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 19th February 2015
  #5221
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
we're talking about supporting a listening experience where people can settle into extended, familiar getting-used-to listening with treasured audio and music, stuff that casts a spell and puts out a sonic picture you can bathe in. And we're talking about soaking up all the impressions from this experiencing, including the tiny hints that say either 'hey, is that a mahogany back wall?' or 'DJSBFIESGIBHVDSYIFHSDBFHKDGFIUH' deep in the background that you'll never hear, but maybe every now and then you get a glimpse of it, to be thereby enthralled or confounded.
CD quality does that.

Quote:
Raw DSD has a place.
... in a 1999 marketing brochure.

Quote:
Again, the fascinating thing about it technically is how the error tracks with frequency. I made a dither that approximates this behavior with PCM, but nobody else has and the interesting thing about the behavior is, we know everybody hears 1K and 100 hz etc. real good. This is no longer 'nobody can hear past 20K', this is now 'fine, have super linearity beyond other digital formats down in the meat of the audio band, and the digital crap can all sit above 20K being not perfectly dithered'.
Are you suggesting nobody has done that type noise shaped dither for PCM before you? My very old copy of Audition has a noise shape (there are several noise shapes to choose from) that, when working at 192 Khz SR, has all the noise pushed up over 20Khz. (With a peak of -90 dB FS at just over 20Khz. Not dissimilar to DSD). Most of the noise is over 20Khz. At 1 Khz the dither noise is at around -180 dB FS.

And what on earth is super linearity? Do you just mean signal to noise ratio? There are dozens of noise shaped dithers out there. This is nothing special.

Alistair
Old 20th February 2015
  #5222
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
CD quality does that.
You can keep on asserting that over and over, and there's quite a few people happy to join you and just keep on insisting it's true.

Tenacity is not the same thing as being right, and I don't agree. CD quality does not do that, though it's not miles away from it (it's far enough away from it to be annoying and leave a sense of something missing)

On a happier note… my Pono shipped! Soon enough I can do some measurements, and won't be speculating or going by the reports of people whose ears I trust. We'll have an example of the real device to play with, in this godforsaken silly thread

Since the talk of it internally converting everything to 44.1/16 because it's Android is clearly ridiculous nonsense, I think one of the things I'll be trying is some generated white noise at 96 and 192K, resampled at 96K (I can't directly sample at 192K here). I should be able to see the more natural roll-off over 20K, possibly traces of roll-off beginning to happen just under 20K, and maybe even a node from the averaging filter.

Might be able to do a low level sine and try to measure what's gained from the averaging in midrange/low frequency noise floor. The trouble there is, I'm pretty sure Pono completely blows past what my current Focusrite ADC is capable of capturing, by a significant margin, so I don't think I can even measure how good it is at low level information. Maybe if I capture at a level that would grossly distort full scale information? I might be able to skew the whole capture that way and get a magnified picture of the low level stuff by doing test tones at super-quiet levels and scaling everything to that. I can do a calibrated sine, and then adjust the capture to artificially drop the Focusrite's noise floor so we only see the Pono's.

Ideas?
Old 20th February 2015
  #5223
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
Tenacity is not the same thing as being right
That goes both ways Chris.

Any comments on that dither issue? Are you claiming to be some kind of DSP pioneer?

Quote:
I should be able to see the more natural roll-off over 20K
You do realise that most flagship DAC chips have more gentle roll-off anti-imaging filters at 192 Khz? Not because it sounds better or any such non-sense (that is just audiophile snake oil marketing) but because it means it uses less DSP resources and can allow cost cuts. If they didn't do this, they would need twice the DSP power to run the filters at 192 Khz and it wouldn't be very useful as it is all way outside the audible band. But hey, it allows for some marketing spin from the less scrupulous brands.

Alistair
Old 20th February 2015
  #5224
Lives for gear
 
Mania's Avatar
 

Hi, I'm new here.

Umm, just wonderin, its probably already posted, but why is this thread still going after this article was posted?

