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 22nd March 2014
  #1531
Lives for gear
If you play a DSD file in an OPPO blu ray player, if you don't specifically set the output to DSD, the player will default to PCM 24/88.2, because they don't see the sense of going any higher.
If you burn DSD files to a DSD Disc, using your computer and AudioGate,
Then play the disc in a PlayStation 3, it will default to 24/176.4.
It seems major manufacturers don't agree on what hi res is....
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post

My point was simply that you have to believe in something. Even if we figure out it's wrong later. Everything can't be unknown.
Yeah, I think most people believe we live in a great age of continuing innovation.
What we have now is great (computing, the internet, medical breakthroughs etc), but it's all going to be different again in 2020.
To try to be more on your point.
I believe in something. I believe I enjoy music on vinyl and at 44.1 CD quality.
I don't believe that's the end point. It's been done, look away, nothing more to see, nothing more to better. I believe we continue to understand more about our bodies and science.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1533
Wait, if I may interject for the sake of "breathing"

i think its been proven earlier in this thread that 96/24 is better than 44.1/16, and i think its also been stated that 44.1/24 is better than 44.16.

really the question some people are posing is this: is 192/24 worth it?

the jury is out, apparently, nothing can be heard below 20hz and beyond 20khz according to science. i've never claimed to know the science behind the audio, but the video presented earlier was a pretty good summary of it all. I am still ignorant of the absolute facts and thus have to take the gentleman's word that digital audio is not a compromise in the audio signal.

whats hard for me to understand is how going from 44.1 to 96 to 192 only applies to frequency range, and has nothing to do with the resolution of the analog signal. its hard for my brain to grasp it, perhaps i just need to read more and more and more until it "clicks" like some of you all are saying.

in any case, if the original master was archived at 192/24 or 96/24 (or 44.1/24), then either of those are scientifically better than 44.1/16 - that my friends was undisputed about 20 pages ago, unless the collective scientific community took a step backwards.

all in all, 44.1/16 flac files cannot be played on my iPod, neither can 96/24, and neither can some future insanely dymanic masterpiece that utilizes 192/24 to its fullest. so for that Pono music is better than your average consumer mobile listening device and it has supposedly good electronics inside.

lets just separate the 192/24vs44.1/16 topic aside for a moment and just revel in the idea that 44.1/24 or 96/24 can now be played on the go. thats kinda cool.

but there is no doubt that music is a human experience, and its beautiful for it. filesize and resolution aside, good music makes us feel good don't it?

mmmmmmm
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1534
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post

My point was simply that you have to believe in something. Even if we figure out it's wrong later. Everything can't be unknown.
Indeed you do. And often the choice is the current status quo or your own senses. This is where some pick the latest measurement of science and some pick the latest measurement of their senses as their absolute reality.

The main differences being the latest measurement of science is already waiting to be made obsolete by the next discovery. However, while it is still the so called status quo, people use it to belong to the 'correct tribe' and call the others who choose to listen to their senses, which are waiting to be explained better but never made obsolete, fools.

I always marvel at guys holding on too tight to today's science status quo as the be all and end all. Can they not see that it is ever evolving? You might as well hold onto the moment where everyone's measurements suggested the world is flat if you reckon 16/44.1 is as good as it is ever going to get and that all we know about hearing, whether with our ears or other senses played into it, is all we ever will know and all there is to know.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1535
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
Is this an admission of defeat?

Because we all agree, You don't need an a/b/x test to tell the difference.

It's night and day.
Defeat? Interesting terminology. You looking for victory?

It seems he suggested in full seriousness an a/b/x for CD and vinyl would make sense......I certainly didn't.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
But if 44.1 is no better or worse than 192, there's no subjective choice to make.
Everyone is different.
I believe (rightly or wrongly) 96khz/24bit sounds better to me than 44.1khz/16 bit.
That's capitalism, consumerism and choice.
You may be happy to stick with CD quality. That's your choice. But you don't get to impose your choices on me artificially. If 96khz exists I can 'enjoy' it if i want.
Pono can fail too. That's their choice.
In commercial terms it's more a question of what is good enough, rather than what is better. CD quality is arguably good enough.
We've had the technology to fly supersonically for decades. But not enough consumers were prepared to pay for it. The emphasis with airlines now is not shorter flights, but fuel economy.
You'd have to suspect the music consumer is after low cost and convenience.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1537
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
Indeed you do. And often the choice is the current status quo or your own senses. This is where some pick the latest measurement of science and some pick the latest measurement of their senses as their absolute reality.

