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 21st March 2014
  #1321
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
But they're are two completely differently things...
Why not just compare 24/192 to 16/44.1?
OK, I'll explain it to you differently.

The way to easily test is to use the exact same converters, the same source file, on the same computer, properly level matched. All of these variables are important and can taint the results.

The easiest and simplest way to run a test is to take your 192/24 file and downsample it to 44.1/16. You then upsample it again to 192/24. You have thus eliminated all high frequency content about 22.050khz. You have one file that is full 192/24, and you have another file that clocks at 192 but has no high frequency content.

Ultrasonic difference is the real variable you are trying to test.

You then download and install one of the free a/b/x software testing tools that are available, and run it on your computer through your 192/24 bit converters. Then you see if you can tell the difference.

Is that so hard to understand? Should I facepalm you for missing the point?
Old 21st March 2014
  #1322
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
OK, I'll explain it to you differently.

The way to easily test is to use the exact same converters, the same source file, on the same computer, properly level matched. All of these variables are important and can taint the results.

The easiest and simplest way to run a test is to take your 192/24 file and downsample it to 44.1/16. You then upsample it again to 192/24. You have thus eliminated all high frequency content about 22.050khz. You have one file that is full 192/24, and you have another file that clocks at 192 but has no high frequency content.

Ultrasonic difference is the real variable you are trying to test.

You then download and install one of the free a/b/x software testing tools that are available, and run it on your computer through your 192/24 bit converters. Then you see if you can tell the difference.

Is that so hard to understand? Should I facepalm you for missing the point?
I'm not talking about comparing a 24/192 file to an altered 24/192 file.
I'm talking about comparing 16/44.1 to 24/192.
It sounds stupid to me.
You still haven't explained why you upsample.
Is there any content above 22khz in a 16/44.1 file before you upsample?
Could you be more condescending?
Old 21st March 2014
  #1323
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
It sounds stupid to me.
You still haven't explained why you upsample.
Is there any content above 22khz in a 16/44.1 file before you upsample?
Could you be more condescending?
Wow. Seriously?

You upsample because you want to keep as many variables the SAME. You upsample because audio interfaces sometimes mute or click when changing sample rates thus polluting the test.

Converters can (and often do) sound different at different sample rates. But you're not testing the converter.

Carmen, this is pretty basic stuff. As far as condescension, you can't be serious.. you are the one who chose to facepalm when it is you yourself who is having trouble understanding something pretty basic. There is no reason to get snarky with me because of your little battle with someone else.
Old 21st March 2014
  #1324
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
As i said.

Thinking is hard.

I know thinking is hard for you...
You deleted over 200 of your own posts in this thread alone.
Just breathe...
Old 21st March 2014
  #1325
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
Your so clever...
How ironic.
Old 21st March 2014
  #1326
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
Wow. Seriously?

You upsample because you want to keep as many variables the SAME. You upsample because audio interfaces sometimes mute or click when changing sample rates thus polluting the test.

Converters can (and often do) sound different at different sample rates. But you're not testing the converter.

Carmen, this is pretty basic stuff. As far as condescension, you can't be serious.. you are the one who chose to facepalm when it is you yourself who is having trouble understanding something pretty basic. There is no reason to get snarky with me because of your little battle with someone else.
Do you honestly believe your average listener compares files this way?
I asked you a simple question, is there any content above 22k in a 16/44.1 file.
In the real world, no one will upsample to rule out the converter.
The fact that converters sound different at different rates is not a factor to the average listener.
God, this is so silly....
Old 21st March 2014
  #1327
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
Post what you like.
You'll delete it soon enough....
Old 21st March 2014
  #1328
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
I'm not talking about comparing a 24/192 file to an altered 24/192 file.
I'm talking about comparing 16/44.1 to 24/192.
It sounds stupid to me.
You still haven't explained why you upsample.
Is there any content above 22khz in a 16/44.1 file before you upsample?
Could you be more condescending?
Hmmm
Old 21st March 2014
  #1329
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
Old 21st March 2014
  #1330
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
In the real world, no one will upsample to rule out the converter.
The real world is filled with confirmation bias.

That's why you create ways to test this stuff.

You don't label the files:

1. High Quality
2. Medium Quality
3. Rubber Band Quality.
Old 21st March 2014
  #1331
Lives for gear
 
James Lehmann's Avatar
 

Enough already! Use the ignore list folks.

OK, so back on topic...

My Metric Halo converters 'only' go up to 96k so I can't test 192k in my world, but I'm willing to try a(nother) 16/44.1k vs 24/96k shoot-out to see if my ageing ears can still hear the difference I felt I could hear 10-15 years ago.

Surely as Gearslutz we ought to be able to collectively dig up some suitable test material? My own mainly electronic stuff is crap source material - I'd much rather hear something acoustic and beautiful recorded with amazing mics by the likes of someone like Plush..