24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed

Surely it pretty much ends the debate, since it is 100% science from somebody (monty) who is overwhelmingly more informed then 99% of people here?
I dont quite understand why this is a 174 page thread...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Santiago View Post
Can I just bring the conversation back to the point that, given that the Ipod Classic is no more, and that Pono has a fairly reasonable price, it sounds like a fairly good deal?

I'm a bit sceptical about the importance of above-CD sample rates in audio, but, even if we take that out of the equation and assume that it will be slightly better than an Ipod Classic, it's not like there's too much competition out there for portable digital audio, is there?

If it cost double what it does, all the discussion about its performance would be more warranted, but at its current price I don't understand why all the vitriol.
Literally anything by Fiio is waaaaay more practical and better value
Old 20th February 2015
  #5225
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mania View Post
Hi, I'm new here.

Umm, just wonderin, its probably already posted, but why is this thread still going after this article was posted?

24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed

Surely it pretty much ends the debate, since it is 100% science from somebody (monty) who is overwhelmingly more informed then 99% of people here?
According to who? That article seems 100% silly to me, and Monty does not speak for me or most of the professional sound recordists I know. Plus, Monty is a developer of lossy audio codecs and has an obvious interest in claiming what he claims, otherwise the stuff he works on would seem like very inadequate audio indeed.

Which it is… by audiophile standards, and heard over gear that can perform to those standards.

Which Pono is, for about $400 (quite a change from how things used to be! I've been working for years on a rig where the DAC alone cost a lot more than that)

It's mighty funny to me (not to say suspect) when vested interests pop up to say 'this can't even be a conversation because you're wrong'. I think anyone who's reacting that way over Monty's writings is sort of credulous or has a powerful reason to want to believe what Monty's saying, and we live in a time when vested interests do everything up to throwing large amounts of money to literally falsify science (see: oil companies funding climate change papers)

All this is wonderfully less important than that, but seems to follow similar behaviors. Guys, somebody is falsifying your science and trying to boil it down to truisms and unwarranted, un-examinable assumptions barring any further investigation, ever.

This is wrong (and dumb)

Quit it. Because there's a great deal of personal experience out there suggesting that the ABX-tested, average-person audio experience is a damned low bar and uninteresting to any aficionado of sound, it's worth looking into where diminishing returns kick in: and that's a very, very different question.

I personally suspect drastically raising effective word length is the key to 'analog sound' (outside of known alterations of transfer function, asymmetrical distortion etc. which I've been developing in DSP for years) and I don't think delivering sound frequencies above, say, 30K is useful or relevant at all. But I could be mistaken, and I'm interested to hear from points of view claiming otherwise, and to gauge the arguments and the background/context of the claimant.

'you need 50K and up because shut up, that's why' is not any more effective with me than 'nobody can hear anything so shut up, here's an mp3'
Old 20th February 2015
  #5226
Old 20th February 2015
  #5227
Lives for gear
 
Mania's Avatar
 

Chris, wouldnt you have a vested interest in your opinion, because you sell plugins based on an 80 bit floating point?
Old 20th February 2015
  #5228
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
That article seems 100% silly to me
and

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
I don't think I can even measure how good it is


This reads like the best example of confirmation bias ever.
Old 20th February 2015
  #5229
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mania View Post
But wouldnt you have a vested interest in your opinion, because you sell plugins based on an 80 bit floating point?
But I'm not telling you not to think, or discuss, or form your own conclusions. I'm no authority, just another bozo on the buss gearslutting away and enjoying the bustle of rousing conversation

And, as soon as I can, I will bring actual test data of a real Pono, so we can talk about real things and what it means when some people have very positive responses to types of audio with identifiable characteristics.

I figure I'm pretty consistent. I don't put much stock in supersonic frequencies, and indeed some of the speakers I've liked a lot have been single-driver speakers. And I think it's got to do with extending wordlength and slashing away at the problems of quantization and residual math error building up (having to do with how things like floating point are implemented: digital is not infinite or even close), and so I don't just sit there, I code plugins in line with what I think will work, and amazingly, when I'm done, I like the work that I did! Otherwise I wouldn't be done

I never know what'll click with people. I did a synthetic hi-hat that I thought would be a big hit in this world of EDM, and a minimalist saturation plugin with the 80-bit high res thing fully in place.