The main differences being the latest measurement of science is already waiting to be made obsolete by the next discovery. However, while it is still the so called status quo, people use it to belong to the 'correct tribe' and call the others who choose to listen to their senses, which are waiting to be explained better but never made obsolete, fools.

I always marvel at guys holding on too tight to today's science status quo as the be all and end all. Can they not see that it is ever evolving? You might as well hold onto the moment where everyone's measurements suggested the world is flat if you reckon 16/44.1 is as good as it is ever going to get and that all we know about hearing, whether with our ears or other senses played into it, is all we ever will know and all there is to know.

I really appreciate you saying what I've been trying to say all along.
Much more eloquently that I could.
Thank you.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1538
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
I have to ask, if 44.1 is no better or worse than 192, and it's a scientific fact, why does any audio equipment manufacturer make equipment that goes over 44.1, whether it's to record or playback audio?
Why do vitamin supplement companies sell products that do nothing?


Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
Isn't 24/48 the standard in film?
Are these manufacturers all wrong?
It's just a standard. Why not 96k or 192k if there's a difference?

To be clear. I'm not a scientist. So I'm not claiming there's no difference.

I'm claiming that if there is one, it's not significant enough to demand a new standard in a consumer delivery system.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1539
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by orenradio View Post

whats hard for me to understand is how going from 44.1 to 96 to 192 only applies to frequency range, and has nothing to do with the resolution of the analog signal. its hard for my brain to grasp it, perhaps i just need to read more and more and more until it "clicks" like some of you all are saying.
Let me try and explain... someone correct me if I have any details wrong.

The important thing for me to discover on my journey that sample locations/points won't be "connected" together by a stair step. They can only be connected by a sinusoid shape.

The rub is as we get closer to 20k, the system is only capable of creating a sine wave to "connect" the samples... because there can be no harmonics, as harmonics are actually frequencies above the fundamental.

But as you get higher sample rates, the samples are taken more often and allow the system to represent higher frequencies. The sample positions are closer together in frequency and thus can represent more complex waveforms that contain harmonics (and fundamentals) above 20k.

Remember... a sine wave is a fundamental frequency with no harmonics. More harmonics turn the waveform into a different, more complex shape. Those harmonics are additional frequencies.

EDIT.. it's actually a pretty crappy explanation. I'll look for something better.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1540
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by orenradio View Post
Wait, if I may interject for the sake of "breathing"

i think its been proven earlier in this thread that 96/24 is better than 44.1/16, and i think its also been stated that 44.1/24 is better than 44.16.
You thought wrong. The only thing that's proven is that people can't hear the difference between sample rates once you reach 44/16.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1541
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
I believe in something. I believe I enjoy music on vinyl and at 44.1 CD quality.
I don't believe that's the end point. It's been done, look away, nothing more to see, nothing more to better. I believe we continue to understand more about our bodies and science.
Bodies and science will continue to grow because there's tons of money in it.

I can't throw a rock in my city without hitting a medical building.

But music, I don't know. I don't see that much innovation since computer music took over. Things are getting faster and require less creativity to get a product, but I don't see any microphone, speaker, or recording technology really moving us forward.

But to the point. I don't think high resolution is the next step. We already have it and almost no one uses it.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1542
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
Why do vitamin supplement companies sell products that do nothing?




It's just a standard. Why not 96k or 192k if there's a difference?

To be clear. I'm not a scientist. So I'm not claiming there's no difference.

I'm claiming that if there is one, it's not significant enough to demand a new standard in a consumer delivery system.
So are saying anyone who sells anything over 44.1 is akin to these vitamin companies you mention?

