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
  #2101
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
i'm interested in listening to Binaural recordings done at higher sample rates.

not Neil Young and others' back catalogue, even if they are taken from the tired old master!
Old 2nd April 2014
  #2102
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
i'm interested in listening to Binaural recordings done at higher sample rates.

not Neil Young and others' back catalogue, even if they are taken from the tired old master!
What do you imagine, beyond ultrasonics, that would be captured with higher sampling rate binaural recordings?
Old 2nd April 2014
  #2103
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
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.

What does that mean? Frequency domain, time domain, same information, different rotations in an abstract space.

What do you imagine the time response of a redbook CD to be?
Old 2nd April 2014
  #2104
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
simply put. the more sampling points, the more energy captured.
Not even remotely true. Barely even wrong, sorry.

Twice as many samples, half as much time per sample, energy is sample value * sample length.

Same energy, with the caveat that you may remove frequencies over 20kHz, which of course will reduce energy that was over 20kHz.
Old 2nd April 2014
  #2105
j_j
Lives for gear
The comment about 5x for transients simply misunderstands what a transient looks like when frequencies above a cutoff value are removed.

The 10x number was originally given for things like oscilloscopes, hence risetime specs, and how they relate to frequency response, etc.

This does not mean that the transient is missing any energy inside of a stated bandwidth however, it's precisely the same as saying you've removed energy outside the stated bandwidth.

Which reduces, again, to the question of what the bandwidth of hearing is. Time, frequency, same question.
Old 2nd April 2014
  #2106
Gear Head
 

I think the shape of the device will keep a ton of people from buying. A prism shape? Really. How weird in your pocket.
Old 2nd April 2014
  #2107
Lives for gear
 
matyas's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
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.
I don't necessarily disagree with any of that. For the record (and I've said it before), it makes perfect sense to insist that high sampling rates or even longer word lengths are completely unnecessary. However, real-life converters are not the same as the ideal converters postulated by theory. (Ever hear the joke about the physicist and the spherical, frictionless cow?) And psychoacoustics is a murky field, much of which is unfortunately highly subjective. This is why the opinions of experts are valuable.

As for shortcomings when people try to explain the reasons behind what they might be hearing, I concur. I am sorry to admit that some of the defenses of high-resolution audio made by some of its most vocal advocates are pretty embarrassing. That does not, however, invalidate the entire enterprise.
Old 2nd April 2014
  #2108
Lives for gear
 
matyas's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
The comment about 5x for transients simply misunderstands what a transient looks like when frequencies above a cutoff value are removed.

The 10x number was originally given for things like oscilloscopes, hence risetime specs, and how they relate to frequency response, etc.

This does not mean that the transient is missing any energy inside of a stated bandwidth however, it's precisely the same as saying you've removed energy outside the stated bandwidth.

Which reduces, again, to the question of what the bandwidth of hearing is. Time, frequency, same question.

While I am agnostic on the issue of human hearing beyond 20 kHz, it has been proposed that human hearing may be more sensitive to extremely fast transients than the measured performance of hearing with steady-state sine waves would suggest. A quick search pulled up this paper: The role of sensitivity to transients in th... [Adv Exp Med Biol. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI.

Note that I have not yet read this paper, and do not know what conclusion was reached. The point, however, is that some people think that the idea that the auditory system responds differently to transients than to the steady-state tones typically used in hearing tests is at least worth exploring. I repeat that I am agnostic on the issue until I can actually read some more on the subject.
Old 2nd April 2014
  #2109
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post

This does not mean that the transient is missing any energy inside of a stated bandwidth however, it's precisely the same as saying you've removed energy outside the stated bandwidth.
This is a commonly held belief by those who don't understand digital audio. How do I know that? I was one of 'em.
Old 2nd April 2014
  #2110
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by matyas View Post
I am sorry to admit that some of the defenses of high-resolution audio made by some of its most vocal advocates are pretty embarrassing. That does not, however, invalidate the entire enterprise.
This is a great point. And unfortunately, that video and their testimonials in some ways does more damage than good. As the minute we realize that the difference isn't even close to how it's being described, we immediately consider it B.S. and move one.
Old 2nd April 2014
  #2111
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
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".



