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
  #1591
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow'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.
Are you really surprised that a Euro 500 player might sound better than your built-in car player? (Plus the bad SRC from AudioGate).

Alistair
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1592
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow'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.
It always amazes me when people do exactly that which they accuse others of all in the same breath and seem completely oblivious to it.

You are being the 'Merchant Of Doubt' here.

Either you understand the content of the video on technical terms and can address anything you don't agree with on technical terms or you accept that Monty has a much better understanding of the subject than you do.

The great thing about Monty's video is that it demonstrates the theory in practical terms. He also explains exactly how you can redo the experiments yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
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.
There is not necessarily a conflict of interest. (Not to mention that freedom of the internet and technological standards is magnitudes more important than artist protection but you can not see that because of your own misguided conflict of interest). And thinking that increasing sample rates will somehow protect artists is a total fantasy.

Alistair
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1593
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
Have fun guys, just bear in mind, the direction of your energy about this counts and in the end I would like to think even the ones who are doing their best to pick holes in this would still like it to succeed and change our reality for a better one, so maybe watch in what direction you apply your energies.....all makes a difference. Help it do something good or help stamp it out. Pick one.
I would not like to see Pono succeed unless they create a system that will ensure minimal peak limiting and complete remasters, and a lower priced store. Otherwise they are just another record company tool selling snake oil in yet another attempt to get people to buy the same music in another new format.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1594
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow'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.
I go into some detail in this thread: Digital Audio and Sampling Rates You might find it interesting.

Alistair
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1595
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
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.
Here is something that is really easy to grasp: You only need two points to fully define a circle. You can add more points but the circle won't get any rounder.

When it comes to digital audio the sample points are like two points on the circumference of the circle. That does mean that with only two points you can draw two different circles through those points. (Akin to aliasing) That is where band-limiting comes in. If you correctly restrict the area, or bandwidth, in which the circle can be drawn, you end up with only one possible circle that fits the two points.

Alistair
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1596
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
It seems that my diatribe, pointed and eloquent as it was, exceeded someone's threshold and was deleted (earning me an Official Warning, for good measure). Oh well, I will tone it down and say this:

One cannot pick and choose bits and pieces from a mathematical system and ignore the rest. If you believe that signals are characterized by amplitude, frequency, and phase, then you must accept the sampling theorem. You can't have one without the other. You are free to characterize a signal by alternative methods, but if you choose to use amplitude, frequency, and phase -- each of which are 100% human constructs based on specific mathematical premises -- then you cannot reject the sampling theorem. Attempting to do so is equivalent to claiming that 1 + 1 = 3. You can say it, but you'd better have an alternative arithmetical system ready if you want anyone to take you seriously.

Be very clear: the foundations of digital audio are not empirically-realized scientific theories that may evolve with time; they are mathematical certainties that are true for all time. Ignore them at your peril.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1597
Gear Guru
 

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.
So you will do absolutely everything in your power to create a slanted test? Even when the means to eliminate the variables is so trivial?

the Korg can play BWF. Wouldn't a comparison of "sample rate" be a better (fairer) comparison if the PLAYER was the same both times? How difficult would that have been? You might as well listen to the CD in a different car while you are at it!

If getting the 44.1 file into your Korg is too difficult for you to manage, maybe there is a recording engineer somewhere in your neighborhood you could ask to help you? Then of course you want to get someone else to operate the MR2 and change the files so that you do not know in advance which one you are listening to. That person does not need to be more technologically savvy than you, but he does need to be: "NOT YOU".

As experiments go, these are not huge inconveniences - especially for someone who is fond of quoting Einstein. Truly, nobody other than you can infer any useful information from the outcomes of such heavy-handed cheats- different players, unblinded listening.

The rest of us do not have the advantage of your Tinkerbell mindset. Your stated position that as long as you "think" it's better, it IS better clearly applies only to you... and unsurprisingly, makes the rest of us rather suspicious of your results - to say the least.

Believe it or not, I WOULD be mildly interested in what you say you hear, but not until after you level the playing field: Same player for both files, someone else switching them.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1598
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by diggo View Post
The bad part of Pono isnt the clunky device. The device is fine and dandy if the Toblerone form factor floats your boat. The bad part is testimonials from a bunch of famous people undoing decades of good work educating musicians and the pro audio community about the facts/science of digital audio and the limitations of the human auditory system.

