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 1st April 2014
  #2071
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkorten View Post
Sorry was meant as a joke. I will edit and remove in case the police are watching...
heh

You're a good guy.
Old 1st April 2014
  #2072
Here for the gear
 
bdiament's Avatar
 

Hi bogosort,

Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
Hi Barry, thanks for the reply. It is interesting that you hear a large improvement in the bass frequencies, which intuitively should be the least affected by higher sampling rates. Some sources claim that certain types of jitter distortion are audible in the low end and can actually contribute to a "warmer" sound; perhaps clock issues are a contributing factor?...
No, that's not it. It sounds more like the real thing coming in from the mic feeds and what I hear when I stand at the position of the mic array at the recording session.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
As for any improvement in transient response, the problem is that transient response is frequency response in any linear system. They are two sides of the same coin, so if the ear cannot hear beyond 20 kHz then its transient response must be limited as well...
If you reread my posts, you'll see that I'm not talking about beyond 20 kHz. Research done half a century ago showed that in order to get proper temporal response at x Hz, the system needs a bandwidth of 5x Hz.

Further, transient response is a temporal measurement, while frequency response is an amplitude measurement. One affects the other but that is not the same as them being the same thing. It is quite possible to have a flat frequency response and a very poor time response. And vice versa.

***
As to the rest, it seems you and I don't share the same perspective and that's fine. We also have different perspectives on why folks get "riled up". Personally, I'm wary of anyone who is out to "save me". (Why don't folks simply say "I listened and I don't hear it."? If there were more among the naysayers that had the *confidence* to say that publicly, instead of trying to claim to have access to what others experience, there would be fewer "riled up" folks.)

Enjoy whatever you choose to listen to.
And with that, I'm out of this thread.

Best regards,
Barry
Soundkeeper Recordings
The Soundkeeper | Audio, Music, Recording, Playback
Barry Diament Audio
Old 1st April 2014
  #2073
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
Getting rid of lower midrange mud improves both bass and transient response. Real world 44.1 recording and processing causes that mud. If you've got $5000 a channel converters, not so much but the real world stuff has that problem with lower midrange opaqueness that using higher sample rates solves.

It isn't about recording bat calls. It's about maintaining pristine audio below 20kHz.
But if the convertors are the problem, shouldn't we be fixing those? (although I guess the Pono will address that)

It just seems like using high res audio to combat crappy convertors is a lot like using anti-bacterial forks to eat spoiled meat.
Old 1st April 2014
  #2074
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
Getting rid of lower midrange mud improves both bass and transient response. Real world 44.1 recording and processing causes that mud.
I really don't understand this, can you please elaborate? How does recording at a higher sample rate impact what is happening in the mid range?
Old 1st April 2014
  #2075
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
I really don't understand this, can you please elaborate? How does recording at a higher sample rate impact what is happening in the mid range?
I was thinking about asking the same thing.

I'm afraid the answer will be one of those "it just does" assertions.

No one should doubt Bob O's deep experience and practical grasp of studio practice, but sometimes his assertions about technology and science seem out of step with accepted technical understanding, not to mention the insights provided by objective measure.



Quote:
Originally Posted by bdiament
If you reread my posts, you'll see that I'm not talking about beyond 20 kHz. Research done half a century ago showed that in order to get proper temporal response at x Hz, the system needs a bandwidth of 5x Hz.
Apologies for jumping in, as I'm not bogosort, but...

Link to that? Because I'm not aware of any currently accepted science that suggests that.

