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 March 2014
  #1111
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Decompress View Post
Dave Amels, cofounder of Anamod, says HERE that to match tape, digital would have to be recorded at 1.23 MHz.
Dave Arnels seems to be referring to phase shifts in anti-aliasing/anti-imaging filters in ADC/DACs . He links to the spec sheet of a 20 year old DAC in that thread. He seems to be calculating the phase shift of the anti-aliasing filters based on the specs of that DAC. He goes on to mention timing anomalies if using linear phase filters but the pre-echo of linear phase filters will be around the cutoff point of the filters. At a sampling rate of 48 Khz the pre-echo is already outside our hearing range let alone at 88.2 or 96 Khz. In other words, I have no idea why he mentions a sampling rate of 1.23 Mhz. It doesn't seem to fit modern ADC or DAC implementations or how linear phase filters work. (And that is assuming anyone can actually hear a 45 degree phase shift at 20Khz in the first place).

Quote:
And Casey Dowdell, cofounder of Bricasti, says HERE that some types of plugins won't work right until they're processing at ~2 MHz.
Casey Dowell is talking about processing, not capture or delivery. And even then...

Alistair
Old 19th March 2014
  #1112
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
It's like saying, "I have to add a tablespoon of salt to this ham to make it taste as savory as bacon". But you haven't made bacon. It's salty ham. heh
Mmm... Bacon.

Alistair
Old 19th March 2014
  #1113
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave.R View Post
i wonder, how many top mix/master engineers would be willing to give testimonials like those given in the video?

of course they don't have the same street cred. But Dave Pensado is working to change that
Mix talks to four mastering engineers--Gavin Lurssen, Michael Romanowski, Joe Palmaccio and Andrew Mendelson--about music, mentoring and hi-res formats | Four mastering engineers--Gavin Lurssen, Michael Romanowski, Joe Palmaccio and Andrew Mendelson-
Old 19th March 2014
  #1114
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Ya know. That article kinda turned me a bit. At first I was like bull sh*t. 96k isn't "significantly" better. But after reading all of their thoughts I kinda look at it like this. If the production team (artist, producer, mixer, masterer) chooses to record at xx resolution, why not give the consumer a finished product with that same resolution.

It's not like 30 years ago records or cassettes sounded worse than the 1/2 masters because the label didn't want the consumer to have the best possible quality. It just wasn't realistic to distribute 1/2 inch tapes. Or 1/4 inch.

But now. We don't have that limitation. Down sampling is a completely unnecessary process. So let's give the fans the master resolution. Let them chop it down to fit their needs.

Now this doesn't mean that 192kHz 24 bit should become the standard. But if your record was recorded that way, it should be released that way as well. For someone like me, the final product would be 44.1kHz 24 bit. For others it would 96k or even 192k. Whatever the production team chose.

But it starts to fall apart in a few ways. First. How do you educate the public as to what they're buying. Does my record look inferior to yours? Do I now have to choose a higher resolution to "keep up with jonses"?

Secondly. Price. Is my record going to be $18.00 and yours is going to be $25.00?

I listened to a Huey Lewis interview a while back and he mentioned how ridiculous it was that all records are the same price. For the most part. Most art is based on it's value. Why is music all the same? Some budgets are 50k and other are 2 million yet the price is the same?

Unless… we change the final resolution for the files?

So I could use a 35k Les Paul on my record and you could use a chinese knock off but your record still costs more than mine?

Then you have situations where you get a record that was recorded at 44.1 16 bit but mixed at 24 bit and printed to analog tape and brought back to digital at 192kHz 24 bit. Is that still worth $25.00?

There's simply no reason to charge more for high res audio when it requires no extra work to create it.

Oh well.
Old 19th March 2014
  #1115
mixmixmix
Guest
Neil Young was a great artist. Does he have to become a second hand car salesman?

Neil, what happened to you? You are harvesting money this days?

Please, come back to reality - you don't need all this money and attention. You need to write music, goddamit. Pono is redundant, overpriced, overwheight, and you are quickly becoming a joke.

Hi res will not save anything from anything and grass root movements never were about reselling old catalogues at inflated prices.