Those same misguided testimonials are being used to milk millions of dollars from the public via Kickstarter. It's akin to a snake oil medicine show or religious roadshow handing around the collection bucket. Does this form of testimonial marketing from famous stars not bother people here on some level?

Pono isnt the problem. False claims being used to get money is the problem. Using famous people to market a product via exaggerated testimonials is the problem. Next we'll have celebrities claiming Pono cures cancer....

Nonsense like “You are getting less than 5 percent of the original recording”, which is not only an outright lie, it also completely ignores the factual, empirically proven science behind perceptual encoding. Aside from the 5% claim being inaccurate, he assumes that we actually hear 100% of a non-encoded audio file. We don’t! And we certainly don’t hear/perceive all of the information in a 24/192kHz stream.

Young is mostly aiming at lossy encoding, which is probably useful given the world can now accommodate lossless 16/44.1 without bursting data pipes. But there is no convincing evidence that highest quality lossy encoding is insufficient - most of the bad sounding stuff is due to low quality encoding or abuse of digital techniques. In particular, until MFiT came along, many in pro audio had no idea that lossy encoding of hypercompressed -0.03dBFS (or -0.3dBFS) audio masters inevitably results in clipping when encoded/decoded via lossy encoding algorithms.

As a playback format, lossless audio (FLAC or ALAC) is a good solution for playback deliverables and it already exists irrespective of Pono. For example, Linn does quite well selling 24/96 FLAC files. There's no need for 24/192. For well-produced audio, the difference between 24/96 and 24/44.1 as a playback format is rarely audible. For well-produced audio, the difference between 24 bit and 16 bit (as a playback format) is also rarely audible, yet Young and his cohorts claim the difference is "night and day".

I'm sure Young is sincere, but his pitch is completely over the top. His sneering at what he calls "low resolution digital" seems based on prejudices held since the early days of digital, superstition/myth and expectation bias, culminating in claims that are balderdash. In the absence of understanding, people just make stuff up to fit their prejudices. This seems particularly true of stars who might be great musicians, but poor at understanding complex technical information.

Once again, there is no question that abuse of digital techniques/workflows results in poor sounding deliverables, but we dont need Young or Pono to deal with that.

That said, here's one aspect of this discussion that might be very relevant and worthy of further investigation: hearing damage.

I strongly suspect Young's hearing is badly damaged due to a lifetime of high SPL abuse. Given his age and the damage, I suspect he is very sensitive to high mid distortion/resonance. I suspect the same applies to many of the mates Young enlisted for testimonials....and it probably also applies to (for example) Bob Dylan when he declared that lossy encoded audio is mush. Anyone who has worked with loud music for a long time would have this damage, but it particualrly applies to older people who also have age-related hearing loss - it's a kind of double whammy and must be factored into their perception.

People with such damage are known to be more sensitive to resonances at the boundary of their high frequency loss - this boundary may coincide with LPF in the algorithm of the lossy encoder. Such people may also be more sensitive to clipping caused by lossy encoding of excessively loud files. In this regard, such people would be like canaries in the coalmine, detecting such distortion before it is audible to undamaged ears. That might be worthy of further study, as it might partly explain why many older people are annoyed by playback which doesn’t annoy young people. A large percentage of people over 40yo who spent decades listening to loud, distorted music will have such damage. It would be even worse for people aged over 50 or 60yo.

The above would at least provide a rational explanation for Young's misguided passion.

I've been a lifelong fan of Neil Young's work, along with other artists who have visible cracks. In 1979 I could sit around a campfire and perform from memory every song Young had ever released. I was indifferent to the Eagles and America, but I loved the ragged glory of Young, CSNY, Crazy Horse, Dylan and The Band. CSNY devolved into their doppelganger America when Young was absent, but somehow became glorious when Young's rough edges were in the mix. Despite (or perhaps because of) all his personality flaws, Young has always been a Honesty Monitor on stage and I fully respect that. I also fully respect that he cares a lot about sound. I'm taking no pleasure in criticizing Young's actions.