Would you then recommend that no one needs to buy any audio recording equipment for their studio over 44.1 based on your experience?
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1543
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
Defeat? Interesting terminology. You looking for victory?

It seems he suggested in full seriousness an a/b/x for CD and vinyl would make sense......I certainly didn't.
I think testing stuff is interesting. I understand my own bias, and it's been fun to learn that some my preferences, after testing, don't always hold up.

Ever do blind wine tasting? I had some big surprises there.

The point is, if you are doing a/b/x testing on a new record (without pops/clicks) you might do well do an an a/b/x test against a CD to see which one you actually prefer. I haven't tried this.. but then again, I've never had a preference for vinyl.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post

I'm claiming that if there is one, it's not significant enough to demand a new standard in a consumer delivery system.
It's as much marketing.
Do you really need a Retina screen on an iPad? Do you need 13 stops of dynamic range on a camera? Do you need HDTV to enjoy old episodes of MASH?

PONO are marketing 192 as the best audio format.
I think they could have marketed a 'new improved' audio format and sold 96khz/24bit . But I'm not Neil Young.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1545
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by orenradio View Post
all in all, 44.1/16 flac files cannot be played on my iPod,
That's pretty pathetic actually... I can play that on my $75 Android phone no problem.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1546
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
I did NOT call the guy a liar. I pointed out a clear conflict of interest. A clear conflict of interest.
He can only have a "conflict of interest" if there is a motivation - a benefit to one area from something that happens in the other. His position on Hummingbird Migration is not in conflict with internet "freedom" and file sharing either.

the fact is that sample rates do not impact on file sharing in any way that you have been able to articulate beyond saying: "pirates use 44.1" So what? So does most of the rest of the planet. That's what pretty much everyone uses now. If people move to hi-res so will the pirates... You have not pointed out a conflict of interest until you can show somehow that high sample rates are actually "good" or "bad" for pirates or actually "good" or "bad" for artists. Which is ridiculous. Since pirates will steal everything that isn't nailed down and artists suffer when ANY format of theirs is stolen, sample rates appear to be completely neutral in this regard.

Stealing low res files: good for pirates
Stealing high res files: good for pirates
Stealing anything: good for pirates

I have no defense of this guy's other views, I certainly have no defense of piracy - as you well know - we are often on exactly the same page in THOSE threads! But you are letting your emotions color your understanding of some information that seems totally factual as far as I can see - and I read the whole thing.

Quote:
I also pointed out how hard I found it to accept fact from someone on the same site that they stated highly subjective opinion as fact that I find to be biased.
Other people have other articles on other websites where they point out the exact same facts!!

Are those facts (which are the same facts) now true because someone else said them? Or are they now false because they agree with a guy you don't like for other reasons? Aren't the facts, the facts? Can you see how illogical it is? You should accept facts when they are logically presented and laid out and supported as they were in this article. When they are true.

Sample rate increases are NOT the savior of Audio and they are certainly not the savior of the Music Industry and its business models. That's one of the big complaints about the Pono hype. The effort on the part of the sponsors to make it seem the savior of audio, and the effort by extension and hyperbole on the part of the Pono fans to make it seem even MORE than that.

The guy's hummingbird article is 100% correct. The hummingbirds DO fly to Florida, even if his politics suck. They will always fly to Florida because that's where they fly. Politics or no politics.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
Bodies and science will continue to grow because there's tons of money in it.
Oh dear. Now we are really plundering the depths.
I've got a couple of medical conditions myself, and any new advance that improves my outcomes I'll take. Thank heaven for medical science IMHO!!!!!
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1548
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
Since pirates will steal everything that isn't nailed down and artists suffer when ANY format of theirs is stolen, sample rates appear to be completely neutral in this regard.
Except there have been studies that show that the same people who pirate media are also some of the biggest spenders on media. 'Worst' File-Sharing Pirates Spend 300% More on Content Than 'Honest' Consumers | TorrentFreak

Personally I think that the pirates are the same people who are the trendsetters of what's popular.... let's face it, most pirates are tech-savvy young people. Who do you think exactly is setting trends in 2014? Neil Young?
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1549
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
the fact is that sample rates do not impact on file sharing in any way that you have been able to articulate
Really? ISP's are charging netflix a premium because the movie files are too big.
It's in the tech lobby's financial interest to persuade people that content delivered in smaller packages is 'good enough'.
It's all about the money. And it costs more money to create, store and distribute higher quality digital content.