Please stop lying to yourself and others. We are not that stupid.
Old 19th March 2014
  #1116
Gear Maniac
 
Decompress's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake View Post
Respectfully, you're taking those posts somewhat out of context from their original threads.

Casey's quote had literally nothing to do with recording or playback formats but rather was addressing the limitations of digital vs. analog signal processing. If anything, his argument was really an argument for the benefits of OTB mixing and processing.

Amels' post is a little more on point but was specifically directed to the issue of pre-echo articfacts caused by the filtering of ultra sonic transients. There is hardly a consensus on whether this is more than a theoretical problem -- iirc Dan Lavry doesn't think this is a big problem. I'm not qualified to begin to take a side between guys that smart, but if you do find this is a problem, then that would be a reason to support a DSD vs. PCM playback format, and that format has yet to prove viable in a consumer market.

In any event, I'm not against listening to music at high sample rates and I'm certainly not rooting against the Pono -- although for many reasons I think the Pono is trying to solve the wrong problem. Personally, I just find their marketing and promotional approach to be at best misguided and at worst borderline insulting. Just my opinion of course, and I do understand why other folks are enthusiastic about it.
Respectfully, no I'm not, you're just missing the point.

The gist of Dowdell's comment is that current recorded sample rate/upsampling practice is not sufficient to provide enough information in the time domain for certain plugins to accurately reflect the behavior of certain hardware. The solutions to this, then, are greater upsampling by the plugin, higher recorded sample rate to begin with, or some combination of the two.

Amel's point was about a particular flaw in PCM format behavior and how to fix it. His comments don't suggest he thinks it's a theoretical problem, and that opinion apparently extends to his choice of recording format. His solution for the digital realm is, again, a higher recorded sample rate.

This Pono thread has devolved into repetitious statements from people claiming that higher recorded sampling rates don't matter: I provided commentary from two very accomplished engineers who say that it does, and why. Given the genius of their companies' respective products, I'd say their opinions carry a little bit of weight.
Old 19th March 2014
  #1117
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mixmixmix View Post


Please stop lying to yourself and others. We are not that stupid.
To be fair, 12,407 of us are. heh
Old 19th March 2014
  #1118
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Decompress View Post
Respectfully, no I'm not, you're just missing the point.

The gist of Dowdell's comment is that current recorded sample rate/upsampling practice is not sufficient to provide enough information in the time domain for certain plugins to accurately reflect the behavior of certain hardware. The solutions to this, then, are greater upsampling by the plugin, higher recorded sample rate to begin with, or some combination of the two.
I'm sorry but that is the definition of "out of context".

What if I don't use any plugins that model hardware?

And why does modeling hardware "exactly" even matter?

Just because it doesn't sound "exactly" like an SSL compressor, doesn't mean it doesn't "sound" as good.

Who's to say which part of the modeling actually has the best sonic performance?

It could be the worst part of the unit that is now not modeled perfectly.

For instance, many electric pianos (rhodes, wurlitzer) tried to emulate real pianos but because of limited technology, they missed by a mile. But they're still amazing instruments that in many situations are better than a real piano.

You can model a real piano for the next 500 years and never get it perfect. It doesn't mean it's not 100% effective for your needs. Since when is a piano, a Neve 2254 or a Pultec EQ ever considered perfect?
Old 19th March 2014
  #1119
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Romanowski's on point, but Lurssen embarrassed himself:

Once you get to a sample rate of 192, you’re starting to get closer to what the human brain needs to hear. Double that to 384, and 32-bit—the more samples per second, the higher the ultraharmonic frequencies go. Then the brain doesn’t have to go through the stress of interpolation.

Ultraharmonic frequencies? Brain stress from interpolation? He may have great ears and taste, but he doesn't understand these things.
Old 19th March 2014
  #1120
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by donnylang View Post
There are those who say that 16-bit/44.1 is as good as it gets. This seems to have been 'proven' about as much as any of this stuff can be.
I would not go quite that far, but for delivery mediums, it seems pretty safe to say that doubled and doubled resolutions yield vanishingly smaller and smaller benefits to the blinded listener. And IMO, $15 is far to much to pay for a sugar pill.