Keep in mind that in using myself as a test subject I'm not really trying to prove anything scientific and/or whether or not you can tell a difference - my motive is purely financial self-interest; I simply want to know whether I should continue buying albums on CD for $10 or on Pono for $25, and whether I should remortgage my house to invest $50,000 in Pono to 'upgrade' my 2,500 CDs to 24/192k.

Please post some clips for me to test.
Old 21st March 2014
  #1332
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
The real world is filled with confirmation bias.

That's why you create ways to test this stuff.

You don't label the files:

1. High Quality
2. Medium Quality
3. Rubber Band Quality.
How about you?
Got any confirmation bias in your posts?
Old 21st March 2014
  #1333
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
Do you honestly believe your average listener compares files this way?
I asked you a simple question, is there and content above 22k in a 16/44.1 file.
In the real world, no one will upsample to rule out the converter.
The fact that converters sound different at different rates is not a factor to The average listener.
God, this is so silly....
You are trying so hard to be right... you need to just slow down and read more carefully.

First, no "average listener" does a/b/x comparison. It has nothing to do with "average listener." I don't even know what that has to do with anything? We're not testing "average listener" we're testing you.

THE POINT:
You suggest there is an audible difference, that is significant, between 192/24 and 44.1/16, correct?

THE SCIENCE:
The only potentially audible differences between 192/24 and 44.1/16 are noise floor/fade outs and higher frequency content. That is IT. There are NO other differences, the science is clear.

THE TEST:
Thus, you want to eliminate all variables EXCEPT those two items. To eliminate those two variables, you then downsample a copy of the file to 44.1/16, which does exactly what you need it to do. It eliminates ALL high frequency content above 22.050khz, and it raises the noise floor potentially (or at least, it leaves 8 bits with no value). Then you upsample it.

You are thus testing exactly what you want to test. Since you are running the converter at the same sample rate, you eliminate the converter as a variable. Since the files are the exact same volume, you eliminate level as a variable. You ensure the converter switching isn't going to give it away either.

THE RESULT:
If you can identify the high res file in a/b/x testing, you have proven your point.
Old 21st March 2014
  #1334
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Kenny, please just stop.
Old 21st March 2014
  #1335
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Lehmann View Post

Surely as Gearslutz we ought to be able to collectively dig up some suitable test material?

Please post some clips for me to test.
I'd like to take this test as well.

My convertors do go to 192kHz but I'm not recording a full production for this.

We should find a finished master at 192k and down sample and up sample it for testing.

BTW - I wonder why your units don't go to 192kHz.

I believe Lavry's don't because he doesn't see the point. There was another company who agreed with him but still put it in their convertor simply because people wanted it. Don't want to let "sound" get in the way of marketing.
Old 21st March 2014
  #1336
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
You are trying so hard to be right... you need to just slow down and read more carefully.

First, no "average listener" does a/b/x comparison. It has nothing to do with "average listener." I don't even know what that has to do with anything? We're not testing "average listener" we're testing you.

THE POINT:
You suggest there is an audible difference, that is significant, between 192/24 and 44.1/16, correct?

THE SCIENCE:
The only potentially audible differences between 192/24 and 44.1/16 are noise floor/fade outs and higher frequency content. That is IT. There are NO other differences, the science is clear.

THE TEST:
Thus, you want to eliminate all variables EXCEPT those two items. To eliminate those two variables, you then downsample a copy of the file to 44.1/16, which does exactly what you need it to do. It eliminates ALL high frequency content above 22.050khz, and it raises the noise floor potentially (or at least, it leaves 8 bits with no value). Then you upsample it.

You are thus testing exactly what you want to test. Since you are running the converter at the same sample rate, you eliminate the converter as a variable. Since the files are the exact same volume, you eliminate level as a variable. You ensure the converter switching isn't going to give it away either.

THE RESULT:
If you can identify the high res file in a/b/x testing, you have proven your point.
I thought I cleared this up before....

The Problem with A-B'ing and Why Neil Young is Right about Sound Quality. | Tape Op - the Creative Music Recording Magazine
Old 21st March 2014
  #1337
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
How about you?
Got any confirmation bias in your posts?
I admitted that I couldn't hear the difference.

You don't understand confirmation bias either.
Old 21st March 2014
  #1338
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
Kenny, please just stop.
OK.
Old 21st March 2014
  #1339
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
I admitted that I couldn't hear the difference.

You don't understand confirmation bias either.
http://tapeop.com/blog/2012/04/11/pr...-about-sound-/
You don't see how that can be a bias?
Expecting not to hear a difference isn't a bias?
Old 21st March 2014
  #1340
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
The Problem with A-B'ing and Why Neil Young is Right about Sound Quality. | Tape Op - the Creative Music Recording Magazine
You don't see how that can be a bias?
Expecting not to hear a difference isn't a bias?
Why would I expect NOT to hear a difference?

We've been told for years that 24 bit "blows away" 16 bit.

I used to dither each file and try each type of dithering out and one day I got lazy and just truncated the damn thing. It sounded the same to me.

Later, Massey confirmed this for me.

The fact that I can't hear the difference was in no way a confirmation of anything I've ever heard or read before.

