested in hearing? You will still want a choice of channels even in the "audiophile" market.

I think it will be a long time before radio gets you even high mp3 quality, never mind full CD quality, never mind the "coming up for air" sample rates.
Old 27th April 2014
  #4063
Most radio now has an instant access, all encompassing music library.
Even on local talk based radio a host will ask a caller what song they would like to hear, and ten seconds later it's playing - quite remarkable.
Core audio quality is only one aspect of radio delivery. By and large I still experience a lot of white noise, cross talk and interference from overhead electricity when listening to my country's major radio network while on the road.
The advertising campaigns for popular Ford and GM autos now make a point of mentioning iPod or mp3 connectivity, plus in car Pandora.
Old 27th April 2014
  #4064
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
I'm not going to block JJ, even though I find he is inexplicably rude and dismissive to others in the thread.
I'd like to point out that jj is not being rude TO ME, even though I'm certainly putting forth challenging ideas and trying really hard to nail down his (and my) position. It's because I'm thinking through my arguments, am prepared to acknowledge limits to 'my side' (as is he) and we're slowly and painfully reaching a sort of synthesis, in the middle of all this negativity.

We've got various 'probably good enough for anybody' points, like 24/96 or 20/64, thrown out there to consider.

We've got agreement that no form of ABX testing is strictly 'proof', being an expression of a statistical experiment giving a guideline on how often a person can hear a thing and how often (through their own failings or intermittency of the phenomenon, or both) they don't.

Currently, I'm trying real hard to establish the idea that, conversely, if you manage a really large number of trials that don't converge to 50% but something else like say 70%, then you have statistical grounds to claim that YOU CAN HEAR THE THING some of the time… and must also admit that you don't hear it every time, only some of the time.

If we can have that concession (along with the concession from the audiophiles that 'yes, I can't call this obvious or a huge difference when I only hear it one time in six') then we can turn around and say, "I want digital audio that NEVER fails my ears. I want it overdesigned to the point that, if I was to try and distinguish it from the original sound, I would always, always be guessing, and would never manage more than 50% no matter how long I continued."

At which point, we're talking about something like 24/96 probably, maybe more than 20/64, probably more than 24/48 especially for younger listeners, very likely not 24/192 even if some folks think that is their bar.

People would still fail to get 20 out of 20 trying to hear 16/44.1, but you know what? They'd reliably do somewhat better than chance, just not hear it EVERY time. Some of them probably would get it every time, especially if you let them turn it up super loud not that I know anybody like THAT…
Old 27th April 2014
  #4065
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
I'd like to point out that jj is not being rude TO ME, even though I'm certainly putting forth challenging ideas and trying really hard to nail down his (and my) position. It's because I'm thinking through my arguments, am prepared to acknowledge limits to 'my side' (as is he) and we're slowly and painfully reaching a sort of synthesis, in the middle of all this negativity.
:
And I'm not?????
I haven't disagreed with any of the science, although I expressed surprise much earlier in the thread that we had apparently reached the reasonable end point of digital audio quality (corresponding to the human ear) several decades ago.
Making and releasing music is not a scientific thought process. So I think it's understandable and excusable that several people who make music for a living have wandered in to the thread and posted their thoughts, perhaps based more on personal experience than academic research. It's a shame to see them smacked down rather aggressively by some, as has happened, when others in the debate have been capable of explaining the science and their concussions without getting personal.
Old 27th April 2014
  #4066
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
I
Currently, I'm trying real hard to establish the idea that, conversely, if you manage a really large number of trials that don't converge to 50% but something else like say 70%, then you have statistical grounds to claim that YOU CAN HEAR THE THING some of the time… and must also admit that you don't hear it every time, only some of the time.
Actually, I pointed out that if you get things right 55% of the time, you hit a 3% confidence at 300 trials, for type 1 error.

So I think that's established. That's nothing new, that's how it always works.
Old 27th April 2014
  #4067
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
FWIW my friend on the HD-TV committee had exactly the same experience.
ATV was even worse, especially the audio part. The claim was made, and supported by the committee, that one had to have a system with both audio and video, because they could interact, based on ancient analog understanding. In digital, that's preposterous.

Now, it was introduced to protect some parties, imagine that. Big surprise, isn't it?
Old 27th April 2014
  #4068
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
I understand most broadcasters are using 48kx24 audio because it will probably be encoded several times before the listener hears it. This is possibly the most important reason to not clip music masters.
They get a variety of stuff in the input queue. The best you get out of HDRadio, as far as I know, is 96kb/s HEAAC, and I don't think anyone does only one channel at 96kb/s.

