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 16th March 2014
  #781
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver Sonya View Post
As I've said repeatedly, what excites me about Pono has been the way it has immediately value-shifted my non-musician friends into suddenly thinking what I do all day matters a lot. That feels radical and welcome to me. I can't imagine why I wouldn't enjoy that.
Poor Chad's getting hammered for a test that he did for himself without access to a clean room and 0.1dB anechoic chamber where he and heard a difference across different formats -- but that's detracting attention from what's important here.

Before this really important bit gets buried I thought it deserved at least a bit more than passing attention. If Pono (hate the name and hope they change it, but I see promise in the idea at least) can reach new audiences and inculcates these audiences with the sense that you use this to seriously listen to music, then Pono will have done an incredible service to all who professionally care about recorded music. We need the wide reception of a technology like this, and then users "discovering" what many of us have known along, that the post-2000 overlimiting of music often results in a less enjoyable recording, to spirit in a new era of music with dynamic range, with a different kind of attention to frequency response, distortion, etc. Who gives a lemur's ass if this has 0.7 or 77 dB/dBa/dBfs-xA crosstalk: if the combined experience of using this prism to play stuff from the pomo porno store makes people want to experience extended listening again, this is good.
Old 16th March 2014
  #782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
And I understand completely why you might want this.

But if it was discovered that the 24 bit file was no better than the 16 bit one, why would you want consumers to waste 50% more of their available disk space to store their music?
Given the current advances in technology/logistics I'd prefer the listener to hear my music in whichever format I choose to publish. You might substitute for tape/vinyl and I'd give the same answer.

A more important point is that scientific research demonstrates people perceive sound at frequencies which have (in this thread) been claimed to be irrelevant to the appreciation of music.
Old 16th March 2014
  #783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Early21 View Post
I knew it... I'm missing a lot. No more inhibitions. Sorry, guys in the band, I'm going au naturel!
ITJ - The International Tinnitus Journal - Eyes as Fenestrations to the Ears: A Novel Mechanism for High-Frequency and Ultrasonic Hearing
Old 16th March 2014
  #784
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oudplayer View Post
if the combined experience of using this prism to play stuff from the pomo porno store makes people want to experience extended listening again, this is good.
Old 16th March 2014
  #785
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Given the current advances in technology/logistics I'd prefer the listener to hear my music in whichever format I choose to publish. You might substitute for tape/vinyl and I'd give the same answer.

A more important point is that scientific research demonstrates people perceive sound at frequencies which have (in this thread) been claimed to be irrelevant to the appreciation of music.
While I agree that music may contain frequencies beyond 20-20. Do the convertors and speakers reproduce it?

Have you ever sat in front of a pair of speakers, closed your eyes and thought the instruments were in front of you? I never have. Our ear can tell the difference.

And contrary to conventional GS wisdom, we're not even close to reproducing sound as it happens in nature. But that's besides the point because we still have to deal with what is. We have a smaller box to work with and that's all we have for now. IOW - Let's stop trying to reproduce 100kHz from your files to be played back on 20-20kHz systems. You can't fool the speaker.

My issue is that we're trying to combat lousy MP3s by throwing 192kHz 24 bit files at the consumer. When what we really should be doing is making 16 bit 44.1kHz Flac files the standard with no limiting.

IOW - If we aim too high, we might get nowhere as this will be perceived as an audiophile piece.
Old 16th March 2014
  #786
Lives for gear
 
Silver Sonya's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oudplayer View Post
If Pono (hate the name and hope they change it, but I see promise in the idea at least) can reach new audiences and inculcates these audiences with the sense that you use this to seriously listen to music, then Pono will have done an incredible service to all who professionally care about recorded music.
PRECISELY.

It's not more complex than that.

- c
Old 16th March 2014
  #787
Lives for gear
 
Silver Sonya's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
I know you're kidding, but this would certainly be incorrect if my Facebook feed is any accurate representation. Definitely most of the people I know who are excited by Pono have NEVER cared about sound quality before. Quite opposite, actually. This I can state as a fact.

They're mainly like "Wow, look at all those excited people in that video!..."

- c
Old 16th March 2014
  #788
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver Sonya View Post
I know you're kidding, but this would certainly be incorrect if my Facebook feed is any accurate representation. Definitely most of the people I know who are excited by Pono have NEVER cared about sound quality before. Quite opposite, actually. This I can state as a fact.

They're mainly like "Wow, look at all those excited people in that video!..."

- c
So they're suckers?

