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 3rd April 2014
  #2221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
There is more than the limits of hearing range in play here. It is also how the brain is interpreting what the ears are sending it.
If a sound is outside of hearing range, how is the brain going to interpret it?

Really, let's inject some common sense and logic into this. Some people are just saying things that don't make a lick of sense here.
Old 3rd April 2014
  #2222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
That would be a great argument if we were talking a one of.

However there is a pattern established. Time after time the result is repeated, in at least 20 cases for my own experience. The other fact here is that I also have most of the vinyl releases of these, some of which I have owned and become very familiar with over many decades. The SACD in almost every case sounds identical to the vinyl release other than the added flaws in the vinyl. It certainly appears that they came from the same master. And I know these masters in some of those cases were tape masters because the records were made before digital mastering even existed.

I did find some that were manipulated either in further mastering, or downright changes in the mix, most obvious SACD's that come to mind are Frampton Comes Alive', and Boston, 'Boston'. They sound horrible.
"The SACD in almost every case sounds identical to the vinyl release other than the added flaws in the vinyl." And the 'added flaws in the vinyl' are -- of COURSE -- everything you don't hear in the SACD version, right?

Have you ever really investigated what goes on when vinyl records are mastered? I've been to cutting sessions. It's a sausage factory. You have to make a lot of compromises, as a rule, to get a good, coherent signal into the groove without noticeable problems. As we all know (don't we?), the needle speed of an LP is much faster (meaning far greater potential fidelity) at the outside of the groove and degrades as one moves to the center. The angle of tonearm to groove is a continuous compromise (unless one uses a 'linear tracking' turntable, in which case, a large number of practical design problems often seems to result in tracking performance degraded in other fashions, which is why few true audiophiles use them). And it goes on. I mean... what a peculiar reference.
Old 3rd April 2014
  #2223
Gear Maniac
 

I'll bite.

Let's have a Pono TV. Colour and 3D are so 1 dimensional. We need gamma rays. And microwaves. X-rays be nice too.

Come to think of it. Why stop with the electromagnetic spectrum.

Neutrinos might be weightless, chargeless, fairly small , only have 1/2 integer spin and bit tricky to spot for the average guy. That scene in Casablanca simply will not be the same unless it has the correct mix of tau, muon and electron neutrinos invisibly enhancing the background.
Old 3rd April 2014
  #2224
Lives for gear
 
GJ999x's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonaldDumsfeld View Post
I'll bite.

Let's have a Pono TV. Colour and 3D are so 1 dimensional. We need gamma rays. And microwaves. X-rays be nice too.

Come to think of it. Why stop with the electromagnetic spectrum.

Neutrinos might be weightless, chargeless, fairly small , only have 1/2 integer spin and bit tricky to spot for the average guy. That scene in Casablanca simply will not be the same unless it has the correct mix of tau, muon and electron neutrinos invisibly enhancing the background.
Scott Bakula and Tom Selleck have started a justgive page for this. They want to recapture the magic of 70s and 80s TV.
Old 3rd April 2014
  #2225
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timesaver800W View Post
at which point you're essentially talking about a dsd converter, which has little to do with pcm sample rate.

perpetual moment of doh, continue!
DSD is nothing more or less than a kind of PCM, so what were you saying again?
Old 3rd April 2014
  #2226
Lives for gear
 
O.F.F.'s Avatar
 

Just for fun here is what wiki has to say about DSD and PCM

DSD vs. PCM[edit]