Quote:
"If there's a cost of delivering Mr. Hastings's movies at the quality level he desires - and there is - then it should be borne by Netflix and recovered in the price of its service,"
AT&T Senior Vice President Jim Ciccone.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1550
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
Why do vitamin supplement companies sell products that do nothing?




It's just a standard. Why not 96k or 192k if there's a difference?

To be clear. I'm not a scientist. So I'm not claiming there's no difference.

I'm claiming that if there is one, it's not significant enough to demand a new standard in a consumer delivery system.
A couple of points.....vitamins do nothing says who?

And as it happens the overriding consumer delivery standard hasn't been CD 16/44.1 for ages, but now mp3/320. The difference between that and anything 24 bit I would count as significant.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1551
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
I really appreciate you saying what I've been trying to say all along.
Much more eloquently that I could.
Thank you.

The problem with this line of thought is this...the abilities of human hearing is NOT evolving. The same as the speed of sound is not evolving. Certain things are constants and perceived differences can and need to be explained by analyzing new information...not by saying that what we know to be true is evolving! This is what I would call scientific relativism at its worst...as it wastes our most important possession...time.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1552
Lives for gear
 
ionian's Avatar
I don't know how anyone can have a serious argument with a guy who has a chick's ass for his avatar.

Nothing against him, but I couldn't have a serious argument with someone, if every time a rebuttal showed up, that was the first thing I saw.


Regards,
Frank
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1553
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
So are saying anyone who sells anything over 44.1 is akin to these vitamin companies you mention?
I'm saying that the fact that someone sells something is not proof that people need it. Just that someone thinks people will buy it.

When digital first came out. It was pretty awful. 8 bit sampling at 16kHz or 32kHz. I forget. Then came 12 bit and higher sample rates. Then 16 bit and 44.1kHz and so on.

The general feeling (and it was correct) was that the higher you went, the better it sounded. Aliasing was awful back then too.

But it doesn't go that way forever. Eventually you hit a point where it's as good as it's going to get. The change doesn't become dramatic anymore. Unless you're hanging out with Neil Young. heh

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
Would you then recommend that no one needs to buy any audio recording equipment for their studio over 44.1 based on your experience?
I'd recommend that everyone do what I did. Try making records at each frequency and decide based on your needs.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1554
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
Let me try and explain... someone correct me if I have any details wrong.

The important thing for me to discover on my journey that sample locations/points won't be "connected" together by a stair step. They can only be connected by a sinusoid shape.

The rub is as we get closer to 20k, the system is only capable of creating a sine wave to "connect" the samples... because there can be no harmonics, as harmonics are actually frequencies above the fundamental.

But as you get higher sample rates, the samples are taken more often and allow the system to represent higher frequencies. The sample positions are closer together in frequency and thus can represent more complex waveforms that contain harmonics (and fundamentals) above 20k.

Remember... a sine wave is a fundamental frequency with no harmonics. More harmonics turn the waveform into a different, more complex shape. Those harmonics are additional frequencies.

EDIT.. it's actually a pretty crappy explanation. I'll look for something better.
The harmonics are different frequencies that you can't hear. What you might hear is the interaction with lower frequencies that cause artifacts....distortion....withing the range of hearing. To reproduce this you only need to record the distortions...not what caused them.
Like sunlight glare in a photo....recording the glare is what matters...you don't need or WANT TO record the sun!!
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1555
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
Defeat? Interesting terminology. You looking for victory?
Nah. Just being funny. heh

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
It seems he suggested in full seriousness an a/b/x for CD and vinyl would make sense......I certainly didn't.
And I was just pointing out that when you can agree that an a/b/x test is unnecessary, you know that there's going to be a difference.

