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 6th April 2014
  #2401
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drbob1 View Post
To redo your studio so your mics can pick up significant information at 30 kHz, let alone the 90 kHz that 192 promises, umm, that's gonna cost. To change out amplifiers which have topped out below 20k forever, and speakers which struggle to get to 20k in most consumer systems to components that can reproduce 90k or even 30k?

Concentrate on what happens in the range we hear. Does raising the sample/bit rate effect the result of sampling in the audible range? I think it does.
Old 6th April 2014
  #2402
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Concentrate on what happens in the range we hear. Does raising the sample/bit rate effect the result of sampling in the audible range? I think it does.
How? According to Nyquist, the answer is no. If you disagree, how does it impact the audible range?
Old 6th April 2014
  #2403
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
How? According to Nyquist, the answer is no. If you disagree, how does it impact the audible range?
Yes, will this is the crux of the discussion, and it gets obscured by posts such as yours that I responded to.

And I do disagree, it impacts the audible range audibly. What causes that to happen I can't tell you. Apparently Nyquist can't tell you either.

But because Nyquist can't tell you, that doesn't prove that it isn't so.
Old 6th April 2014
  #2404
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Yes, will this is the crux of the discussion, and it gets obscured by posts such as yours that I responded to.

And I do disagree, it impacts the audible range audibly. What causes that to happen I can't tell you. Apparently Nyquist can't tell you either.

But because Nyquist can't tell you, that doesn't prove that it isn't so.
all somebody has to do now is identify this audible difference with a blindfold on and we are all set.


Quote:
Does raising the sample/bit rate effect the result of sampling in the audible range? I think it does
changing the converter may change the audible range, changing the settings of the converter may change its performance. What part of the audible change is due to 'increased sample rate' and what part of the change is simply due to converter implementation? Only those changes which are audible on all - or at least a majority of - converters at that sample rate are eligible for such consideration.

IOW, I don't doubt people may hear slight differences. I just wonder where they get the certainty that the differences they hear are due to "increased sample rate" or even "ultrasonics".
Old 6th April 2014
  #2405
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
How has vinyl managed to do it?

Don't answer. I'm kidding.
all kidding aside, I would imagine it is at least possible for some of the surface noise and rubbing of a phonograph to generate ultrasonic noise. But even assuming the cartridge, amp, and speakers could reproduce this noise, none of the ultrasonics would be from the music. All the stuff above 22k in the music has already been "Nyquisted out" via the bottleneck of the cutter head digital delays.
Old 6th April 2014
  #2406
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
How? According to Nyquist, the answer is no. If you disagree, how does it impact the audible range?
I really don't get why people dwell on theory so much. The theory is fine, the practice is a different story.

As a practical matter higher sampling rates (up to a point) mean more accuracy within the audible range. It has nothing to do with Nyquist but rather converters being imperfect.
Old 6th April 2014
  #2407
Lives for gear
 
matyas's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
How? According to Nyquist, the answer is no. If you disagree, how does it impact the audible range?
Nyquist said nothing of the sort. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I wish that people (regardless of their position on the subject) would stop conflating the mathematics of the sampling theorem with the psychoacoustics of listening.

What Nyquist, Shannon, and Fourier did was to lay the groundwork of the sampling theorem. The sampling theorem itself says nothing about human hearing per se - indeed, it isn't even applicable only to audio, but to signal processing in general. Some people around here have been making the implicit assumption that the sampling theorem itself defines the range of human hearing, which is most assuredly does not. The mathematics of the sampling theorem obtain whether the sampling rate is 22.05 kHz, 44.1 kHz, 88.2 kHz, 176.4, or 45097 kHz.

The conclusion that 22 kHz bandwidth was sufficient for audibility was determined through psychoacoustic research quite independent of the information theory research undertaken by Nyquist, Shannon, Fourier, etc. I profess to being ignorant of whom you should cite if you want to make the case that 20 kHz or so is the absolute limit of human perception (Helmholtz? Fletcher?) - but Nyquist et al. did not deal with frequency perception directly.

Again, there are perfectly good reasons why one would prefer a higher sampling rate that have nothing to do with misunderstanding sampling theory or with claims of ultrasonic hearing. (Note that I take no position on ultrasonic hearing.) The simple fact is that there are no ideal converters, and real-world implementations, while improving continuously, are still not perfect. Personally, I feel that it makes sense to get the analog filter as far out of the audio band as humanly possible. Paradoxically, I think this makes even more sense in a consumer-level device (which is apt to have an inferior analog section and a less accurate clock) than in a mastering-grade converter, with its superior analog filters and clock.
Old 6th April 2014
  #2408
Lives for gear
 
matyas's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyc View Post
I really don't get why people dwell on theory so much. The theory is fine, the practice is a different story.

As a practical matter higher sampling rates (up to a point) mean more accuracy within the audible range. It has nothing to do with Nyquist but rather converters being imperfect.
This.
Old 6th April 2014
  #2409
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyc View Post
I really don't get why people dwell on theory so much. The theory is fine, the practice is a different story.

As a practical matter higher sampling rates (up to a point) mean more accuracy within the audible range. It has nothing to do with Nyquist but rather converters being imperfect.
It's funny. I agree with this for the exact opposite way you intended it.

In theory, you guys are arguing that other things are making things happen in the audible range.

In practice, no one using an ABX test can hear it.

So…

Pick your poison. I think we're analyzing fly poop at this point.
Old 6th April 2014
  #2410
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post

In practice, no one using an ABX test can hear it.

Nobody? So the perfect test has been implemented and everybody has taken it?
Old 6th April 2014
  #2411
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Nobody? So the perfect test has been implemented and everybody has taken it?
I've been here for over ten years.