I'm also a supporter of anything that improves audio for consumers and professionals, so I have no criticisms of Pono as a device.

Nonetheless, Pono would still be a worthwhile product without Young's outlandish claims and the OTT testimonials of his mates. If he used max sample rate of 96kHz instead of 192kHz the device would sound just as good. If he didnt denigrate countless excellent sounding 16 bit 44.1kHz CDs, Pono would still sound just as good.

He declares format as the enemy, when it seems to me the real enemies are poorly handled aliasing and abuse of dynamics via hypercompression and clipping. As previously mentioned, abuse of dynamics also results in clipping from intersample peaks when using lossy encoders, but this is dealt with via good initiatives such as MFiT. Full marks to Apple for basing MFiT on the scientific method.

In other words, poor techniques are the problem, not formats. Eliminate the poor decisions and you derive beautiful sounding CDs, beautiful sounding 320k MP3s and beautiful sounding 256k AAC. At least, this is my experience.

It's also interesting that Young doesnt try to make Pono sound like vinyl (for example). You know, roll off the lows and mono them so the nail doesnt jump out of the groove it's bouncing around in. Ever looked at a magnified stylus in a vinyl groove? It's UGLY down there!

Pono doesnt miraculously correct poor decisions made during recording, mixing and mastering. Pono doesnt "fix" anything.

Better education about best practice digital workflows is what actually fixes things. But of course fame doesnt guarantee technical expertise - Young and his mates seem to be propagating nonsense at least partly because they simply don’t understand the facts of digital audio and the facts of human auditory perception.

If we put aside Lavry's papers regarding optimal sample rates, AFAIK these are the only advantages applicable to 192kHz:

1. Lower latency when recording
2. When mixing and/or mastering, it reduces aliasing for processing involving non-linear algorithms
3. Statistically reduces incidence of intersample peaks exceeding 0dB when normalizing/limiting.

1 is irrelevant to playback format.
2 is useful, but already handled pretty well by oversampling algorithms within applicable nonlinear processes. This is mostly about cost vs benefit, as 192kHz consumes vast amounts of real estate and CPU cycles.
3 is also useful as long as the format remains at 192kHz, but it's already dealt with by initiatives like MFiT.

My conclusion? Pono is a useful initiative in some respects, but the associated rhetoric from Young and his proponents is very destructive.

An example: most people assume we can hear everything between 20Hz and 20kHz, because they only consider the frequency domain. What they fail to consider (or even refuse to accommodate after being informed) are the many limitations and compromises our auditory perception encounters in the time domain, such as the most obvious - temporal masking, which is exploited by lossy encoders.

We can only focus on bits at a time and we take lots of expedient shortcuts. This is an entirely subconscious process and we cannot stop it. There may be a lot of audio information between 20Hz and 20kHz, but we _never_ perceive all of that information. We certainly can't rely on our auditory structures alone - perception requires heavy data processing in the brain. We've had millions of years of evolution to build stored procedures in our subconscious which focus on what matters (from a natural selection perspective) and discard and/or interpolate information evolution has determined is less important (and can be predicted to sufficient accuracy via interpolation etc).

We drop info just like lossy encoders drop info - the entire point of lossy encoders is they discard the same info our auditory perception discards. The encoders know the tricks we use. Results vary in accordance with the algorithm of course, but some people just find it impossible to fully accept that perceptual coding works at all, just like Nigel Tufnel can't accept that his guitar amp volume knob which "goes to 11" is no different to a volume knob which "only goes to 10".

No one is claiming lossy encoders are perfect, but highest quality lossy encoding is not as bad as Young claims.

And Pono is very likely not as good as he claims.

Learning more about damaged hearing and age-related hearing loss could be a good outcome from all this palaver.
Excellent post. Quoted in its entirety for those that might have missed it first time round.

Alistair
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1599
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Presumably they thought that's what they were doing when they developed 96khz, or 24 bit.
They don't change the laws of thermodynamics when they improve combustion engines. In the same vein, you can't improve the Shannon-Nyquist sampling theorem because it is a mathematically proven fact.