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
People tell me something is purple when I thought it was blue. I accept it. Because I'm color blind. You probably don't have good high frequency hearing. This is caused by a lot of exposure to loud sounds, or your anatomy (how large are you?). People who are physically smaller have physically smaller eardrums which are better suited to hearing high frequencies. (Nothing to do with myths btw). A shared reality is really quite different based on each observer's sensing abilities. Sorry.
Old 2nd April 2014
  #2112
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
This is a great point. And unfortunately, that video and their testimonials in some ways does more damage than good. As the minute we realize that the difference isn't even close to how it's being described, we immediately consider it B.S. and move one.
And move one what? To the right?
Old 2nd April 2014
  #2113
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkorten View Post
People tell me something is purple when I thought it was blue. I accept it. Because I'm color blind. You probably don't have good high frequency hearing. This is caused by a lot of exposure to loud sounds, or your anatomy (how large are you?). People who are physically smaller have physically smaller eardrums which are better suited to hearing high frequencies. (Nothing to do with myths btw).
MY high frequency hearing is not the issue - even though I am short!

With respect to the 'superior sound quality' of Pono, I consider my physical hearing to be probably somewhere around average and my analytical listening skills to be considerably above average. If I am unimpressed with value of sky-high sampling rates, I suspect the typical consumer is also going to be unimpressed.

Quote:
A shared reality is really quite different based on each observer's sensing abilities.
With respect to ultrasonic perception, I am willing to accept the value of that single human specimen whose hearing extends farther than any other human being. Out of all such humans who have been fairly tested (i.e. not those who have "tested themselves" with sighted listening and are reporting their Placebos) the highest value seems to be right about 20kHz with nobody really getting much past that.

If I want to read about self-reported placebos, I will read an audiophile magazine review of cable lifters. If their hearing is as good as they say, if the inclusion of ultrasonic material actually makes the difference they say it makes - hell, if it makes a tenth of the difference they say it makes, then acing a blind test should not give them pause.

Still waiting for that one superhuman individual to show us his ultrasonic hearing. That is what I am referring to as "shared reality". If someone has different "sensing abilities" but those abilities disappear when he can't peek at the screen, then he doesn't really have them. At least not in the shared reality.
Old 2nd April 2014
  #2114
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkorten View Post
And move one what? To the right?
And do not collect $200.

I meant move on.
Old 2nd April 2014
  #2115
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkorten View Post
People tell me something is purple when I thought it was blue. I accept it. Because I'm color blind. You probably don't have good high frequency hearing. This is caused by a lot of exposure to loud sounds, or your anatomy (how large are you?). People who are physically smaller have physically smaller eardrums which are better suited to hearing high frequencies. (Nothing to do with myths btw). A shared reality is really quite different based on each observer's sensing abilities. Sorry.
This is exactly why I refuse to go on a diet.

I save soo much on hard drive storage.
Old 2nd April 2014
  #2116
Quote:
Originally Posted by matyas View Post
While I am agnostic on the issue of human hearing beyond 20 kHz, it has been proposed that human hearing may be more sensitive to extremely fast transients than the measured performance of hearing with steady-state sine waves would suggest. A quick search pulled up this paper: The role of sensitivity to transients in th... [Adv Exp Med Biol. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI.

Note that I have not yet read this paper, and do not know what conclusion was reached. The point, however, is that some people think that the idea that the auditory system responds differently to transients than to the steady-state tones typically used in hearing tests is at least worth exploring. I repeat that I am agnostic on the issue until I can actually read some more on the subject.
I agree - that is definitely worth exploring...unable to access full article here unfortunately...but did find this cited paper:
"Detection of Appearing and Disappearing Objects in Complex Acoustic Scenes"
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...one.0046167#s1
Old 2nd April 2014
  #2117
Lives for gear
Having skimmed the paper I don't think it helps us here, it merely talks about the ability of the brain to detect changes in stimuli that appear and disappear from the auditory field, it doesn't speak to how sharply the onset/offset of the tone is (the discussion of square waves and over 20k kHz partials and slew rates above), nor does it speak to sounds of a duration less than a single cycle of 20 kHz.
Old 2nd April 2014
  #2118
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
This is a commonly held belief by those who don't understand digital audio. How do I know that? I was one of 'em.
What exactly do you disagree with in j_j's post?
Old 2nd April 2014
  #2119
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

This article summed up my thoughts quite nicely.

Sound bite: Despite Pono's promise, experts pan HD audio - CNET
Old 2nd April 2014
  #2120
Lives for gear
The problem i see is that most people who give a damn already probably have a good home setup. I listen with ath m50s through an apogee rosseta all Flac. Im not so concerned about having that kind of quality on the go with purchasing a new hardware device, as it wouldnt matter much hooking it up at a party on a friends stereo,idock or earbuds. Now the file quality and software is a different story...