There has been much controversy between proponents of DSD and PCM over which encoding system is superior. In 2001, Stanley Lip****z and John Vanderkooy from the University of Waterloo stated that one-bit converters (as employed by DSD) are unsuitable for high-end applications due to their high distortion. Even 8-bit, four-times-oversampled PCM with noise shaping, proper dithering and half data rate of DSD has better noise floor and frequency response.[33] In 2002, Philips published a convention paper arguing against the contrary.[34] Lip****z and Vanderkooy's paper has been criticized by Jamie Angus.[35] Lip****z and Vanderkooy later responded.[36]
There are fundamental distortion mechanisms present in the conventional implementation of DSD.[37] These distortion mechanisms can be alleviated to some degree by using digital converters with a multibit design. Historically, state-of-the-art ADCs were based around sigma-delta modulation designs. Oversampling converters are frequently used in linear PCM formats, where the ADC output is subject to bandlimiting and dithering.[38] Many modern converters use oversampling and a multibit design. It has been suggested that bitstream digital audio techniques are theoretically inferior to multibit (PCM) approaches: J. Robert Stuart notes, "1-bit coding would be a totally unsuitable choice for a series of recordings that set out to identify the high-frequency content of musical instruments, despite claims for its apparent wide bandwidth. If it is unsuitable for recording analysis then we should also be wary of using it for the highest quality work."[39]
When comparing a DSD and PCM recording of the same origin, the same number of channels and similar bandwidth/SNR, some still think that there are differences. A study conducted at the Erich-Thienhaus Institute in Detmold, Germany, seems to contradict this, concluding that "hardly any of the subjects could make a reproducible distinction between the two encoding systems. Hence it may be concluded that no significant differences are audible."[40]
In the popular Hi-Fi press, it had been suggested that linear PCM "creates [a] stress reaction in people", and that DSD "is the only digital recording system that does not [...] have these effects".[41] This claim appears to originate from a 1980 article by John Diamond.[42] The core of the claim that PCM recordings—the only digital recording technique available at the time—created a stress reaction rested on tests carried out using the pseudoscientific technique of Applied Kinesiology.[43][improper synthesis?] Diamond had previously used a similar technique to demonstrate that rock music was harmful due to the presence of the "stopped anapestic beat".[44] Diamond's claims regarding digital audio were taken up by Mark Levinson, who asserted that while PCM recordings resulted in a stress reaction, DSD recordings did not.[45][46][47]
A double-blind subjective test between high resolution linear PCM (DVD-Audio) and DSD did not reveal a statistically significant difference. Listeners involved in this test noted their great difficulty in hearing any difference between the two formats.[48]
Old 3rd April 2014
  #2227
Quote:
Originally Posted by GJ999x View Post
Scott Bakula and Tom Selleck have started a justgive page for this. They want to recapture the magic of 70s and 80s TV.
heh


It takes special technology to capture those Hollywood 80s hair styles. Extra special.


Scary thing, I watched a 1993 Murder She Wrote episode set in the then-nascent VR scene (pretty hilarious; I saw an article in Wired on it: http://www.wired.com/2014/04/underwi...urdershewrote/ ) and, damn, it was STILL THE 80s in terms of clothes and hair. Utterly crazy, ugly, ugly hair.
Old 3rd April 2014
  #2228
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
There is more than the limits of hearing range in play here. It is also how the brain is interpreting what the ears are sending it.
Sure but when I wrote about me hearing 21.5kHz I did respond to this;
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkorten View Post

What we really need here is a standardized test we can all take which will reveal the extent of our high frequency hearing ability, then exclude from the discussion those people who can't hear up into the low teens (at least).
Ok?

/Peter
Old 3rd April 2014
  #2229
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
That would be a great argument if we were talking a one of.

However there is a pattern established. Time after time the result is repeated, in at least 20 cases for my own experience. The other fact here is that I also have most of the vinyl releases of these, some of which I have owned and become very familiar with over many decades. The SACD in almost every case sounds identical to the vinyl release other than the added flaws in the vinyl. It certainly appears that they came from the same master. And I know these masters in some of those cases were tape masters because the records were made before digital mastering even existed.

I did find some that were manipulated either in further mastering, or downright changes in the mix, most obvious SACD's that come to mind are Frampton Comes Alive', and Boston, 'Boston'. They sound horrible.
Yes there is a pattern.. CD content got more and more compressed each year. That is you can find re-issues and re-masters with worse and worse sound during the years (I've seen this with my own eyes so I know it's a fact). People (some of them) got tired of it at started a war against this crazy loudness race (Loudness War).

When you listen to old CD releases and vinyl you often hear better sound becasue there's an actual difference in what is put on that disc.

Now, it is not that that unlikely that people interested in good sound make the best out of it for SACD and DVD-A right? I mean why would they compress the sh_t out of something that isn't even using the full capacity of redbook, only to put it on a disc with even more capacity (in terms of noise free DR)?

If you analyse your good sounding SACD's and compare them to you CD's you will most likely see the difference on the waveform in your DAW and don't forget to measure the crest factor.

Thing is if the content on these good sounding SACD and DVD-A are put on a CD they will sound as good as what you hear from your SACD.

You can find the same album on CD released at different point in times and in different parts of the world with big differences in sound, several versions. Your idea of "direct from master tape, no fingers on the knobs" is a bit naive me thinks.