Alistair
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1600
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
It's a turf war over costs and customers. Customers want content. Every tech company is falling over themselves to supply content, from Apple to Google, from Samsung to Spotify, from Netflix to iiNet and telstra (my two local ISP's who both sell online television). The content creators aren't even in the conversation.
The Tech companies are fighting artist's rights and copyright solely to gain access to the content without having to pay very much for it.

People want music and movies on their new smartphone or iPad device. They don't want to sit for hours uploading DVD's to some coding program, or dropping their favourite CD tracks into iTunes. They want to download cheap to acquire content on their latest gadget, and they want to do it fast.
Just like supermarket's with loyalty programs, all the tech companies want to become the dominant player.
In your confusion you missed one gigantic point: Monty Montgommery is actually against the big tech giants and how they want to control content delivery and technological standards.

Alistair
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1601
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow'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?
Are you suggesting that everyone that sells something has the buyers best interest at heart?

Alistair
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1602
Gear Addict
I just ran across another data point that supports the thesis that high-res digital itself is not necessarily the cure for what ails bad-sounding recordings. It came from a surprising source.

Carole King's classic "Tapestry" album is available in hi-res now from HDtracks. It was reviewed in The Absolute Sound (one of those dreaded audiophile mags ), and, amazingly enough, the reviewer said the hi-res versions sounded no better than the CD. Particularly the 24/96, which was said to sound worse, with "pale" tonality and restrained dynamics.

Obviously, GIGO. The Pono hoopla over 192 is more of a sales gimmick than anything else ... they needed something, I guess. Just as sports car makers tout their horsepower numbers, even though they don't necessarily improve the driving experience.

For Pono to succeed, they'll need to make sure their product is indeed audibly superior to what's already available. And charge reasonable prices for it.

Cheers,
Eddie
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1603
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
The main differences being the latest measurement of science is already waiting to be made obsolete by the next discovery.
Actually the measurements (or maths) don't change significantly. It is the theories and conclusions about those measurements that (sometimes) change. Sure, measurements get more and more precise but not in very large measures when it comes to anything on the human scale or is humanly perceivable. Apples still fall to earth at the same speed since Newton's day. That isn't about to change even if we can measure that speed to an ever increasing precision.

When it comes to testing people's ability to hear a difference, a test with a binary yes/no output, it would be a huge reach to think that a tester or testing software somehow gets confused about whether the respondent is answering or clicking yes or no. The whole ABX testing methodology insures that the only variable being tested is the ability of the person being tested to hear a difference (with no taste or preference subjectivity).

Quote:
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.
They are called fools because they refuse to accept the evidence of the fallibility of their senses. There is absolutely no possible doubt about expectation bias and placebo effect on the one hand but there is, at the very least, huge doubt about there being any audible difference for delivery between different sample rates in well designed converters. Some people refuse to accept the science because it means accepting the fallibility of their senses. It is a hug ego trip and has nothing to do with logic or reason. That is the foolish part.

Quote:
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.
No one is arguing that there will be no new scientific discoveries. That doesn't mean that we can't already perfectly well test whether people can or can not perceive something. And most importantly, the scientifically minded adhere to Occam's Razor. There needs to be overwhelming evidence to disprove a scientific theory. There is absolutely no reliable evidence that anyone can hear a difference between sample rates for delivery so the rational minds accept that we probably can't. When any such evidence surfaces, the scientifically minded will accept the new theories derived from the new evidence.

Btw, no measurement ever indicated that the earth was flat. It was people trusting their senses (and blind religious dogma) that made them believe the earth was flat. Science, all the way back to the Egyptian times, clearly and without doubt indicated that the earth was round.

Alistair
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1604
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
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.
No one is dismissing your right to buy snake oil but some of us will address the faulty premises you base your choices on.

Alistair
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1605
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
We do not fully understand the way the mind processes audio.
We don't need to. All we need to do is determine whether people can distinguish a difference. It is a simple yes or no question.

Quote:
As each person, each ear and each acoustic listening environment is unique, it's arguably folly to say we know what people need.
If we can determine that people can not distinguish a difference then that is all we need to know.

Alistair
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1606
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Agreed.
Once you start attacking the person you stop putting forward a valid alternative view.
Entirely and fully agreed! (Talking about you here).