This might be the first thread that confirmed my suspicion.
Old 21st March 2014
  #1341
Lives for gear
 
James Lehmann's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
We should find a finished master at 192k and down sample and up sample it for testing.
Actually Kenny for my purposes, what I'd like is to hear two different digital recordings of an old 2-track analogue master because this is a closer approximation to my listening situation in terms of rebuilding my music collection. Probably 80% of it was originally all analogue, so I want to know if Neil Young's claims realistically apply to anything recorded before 1980.

Take a 2-track analogue master

Record once into a digital system running at 16/44.1k = Recording A

Record again into the same digital system running at 24/96k = Recording B

Upsample Recording A to 96k

Take AB/X test at 96k

Possible outcomes = eat hat, shrug shoulders, feel superior, or find another job!
Old 21st March 2014
  #1342
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
The Problem with A-B'ing and Why Neil Young is Right about Sound Quality. | Tape Op - the Creative Music Recording Magazine
You don't see how that can be a bias?
Expecting not to hear a difference isn't a bias?
BTW - I've argued for years on this forum AGAINST ABX tests for testing gear.

Simply because it's not real world. It's not how we make records.

But for the end product, I think it makes a lot more sense since the listener isn't twisting knobs.

If you can't hear a difference, there isn't one. At least not one that matters.
Old 21st March 2014
  #1343
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

I read that article, and you can't have it both ways.

Either it's a big difference (as you have said) and there is NO WAY you should need additional time with the media to hear the difference. It should be obvious immediately if it's a big difference!

OR..

The difference is extremely subtle, if it exists at all.

The fact that the author is making excuses is a clue for me... it's NOT a huge difference, if a difference exists today.

The fact that you so far have not offered to take this test also leads me to believe it's not a big difference like you profess.

Are you up for the test or not?
Old 21st March 2014
  #1344
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
Kenny, please just stop.
He can't help himself.
Old 21st March 2014
  #1345
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
I read that article, and you can't have it both ways.

Either it's a big difference (as you have said) and there is NO WAY you should need additional time with the media to hear the difference. It should be obvious immediately if it's a big difference!

OR..

The difference is extremely subtle, if it exists at all.

The fact that the author is making excuses is a clue for me... it's NOT a huge difference, if a difference exists today.

The fact that you so far have not offered to take this test also leads me to believe it's not a big difference like you profess.

Are you up for the test or not?
I've already stated how I record, how I arrived at my conclusions, etc.
I've done my tests.
I'm very happy with the way my work sounds and how I get there.
I'm happy about PONO because I'll be able to sell my recordings in the PONOstore the way they actually sound, rather than convert them to 16/44.1, which to me sounds nowhere near the original recording.
But enjoy yourself.
Old 21st March 2014
  #1346
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Lehmann View Post
Actually Kenny for my purposes, what I'd like is to hear two different digital recordings of an old 2-track analogue master because this is a closer approximation to my listening situation in terms of rebuilding my music collection. Probably 80% of it was originally all analogue.

Take a 2-track analogue master

Record once into a digital system running at 16/44.1k = Recording A

Record again into the same digital system running at 24/96k = Recording B

Upsample Recording A to 96k

Take AB/X test at 96k

Possible outcomes = eat hat, shrug shoulders, feel superior, or find another job!
As opposed to one digital 192k truncated down?

Actually, wouldn't be hard to do both.
Old 21st March 2014
  #1347
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Lehmann View Post
Actually Kenny for my purposes, what I'd like is to hear two different digital recordings of an old 2-track analogue master because this is a closer approximation to my listening situation in terms of rebuilding my music collection. Probably 80% of it was originally all analogue.

Take a 2-track analogue master

Record once into a digital system running at 16/44.1k = Recording A

Record again into the same digital system running at 24/96k = Recording B

Upsample Recording A to 96k

Take AB/X test at 96k

Possible outcomes = eat hat, shrug shoulders, feel superior, or find another job!
I was going to simply record some acoustic guitar with my with one of my converters and create the test. I don't have a way of recording a master to 192 (and certainly not from analog).

If someone else does, go for it.

I would think a naked acoustic guitar would be the best test, but maybe that's not true... maybe it would be better to test a full mix?
Old 21st March 2014
  #1348
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
I've already stated how I record, how I arrived at my conclusions, etc.
I've done my tests.
I'm very happy with the way my work sounds and how I get there.
But enjoy yourself.
Money

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-
mouth is
Old 21st March 2014
  #1349
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
I've already stated how I record, how I arrived at my conclusions, etc.
I've done my tests.
I'm very happy with the way my work sounds and how I get there.
But enjoy yourself.
So, you won't participate? What do you have to lose? What are you afraid of (rhetorical as I already know... you would be embarrassed if you couldn't tell which was which).
Old 21st March 2014
  #1350
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post

Either it's a big difference (as you have said) and there is NO WAY you should need additional time with the media to hear the difference. It should be obvious immediately if it's a big difference!
Exactly. If one of them sounded like Rubber Bands, you could pick it out from across the room 100% of the time.
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