Quote:
A lot of 'vintage'/'classic' vinyl records from the late '70s and on were pressed through a 14-bit digital delay system ... yes, the entire signal went through an early digital path
Many today are still done through a DDL - albeit at a whopping 16 bits now. Don't tell the vinyl lovers though, it really upsets them.
Old 19th March 2014
  #1121
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
I would not go quite that far, but for delivery mediums, it seems pretty safe to say that doubled and doubled resolutions yield vanishingly smaller and smaller benefits to the blinded listener.
I agree but why not let the consumer decide what they want. If it's true (as someone mentioned) that the conversion takes place right before the download, why not put up the highest quality file possible and let the consumer choose their preferred file size as they download?

And with the way Apple let's you download the song as often as you like (than the lord they added that feature) you could download CD quality one day, mp3 the next and high res when you finally get a device that can reproduce it.

It's a win win. Assuming the cost is the same across the board. Which it should be.
Old 19th March 2014
  #1122
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Decompress View Post
The gist of Dowdell's comment is that current recorded sample rate/upsampling practice is not sufficient to provide enough information in the time domain for certain plugins to accurately reflect the behavior of certain hardware. The solutions to this, then, are greater upsampling by the plugin, higher recorded sample rate to begin with, or some combination of the two.
This is also not accurate. 44.1 kHz sampling rate provides all the information DSP needs; there is no extra information available to the hardware. I believe Casey's point was that distortion introduced by nonlinear DSP processes can alias back into the signal. For example, if a hardware 1176 causes harmonics above 20 kHz, these will be gently rolled off whereas with DSP, the plugin designer must upsample and filter to avoid using brickwall LPF.

Quote:
Amel's point was about a particular flaw in PCM format behavior and how to fix it. His comments don't suggest he thinks it's a theoretical problem, and that opinion apparently extends to his choice of recording format. His solution for the digital realm is, again, a higher recorded sample rate.
I don't know why he equates a desired 45-degree phase shift at 20 kHz with a particular sampling rate. All modern converters oversample and do their filtering digitally, which means you can get any phase shift you desire (including none) at 20 kHz with any sample rate.

Quote:
This Pono thread has devolved into repetitious statements from people claiming that higher recorded sampling rates don't matter: I provided commentary from two very accomplished engineers who say that it does, and why. Given the genius of their companies' respective products, I'd say their opinions carry a little bit of weight.
Except that one of the accomplished engineers you mentioned wasn't specifically endorsing 192 kHz sampling rates; in fact, neither of them were. On the other side, Dan Lavry (who makes converters for a living) has gone on record many times stating that adopting 192 kHz is not a good idea, that you're more likely to have a less accurate capture at 192 kHz.
Old 19th March 2014
  #1123
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
Many today are still done through a DDL - albeit at a whopping 16 bits now. Don't tell the vinyl lovers though, it really upsets them.
Yeah, analog purists go nuts over that kind of thing. Is there any way to know, for a given LP, whether any digital processing was done? Besides limiting your vinyl purchases to pressings made before the digital era, that is.

Cheers,
Eddie
Old 19th March 2014
  #1124
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
I agree but why not let the consumer decide what they want. If it's true (as someone mentioned) that the conversion takes place right before the download, why not put up the highest quality file possible and let the consumer choose their preferred file size as they download?
This sounds like the ideal model, and is pretty much how Bandcamp works now. And yes, all the formats should be the same price. I mean, the user has to buy more storage to hold the hi-res files; why should they also pay more for those bloated things?

Cheers,
Eddie
Old 19th March 2014
  #1125
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

I look at it more like, why am I paying more for something you spent no more time or spent no more resources to make?

It's like buying a pizza (don't you love my pizza analogies?) in three different quality and pricing ranges. But instead of using higher quality ingredients in the more expensive pies, you put various amounts of chemicals in them to make the cheaper ones taste worse.

It's like some kind of audio "ransom".

Pay us more or we're going to alter these great audio files to sound worse. heh
Old 19th March 2014
  #1126
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie TX View Post
Yeah, analog purists go nuts over that kind of thing.
They act like strict fathers who have just been told what their 'innocent' daughters are really up to!