The hihat stiffed and has barely sold anything, and the overdrive… and there are MILLIONS of overdrives and I never said it was anything other than the simplest overdrive made to sound good in this very basic, minimal processing way… was a big hit and sold a bunch of copies. For the 80-bit 'purest' thing even to be a thing says absolutely outrageous stuff about the inconsistent threshold of hearing. For it to sound distinct means there's a lot going on beyond the most rigorous, testable level. And ya know it ain't because the GUI is tricking gullible consumers into thinking they have a physical device, because there's no GUI and no model and no device there at all!
Old 20th February 2015
  #5230
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
This reads like the best example of confirmation bias ever.
If the Pono player delivers low-level information (due to the averaging, and good hardware design) way beyond the performance of my Focusrite Scarlett 6i6 (which is fine, but prosumer) then I can't simply match up the levels to reach the same peaks, and measure.

The Focusrite will be choking on some of the peaks put out by the Pono player, much as if I was trying to feed my significantly more expensive and high performance Lavry DA10 into the Focusrite. And the noise floor of the Focusrite will mask the Pono's.

That's science. My measurement instruments in the Focusrite aren't good enough to fully capture either the output of my Lavry, or the Pono. They sound better than the Focusrite, or the headphone jack of my iMac, for technical reasons.

Now, that also means I can get a sense of what the technical disparity is, between an output that is very good, and one that's a lot cheaper and is compromised. For instance, when my iMac's audio converter kicks in, I plainly hear the hiss of it turning on. It's at a level where I can easily tell between say 4 bit audio and 16 bit: it's quiet, but not so quiet that no distinctions can be made. The Lavry doesn't have hiss in the same way at all, and over that it's easier to hear the texture of the base noise floor of a recording, especially if it's a 16 bit recording, especially if I artificially crank it to where the loudest sounds would blow my ears up.

If I was trying to represent a thunderbolt sound (or a live drum kit a foot from my ears?) I would have to represent transient audio spikes one hell of a way beyond 'comfortable music listening volume'. I can hit a snare drum in such a way that it'll make a sound in which, if you precisely recorded it, you'd easily hear 16 bit noisefloor played at comparable loudnesses.

The focusrite captures and plays back 24 bit audio. That doesn't mean I won't hear hiss on its headphone outputs, or that it can represent what the Pono is actually doing. I might have to do repeated captures, some heavily padded so that the Pono's hottest outputs are captured at -48 db or lower, some boosted so that the Pono's hottest output would be distorting by +48 db if it was allowed to play through into the inputs (that's where you break out the -90 db test tones).
Old 20th February 2015
  #5231
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Monty speaks for Pandora's investment bankers and stockholders. I can assure you they have a lot more to lose from Pono's success than Chris or even Neil Young have to gain.
Old 20th February 2015
  #5232
Lives for gear
 
Mania's Avatar
 

There are a couple things i wouldnt agree with there, but i completely understand. I love your plugs to death mate.
Firstly, my main gripe with the pono is that it markets with bull****, straight out. Every kind of ad promotion ive seen for the pono-player is conformation bias 101, which I think is massively dishonest to people who willingly or unwillingly dont know any better.
Second gripe with it is that its just not a good player, plain and simple. Its got a great chip from what I've heard, sounds great, but has a ****ful design and can be matched (feature-wise and sound-wise) by products half the price.
Thirdly, the marketing absolutely ****s on compressed (and standard quality lossless) with zero science. Just pure, straight-out-the-ass, hyperbole. I agree that the hi-qual lossy vs lossless is a very contentious debate, but without a doubt lossy has a place, in all resolutions, and creating non-existent problems for things that we take for granted is really not a good thing.