The math is quite clear and the objective measurement backs it up: phase information of audio signals up to band limit will be accurately captured. Those who don't 'get' this would certainly seem to not understand the science of sampling.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.
Old 1st April 2014
  #2076
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkorten View Post
Another two phenomena to add to your list above as to why higher sample rates sound so much better. The pre-ring of the filter: This is what I think makes a piano sound so bizarre and rubbery to me at 44.1. And then the beating of the digital filter ringing with upper harmonics of acoustic instruments.
Careful anti-alias/anti-image filter design is an obvious requirement of good conversion, though both are significantly more easy to accomplish with modern oversampling converters. With wider transition bands, filter designers have more room to keep phase issues out of the passband without necessarily resorting to linear phase filters. Have you tested the impulse response of your converter for pre-ringing?
Old 1st April 2014
  #2077
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
Getting rid of lower midrange mud improves both bass and transient response. Real world 44.1 recording and processing causes that mud. If you've got $5000 a channel converters, not so much but the real world stuff has that problem with lower midrange opaqueness that using higher sample rates solves.
How does 44.1 recording/processing create lower midrange mud? I use reasonably priced RME converters at 44.1 and do not experience any such phenomenon.

Quote:
It isn't about recording bat calls. It's about maintaining pristine audio below 20kHz.
But for many it is about recording bat calls. This is a "war" on two fronts: some believe that quad rates improve the capture of 20 to 20k, others believe that the stuff from 22k to 90k is a factor in music appreciation.
Old 1st April 2014
  #2078
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkorten View Post
BTW bogosort - humor aside

My son had his buddy over from Music School (U of M) graduating this year came to the city looking for potential job prospects. My son wanted him to hear LPs so he sat down in front of my stereo system. Listened to some LPs he had CDs of and other. Turned to me, forlorn as he has only heard CDs all his life and said to me... "It's not fair." He felt he arrived too late on the scene for the good sound.

Next time he comes over, I'll take him through the HD digital comparisons.
Yeah man, I don't doubt that. The masters for old vinyl are so much better than the majority of CD masters. My Dark Side of the Moon CD (from the early 90s) is basically unlistenable compared to my vinyl copy, but that has nothing to do with analog/digital. It's the mastering!
Old 1st April 2014
  #2079
Lives for gear
 
baslotto's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
Getting rid of lower midrange mud improves both bass and transient response. Real world 44.1 recording and processing causes that mud.
Bob, in 20+ years of following your posts like a religion for the first time I feel puzzled from your statement. Is it possible that sample rate affects a specific frequency range of the material we record and mix? Assuming the converters are fine, I mean.
Old 1st April 2014
  #2080
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by O.F.F. View Post
My machine was adjusted for TDK and they came with this spare piece of cardboard which was the best roach material around.
i Like your style!
Old 1st April 2014
  #2081
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdiament View Post
What do I think accounts for the differences? Much better transient response and much better dynamic response.
[/url]
this is interesting. not just concentrating on our hearing from a Nyquist point of view, but also from a time point of view. also part of how our brain organises, recognises, appreciates, etc.

music appreciation uses more parts of our brain than any other single activity we can give our brain to do. if we are just concentrating on the ear limitations in what frequencies we can possibly hear, maybe we are missing something elsewhere. maybe some people have a sensitivity in parts of the brain that does, indeed, create a recognisable difference to them. if they can prove it to themselves, then who am i to say it cannot be?
Old 1st April 2014
  #2082
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdiament View Post
If you reread my posts, you'll see that I'm not talking about beyond 20 kHz. Research done half a century ago showed that in order to get proper temporal response at x Hz, the system needs a bandwidth of 5x Hz.
Hi Barry. I didn't catch that you were talking about in-band; my apologies. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by temporal resolution -- if you could point me to the research I'd be happy to read it. In the meantime, if you're referring to the sampling theorem, Shannon showed that a baseband signal with bandwidth less than B Hz can be completely characterized by sampling it at a rate of 2B Hz.

Quote:
Further, transient response is a temporal measurement, while frequency response is an amplitude measurement. One affects the other but that is not the same as them being the same thing. It is quite possible to have a flat frequency response and a very poor time response. And vice versa.
This is incorrect. One can say that the frequency response is contained in the transient response (and vice versa), or that the frequency response is determined by the transient response (and vice versa). But one cannot say that they are independent.