Quote:
Is there any way to know, for a given LP, whether any digital processing was done?
I seriously doubt if anyone bothered to document that factoid - if that's what you mean. I don't think there is any kind of "genetic" analysis that could tell ... but no problem. I am sure they can tell just by listening!
Old 19th March 2014
  #1127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
I look at it more like, why am I paying more for something you spent no more time or spent no more resources to make?
No more resources is not exactly true.
192khz is a much bigger file than 44.1khz. So you need more storage, and sending it around the web (to mastering engineers, to artists for approval etc) takes longer and can cost more money (if you have a data cap internet service).
But I agree the price differential is over the top and they should be swallowing the price differential if they want to attract customers in an extremely competitive market (competing with free often).
Old 19th March 2014
  #1128
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver Sonya View Post
I'm waiting for Slate's emulation of it: PMC $149.
Old 19th March 2014
  #1129
Lives for gear
 
James Lehmann's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
There's simply no reason to charge more for high res audio when it requires no extra work to create it.
'This is really the nub of it.

If Neil Young had launched Pono with an announcement that he and his buddies had forced the big four record labels to start releasing the 24/96k masters they undoubtedly already possess (even if only for their archives) at $7.00, he really could lay claim to having started a "grassroots movement" to improve the quality of the listening experience for everyone.

But this is simply 'blue-sky thinking' because...

Whether or not Neil Young is in it for the money, you can be 100% sure that his record company is.
Old 19th March 2014
  #1130
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
No more resources is not exactly true.
192khz is a much bigger file than 44.1khz. So you need more storage, and sending it around the web (to mastering engineers, to artists for approval etc) takes longer and can cost more money (if you have a data cap internet service).
But that would happen anyway. As a producer, you made the decision as to what rate you want to record the record at. Were you not going to send it to the mastering engineer at that rate because of bandwidth issues?

Or are you assuming that people will start recording at higher rates now that we can sell it at that rate?

The only storage issue should be on Apple's part who now have to store bigger files. But if you think about it, it should really be irrelevant. How many records are in the store that barely sell anything? They're willing to sell them. So storage isn't an issue.
Old 19th March 2014
  #1131
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
No more resources is not exactly true.
192khz is a much bigger file than 44.1khz. So you need more storage, and sending it around the web (to mastering engineers, to artists for approval etc) takes longer and can cost more money (if you have a data cap internet service)..
Average price for hard drive space: 7¢ per Gigabyte. Cost for a Dropbox account for a business: $15 a month The engineers do need to click that button in the New Session dialog. An extra second at $100 an hour. That's about 3¢

Average budget of a 'small' or indie label record: $25,000 - $50,000 That is kind of like the weight of the little piece of wax paper the butcher puts on the scale when he weighs your meat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia
The only storage issue should be on Apple's part who now have to store bigger files.
Still only 7¢ a gig, and it's not like they have to maintain more than one copy. The first sale pays for their hard drive space.

IMO, to say it costs "no more resources" is wholly accurate in spirit, if not in excruciating detail.
Old 19th March 2014
  #1132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
But that would happen anyway. As a producer, you made the decision as to what rate you want to record the record at. Were you not going to send it to the mastering engineer at that rate because of bandwidth issues?
At the moment we're talking back catalogue, re-releases right?
So yes, it's less expensive to shuffle WAV's and CD 44.1 around the place than 96khz or 192khz audio the Pono people are talking about.
Old 19th March 2014
  #1133
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
Average price for hard drive space: 7¢ per Gigabyte. Cost for a Dropbox account for a business: $15 a month The engineers do need to click that button in the New Session dialog. An extra second at $100 an hour. That's about 3¢
Yes, but I'm talking about artists and producers checking and ok'ing the remastered music.
Most of us are living and working residential.
I'm sending audio to producers all the time by the way, and yes it gets very slow and very expensive once you start sending HQ audio (Dropbox still needs to be uploaded).
Takes me 3 or 4 hours to upload a stereo file at 96khz, compared to a few minutes for mp3.
I pay for a 100GB monthly contract. 100GB gets eaten up awfully quickly when shuttling 192khz audio files around the planet.