I listen to a large variety of lossy and lossless formats constantly, through producing or internet perusing , and i trust my ears when i say i can't hear the difference. And when my ears tell me i dont need to spend extra money for music, or take up extra space, then I believe them as much as you believe yours. mp3's are the only reason i can fit my quite large music collection on my 128gb portable player, and I'm very greatful for that.
Old 20th February 2015
  #5233
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
Monty speaks for Pandora's investment bankers and stockholders. I can assure you they have a lot more to lose from Pono's success than Chris or even Neil Young have to gain.
The statement on the Pono store "Highest Resolution Music available for over 2 Million Tracks" is verifiably false.

Which of Monty's statements are verifiably false?
Old 20th February 2015
  #5234
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
This is wrong (and dumb)

Quit it.

...

'you need 50K and up because shut up, that's why' is not any more effective with me than 'nobody can hear anything so shut up, here's an mp3'
You don't even realise you are doing do you? You have absolutely no idea, right?

Alistair
Old 20th February 2015
  #5235
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
For the 80-bit 'purest' thing even to be a thing says absolutely outrageous stuff about the inconsistent threshold of hearing. For it to sound distinct means there's a lot going on beyond the most rigorous, testable level.
It's rarely wise to drink your own koolaid.

80-bit storage for an audio-level multiply is outrageous alright, outrageously silly. I don't know how you can market that with a straight face.
Old 20th February 2015
  #5236
Lives for gear
 
Santiago's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mania View Post
Literally anything by Fiio is waaaaay more practical and better value
Is it really? How is the software and playlist-making facility? I had not heard very good things about them.
Old 21st February 2015
  #5237
Lives for gear
 
Mania's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Santiago View Post
Is it really? How is the software and playlist-making facility? I had not heard very good things about them.
Its limited, but its there. Coming from the flawless system of itunes to the very basic and not-streamlined Fiio was a bit of a shock, but for the price it was worth it, It does have shortcoming's. id suggest you suss out to try for yourself, or just read the manual of one, to see if the problems are too much for you

In terms of ergonomic functionality however, it ****s on the pono
Old 21st February 2015
  #5238
Lives for gear
 

Chris, WHY do you keep attaching mp3 and lossy encoding in general to 16/44.1 as a means to attack it? Do you honestly believe that nobody will notice? You'll disagree, but it makes it seem as though you can't find much of anything substantial to criticize otherwise.

Chris

Last edited by Chris93; 21st February 2015 at 08:48 AM..
Old 21st February 2015
  #5239
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris93 View Post
Chris, WHY do you keep attaching mp3 and lossy encoding in general to 16/44.1 as a means to attack it? Do you honestly believe that nobody will notice? You'll disagree, but it makes it seem as though you can't find much of anything substantial to criticize otherwise.

Chris
They are really not that different, just different degrees of degradation.

I don't plan on buying a Pono but am glad they exist because it has helped bring higher sample rates to the forefront. And I do plan to check out the Pono music store, any info on how the tracks were created?
Old 21st February 2015
  #5240
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyc View Post
They are really not that different, just different degrees of degradation.
It is of course true that they're both carrying less overall information than 24/96, but within the human audio band it's not the same thing at all. The differences between 96 and 44.1 are ultrasonic (if they weren't people would be able to hear them in blind tests), the differences between mp3 and 44.1 are not (and can't be, because of the sample rate, but that just proves the point).

Chris
Old 21st February 2015
  #5241
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris93 View Post
It is of course true that they're both carrying less overall information than 24/96, but within the human audio band it's not the same thing at all. The differences between 96 and 44.1 are ultrasonic (if they weren't people would be able to hear them in blind tests), the differences between mp3 and 44.1 are not (and can't be, because of the sample rate, but that just proves the point).

Chris
It's not really ultrasonics, most modern converters work better at higher sample rates within the audio band. This is where someone like Monty really gets it wrong. From 20-20k the converter will be more accurate at 88.2k than at 44.1k.
Old 21st February 2015
  #5242
Lives for gear
 
GJ999x's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
...we live in a time when vested interests do everything up to throwing large amounts of money to literally falsify science (see: oil companies funding climate change papers)

All this is wonderfully less important than that, but seems to follow similar behaviors. Guys, somebody is falsifying your science and trying to boil it down to truisms and unwarranted, un-examinable assumptions barring any further investigation, ever.