Imo the software delivery would be much better. Streaming Flac like netflix and the option to buy. Right now there isnt much in an easy consumer way to get it instantly at high quality. I rent blu ray from red box or wAtch netflix when i could just as easly pirate a movie on pirate bay for free...why dont i? Because netflix and redbox delivery method is cheap and instant...no waits or issues. It is not a morality thing what so ever. Its just more convient and im willing to pay the right price for the great service provided to me at a cost. That is the future...the high quality delivery method. I think that should be the focus and let the hardware come later once it catches on. Why not stream high quality flac through broadband over an iphone. Sure the converter and audio quality of the hardware is in question. But users who like it would have a reason to buy a product like a pono as an upgrade to the existing "service"
Old 2nd April 2014
  #2121
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
This is a commonly held belief by those who don't understand digital audio. How do I know that? I was one of 'em.
Really. Please explain exactly what you disagree with in my statement, and why.
Old 2nd April 2014
  #2122
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
Really. Please explain exactly what you disagree with in my statement, and why.
Sorry I wasn't clear, I was agreeing with you.. i.e., the fact that the samples happen more often doesn't mean faster transients, it only relates to the addition of higher frequency content.

The commonly held belief was that higher sample rate meant better transiient response.
Old 2nd April 2014
  #2123
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
Twice as many samples, half as much time per sample, energy is sample value * sample length.
i'm still unclear in my attempts to understand. please bear with me. sample value indicates the necessity of taking a measurement in order to assign a value. are you saying that fewer sample values * larger sample length is more accurate in capturing energy than more sample values * shorter sample length?
Old 2nd April 2014
  #2124
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
The commonly held belief was that higher sample rate meant better transiient response.
Higher sample rates DO mean better transient response.

The real debate is at what point it is audible (or if the mics will even capture it in the first place). For example you can't capture a 10kHz square wave with a 44.1k sample rate, but many will argue you don't need to since a 10khz square wave will just sound like a 10khz sine wave anyway.
Old 2nd April 2014
  #2125
Lives for gear
 

if a weak transient response is audible or not is directly linked to the quality of the rest of the system, and ear education. on 9 out of 10 rigs i cannot hear a meaningful difference between sample rates, but then i can't hear the difference between a pultec and a fultec on those systems either.
Old 2nd April 2014
  #2126
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyc View Post
Higher sample rates DO mean better transient response.
i am trying to ascertain whether this is true. on this page we have conflicting opinions. if a transient is a short time over which the amplitudes of the various components vary considerably before 'settling down' to establish a relatively unvarying spectrum (http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/Info.pdf), then how is it possible that fewer values mean better transient response capture?
Old 2nd April 2014
  #2127
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
i am trying to ascertain whether this is true. on this page we have conflicting opinions. if a transient is a short time over which the amplitudes of the various components vary considerably before 'settling down' to establish a relatively unvarying spectrum (http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/Info.pdf), then how is it possible that fewer values mean better transient response capture?
dV/dt - rate of change per unit time. If your time interval is larger - the rate of change is slower is one way to look at it, the sample rate is the real issue. If something goes up quickly and then slows down all within 2 milliseconds and you sample every half a millisecond you will catch the fast change and the slow change (with 4 samples). If you sample every 2 milliseconds you only catch the average change which includes the fast and the slow (with 1 sample).

If I understood the question correctly.
Old 2nd April 2014
  #2128
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
i still think the discussion in part, including the abx testing, is more about the performance of respective converters at different sample rates. We really should be labeling converters by their resolution, not by their sample rate to quote Bob Katz again. unless that variable is removed, where is the level playing field to hear a difference? i also trust a few ears in the industry based on my listening and what they say. their outlook and philosophy about music. it could all be bias. me, them. got to trust someone for the real world application of science though! (that is a bias as well. i know!)
Old 2nd April 2014
  #2129
Gear Maniac
 

Disappointing response from the majors on this one. So far at least.

Have any of the big labels come out to say they will make suitable material available? In genuine hi-rez or 'audiophile' masters?

The Pono team seems a bit light on this side of the equation as well. No director for content or liaison. Site design and build doesn't seem to get as much love as the hardware and marketing guys either.

Without better quality, not simply upsampled, content with a friendly delivery system this is simply a phone you cannot make calls on.
Old 2nd April 2014
  #2130
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonaldDumsfeld View Post
Disappointing response from the majors on this one. So far at least.

Have any of the big labels come out to say they will make suitable material available? In genuine hi-rez or 'audiophile' masters?

The Pono team seems a bit light on this side of the equation as well. No director for content or liaison. Site design and build doesn't seem to get as much love as the hardware and marketing guys either.

Without better quality, not simply upsampled, content with a friendly delivery system this is simply a phone you cannot make calls on.
all true. Chesky can offer you this selection. a small start and pricey in comparison to cd quality. it is 192/24 all the way though.
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