Quote:
As to the rest, it seems you and I don't share the same perspective and that's fine. We also have different perspectives on why folks get "riled up". Personally, I'm wary of anyone who is out to "save me". (Why don't folks simply say "I listened and I don't hear it."? If there were more among the naysayers that had the *confidence* to say that publicly, instead of trying to claim to have access to what others experience, there would be fewer "riled up" folks.)
It's a fair question: why don't I simply say, "I listened and I didn't hear a difference" and leave it at that? Well, I love music and music production, and I also happen to be really interested in the science and engineering behind it. If someone told me they could identify a hundred species of flower just by their smell, I would shrug. Because I don't care about flowers and am not particularly fascinated by olfactory processes. But you are claiming that there is a wonderful way to capture and reproduce music that not only gets us closer to the sound of the source, it's like turning on the lights. I'm certainly not going to shrug at such claims.
Old 1st April 2014
  #2083
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bdiament View Post
***
We also have different perspectives on why folks get "riled up".
I personally get "riled up" when someone tries to sell me a much more expensive product, that uses much more expensive content, says it is like "coming up for air" and attributes that difference to sample rate and bit depth. I have experienced those exact same resolutions in my control room, and the difference was subtle at best.

I also get riled up when people present myths as facts, and when people use those myths to explain "why" something is happening before they have even proven "that" it is actually happening. Call me crazy, but I just don't believe the shared reality is actually "up for grabs".


Quote:
(Why don't folks simply say "I listened and I don't hear it."?
Well we do. And we also pointedly state that we listened blindfolded. Then the Believers imply that something is wrong my hearing, when their "test" was a sighted listening.

That's pretty "riling" right there
Old 1st April 2014
  #2084
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ionian View Post
Wow...that's brushing some rust off my memory! I want to say it was Metal Type IV but I could remember it saying "BASF Chrome" on the cassette. It was the white cassette label with the dark blue stripe on the label with the logo in silver.

I remember buying the 10 pack because it came with this silver, foam lined cassette case. I guess the marketing worked on me! haha

Frank
I remember those, right down to the silver case. (Still have a couple.) I had a pair of Nakamichi 482 series decks, modified to put the bias and level trimmers on the front panel. I also trimmed the EQ to match the decks to each other (there were jumpers on the PC board). I could never get those BASF "Chromdioxid" tapes to line up quite right, they were somewhat recessed in the upper midrange. The later Chromdioxid II were better.

Nostalgia... it isn't what it used to be.
Old 1st April 2014
  #2085
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
This is incorrect. One can say that the frequency response is contained in the transient response (and vice versa), or that the frequency response is determined by the transient response (and vice versa). But one cannot say that they are independent.
haven't we been debating the limitations of our human capacity in relation to frequency response? what is the human capacity to determine differences in transient response timing? if they are not independent, it makes timing even more important.
Old 1st April 2014
  #2086
Sound quality or better fidelity is hardly the issue facing the music business.
Old 1st April 2014
  #2087
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by baslotto View Post
...Assuming the converters are fine, I mean.
You can't assume that and you can't assume all of the filters employed in signal processing are transparent nor any up-sample/down-sample process involved in the signal processing. We aren't simply recording and reproducing audio. We are crunching the grunt out of those numbers.

All signal processing causes degradation and additional signal processing causes more degradation. The one and only time digital isn't exactly as fragile as analog is when you clone a file. Anything else is digital magical thinking. Leaving the audio up near the sample rate where it was captured rather than letting the converter chip down-sample it on the fly simply seems to preserve it better.
Old 1st April 2014
  #2088
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
haven't we been debating the limitations of our human capacity in relation to frequency response? what is the human capacity to determine differences in transient response timing? if they are not independent, it makes timing even more important.
A transient event can be characterized by its rise time -- how quickly it goes from zero to some amplitude. If the rise time slope is infinite (straight up), then its rise time is 0. Such a signal would have an infinity of frequencies at infinite energy. On the other hand, if the rise time is infinite -- i.e., it never changes -- then it is DC and has 0 frequency. You can see that time and frequency are reciprocals of each other: as rise time goes down, frequency goes up (and vice versa).