This is wrong (and dumb) ....
Loads of good stuff there, regardless of this specific debate
Old 21st February 2015
  #5243
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyc View Post
From 20-20k the converter will be more accurate at 88.2k than at 44.1k.
Interesting, more accurate in what regard? Jitter?

Are you agreeing that the sample rate doesn't matter per se and it's a matter of lazy converter design as UnderTow mentioned earlier wrt DSP resources for filtering? Could the same converter performance (however that's being quantified) be achieved at lower rates? If so, it would seem to make more sense to spend the money there instead of in transfer and storage.

Chris
Old 21st February 2015
  #5244
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris93 View Post
Interesting, more accurate in what regard? Jitter?

Are you agreeing that the sample rate doesn't matter per se and it's a matter of lazy converter design as UnderTow mentioned earlier wrt DSP resources for filtering? Could the same converter performance (however that's being quantified) be achieved at lower rates? If so, it would seem to make more sense to spend the money there instead of in transfer and storage.

Chris
Sample rate matters in a practical sense, it's not necessarily laziness because real world engineering involves a lot of tradeoffs and compromises. In general you design things a lot wider so things are "clean" where you need them to be. Look at the specs of some of your favorite analog gear, it might say something like bandwidth 5Hz-80kHz, you don't need to hear 80k but by doing this you assure 20k is pristine. With digital you can get tighter but in practical terms 44.1k (22k bandwidth) doesn't make any sense.

16/44.1 came about due to the limitations of the time. The early days of 16/44.1 were pretty awful but along the way some smart people have made it sound pretty good. But given a clean slate today starting from scratch there is absolutely no way a competent design engineer would pick it as a standard.

Transfer and storage is actually pretty cheap these days, so trying to force things into 16/44.1 doesn't make a lot of sense anymore. Streaming is a different story.
Old 21st February 2015
  #5245
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyc View Post
In general you design things a lot wider so things are "clean" where you need them to be. Look at the specs of some of your favorite analog gear, it might say something like bandwidth 5Hz-80kHz, you don't need to hear 80k but by doing this you assure 20k is pristine.

Streaming was what I meant by "transfer". Maybe laziness was the wrong word, but streaming more data than necessary is a tradeoff too, just not for the converter designers.

I just had a look at the specs on my favourite piece of analog gear, the BSS DPR-404, 4 channel compressor. (I'm more of a live sound guy...) It has a low pass filter at 29kHz in the input section. I suspect that this is to reduce IMD, being a non-linear device such as a compressor this would make sense, but I didn't design it.

Can you show measurable differences at or below 20K between 44.1K and 96K files?

Chris

Last edited by Chris93; 21st February 2015 at 01:04 PM.. Reason: Added quote
Old 21st February 2015
  #5246
Lives for gear
 

Double post.
Old 21st February 2015
  #5247
Gear Head
 

Neil young and his porno machine are not the groundbreakers of so-called high-res audio. Even if it is better in some magical way, Neil Young has done little to advance that fact with claims and demos that seem to have been exposed as bull****, and didn't look like much else than marketing spiel from the beginning.

The Porno might be a decent portable playback machine (except, of course, for the fact that it doesn't fit in pockets) at a decent price. With Neil, the limelight has been on the bull****. Without Neil, the headlines might have read "You don't have to spend $1000-plus to get a pocket hifi system."

Speaking as a non-pro, ordinary music loving guy, it seems to me that Neil cooked his own goose. Bull**** salesmen do spoil the reputation of their companies, and the products they make and sell. Look at double glazing and life insurance: nothing wrong with the product; everything wrong with the guy whose foot is in your door.

I don't "believe" in "High-res" audio. I don't even think it is a valid technical term, but, leaving aside lunatic DSD numbers that are just a part of the bigger-numbers-sell-to-audiophiles thing, I wouldn't not buy a DAC, for instance, because it is 24/96, or even 24/192 capable. Same thing goes for a portable music player. But I might well not buy because it was sold with a lot of bull**** spiel --- and perhaps that effect is increased because the spiel comes from someone whose music I love.