It is better that words fail me.
Old 27th April 2014
  #4069
j_j
Lives for gear
404 my behind.
Old 27th April 2014
  #4070
j_j
Lives for gear
404 my behind.
Old 27th April 2014
  #4071
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
And when you listen to digital radio, you are listening to mp3's! Sirius I believe is 128 kbps TOPS.
In the USA, talking about Satellite radio, you are, depending on service, listening to HEAAC V1 or PAC. I can not talk about the bit rates, I believe that information is proprietary AND can change on the fly, but I think you are being phantasmagorically optimistic about the bit rate.

If you're talking about HDradio, it's HEAAC, at a maximum of 96kb/s. That is public knowledge.

If you wish to complain about the quality, well, join the line, it's pretty (*&(*& long and I'm standing near the front. :gag:
Old 27th April 2014
  #4072
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Maybe Neil should be arguing for better radio quality, you know like we had 40 years ago!

Of course in those days that was the only way to discover new music.
Old 27th April 2014
  #4073
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
And I'm not?????
I haven't disagreed with any of the science, although I expressed surprise much earlier in the thread that we had apparently reached the reasonable end point of digital audio quality (corresponding to the human ear) several decades ago.
Who said that? Nobody I know of. There is much to be made of production methods, spatial methods, etc, beyond multichannel and object-oriented audio, for instance.

There is the need, if we want to make kids happen, for a bit more bandwidth, but kids who can hear that usually don't have the money to buy things, or the language, yet, to express the desire.

Quote:
Making and releasing music is not a scientific thought process. So I think it's understandable and excusable that several people who make music for a living have wandered in to the thread and posted their thoughts, perhaps based more on personal experience than academic research. It's a shame to see them smacked down rather aggressively by some, as has happened, when others in the debate have been capable of explaining the science and their concussions without getting personal.
I'm not smacking anyone down for talking about artistic issues. Nor am I telling anyone what they prefer. It's when we see claims that address the science that there may be a dispute.

More particularly, having spent years and years as a technical guy in standards committees, I am sick unto (O*(*& of obstructive argumentative techniques and the like. There's been a fair amount of it here, and a fair amount of responses that have flat-out ignored what's been said before. If someone is going to enter the discussion, they owe everyone the time to read through it before they start making up positions and throwing them in people's faces, and the like.

I am simply pointing out when there is myth or misconception, and I will not, repeat NOT put up with straw-man arguments, context abuse, and the like, which some folks seem quite prone too.

If you go way, way back you will notice that I keep saying that I am talking about final delivery, here. I have said, repeatedly, that what is good for final delivery is NOT what one needs for capture or for processing. In fact, I've sid that over and over.
Old 27th April 2014
  #4074
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Maybe Neil should be arguing for better radio quality, you know like we had 40 years ago!

Of course in those days that was the only way to discover new music.
Sad.
True.
Old 27th April 2014
  #4075
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Maybe Neil should be arguing for better radio quality, you know like we had 40 years ago!

Of course in those days that was the only way to discover new music.
I mean... does anyone actually listen to radio anymore? For music?
Old 27th April 2014
  #4076
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post

If you go way, way back you will notice that I keep saying that I am talking about final delivery, here. I have said, repeatedly, that what is good for final delivery is NOT what one needs for capture or for processing. In fact, I've sid that over and over.
All fair points (for the sake of brevity I've edited out the rest of your post which I don't disagree with).
And way back in the thread I was following all your posts, learning from them, and never said a word to dispute them.
Old 27th April 2014
  #4077
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
I mean... does anyone actually listen to radio anymore? For music?
Yes.
Anywhere where the internet is inadequate.
Which is still quite a few places.
Old 27th April 2014
  #4078
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
I mean... does anyone actually listen to radio anymore? For music?
No. That's part of the problem. When it's all squished to death and beyond, nobody can.
Old 27th April 2014
  #4079
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Indeed the tune-out time is around 30-60 seconds on squished to death. One common rating system adds all of the 30 second listeners to the count which encourages squishing and lowest common denominator programming.

An inspiring piece of news is that HBO is doing a massive business breaking most of broadcasting's concepts of how to get ratings and this has already started to resonate in advertising supported TV and may move on to radio.
Old 27th April 2014
  #4080
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
No. That's part of the problem. When it's all squished to death and beyond, nobody can.
I think it's a different problem. I am so used to picking the music I like music radio is useless. Even if it sounded good I wouldn't listen.
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