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
  #1411
Here for the gear
 
Sean M Robinson's Avatar
 

Long time (multi-year) lurker, first time poster. (and yeesh, this is the thread I was waiting to post on?)

Great suggestions regarding the ABX test on a high-res master. I'd suggest, for obvious reasons, someone obtaining a sample of the Blu-ray release of Neil Young's archives volume one from a few year's back.

(By the way, I have do doubt of the result of the tests, having experience with ABX testing, and principles of science and skepticism... Lots of good books relevant to this discussion, by Carl Sagan, Michael Shermer, and more.... Shermer's in need of an update to his book Why People Believe Weird Things, to include a chapter on audiophiles....)
Old 21st March 2014
  #1412
Gear Head
 
Isterpuck's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crash View Post


I will apply my flame ******ent paint but I have always liked this video since there are so many examples to show his point. I have tried to wade through all 47 pages to this point to see if this has been posted before but I didn't see it or missed it. If it has been introduced to the conversation already, my apologies.
Even better, he made a special post about this 2nd coming of not-so-Free Lossless Audio Christ they call Pono here

READ IT, PEOPLE, FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY!

Some of the posts in this thread have given me a permanent palm-print where my face used to be

It wouldn't have surprised me if this thread ended up filled with people going "It's the vaccines, dude, they're giving my children autism!"

People keep repeating that it's good that he brings up the topic of high quality music, but he doesn't have to dilute the message with snake-oil-cr*p until the original message is nothing but loose stool-water.
If you heard about a parent telling their kid "If you don't eat your vegetables, the sheriff of Nottingham will come into your room while you're sleeping and carve your heart out with a spoon (also, you might not get scurvy.)" you wouldn't say "Awwww, how sweet, he's teaching his kids to eat healthy!", would you? Of bloody course not!

Am I pissed off? Damn right, I am.
Old 21st March 2014
  #1413
Lives for gear
 
skira's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isterpuck View Post
Even better, he made a special post about this 2nd coming of not-so-Free Lossless Audio Christ they call Pono here

READ IT, PEOPLE, FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY!
Been posted in this thread several times already. Doesn't change minds already made up. (Shrug.)
Old 21st March 2014
  #1414
Gear Head
 
Isterpuck's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skira View Post
Been posted in this thread several times already. Doesn't change minds already made up. (Shrug.)
Oh, my bad, haven't checked the entire thread. I read the first 10-ish pages, and the last 2 or 3, but there is a limit to how much BS my mind can handle before I want to punch kittens. I felt that I really needed to vent.

Since it seems like you've read more of it than me, tell me, have any anti vaxxers showed up?
Old 21st March 2014
  #1415
Lives for gear
 
popmann's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
But I haven't seen any mention of re-mastering to retain the original dynamics yet.



Sign me up for a "real" improved master.

You should maybe take me off ignore, then.
Old 21st March 2014
  #1416
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by orenradio View Post
I'm not sitting here trying to prove one way or another that I can or cannot hear the difference, but "hearing" a difference between 44.1/16 and 192/24 is hardly scientific. In fact that test in itself is purely subjective to the listener, and there is no objective way to test if someone's subjective hearing is "effective" or "scientific". The tests that humans hear at 20hz-20khz is also somewhat superficial and relatively un-scientific. Many people can hear above and below that range but don't know what it is they are hearing, also just because a scientist spins a dial and asks you to raise your hand when you "can't hear a sound" doesn't make the test scientific due to the subjective nature of the senses.

Have you ever been in a mixing session where you hear something that completely bothers you, but another artist in the room doesn't even hear it? Is it scientifically proven that it doesn't exist because a few a/b/x tests show time and time again that the artist simply doesn't hear it?

Also, if one were to do these tests one should honestly commit to a full fledged composition. One acoustic guitar may not yield as much of an audible difference in the two files as, lets say, an extremely dense track stacked upon each other, right? Take preamps, for instance, sometimes the benefit of a great preamp is only realized with more than one track, stacked upon each other.

For the sake of this thread I will try to create a test and record my upcoming project at 192, down-sample to 44.1, and try to A/B/X them here on gearslutz. While I agree in principal with CarmenC that up-sampling from the 44.1 to 192 seems counter-intuitive for the test, I will in the interest of gearsluttery try to post all three. The piece will be arranged with a baby grand piano, a violin and a cello.