So Neil's foot is out of my door, and the door is shut. The high-res thing is an entirely other discussion. It is not joined-at-birth to Porno: why talk about it as if it is? Maybe Neil wants it to be, because he wants to sell from his outlet ...but it isn't.

Honest scientists who have nothing to sell, such as Monty and JJ (Thanks to Gearslutz) who have done more to inform me about the reality of digital sound and how my ears and brain work than any others, have made me shut the door on high-res too, but still it is a separate discussion. High-res and Porno do not depend on each other.
Old 21st February 2015
  #5248
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom View Post
Honest scientists who have nothing to sell, such as Monty and JJ (Thanks to Gearslutz) who have done more to inform me about the reality of digital sound and how my ears and brain work than any others, have made me shut the door on high-res too, but still it is a separate discussion. High-res and Porno do not depend on each other.
Monty invented Ogg Vorbis, and is the founder of the Xiph.org foundation. He is personally responsible for developing a codec which is WAY more capable of synthesizing artificial highs at low bit rates with reasonable plausibility (if you expect to have anything like real data from things like cymbals at 96kbps, forget it: not happening no matter who is doing the encoding). To this day, we still talk about mp3s as a standard and Ogg Vorbis is sort of an afterthought, possibly because Monty's stuck determinedly to these goals:

-much better subjective performance at very low bit rates, through faking what's inevitably lost
-open and unencumbered software codecs

Both of these things are fine goals but neither are a compelling case for supplanting mp3 at the bit rates people commonly use, and Monty isn't interested in increasing subjective performance at higher bit rates because he doesn't believe it's possible: to him it's already perfect, as is mp3. So, his entire legacy rests on being able to wildly exceed the performance of awful-sounding lossy codecs at low bit rates, and I'm not aware of anything else he does, and it is a perfectly legitimate accomplishment (I use Ogg Vorbis myself, when making audio for the game 'Minecraft').

Like hell, Christopher Montgomery is a totally unbiased honest scientist with nothing to sell.

In the open source world, all you are is your reputation and you're not selling money, you're selling people on your ideas to change the world. Monty doesn't need to be paid by Pandora. He has teamed up with Mozilla, affected the course of HTML5 and LOST the recommendation specifically for his Vorbis codec on December 10, 2007 when W3C, pressured by companies like Nokia and Apple, updated the HTML5 specification rendering it once more file format neutral.

Monty's interesting and brilliant, has had and wielded power on a par with Apple and Nokia, but he is absolutely the last person you should go to and ask, "Will I see a benefit from an audio player that plays uncompressed audio at 24 bit and 192K?" Be sensible. Ask somebody who does not stand to administrate a lossy compression format directly competing with mp3, who does battle with multi-billion dollar tech companies to create unencumbered lossy codecs and fights to keep their implementation simple (Monty has personally resisted attempts to get into wavelet transforms to better represent transients, on the grounds they're too complicated and CPU-wasteful and that Vorbis I is already enough)

Wake up. This person railing against Pono represents an entire consortium for the furthering of lossy coding, and one that is STILL actively struggling to prevail against closed codecs and get back control of HTML5 and get ogg supported on commercially available players and systems. And this is a worthy goal, but widespread adoption of 'Porno' completely undermines everything he's worked for and leaves mp3 as the final victor in a no-longer-desirable arena, when it is WORSE than what Monty's created and fought for.

And people's everyday music listening experiences are the one battleground Monty must win on to prevail: to make open codecs win, he's got to keep lossy encoding relevant and push people's expectations into the area where his solution is far superior. Very low bit rate!

That's not what we're talking about here.