I'm kidding. I'm kidding. heh

As scientific as your poll probably is, I would bet that this is the most accurate:

Old 16th March 2014
  #789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
While I agree that music may contain frequencies beyond 20-20. Do the convertors and speakers reproduce it?...
Some do; more will once people's understanding of audition broadens. IMO there needs to be a paradigm shift and Pono could well be a catalyst.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
...Have you ever sat in front of a pair of speakers, closed your eyes and thought the instruments were in front of you? I never have. Our ear can tell the difference...
I have...it's something I aim for when representing orchestral sounds; I'm not saying 'it's just like a real orchestral instrument' but definitely a sense of a sound source in it's own space. The first time I really noticed it was after installing some acoustic treatment. Haas techniques help, good reverbs help (Softube TSAR, Nebula; SIR)...also it's often very quiet where I record/monitor.

I get a bit closer with acoustic guitar recordings. People have commented to me about that i.e. I record them playing guitar and they are impressed at the realism of the reproduction. I think the Sound Devices recorder helps.
However that realism degrades when the audio is rendered to 16/44.1 or mp3; perhaps Pono will improve that.
Old 16th March 2014
  #790
Lives for gear
 
dabigfrog's Avatar
 

well its going to happen anyway... 3.6 million dollars pledged as of now ... I guess somebody cares about the quality of their music , if given a choice... and if they don't then jeepers... neil young just tricked a bunch of non music loving yuppie jerks into having an incredible music and emotional experience... they may be so overwhelmed that they might develop a bad case of compassion... and feel the urge to tip a musician or buy a t shirt at the show.
Old 16th March 2014
  #791
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
IMO you are creating a Straw Man argument.
You are the one who introduced Skin Hearing - as a means of 'explaining' HOW people can perceive ultrasonic frequencies, even though no one has yet proven THAT people can perceive ultrasonic frequencies!

see? I said "perceive" - so that includes skin hearing, as well as eyeball hearing, nose hair hearing, or even Clairvoyance.

even if such mechanisms exist (which I personally would relegate to the realm of Audio Creationism) they are not sufficient to help anybody pass the test! We are back where we were all along. The current known values for the range of human hearing must remain in place until somebody beats the test - whatever they "use" to do it.
Old 16th March 2014
  #792
Lives for gear
 
dabigfrog's Avatar
 

rupert neve tells a story or two about some golden eared folk who hear beyond the normal perceived spectrum
Old 16th March 2014
  #793
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
You are the one who introduced Skin Hearing - as a means of 'explaining' HOW people can perceive ultrasonic frequencies, even though no one has yet proven THAT people can perceive ultrasonic frequencies...
I thought you'd seen this: ITJ - The International Tinnitus Journal - Eyes as Fenestrations to the Ears: A Novel Mechanism for High-Frequency and Ultrasonic Hearing
Quote:
...Musical airborne energy beyond 22 kHz has been shown to alter the electroencephalogram and evoke physiological activity in the brainstem and thalamus but only when ultrasonic musical frequencies are combined with the musical spectrum below 22 kHz. The effect is based on the combination of two coherent acoustic routes, one conventional and one solely ultrasonic [7,8]. Each signal stimulates a separate area on the basilar membrane that would be integrated into a whole as any conventional complex auditory pattern. A case is made here for a separate airborne ultrasonic input, but the final pathway is the same because ultrasound activates the auditory cortex in normal-hearing and deaf listeners...
Old 16th March 2014
  #794
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
Have you ever sat in front of a pair of speakers, closed your eyes and thought the instruments were in front of you? I never have.

Totally agree. No one who has regularly sat a few feet in front of a trumpet or a cello would confuse that with the output of a microphone-recorder-speaker. The mic and the speaker are the weak links in the 21st Century, IMO. Some recordings can sound pretty convincing when you have no real-life reference for direct head-to-head comparison, but I guarantee you, bring the trumpeter into the room and plop him down in between your speakers, you are NOT going to have difficulty telling the difference.

the problem here is that many engineers record only Rock music. Their frame of reference IS a speaker. Many of them do not regularly attend classical concerts and other unamplifed music events.

Quote:
Our ear can tell the difference.
Once, while alone in the studio, I heard an unexpected voice on tape saying "hey Joe?" and suddenly got freaked out- thinking I was NOT alone. However my impression was never that a person was in the control room with me, but rather that someone was in the live room talking on the mic! Still freaky but I would have needed a defibrilator if I thought the person was right there.
Old 16th March 2014
  #795
Lives for gear
 
dabigfrog's Avatar
 

I sat for years ... from 4 until 12 listening to music on vinyl and 7" reel to reel ... completely entranced... imagination unbounded... before I ever saw live music in person... and enjoyed vinyl experience from 4 thru now... thoroughly enjoyed the experience....I don't think ever once that i thought that trumpet player is right in the room... but that did not cloud my experience of a recorded artifact of a moment in time... I think you might be confusing the exhilerating experience of live music in a good room... with the less than real recording ... capturing of a moment in time.... can't we enjoy both for their experience.... not every person in the world has sat and listened to a symphony orchestra or a great jazz band... but because of vinyl I can be moved to tears at a Miles Davis recording done when I was 3... its all good,,, and you can't squeeze a live band into a toblerone player... I understand that too.
Old 16th March 2014
  #796
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post