Question. When comparing analog to digital (IE vinyl to cd) I often hear "harsh" artifacts from transient sources such as tamborine and other instruments (particular Pet Sounds that I was listening to this morning). If one presumptively can't hear a difference between 192 and 44.1 then what would account for this harshness? Is it possible that 192 does more than up the highest frequency range being recorded? Is it possible that its just an oversimplification, and the 192 digital-analog curve is more nuanced and accurate to the original curve than the 44.1 curve at common frequencies? Forget frequencies above and below the 20hz-20khz range (that are supposedly inaudible), is there a scientific difference between 192 and 44.1 in the audible spectrum? If so, then it doesn't matter whether someone "hears" it or not, a music purist should always aim to capture the sound accurately. If not, then how do we get better digital recordings? It sounds like digital will "never" accurately capture the source as well as analog.
Old 21st March 2014
  #1417
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
Science is the process.

Since expectation bias is a proven truth, the only way to eliminate it is tests like these. You may not prove there IS or IS NOT a difference, but you can certainly prove whether you can hear the difference in a specific set of circumstances. For those who CARE... knowledge and data are good things.

For those who just want to believe... it's true the worst thing for religion is science, testing and fact.

There is only one way of eliminating expectation bias from the equation.
Old 21st March 2014
  #1418
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by orenradio View Post
Many people can hear above and below that range but don't know what it is they are hearing, also just because a scientist spins a dial and asks you to raise your hand when you "can't hear a sound" doesn't make the test scientific due to the subjective nature of the senses
Sorry that is BS. That is not how these tests are conducted. The 'raise your hand' scenario is used for audible sounds and certainly reaction ceases at ultrasonic frequencies ("ultrasonic" = "sound you can not hear") Of course nobody raises their hands!

But in other tests, listeners are exposed to two playbacks of the same high res sound source - full musical program material - and on one of them, the ultrasonic content is filtered out. Listeners are unable to express even a statistical ability to distinguish one from the other. I would say this is "your kind of test" heh. Whatever the 'mechanism' for such perception is - even if it was "Magic" - it would have to show up in such a test if such perception existed. But no, people can't tell, it does not exist.

In a third type of test, electrodes are planted in the brains of subjects and their ears are exposed to sounds. When a sound in the audible range is played, the subject's brains respond with neural activity. When sound in the ultrasonic range is played there is no reaction in the brain! None of these tests have detected the ability to perceive ultrasonic content in human beings. How many scientific tests have to get the same result until you will trust that over your completely unfounded opinion? There is a reason why every textbook and every encyclopedia lists 20k. If there was "new information", encyclopedias are edited on a daily basis these days.

The final nail in the coffin of "ultrasonic hearing" IMO, is in the studies of the cochlea. The correspondence of which cilia in the basilar membrane are responsible for the perception of which frequencies has been mapped out. Guess what? 20kHz is all the way at one end! There are no hairs left in your cochlea to do the job of hearing ultrasound. If you prefer higher sample rates, and can accurately pick them out in a Fair test -i.e. blinded - then good for you. You don't have to make up pseudo-scientific reasons 'why'.

Quote:
Have you ever been in a mixing session where you hear something that completely bothers you, but another artist in the room doesn't even hear it? Is it scientifically proven that it doesn't exist because a few a/b/x tests show time and time again that the artist simply doesn't hear it?
you have zero evidence that the 'something' you are hearing is ultrasonic content. "Ultrasonics" is a story you are telling yourself to explain something that is probably more a factor of how each listener's brain is decoding and analyzing the sound. It's quite simple -some people are better at this analysis than others.

Quote:
While I agree in principal with CarmenC that up-sampling from the 44.1 to 192 seems counter-intuitive for the test...
Only when all the resulting files are the same apparent size and otherwise unlabeled can a truly unbiased comparison be made. That's the reason. The problem with people like you and Carmen is that you have done all your testing with your brain "knowing" which one you are listening to. That is a cheating test. If removing the conscious foreknowledge of which one is 'supposed to' sound better is "counter-intuitive" to you, and efforts to making the test truly Fair "don't make sense" , it just shows how anti-scientific your mindset really is.