If you are unsure about confirmation bias and you need an a/b/x test, then you are dealing with tiny amounts that someone blasting in their car with the top down would never hear.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1556
Quote:
Originally Posted by blindjoni View Post
The problem with this line of thought is this...the abilities of human hearing is NOT evolving.
But our understanding is!!!!
We used to only use the sun's energy to grow crops and dry cure foods. Now we use the sun's energy to also heat water and power motor vehicles. It's our understanding of what we can achieve that evolves.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1557
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
A couple of points.....vitamins do nothing says who?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/16/health...amins-studies/
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1558
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
So are saying anyone who sells anything over 44.1 is akin to these vitamin companies you mention?

Would you then recommend that no one needs to buy any audio recording equipment for their studio over 44.1 based on your experience?
I know the horse is dead, but I would say.. test it. See if you can hear a difference, even over time.

If you hear a difference by all means record at a higher sampling rate.

Everyone might as well record at 24 bits too... the ability to run your inputs a bit lower and protect from clipping is well worth the drive space.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1559
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philter View Post
Except there have been studies that show that the same people who pirate media are also some of the biggest spenders on media. 'Worst' File-Sharing Pirates Spend 300% More on Content Than 'Honest' Consumers | TorrentFreak

Personally I think that the pirates are the same people who are the trendsetters of what's popular.... let's face it, most pirates are tech-savvy young people. Who do you think exactly is setting trends in 2014? Neil Young?
You tech savvy trendsetter you
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1560
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Whatever.
You can continue to chip away at my comments and lack of historical knowledge, but the fact remains in other technologies quality, resolution and detail continues to advance year on year.
Whether it's needed (regarding audio appreciation or pixel peeping in video/stills) is another debate. More subjective.
I think you're missing something here. The technology underlying the computer you're using is exactly the same digital technology that underlay the giant tube computers of the early 50s. 65 years of technological advances haven't changed the necessity for RAM and ROM and operating systems and binary coding of data and instructions. And, barring some weird breakthru, they won't. The hardware gets smaller and faster and cooler (temperature wise) but the underlying theory is the same.

In the same way, Shannon/Nyquist's theory underlies digital sampling and won't be changed by the new technology. 44/16 was chosen because it met the requirements of Shannon/Nyquist, not because it was an accident. And there are arguments for 20 bits (sort of vaguely, not that anyone has demonstrated that it sounds better) but there really aren't any arguments for more than 44 kHz that make any sense (not with digital filters).

I'd love to go back to the argument about ultrasound heterodyning down into the audible spectrum. There is a parallel here with "infrasound". Most of us band-limit our playback systems to 20 Hz. Why? Because sound at lower frequencies causes heat and distortion with no audible benefit. A 15 Hz, 100 dB sound won't be audible, but it will peg your power amp, resulting in the higher frequencies starting to exhibit distortion. Similarly, your playback system band limits ultrasonic frequencies to prevent distortion. The band limiting occurs in the speaker (there are almost no systems with a significant ability to play above 20 kHz), and your power amp (which filters high frequencies to prevent noise) at least. So, where in the system are the beneficial effects of the 192 kHz actually going to be present? If we're talking about the ability of the DA convertor to actually mimic the sound that the DAW sent to recording format, then the quality of the clock and the quality of the filters and amplifiers is MUCH more important than some theoretical advantage to 192 kHz.

So, where is PONO now?
1. High quality analog processing and DA convertors-also available from other devices like the Filo at a MUCH lower cost. Fail.
2. Entre to a store with high resolution files-no evidence from anyone yet this is helpful and it may be harmful. Probably fail.
3. Possibly access to remastered audio that exceeds quality and especially dynamic range of CD and lossy formats-this is great!
4. Monetizing all the old music one more time, so the record companies don't have to move into the 21st century, but can continue their old model of selling records. This sucks! I already bought my music on vinyl, then cassette, then CD, now I'm going to buy it again for $25, more than I've paid for an album, ever? Gigantic FAIL!

And Neil, if you care for the music, then sell the good stuff for a buck a song so folks like me will care enough to buy it! It's NOT costing you much at all to remaster and rerelease!
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