Let's not turn to Monty to ask whether Pono is a good idea. Okay?
Old 21st February 2015
  #5249
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
Monty invented Ogg Vorbis, and is the founder of the Xiph.org foundation. He is personally responsible for developing a codec which is WAY more capable of synthesizing artificial highs at low bit rates with reasonable plausibility (if you expect to have anything like real data from things like cymbals at 96kbps, forget it: not happening no matter who is doing the encoding). To this day, we still talk about mp3s as a standard and Ogg Vorbis is sort of an afterthought, possibly because Monty's stuck determinedly to these goals:

-much better subjective performance at very low bit rates, through faking what's inevitably lost
-open and unencumbered software codecs

Both of these things are fine goals but neither are a compelling case for supplanting mp3 at the bit rates people commonly use, and Monty isn't interested in increasing subjective performance at higher bit rates because he doesn't believe it's possible: to him it's already perfect, as is mp3. So, his entire legacy rests on being able to wildly exceed the performance of awful-sounding lossy codecs at low bit rates, and I'm not aware of anything else he does, and it is a perfectly legitimate accomplishment (I use Ogg Vorbis myself, when making audio for the game 'Minecraft').

Like hell, Christopher Montgomery is a totally unbiased honest scientist with nothing to sell.

In the open source world, all you are is your reputation and you're not selling money, you're selling people on your ideas to change the world. Monty doesn't need to be paid by Pandora. He has teamed up with Mozilla, affected the course of HTML5 and LOST the recommendation specifically for his Vorbis codec on December 10, 2007 when W3C, pressured by companies like Nokia and Apple, updated the HTML5 specification rendering it once more file format neutral.

Monty's interesting and brilliant, has had and wielded power on a par with Apple and Nokia, but he is absolutely the last person you should go to and ask, "Will I see a benefit from an audio player that plays uncompressed audio at 24 bit and 192K?" Be sensible. Ask somebody who does not stand to administrate a lossy compression format directly competing with mp3, who does battle with multi-billion dollar tech companies to create unencumbered lossy codecs and fights to keep their implementation simple (Monty has personally resisted attempts to get into wavelet transforms to better represent transients, on the grounds they're too complicated and CPU-wasteful and that Vorbis I is already enough)

Wake up. This person railing against Pono represents an entire consortium for the furthering of lossy coding, and one that is STILL actively struggling to prevail against closed codecs and get back control of HTML5 and get ogg supported on commercially available players and systems. And this is a worthy goal, but widespread adoption of 'Porno' completely undermines everything he's worked for and leaves mp3 as the final victor in a no-longer-desirable arena, when it is WORSE than what Monty's created and fought for.

And people's everyday music listening experiences are the one battleground Monty must win on to prevail: to make open codecs win, he's got to keep lossy encoding relevant and push people's expectations into the area where his solution is far superior. Very low bit rate!

That's not what we're talking about here.

Let's not turn to Monty to ask whether Pono is a good idea. Okay?
You are AGAIN ranting about lossy formats. In other words, you do not have a single technical argument to present against what Monty has to say about sample rates? He, unlike you, actually understands the science and technology. The discussions in this thread about anti-imaging filters made it embarrassingly clear that you are out of your depth. You couldn't even follow what JJ was trying to explain to you! And just recently you made laughable claims about having done something in dither that no one has done before.

Alistair

Last edited by UnderTow; 21st February 2015 at 04:46 PM..
Old 21st February 2015
  #5250
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Ten minutes. I get TEN minutes until the peanut gallery changes the subject.

Ditherbox | Airwindows

Vinyl is the one derived from Ten Nines, which goes for a DSD-like behavior of increasing linearity as frequency drops, at the cost of increased energy in the highs. Spatialize is the one I'd impressed Bruno Putzeys with (didn't manage to get it into a Weiss Audio box though I was talking with 'em: currently, Weiss seems to be focussing on DSD and for wordlength reduction in PCM they ended up going with POW-R). I'm also cited in Bob Katz's book on mastering, which is probably also true of JJ but probably NOT true of Monty, whose opinions about audio have no place in a mastering studio.

Let us remember that just claiming something (especially claiming things about what a person does or doesn't understand!) doesn't make it true, and when one is not correct, disagreement with one's points isn't proof of wilful misunderstanding.

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