Alistair
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1607
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
It's not his political stance, it's that the site he's publishing his theories on is avowed to counter copyright and the music industry.
So it is not about his political stance but it is about his political stance.

Alistair
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1608
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow'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.
It is isn't it! And even more amazing that Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier (1768–1830) figured out what he did when he did! And not just the Fourier Series stuff. He figured out the Greenhouse Effect! The power of science, mathematics and rational logical minds is truly amazing!

Alistair
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1609
Lives for gear
You know, there IS a place where psychoacoustic research could change the music delivery paradigm. We know that what we hear when we play back music bears little resemblance to the music in the room, it's simply not possible to sample (with a mic) audio waves the same way that they're presented to the ear. It theoretically would be possible to process audio (note, not using higher frequencies or less dynamics but probably changing phase and using reverbs targeted at the mechanism of hearing, not a specific building) to make the process more closely align with the experience of "being in the room". And that might require bigger files to hold the processing data. But more samples at higher resolution simply isn't going to make sound any more real.

Better playback systems? Yeah. Better filters, speakers and amplifiers? Of course. Remind me why Pono needs a Kickstarter to sell a better playback system to people who want a better playback system? Oh yeah, marketing. Remind me why Neil Young is helping other artists make Pono rich? At best because he hears a difference he doesn't understand (better quality masters) at worst because he gets to sell new copies of all those great old songs.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1610
Quite remarkable that some one went to the trouble of picking my posts apart line by line to refute my personal opinion from pages ago.
Anyway, I don't think anyone on this forum will ever agree whether 44.1/16 bit is the be all end all or not. Maybe it is.
I too agreed with Diggo's excellent post.
Releasing old albums at a premium cost at some incredible quality level that no one is sure is even necessary is not the solution to the music industry's woes, or even artist's woes.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1611
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
The main differences being the latest measurement of science is already waiting to be made obsolete by the next discovery.
this is incorrect. This is the Creationist viewpoint, whereby they can fervently "hope" that one day Biology and Cosmology and Geology will be all "reversed" and the Earth WILL turn out to be 6,000 years old, with Adam and Eve riding their pet dinosaurs to Church every Sunday.

Your understanding of how 'revolutions' in science actually work is lacking.

Measurements might get refined to a closer level of exactitude, but measurements will not magically change to "something else". The measurement of the speed an object falls in Earth's gravity is 32 feet per second per second. This is what is known as a scientific fact. Whatever new discoveries and theories about the nature of gravity that will occur in the future, objects falling in the Earth's gravitational field will not be measured faster or slower to any significant degree.

Experiment after experiment gets the same result.

Newton's laws have been 'superseded' by Einstein's equations, but unless you are traveling at or near the speed of light, they still work the same as before here on Earth. An artillery shell or a baseball still goes where it goes as calculated before - even though the thing we once thought was a "force" acting on the projectile is now understood as a "curvature" of space. But don't hold your breath waiting for things to naturally "fall up" on their own - no matter how much more we "learn", it isn't going to happen.

The measurement of the limits of human hearing is a similar measurement. It was done in the same careful, repeatable ways. It has been measured by conscious, subconscious and even physiological means. Raising of hands, listening to musical material, even electrodes implanted in the brain. All these tests give the same result: human hearing tops out at about 20k. When experiment after experiment after experiment all agree, it is no longer a matter of your opinion.

Yet we see the Audio Creationists rejecting the measurements and 'holding out' for a higher value. I am sure some people can hear the difference between 44.1 and 192, but what leads them to insist that "ultrasonics" must be the reason why? Isn't it possible there are other cues in the audible range? Why do they lock their jaws on this particular sock like a Jack Russel terrier?

Is there a group of individuals who feel it is not "fair" that objects don't fall faster in Earth's gravity? Are they actively lobbying for a different measurement? As far as I can tell, no.

My question for you and the rest of the Creationists is this: how many experiments are necessary? How many measurements have to get the same result before you are ready to accept it and MOVE ON to something else? This is how the science that built the computer and internet that you are making your anti-scientific arguments on was made. By accepting the results of what has been learned before and building upon them. Not by "hoping" things will measure differently in the future.