Human hearing behaves like a steep LPF. What happens if you physically create a very sharp transient that's much too fast for the ear to hear? It's applied to our natural LPF and (from our perspective) becomes smoothed: the rise time is reduced.
Old 1st April 2014
  #2089
Lives for gear
 
matyas's Avatar
 

Why is it that every time high-resolution audio is discussed on this forum, the same chorus of would-be debunkers shows up in an effort to prove that they alone understand digital audio? Really, going after Bob Ohlsson smacks of arrogance, rather than understanding. The man's reputation speaks for itself. He came up through the old system, in which understanding the basic principles of audio on a very deep technical level was a prerequisite to going anywhere near the equipment. The guy was around and working in studios when digital gear first made an appearance. I daresay that he understands sampling theory.
Old 1st April 2014
  #2090
Lives for gear
 

Is just possible that the over the top enthusiastic responses to Pono experience by all those famous musicians is ever so slightly influenced by a thought of selling their back catalogues all over again?
Old 1st April 2014
  #2091
Quote:
Originally Posted by faramita View Post
Is just possible that the over the top enthusiastic responses to Pono experience by all those famous musicians is ever so slightly influenced by a thought of selling their back catalogues all over again?
It's possible; it's also possible it sounds as good as they say...until we get to hear Pono we won't know for sure.
Old 1st April 2014
  #2092
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
A transient event can be characterized by its rise time -- how quickly it goes from zero to some amplitude. If the rise time slope is infinite (straight up), then its rise time is 0. Such a signal would have an infinity of frequencies at infinite energy.

Human hearing behaves like a steep LPF. What happens if you physically create a very sharp transient that's much too fast for the ear to hear? It's applied to our natural LPF and (from our perspective) becomes smoothed: the rise time is reduced.
i highlighted the two areas of interest. the issue of frequency has been debated. i understand the theories. how about the capture of energy? how about how the brain perceives the "naturalness" of that captured energy?
Old 1st April 2014
  #2093
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by matyas View Post
Really, going after Bob Ohlsson smacks of arrogance, rather than understanding. The man's reputation speaks for itself. He came up through the old system, in which understanding the basic principles of audio on a very deep technical level was a prerequisite to going anywhere near the equipment. The guy was around and working in studios when digital gear first made an appearance. I daresay that he understands sampling theory.
I don't think Bob needs anyone to defend him (or his reputation).

By the way, the last word in your last sentence, though probably not given much thought, is nonetheless a critical mistake. It's the sampling theorem; it's not a theory.
Old 1st April 2014
  #2094
Lives for gear
 
matyas's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
I don't think Bob needs anyone to defend him (or his reputation).

By the way, the last word in your last sentence, though probably not given much thought, is nonetheless a critical mistake. It's the sampling theorem; it's not a theory.
I meant theory in the sense of an abstract body of knowledge, in the same sense in which it is employed in such terms as number theory, color theory, music theory, etc. Perhaps "the theory behind digital audio" would have better conveyed what I was trying to express.
Old 1st April 2014
  #2095
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
simply put. the more sampling points, the more energy captured. even harmonics outside of our hearing would still be intrinsically aligned with energy. if we are sensitive to energy changes, we would be "listening to" or processing the effects of the harmonics on the energy capture. or am i missing something fundamental?
Old 1st April 2014
  #2096
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
i highlighted the two areas of interest. the issue of frequency has been debated. i understand the theories. how about the capture of energy? how about how the brain perceives the "naturalness" of that captured energy?
I'm not sure exactly what you mean but I'm guessing that it's something along the lines of how when we hear a "strings" patch on a synthesizer, it does not sound "natural" like a real string section does. But this is a more general problem: does a voice recorded by a microphone and played back through speakers sound natural? Personally, I think we've come to accept what mic'd voices sound like, but I wouldn't call it a natural sound.