Some friends of mine made a software for this purpose, feel free to download and learn for yourself:
MasVis - Ljudtekniska S


/Peter
Old 3rd April 2014
  #2230
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
It takes special technology to capture those Hollywood 80s hair styles.
Why, although it is tempting, stop there?

Let's recreate the magic of 1960s black and white TV by re-broadcasting it with added ultra-violet and digitally enhanced infra-red?

I'm pretty sure the industry will help out by re-recording all their old shows so I can make some money 'cos I'm a decent bloke really. If they don't then it'll be easy to make some up. No one will notice. Because it's invisible. Well. Except to those to whom it isn't invisible. Which is the target market.

Ultra violet Daleks. That's cooler than a ride in Neils jam jar. F' shure
Old 3rd April 2014
  #2231
Lives for gear
 
strings's Avatar
I've only read a bit of this thread, so if someone already asked this question, just ignore it.

If the Pono turns out to be a dud that is just over-hyped, what are your suggestions for improving digital sound to the masses?

From my own experience, even good quality CDs don't sound as good as an album or a cassette tape for that matter.
Old 3rd April 2014
  #2232
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audiop View Post
Now, it is not that that unlikely that people interested in good sound make the best out of it for SACD and DVD-A right? I mean why would they compress the sh_t out of something that isn't even using the full capacity of redbook, only to put it on a disc with even more capacity (in terms of noise free DR)?

If you analyse your good sounding SACD's and compare them to you CD's you will most likely see the difference on the waveform in your DAW and don't forget to measure the crest factor.
a case in point. DR Database is useful for quick comparisons of dynamic range differences between different pressings.
Attached Thumbnails
Launch of Pono-screen-shot-2014-04-03-9.23.43-pm.jpg  
Old 3rd April 2014
  #2233
Lives for gear
 
GJ999x's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
heh


It takes special technology to capture those Hollywood 80s hair styles. Extra special.


Scary thing, I watched a 1993 Murder She Wrote episode set in the then-nascent VR scene (pretty hilarious; I saw an article in Wired on it: The Unholy Perfection of the 1993 Murder She Wrote VR Episode | Underwire | WIRED ) and, damn, it was STILL THE 80s in terms of clothes and hair. Utterly crazy, ugly, ugly hair.
Old 3rd April 2014
  #2234
Gear Addict
 
Pollo's Avatar
 

Cassette tapes? That's funny.
What about 78 RPM disks? Or wax cilinders! Those sound really smooth and creamy.
Old 3rd April 2014
  #2235
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
a case in point. DR Database is useful for quick comparisons of dynamic range differences between different pressings.
Interesting.

I note the HDTracks 24/96 of Tres Hombres seems to be more compressed than either the original US or Japan CD releases as reported in the DB.

Album list - Dynamic Range Database
Old 3rd April 2014
  #2236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pollo View Post
Cassette tapes? That's funny.
What about 78 RPM disks? Or wax cilinders! Those sound really smooth and creamy.
Not smooth and creamy -- and definitely fatiguing to listen to -- but I find some better pre-amplification disk and cylinder recordings to be almost eerie on some level (in a way that survives transcription into digital audio and even a bit of lossy data compression -- my subscription stream service does 320 kbps).

Eerie, of course, is not a tightly defined audio term.
Old 3rd April 2014
  #2237
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Interesting.

I note the HDTracks 24/96 of Tres Hombres seems to be more compressed than either the original US or Japan CD releases as reported in the DB.

Album list - Dynamic Range Database
you'll find a lot of that. i have friends who are constantly looking for the original cd pressing as opposed to later versions. finding clean copies is a problem for them. they enjoy the hunt searching for that extra dynamic range. much like vinyl junkies and their passion.
Old 3rd April 2014
  #2238
Gear Addict
 
Pollo's Avatar
 

I was partly serious. I too like to hear those old recordings. But the thing is it is always in digital form. So I guess it's more the vibe than the audio quality.

And given the choice between CD or cassette tape I know what I would pick.
Old 3rd April 2014
  #2239
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Interesting.

I note the HDTracks 24/96 of Tres Hombres seems to be more compressed than either the original US or Japan CD releases as reported in the DB.