Quote:
It sounds like digital will "never" accurately capture the source as well as analog.
digital audio is so accurate that when people make vinyl records they run the audio through a Digital Delay to give the head a preview and nobody complains. All those vinyl purists, like fathers with slutty daughters, they don't want to hear about it, but they know it's true.

Because both digital and analog media rely upon microphones, the "source" can only be the electrical fluctuation inside the microphone cable. Not the 'sound in the room' which is subjective to the listener. Digital is far more accurate than analog in capturing this source waveform. It is very hard to tell the difference between the live feed of a mic signal and the same signal that has passed through an ADDA. OTOH, if you couldn't tell when someone did a live feed vs TAPE you would need to get your ears checked. You might LIKE the tape more than the live mic even, but the one that is harder to guess is the one that is more accurate - not the one you 'like best.'

Classical musicians -i.e. people who spend every waking moment playing acoustical instruments in nice spaces - music that does not come out of a speaker!! - almost universally consider digital to be more accurate and preferable to any analog capture. These people are not deaf idiots. I would put their perceptions up against anybody on this board.

But it is simply wrong to take what you "like" and call that "more accurate". The non-linearities of analog audio may be more pleasing to you, they may even make you "feel" more like the live musical experience blah blah blah, but they do not reproduce the waveform captured by the mic as well as digital. Even ordinary 16-bit digital.

You know, the kind of digital that almost all the LPs in your collection were run through.
Old 21st March 2014
  #1419
Quote:
Originally Posted by skira View Post
Been posted in this thread several times already. Doesn't change minds already made up. (Shrug.)
Hang on a minute….
This 'Monty' guy runs a site dedicated to open source, anti-copyright, anti the music industry. Many issues of which Pono is designed to counter act.
This has shades of 'Merchants Of Doubt' all over it.

Xiph.org:
Quote:
Computers, the Internet and especially MP3 have now made the copy easier, cheaper and more convenient than the prepackaged content on sale.

That the copy costs nothing concerns intellectual property, a real worry for artists. That the distribution costs nothing is what really motivates the anti-MP3/anti-Internet effort. Copyright, once bitterly contested by the music industry, is now clung to as a weapon to preserve the distribution chain.

Copyright law has always been more about protecting the interests of publishers than those of creators.
This guy is passionate about freedom of the internet, and as such is completely conflicted when it comes to debates over such issues as artist protection and album sales, which is exactly where Pono comes in. Although I agree that Pono seems to have gone down the wrong road.
Old 21st March 2014
  #1420
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
Science is the process.

Since expectation bias is a proven truth, the only way to eliminate it is tests like these. You may not prove there IS or IS NOT a difference, but you can certainly prove whether you can hear the difference in a specific set of circumstances. For those who CARE... knowledge and data are good things.

For those who just want to believe... it's true the worst thing for religion is science, testing and fact.

There is only one way of eliminating expectation bias from the equation.
Let me try to put it this way.
When I play an CD of Neil Young's Harvest in my car at a loud volume, it hurts my ears.
I find it unpleasant.
When I play a 24/192 file of Neil Young's Harvest in my car at a loud volume, not only does it sound great to me, I want to turn it up.
Can you please use science to explain that?

If it's expectation bias, and I expect 24/192 to sound better, and so to me it does, then, SO WHAT?
If it's just my imagination that makes it sound better, why is that less valid than any test measurements?
I use my imagination when listening to music.
Do you?
How does science factor in human imagination?
By removing it?
Making believe it isn't there doesn't mean it isn't there.

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
Albert Einstein
<DELETED BY MODERATOR>

I also believe for a/b testing to be meaningful, all the people being tested should have the EXACT ability to hear audio.
Since everyone's ability to hear audio is different, I say such a test would be subjective to each listener.
I refuse to believe that Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles don't have a better ability to hear audio than I do.
Old 21st March 2014
  #1421
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
we could call 192/24 a "fancy" label. fancier than 44.1/16. i'm with you in general, Kenny. i want a more profound musical experience. my experience with listening to high resolution recordings has not made me a convert as yet. maybe i hear more micro-dynamics. probably it is bias! as long as back catalogues get re-released with all the associated hyperbole, i am not convinced. i will say that if something has been recorded originally at higher than cd quality, i would like to hear it in its original form. the need to compress music for the convenience of being able to fit files on a hdd is past.
I would like to hear it in it's original form as well. Before the mastering engineer destroyed it.