Quote:

”As Deepak Chopra taught us, quantum physics means anything can happen at any time for no reason!

—Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1612
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Oh dear.......I seem to have triggered lots of science avalanches. Much of which is adding words in my mouth that never came nor would come out. Should have known better than to stir the pot. Knock yourselves out with being right, chaps. Hope it makes you feel better.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1613
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
...Are you claiming that Shannon's standards can never be eclipsed?...
...You're asking me to accept the digital music standard settled on thirty years ago is as good as it gets. End of story, case closed?...
Shannon's standards won't be eclipsed however they will also never be achieved using real world technology. What was settled on thirty years ago was a 50 to 60 kHz. sample rate at 21 bit precision. 44.1x16 was never considered ideal. It was a compromise that allowed using off the shelf Sony and Philips video technology to distribute digital audio.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1614
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drbob1 View Post
...44/16 was chosen because it met the requirements of Shannon/Nyquist,
This isn't true and it doesn't meet Shannon/Nyquist requirements. It was the highest quality that could be edited without a mainframe and mass produced on a vinyl line using off the shelf videodisk technology. This allowed Sony and Philips to get digital music on the market years ahead of anybody else.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1615
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
Shannon's standards won't be eclipsed however they will also never be achieved using real world technology.
It is achieved every day in countless ADC's and DAC's all over the world (allowing for a small margin for any needed filtering). The vast majority of which are not in audio.

Quote:
What was settled on thirty years ago was a 50 to 60 kHz.
Until the technology was sufficiently advanced to do over-sampling converters and move most of the anti-aliasing and anti-imaging filtering duties into the digital domain.

Quote:
44.1x16 was never considered ideal.
No it wasn't initially but great advances in converter engineering has made 44.1 Khz sampling good enough to be fully transparent (until anyone can give any valid evidence to the contrary...) As for 16 bit, it isn't ideal but in the gigantic majority of listening environments, if you align the dither noise floor of 16 bit with the noise floor in the room you can have peaks at over 130 dB SPL. More than sufficient for humans.

Alistair
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1616
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
This isn't true and it doesn't meet Shannon/Nyquist requirements.
Which requirements doesn't it meet?

Alistair
Old 23rd March 2014
  #1617
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
Oh dear.......I seem to have triggered lots of science avalanches. Much of which is adding words in my mouth that never came nor would come out. Should have known better than to stir the pot. Knock yourselves out with being right, chaps. Hope it makes you feel better.
In other words... I don't understand the response and can't argue logically so I'm outta here.
Old 23rd March 2014
  #1618
mixmixmix
Guest
I've spent many hours listening / experimenting / doing blind tests with hi rez recordings. Conclusion - can't really hear the difference, and rarely when I do, it is so marginal, can't be bothered to pursue it. Happily settled for 44.1 / 16 bits, one less thing to worry about. Overall, Pono is just another tool for labels to resell old catalogues. However there is a positive side to Pono - it will enhance listening experience for many owners ( as a placebo effect sort of thing ). And this is a benefit.
Old 23rd March 2014
  #1619
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
Oh dear.......I seem to have triggered lots of science avalanches. Much of which is adding words in my mouth that never came nor would come out. Should have known better than to stir the pot. Knock yourselves out with being right, chaps. Hope it makes you feel better.
It isnt about you.
Old 23rd March 2014
  #1620
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

What I find really odd is that all of us agree that recordings aren't perfect.

Not even close with current technology.

Yet some of us think it will be closer if we capture frequencies that none of us can hear. OK. Maybe we hear them thru our noses or our eyes.

Of course, this negates the fact that most of us have other gear in our chain that doesn't go above 20kHz either.

But isn't it much more likely that the accuracy or details that we're missing is in the audible range?

We're just not capturing it with sophisticated enough tools?

I mean, think about what a microphone is. It's amazing that we can get as close as we do.

Compare this to video. Is video look exactly like real life?

No. They're not "there" yet either.

But do they focus on the areas that we can't see? Or the ones we can?

We know something is missing. Even if it's not. We always want better.

How many people here can build a better microphone? A better speaker?

So our brains tend to focus on what we can change. Even if it's not the thing that needs changing.
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