Album list - Dynamic Range Database
what is also interesting in your example is to see is that the original is the best. chronologically, they then made it terrible and now they make it almost as good as the original, but say it is better. based on dynamic range, which i love as much as my speakers can deliver!
Old 3rd April 2014
  #2241
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
the rate of advancement in audio technology since then really makes pono a blip. fascinating read!
i imagine audio engineers back in that day debating the gauge of the wire!
Old 3rd April 2014
  #2242
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
you'll find a lot of that. i have friends who are constantly looking for the original cd pressing as opposed to later versions. finding clean copies is a problem for them. they enjoy the hunt searching for that extra dynamic range. much like vinyl junkies and their passion.
Well, the difference between -12 dB RMS and -9 dB RMS is hardly something one needs to ABX for. heh

I mentioned the ZZ Top because when I first started using subscription streaming almost a decade ago, I found 3 or 4 different versions of my fave ZZT song, "Blue Jean Blues." I was horrified by the first one I listened to because it was just really squashed. I went back and played the other two. There was the original CD release from the late 80s (remember how slow they were to bring some content out on CDs?) and then a couple from this century. The most recent was the first I'd heard and it was horrible. The one from 1999 or 2000 or so was a little less horrible. The original CD release version sound MUCH more like the LP version -- but just because some tin-eared label drone hadn't had it 'remastered.'
Old 3rd April 2014
  #2243
From there:

Quote:
Wire Splicing for all Wire Recorders

Use the following splice - if done properly, it will not snag.

1. Tie the ends of the wires together with a square knot.

2. Pull the knot tight.

3. Cut off the loose ends close to the knot.

This splice will pull through the groove of the recording head without catching.
I'll claim a lot of varied (and generally superficial) experiences, but I must admit, while I've sort of recorded onto a wire recorder (my old man had a couple of rusty throwaways in the garage), I'd never even considered how you'd splice a recording. Square knot. You gotta love it.
Old 3rd April 2014
  #2244
Lives for gear
 
strings's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pollo View Post
Cassette tapes? That's funny.
What about 78 RPM disks? Or wax cilinders! Those sound really smooth and creamy.
There's nothing funny about it. They kick the **** out of CDs. I least the cassettes I have; I don't know what your listening to.
Old 3rd April 2014
  #2245
@theblue1... So it is!
Old 3rd April 2014
  #2246
Gear Addict
 
Pollo's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by strings View Post
There's nothing funny about it. They kick the **** out of CDs. I least the cassettes I have, I don't know what your listening to.
That's alright. To each his own.
To my tin ears they don't kick the **** out of CD's. Not so long ago I relistened to some of my old cassettes. I didn't feel I was missing anything. Instead it made me appreciate CD's even more.
But then again, I don't hear the difference between 320 kbps and CD either.
Old 3rd April 2014
  #2247
Lives for gear
 
strings's Avatar
Fair enough.
Old 4th April 2014
  #2248
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by strings View Post
There's nothing funny about it. They kick the **** out of CDs. I least the cassettes I have; I don't know what your listening to.
Maybe my hearing sucks, but I prefer CDs to cassettes easily. It could be you find the distortion in cassettes more pleasing... or it could be my hearing sucks.
Old 4th April 2014
  #2249
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by strings View Post
If the Pono turns out to be a dud that is just over-hyped, what are your suggestions for improving digital sound to the masses?
1. make better-sounding records
2. stop squashing them in the mastering
Quote:
From my own experience, even good quality CDs don't sound as good as an album or a cassette tape for that matter.
From my experience with hi-resolution digital, Pono is going to sound a lot more like a CD than it will ever sound like a cassette! I predict you are going to hate it.

If you like the sound of cassettes just copy your CDs on to cassette and there you are. What percentage of your cassettes were dubbed from a digital master anyway? As for your records, the vast majority of your vinyl collection has already passed through a 44/16 digital delay on its way to the cutter head. Almost all your vinyl is "digital" already! Whatever qualities you prefer from vinyl they are probably noise and distortions and nonlinearities from the analog process, clearly not an increase in 'analog purity' - much less an 'absence of digital'
Old 4th April 2014
  #2250
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Audiop View Post
I could hear up to 21.5kHz a couple of years ago so I guess I qualify even though I'm a nay-sayer? :-)


/Peter
Sorry Peter you are just remarkably insensitive.

My listening skills improved dramatically when I learned how to tune a piano. What you can hear and what you do aren't necessarily the same.

Like I have said before, I don't care about the naysayers. I'm just glad 192 and dsd are here.
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