But if they're touting 192k is going to save the world, they're going to be unhappy when they realize that most records aren't recorded at that rate.

A store full of 44.1kHz 24 bit files isn't going to look too good from a marketing perspective.
Old 21st March 2014
  #1422
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Hang on a minute….
This 'Monty' guy runs a site dedicated to open source, anti-copyright, anti the music industry. Many issues of which Pono is designed to counter act.
This has shades of 'Merchants Of Doubt' all over it.

Xiph.org:


This guy is passionate about freedom of the internet, and as such is completely conflicted when it comes to debates over such issues as artist protection and album sales, which is exactly where Pono comes in. Although I agree that Pono seems to have gone down the wrong road.
Don't bring in that red herring, please. What Monty says in those videos is theoretically correct, empirically verified, and has nothing to do with his personal philosophy on intellectual property. His critique of "high resolution" delivery formats is unimpeachable, regardless of what you think of his politics.
Old 21st March 2014
  #1423
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

I just wanted to mention that some people have posted recently from a point of "honest" ignorance.

Others are indignant and cock sure.

Please try not to lump them together in the tone of your post.

It is brave to ask stupid questions but I think we'd all prefer that people feel safe here asking them.

Myself included.

Thanks
Old 21st March 2014
  #1424
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Hang on a minute….
This 'Monty' guy runs a site dedicated to open source, anti-copyright, anti the music industry. Many issues of which Pono is designed to counter act.
This has shades of 'Merchants Of Doubt' all over it.

Xiph.org:


This guy is passionate about freedom of the internet, and as such is completely conflicted when it comes to debates over such issues as artist protection and album sales, which is exactly where Pono comes in. Although I agree that Pono seems to have gone down the wrong road.
I don't see how his politics would benefit from skewing the science. Or vice versa. Suppose the science said such resolutions WERE useful, he could admit that and still advocate "free music" or whatever, I am sure. Steal that music as well as the low-res stuff. You may not like the guy's take on politics/business, but I can't see how grinding the resolution Ax helps his political viewpoint one way or the other.

Pono does not really "protect" the artist. Just like every other format, music sales are going to come only from those unwilling to steal. All Pono files are to be DRM-free (uploadable!) and unless you live in Australia or something the download file size is not really going to be inhibitory. Even if file size was an issue, if it sounds better and you think you are "entitled" to it, you steal a large file/you steal a small file. I just don't see his incentive to lie about this issue.

Even if Pono had copy protection, internet freedom advocates do not really get their jollies from screwing artists, they just consider their 'freedoms' to trump Artist's Rights. Sound quality does not seem connected to the rights/freedoms issues to me in either direction.

I read the link and his science seems quite solid. There is nothing in the article that I read that even casts "doubt" upon the issues of artist's rights, internet "freedom" etc. Just doubt about whether 192 truly sounds any better. Whether Pono succeeds or fails, the political issues the guy is passionate about do not go away or change at all as far as I can see.
Old 21st March 2014
  #1425
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
When I play an CD of Neil Young's Harvest in my car at a loud volume, it hurts my ears.
I find it unpleasant.
When I play a 24/192 file of Neil Young's Harvest in my car at a loud volume, not only does it sound great to me, I want to turn it up.
Can you please use science to explain that?
What you're hearing are two different masters of the same material. There are a lot more variables than just the digital resolution. I don't doubt that the hi-res version of "Harvest" sounds better to you than the old CD version. A lot of CDs don't sound good to me either, but I suspect that has more to do with suboptimal mastering techniques than what sample rate or bit depth was used.

As others have mentioned, a good test would be to take the hi-res Harvest, downsample it to CD quality, then upsample it back to 24/192. Then see if that version hurts your ears. I for one would be interested to know!

Cheers,
Eddie
Old 21st March 2014
  #1426
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
Let me try to put it this way.
When I play an CD of Neil Young's Harvest in my car at a loud volume, it hurts my ears.
I find it unpleasant.
When I play a 24/192 file of Neil Young's Harvest in my car at a loud volume, not only does it sound great to me, I want to turn it up.
Can you please use science to explain that?
Do you know for a fact that it's the same mix and mastering process?