That said, converters translate electrical (analog) signals into digital. If the electrical signal is unnatural sounding, so will be the digital. Maybe one day some brilliant engineer will invent a direct "universe to digital" converter, bypassing the whole current/voltage step entirely.
Old 1st April 2014
  #2097
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by matyas View Post
I meant theory in the sense of an abstract body of knowledge, in the same sense in which it is employed in such terms as number theory, color theory, music theory, etc. Perhaps "the theory behind digital audio" would have better conveyed what I was trying to express.
Gotcha, my apologies then.
Old 1st April 2014
  #2098
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
simply put. the more sampling points, the more energy captured. even harmonics outside of our hearing would still be intrinsically aligned with energy. if we are sensitive to energy changes, we would be "listening to" or processing the effects of the harmonics on the energy capture. or am i missing something fundamental?
Hmm. I think you're saying that ultrasonic energy might have a direct or indirect influence on us. Certainly it can: if I aim high-energy ultrasounds at your arm, it will burn! The big question is, what -- if any -- effects does it have on our enjoyment of music?

Personally I do not believe it has any. But if you do, then yes it is a given that higher sampling frequencies will better capture this energy. My goal is to keep it out of my signal path!
Old 1st April 2014
  #2099
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by matyas View Post
Why is it that every time high-resolution audio is discussed on this forum, the same chorus of would-be debunkers shows up in an effort to prove that they alone understand digital audio? Really, going after Bob Ohlsson smacks of arrogance, rather than understanding. The man's reputation speaks for itself. He came up through the old system, in which understanding the basic principles of audio on a very deep technical level was a prerequisite to going anywhere near the equipment. The guy was around and working in studios when digital gear first made an appearance. I daresay that he understands sampling theory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
... No one should doubt Bob O's deep experience and practical grasp of studio practice, but sometimes his assertions about technology and science seem out of step with accepted technical understanding, not to mention the insights provided by objective measure. ...
Yeah. What he said.
Bob, and others "in the trade", report cases where the real-world practical implementation falls short of the ideal theory. These are valuable insights. It's one thing to plot a route on a map but the real test is in travelling the route. They're the acknowledged experts in applying the technology. The arguments start when they try to explain the reasons for the shortcomings. In my opinion, that's better left to the "boffins".

For example:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
... Leaving the audio up near the sample rate where it was captured rather than letting the converter chip down-sample it on the fly simply seems to preserve it better.
... Except that the best performing convertors (subjectively and objectively) available today do this in order to function at all.

And:

Quote:
Originally Posted by bdiament View Post
... Research done half a century ago showed that in order to get proper temporal response at x Hz, the system needs a bandwidth of 5x Hz.

Further, transient response is a temporal measurement, while frequency response is an amplitude measurement. One affects the other but that is not the same as them being the same thing. It is quite possible to have a flat frequency response and a very poor time response. And vice versa. ...
If Barry returns, I'd be interested in him clarifying this. Like Bob's statement above, it certainly seems to contradict theory, but maybe he didn't mean it to read the way it does.

It boils down to the fact that some people believe they hear a difference. Other people say that it's physically impossible, they must be mistaken. There's rarely any objective proof that there really is a difference large enough to hear, but a blanket denial and "DBT, or it didn't happen" is not an appropriate response. Each case deserves to be investigated on its merits, rather like the justice systems in some countries where the process is focussed on finding the truth rather than on who makes the more conviincing arguments.
Old 1st April 2014
  #2100
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
The big question is, what -- if any -- effects does it have on our enjoyment of music?
well not if you are listening to a multi-tracked, overdubbed, digital reverb pop track. but a "carefully" recorded actual space with musicians playing together, might that not be a different matter? it is obvious the recording is a capture, but not exact duplicate, of a space charged with energy. i wonder what sort of music people abx test with when trying to hear differences.
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