I think it is a little point, but for many musicians, artists, engineers and producers, there is an additional cost to handling data above 96khz. It's not just about big record companies located downtown.
Old 19th March 2014
  #1134
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
At the moment we're talking back catalogue, re-releases right?
So yes, it's less expensive to shuffle WAV's and CD 44.1 around the place than 96khz or 192khz audio the Pono people are talking about.
Yeah but why even do back catalogue re-releases if you're not going to do 192kHz?
Old 19th March 2014
  #1135
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Yes, but I'm talking about artists and producers checking and ok'ing the remastered music.
Most of us are living and working residential.
I'm sending audio to producers all the time by the way, and yes it gets very slow and very expensive once you start sending HQ audio (Dropbox still needs to be uploaded).
Takes me 3 or 4 hours to upload a stereo file at 96khz, compared to a few minutes for mp3.
I pay for a 100GB monthly contract. 100GB gets eaten up awfully quickly when shuttling 192khz audio files around the planet.

I think it is a little point, but for many musicians, artists, engineers and producers, there is an additional cost to handling data above 96khz. It's not just about big record companies located downtown.
You're definitely in a different world over there. I'm mixing a song tomorrow that's 1.3 GB and I just downloaded it in about 10-15 minutes from a dropbox link.
Old 19th March 2014
  #1136
Yeah, anyway, I'm just saying there is an additional cost. It's minimal for Apple, Google and established labels, but can mount up for indie artists and average engineers and producers not in the Puig, Lord Alge league.
However, I agree, the extra cost, however small, should be absorbed by the company hoping to sell the product.
Old 19th March 2014
  #1137
More cowbell!
 
natpub's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
I remember those days.

Maybe iTunes can offer a hearing test where the results tell you what version you should buy?
Not my point, but funny anyway! My point was only that in this thread there are the numerous obligatory references to double blind tests, as if this lends some scientific credence to their argument.

I merely cited hearing differences as important reasons why such testing is sorely limited. Saying 'X' sample/bit rate is "enough" is largely subjective, as the question is always "enough for whom?"

While there may be finite limits to what high rates can achieve, within that range it's up to each person to determine how much detail is enough for them.

If 16/44.1 were enough for everyone, we would't bother recording at higher rates at all. I guess there are some who do just that, but I am not one of them. I believe 24/96 is both desirable and sufficient. I always fancied myself a Massenburg devotee, but in this case, I guess I'm in the Lavry camp
Old 19th March 2014
  #1138
Gear Addict
 
czoli's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
If you want to know why Fabrice who works for Steve Slate and other plugin manufacturers think 32 bit is far superior to 24 bit check out my posts and their answers on that thread. It's about zero anti-aliasing effects during math manipulation. They are the ones who push the 32 bit idea. It's about dynamic range with all the possible dynamic range values per sample not about sample rate. The sample rate must be at least 44.1KHz to fully capture up to 22KHz (google definition of Nyquist Rate) Why would anyone need to capture anything outside the human hearing range anyways? We only sample at 88.2KHz or 96KHz since we aren't at 32bit. As another poster mentioned 60KHz is more than adequate at 24 bits. But for plugin manufacturers and almost all computer CPUs which are 64 bit now, 32 bits may be quicker to manipulate than 24 bit since it is 1/2 of a full 64 bit CPU register.
Old 19th March 2014
  #1139
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
Romanowski's on point, but Lurssen embarrassed himself:

Once you get to a sample rate of 192, you’re starting to get closer to what the human brain needs to hear. Double that to 384, and 32-bit—the more samples per second, the higher the ultraharmonic frequencies go. Then the brain doesn’t have to go through the stress of interpolation.

Ultraharmonic frequencies? Brain stress from interpolation? He may have great ears and taste, but he doesn't understand these things.
Gavin Lurssen | Credits | AllMusic
Obviously clueless.....
Old 19th March 2014
  #1140
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
To be clear, I have no issue with them releasing 24 bit 96k masters (assuming it was recorded that way) if that were to become the standard. Priced accordingly.

Priced accordingly?

does it cost more to produce 24 bit 96k files?
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