I would doubt it if Mr. Young cares about quality audio. He wouldn't want to purposely distort the 192kHz file.

And how are you playing these files?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
If it's expectation bias, and I expect 24/192 to sound better, and so to me it does, then, SO WHAT?
You're right. So what? For you.

It's when you try to sell it as fact that it becomes an issue.

If you want to believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy and it makes you happy, go for it. But (much like religion) you can't expect everyone to follow your unscientific path or your made up rules to go with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
If it's just my imagination that makes it sound better, why is that less valid than any test measurements?
I use my imagination when listening to music.
Do you?
How does science factor in human imagination?
By removing it?
Making believe it isn't there doesn't mean it isn't there.

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
? Albert Einstein
You've either won this argument or failed miserably.

I admire you for going "all in" though.

Burn the ships. Failure is not an option. heh
Old 21st March 2014
  #1427
Gear Maniac
 
Decompress's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
Let me try to put it this way.
When I play an CD of Neil Young's Harvest in my car at a loud volume, it hurts my ears.
I find it unpleasant.
When I play a 24/192 file of Neil Young's Harvest in my car at a loud volume, not only does it sound great to me, I want to turn it up.
Can you please use science to explain that?

If it's expectation bias, and I expect 24/192 to sound better, and so to me it does, then, SO WHAT?
If it's just my imagination that makes it sound better, why is that less valid than any test measurements?
I use my imagination when listening to music.
Do you?
How does science factor in human imagination?
By removing it?
Making believe it isn't there doesn't mean it isn't there.

I believe for a/b testing to be meaningful, all the people being tested should have the EXACT ability to hear audio.
Since everyone's ability to hear audio is different, I say such a test would be subjective to each listener.
I refuse to believe that Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles don't have a better ability to hear audio than I do.
You've been engaging in LISTENING???? How dare you.
Old 21st March 2014
  #1428
Here for the gear
 
Sean M Robinson's Avatar
 

Totally different masters on the two versions of Harvest. The first one is very "first round digital"-- not surprised you don't want to listen that loud, at least not without reaching for the treble control.
Old 21st March 2014
  #1429
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie TX View Post
What you're hearing are two different masters of the same material. There are a lot more variables than just the digital resolution. I don't doubt that the hi-res version of "Harvest" sounds better to you than the old CD version. A lot of CDs don't sound good to me either, but I suspect that has more to do with suboptimal mastering techniques than what sample rate or bit depth was used.

As others have mentioned, a good test would be to take the hi-res Harvest, downsample it to CD quality, then upsample it back to 24/192. Then see if that version hurts your ears. I for one would be interested to know!

Cheers,
Eddie
I am not hearing two different masters.
I downsampled the 24/192 files to 16/44.1 and burned them to a cd using AudioGate.
Same master.
Old 21st March 2014
  #1430
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
I don't see how his politics would benefit from skewing the science. Or vice versa.
Have you read the Xiph 'About' page. It's full of one sided, inaccurate propaganda.
I can't put it any more mildly than that.
Clearly stating the goal of your organisation is to oppose the music industry (he singles it out specifically), calls into question any commentary on audio standards within the music industry.
Apart from the sheer fact I'm so over tech bloggers lecturing musicians on what is good for us. It is nothing more than 18th century industrialists telling factory workers what is good for them.

But aside from that, I'm perfectly prepared to consider 192khz is a waste of space, or 24 bit. I'm not sure, but I'll listen.
But to be honest it beggars belief that the first universal digital quality standard we arrived at in the 1980's (16 bit, 44.1khz) just happens to be the be all end all.
That hasn't happened in any other sphere of digitization (video, photography, scientific instruments etc).
It's reasonable to suggest as a matter of opinion it's 'good enough', but to claim to prove scientifically it can't be bettered…??? And out of the other side of your mouth state as fact musicians have been impoverished by the music industry???
Nope. Huge conflict of interest.
Old 21st March 2014
  #1431
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
A store full of 44.1kHz 24 bit files isn't going to look too good from a marketing perspective.
that is the problem for me. my cynicism with the music industry and there ability to repackage the same material, albeit re-mastered (and how many of those are worse as a listening experience when compared to the original masters), tack some out-takes, jams, etc, in the package, and then sell the whole body of work again. if this was a grass roots revolution, with new content, by-passing the big four, it would be an interesting development.
Old 21st March 2014
  #1432
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
Don't bring in that red herring, please. What Monty says in those videos is theoretically correct, empirically verified, and has nothing to do with his personal philosophy on intellectual property.
Even though it already knew cigarettes caused cancer, the tobacco industry employed a group of scientists to run research programs and produce hundreds of documents refuting the link.
Let's see some un-conflicted evidence on digital music quality.
Old 21st March 2014
  #1433
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
A store full of 44.1kHz 24 bit files isn't going to look too good from a marketing perspective.
I don't think that will be much of an issue. HDtracks has lots of titles advertised as being 24/44.1. They also have stuff at 16/44.1, for those who don't want to bother with physical media but want lossless quality at least. Still beats iTunes, eh?