Totally agree. No one who has regularly sat a few feet in front of a trumpet or a cello would confuse that with the output of a microphone-recorder-speaker. The mic and the speaker are the weak links in the 21st Century, IMO. Some recordings can sound pretty convincing when you have no real-life reference for direct head-to-head comparison, but I guarantee you, bring the trumpeter into the room and plop him down in between your speakers, you are NOT going to have difficulty telling the difference.
I discovered this by accident in college. We regularly had music playing in the cafeteria from some nice speakers. Usually jazz as the students preferred that. One day I came around the corner and was taken aback. It sounded different. I knew there was a live jazz ensemble playing even from around the corner. I purposely got closer and sure enough I was correct. Nothing comes close (especially with acoustic instruments) to the real thing.

The idea that we can capture anything close to as much is happening and reproduce it is really silly. Not to say that it's even necessary but what we hear is just a cropped picture of sound.

Try this for fun. Put an acoustic instrument to left of you. Put a mic in front of it and send it to a speaker pointing at you from the right. (Be careful of feedback). Try to balance the level so it's the same and close your eyes. Spin around a few times and see if you can locate the real instrument.
Old 16th March 2014
  #797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
Try this for fun. Put an acoustic instrument to left of you. Put a mic in front of it and send it to a speaker pointing at you from the right. (Be careful of feedback). Try to balance the level so it's the same and close your eyes. Spin around a few times and see if you can locate the real instrument.
Be careful of feedback? Be careful of careening into the precious acoustic instrument! heh
Old 16th March 2014
  #798
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dabigfrog View Post
I sat for years ... from 4 until 12 listening to music on vinyl and 7" reel to reel ... completely entranced... imagination unbounded... before I ever saw live music in person... and enjoyed vinyl experience from 4 thru now... thoroughly enjoyed the experience....I don't think ever once that i thought that trumpet player is right in the room... but that did not cloud my experience of a recorded artifact of a moment in time... I think you might be confusing the exhilerating experience of live music in a good room... with the less than real recording ... capturing of a moment in time.... can't we enjoy both for their experience.... not every person in the world has sat and listened to a symphony orchestra or a great jazz band... but because of vinyl I can be moved to tears at a Miles Davis recording done when I was 3... its all good,,, and you can't squeeze a live band into a toblerone player... I understand that too.
I don't think we're saying that one is "better". Obviously, live is more accurate with a higher fidelity but (as you've said) both experiences can move you equally. Plus, with the recording medium, you build it until it's perfect. It's a sonic painting. Not real but hyper-real. For instance, you can't get real drums to sound up front and in your face as a recording.
Old 16th March 2014
  #799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
I don't think we're saying that one is "better". Obviously, live is more accurate with a higher fidelity but (as you've said) both experiences can move you equally. Plus, with the recording medium, you build it until it's perfect. It's a sonic painting. Not real but hyper-real. For instance, you can't get real drums to sound up front and in your face as a recording.
You know it's not a drum. Wouldn't the test hold more validity if it were not a subjective impression but a proper experimental design?
Old 16th March 2014
  #800
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
You know it's not a drum. Wouldn't the test hold more validity if it were not a subjective impression but a proper experimental design?
Of course. Better to use something like a trumpet or a flute where the goal is to make it sound just like it does in the room.

It would be interesting to see if anyone could be fooled and you'd need some nice speakers as well.
Old 16th March 2014
  #801
Gear Guru
 

the experimenters measured sound reaching the ear via the eyes, the vibrations went through the subject's tissues. No surprise there.

the subjects were not tested to see if they perceived the sound - in fact the experimenters go so far as to say the subjects not aware of it in any way. The experimenters measured the sound arriving in the general location of the ear using their transducers - not by asking the subjects to 'raise their hands' etc. These people were researching possible causes of damage. Damage is not necessarily perceivable. For example, carbon monoxide will kill you but you can not smell it at any concentration.

Let's face it- any sound waves hitting your eyes are almost certainly also hitting your ears. This "explains" nothing about sample rates

Quote:
The threshold for hearing at 25 kHz is approximately 125 dB SPL [17], and the present stimulus was inaudible, but the induced head vibration was recordable.
emphasis mine

Even if you were listening to playback of recorded Hi-Res music at 125 dB (improbable) what percentage of that music content would reasonably be above 25k? In order for you to perceive it- all of it would have to be above 25k! "Ultrasonic perception" as a rationale for why high sample rates are better just does not make sense. Not for the least reason that there is still no evidence that such perception exists.

The instruments, microphones, and speakers we use every day all start to roll off very very fast above 20k. All at the same time! And all those curves are falling away at the same time as our ears are. That adds up!