At least the lower-res stuff is cheaper than the full 24/192 material. Example: "Raising Sand" by Robert Plant and Alison Krauss is $17.98 for 24/96, but $11.98 for CD quality. I'd expect similar pricing from Pono.

Cheers,
Eddie
Old 21st March 2014
  #1434
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
Do you know for a fact that it's the same mix and mastering process?

I would doubt it if Mr. Young cares about quality audio. He wouldn't want to purposely distort the 192kHz file.

And how are you playing these files?



You're right. So what? For you.

It's when you try to sell it as fact that it becomes an issue.

If you want to believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy and it makes you happy, go for it. But (much like religion) you can't expect everyone to follow your unscientific path or your made up rules to go with it.



You've either won this argument or failed miserably.

I admire you for going "all in" though.

Burn the ships. Failure is not an option. heh
The cd was played in my car CD player.
The 24/192 was played from the line out of a Korg MR2 to the line in of my car stereo.
I just think Einstein was onto something.
I've never tried to sell my opinion as fact.
I've been trying to sell all of this listening as subjective.
Burn the ships, indeed.
Old 21st March 2014
  #1435
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Decompress View Post
You've been engaging in LISTENING???? How dare you.
Sorry....
Old 21st March 2014
  #1436
Lives for gear
 
Arksun's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
The cd was played in my car CD player.
The 24/192 was played from the line out of a Korg MR2 to the line in of my car stereo.
I just think Einstein was onto something.
I've never tried to sell my opinion as fact.
I've been trying to sell all of this listening as subjective.
Burn the ships, indeed.
Listening to a 16/44 file from a different device wont necessarily sound the same as listening to it burned to redbook audio CD. Stored as a data file it will be 100% bit accurate and be processed as data packets that are well bufffered (ie sound at its best).

Listening to cd audio in your car will be subject to several quality stages, how good was your cd burner?, the quality of the cdr, how does your car cd player play the cd, realtime 1x streaming audio? if so then it can be subjected to additional errors and jitter related issues. How old is this car cd player, does it have poor D/A with less than pleasent sounding filter @ 44k?. Could your cars CD player, streaming at 1x speed off a cdr with additional jitter and error compete with the D/A of your Korg MR2?.

Which dither and sample rate converter did you use?

Far too many variables going on here to deduce it must be solely the bit depth and sample rate. How about instead you play the 16/44 also off the Korg MR2, that would make a much more fair comparison.
Old 21st March 2014
  #1437
It's simply unbelievable that at the dawn of digital music retail (CD), we stumbled across the perfect digital format 44.1khz, 16 bit. Never to be bettered.
Old 21st March 2014
  #1438
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean M Robinson View Post
Totally different masters on the two versions of Harvest. The first one is very "first round digital"-- not surprised you don't want to listen that loud, at least not without reaching for the treble control.
Same master.
The problem was still treble...around 3-4 kHz..
Old 21st March 2014
  #1439
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
It's simply unbelievable that at the dawn of digital music retail (CD), we stumbled across the perfect digital format 44.1khz, 16 bit. Never to be bettered.
No ****.
Old 21st March 2014
  #1440
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arksun View Post
How about instead you play the 16/44 also off the Korg MR2, that would make a much more fair comparison.
Yes. I would be surprised if it was a bad cd or burning software but some units just have impedance differences that just "feel" better when matched with each other.

Try this suggestion.
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