If 192kHz sample rate is better, there clearly must be some other explanation for why.
Old 16th March 2014
  #802
Gear Addict
I've heard the science/arguments for and against sample rates above 44.1kHz but for me there is definitely a benefit to going higher. The biggest improvement is the jump from 44.1 to 48k but I think 88.2 sounds better than 48k and beyond that not sure if there is much of an improvement and whether it is even worth it for the extra data. I'd like to see a new format or specification that is better than 44.1 but I feel like Pono missed the mark with way more data than necessary. I vote for 64kHz 18 bit as a release format (yes 24 bit is just too much wasted data for a release format). Still, the biggest problem with fidelity these days is not the format (CD or even mp3) but the way music is mixed/mastered with the ridiculous amounts of compression and peak limiting.
Old 16th March 2014
  #803
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
I just rendered the same mix twice at 48kHz 16-bit and 24-bit then checked each files statistics in Sound Forge...there was a difference between them
e.g. Average Value (dB): the sum of all values in the selected region divided by the number of samples.
24-bit (Left) -91.127 (Right) -91.052
16-bit (Left) -90.309 (Right) -90.309
Yes, the noise floor has a higher average level in 16 bits than in 24 bits.

Quote:
In theory there may be no apparent difference between 16/24-bit; in practice there is.
No, the practice and the theory are equivalent. Why don't you try an ABX test with the files you just rendered? It will take you 20 minutes to conclude that you cannot tell the difference.
Old 16th March 2014
  #804
@Joeq - I think this topic needs a lot more research before any definitive conclusions are made either way.
Old 16th March 2014
  #805
Old 16th March 2014
  #806
Lives for gear
 

does this mean we need to add sound fx likes the person walking away sound or the mouth opening sound or the sound of the artist nose hair passing wind over it?

or maybe some recording some bats in the utrahigh frequency range?
Old 16th March 2014
  #807
Lives for gear
 
James Lehmann's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
Mixing at 24 or 32 bits is actually important, in order to avoid the processing adding noise. But the final rendering should be fine at 20 bits. 16 bits is "just not quite enough" if you have a really good system in a very quiet room. Sampling rate? I would prefer at least 64, but I can't justify that with experimental evidence, even, and certainly not 192 or 384.
Most folks appear so determined to carry on mauling each other with verbal handbags they seem to have missed or ignored this wisdom from jj, who most likely brings more science to the table than the rest of us put together.

JJ appears to be suggesting somewhere around 20/60k as being pretty definitive, but perhaps he would agree there's probably no need to start a new 'standard' around 20/60k when 24/96k is already quite ubiquitous and surely has enough margin in it to be future-proof and put the discussion to rest? So 24/96k it is - let's go with that, regardless of whether or not you personally can hear it. Let's put an end to this tedious and cyclical element of the debate.

The more interesting element of the debate is that as 24/96k has been around for ages what is all the fuss about? If you haven't been able to "hear what [Neil Young] hears" it's not his fault, it's his record company who have never given you access to downloadable music in that format.

What this means is...
  1. In 10 years time, those arguing against a lasting and worthwhile improvement in delivery format for music will look like idiots. Neil Young's central premise is correct.
  2. In 10 years time, those who thought that this improvement is best experienced when delivered by an iPod on steroids through a car stereo(!) will also look like idiots. Neil Young is either mistaken in placing this imagery at the centre of his campaign or has another motive for doing so.
  3. In 10 years time, those continuing to fund the private jets of wealthy record company executives by paying a 200% mark-up on the original album asking price for this incremental sonic improvement will look extremely foolish. Either consumers have already paid full-price to own a bunch of classic albums, thus allowing all the recording costs associated with making them to be recouped many times over (possibly bar the remaster) or they haven't. Neil Young doesn't seem to be saying much about this...
Old 16th March 2014
  #808
Old 16th March 2014
  #809
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
I just rendered the same mix twice at 48kHz 16-bit and 24-bit then checked each files statistics in Sound Forge...there was a difference between them
e.g. Average Value (dB): the sum of all values in the selected region divided by the number of samples.
24-bit (Left) -91.127 (Right) -91.052
16-bit (Left) -90.309 (Right) -90.309

In theory there may be no apparent difference between 16/24-bit; in practice there is.

However this is interpreted, personally I'd much prefer to publish to formats where the files can remain at 24-bit.
that has to do with how the converter behaves. some have higher noise floor at different sampling rates too....
and for some, going higher sampling rate=higer noise floor
Old 16th March 2014
  #810
Gear Addict
 

If it only occurs when combined with lower frequency content it should confirm that what we might 'hear' is an artifact or distortion caused by the fuller frequency content. Real music is not created without audible content so again...capturing the artifact is all we need to do. All this proves is that ultra high frequency content causes distortion.
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