The chances of a test that everybody on GS can even agree on even being worth taking is about as likely as high resolution audio sounding like vinyl.

Personally, I'd be happy if it sounded more like 8 track. If we're going back to tape, let's kick it old school with some Conway Twitty.

Old 6th April 2014
  #2412
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
The chances of a test that everybody on GS can even agree on even being worth taking is about as likely as high resolution audio sounding like vinyl.
Kind of the point. Saying that the issue has been proven one way or the other because of a test that may or may not have been implemented properly to enough people has no real basis in fact.
Old 6th April 2014
  #2413
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Kind of the point. Saying that the issue has been proven one way or the other because of a test that may or may not have been implemented properly to enough people has no real basis in fact.
I'm betting that a test that I would put together (Record and mix a song at 192kHz and export it at 44.1 16 bit then up sample it back to 192kHz and run an ABX test) would have all the participants not being able to tell the difference.

But that is my opinion as I think I would also fail that test.
Old 6th April 2014
  #2414
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by matyas View Post
Nyquist said nothing of the sort.
For the record this is the quote I was responding to:

Quote:
Does raising the sample/bit rate effect the result of sampling in the audible range? I think it does.
It's true nyquist wasn't specifically speaking to this fact. However, if there was any evidence that frequencies outside the range of hearing have an impact, I'm sure they would have chosen a higher sampling rate.

Here, today, we are still in the same place. So far nobody has been able to successfully prove we can hear a difference, and as has been pointed out countless times in this thread, a study that went over a year including audio engineers and other "golden ears" showed people couldn't reliably tell the difference.

Quote:
Personally, I feel that it makes sense to get the analog filter as far out of the audio band as humanly possible. Paradoxically, I think this makes even more sense in a consumer-level device (which is apt to have an inferior analog section and a less accurate clock) than in a mastering-grade converter, with its superior analog filters and clock.
...and you're not alone. Maybe have suggested 60khz as the ideal sampling rate for that reason. I have no beef with that argument at all... even though I have not been able to hear a difference myself.

But Pono is not based on that argument.

Many people here make arguments about higher sampling rate sounding more "analog"... or more like vinyl.. or more like tape. These are the magical thinking posts that have caused this thread to get this long.

If there is "something else" going on, then you would be able to pick it out double blind... right?
Old 6th April 2014
  #2415
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyc View Post
As a practical matter higher sampling rates (up to a point) mean more accuracy within the audible range. It has nothing to do with Nyquist but rather converters being imperfect.
I would like to understand more about how you feel this way please... elaborate please?
Old 6th April 2014
  #2416
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by matyas View Post
This.
That's a different argument.

Higher sampling rate doesn't mean more accuracy within the audible range, right? You mean, higher sampling rate means you're potentially shifting the filtering artifacts higher into the inaudible range... right?

Or... what is it about higher sampling rate that means "more accuracy within the audible range" which is what you agreed to?
Old 6th April 2014
  #2417
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
it impacts the audible range audibly
If that is true, then why has everyone failed in double blind testing?
Old 6th April 2014
  #2418
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
I understand (and have acknowledged) there are economic and technical arguments against the use of ultrasound (in the context of our correspondence) but that's initially true of most technological advances and it doesn't mean it's not a valid area of research; however that isn't what I asked you about...I'd really appreciate it if you could respond to the points/questions in my previous post. Thank you.
Sorry Arthur, I thought my last point addressed that-if ultrasonics are involved in making the experience of listening real, it's not because we're hearing them. If they somehow impact the human body then the science has to establish that:
1. They make a difference
2. How do we record them effectively
3. How do we reproduce them accurately. I don't think stereo speakers, designed to appeal to binaural HEARING are going to be the answer to ultrasonic sensing.

So, the ball is kind of back in the believer's court. Prove they make a difference then figure out how to reproduce them. 192/24 into any current sound system isn't the answer!
Old 6th April 2014
  #2419
Quote:
Originally Posted by drbob1 View Post
Sorry Arthur, I thought my last point addressed that-if ultrasonics are involved in making the experience of listening real, it's not because we're hearing them. If they somehow impact the human body then the science has to establish that:
1. They make a difference
2. How do we record them effectively
3. How do we reproduce them accurately. I don't think stereo speakers, designed to appeal to binaural HEARING are going to be the answer to ultrasonic sensing.

So, the ball is kind of back in the believer's court. Prove they make a difference then figure out how to reproduce them. 192/24 into any current sound system isn't the answer!
Thank you for your replies and indulging my inductive logic, much appreciated. The questions you have are reasonable and the onus is on me to provide answers; best if I start another thread when I've assembled more detailed info...hope you will be able to offer a critique there. Best
Old 6th April 2014
  #2420
Lives for gear
 
matyas's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post

Higher sampling rate doesn't mean more accuracy within the audible range, right? You mean, higher sampling rate means you're potentially shifting the filtering artifacts higher into the inaudible range... right?
Yes, that is what I meant. I'm sorry if I gave the wrong impression, or if I was concurring with an argument to which I do not subscribe.
Old 6th April 2014
  #2421
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
If that is true, then why has everyone failed in double blind testing?
Everyone has taken double blind testing for this issue? I guess I missed the memo.
Old 6th April 2014
  #2422
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Nobody? So the perfect test has been implemented and everybody has taken it?
if the 'perfection' of the tests must be quibbled
if some hypothetical superman must be proposed to pass it....

what are we really talking about?

the Sighted Listeners are reporting an effect so strong! Surely even the worst test should find it, even the most average Subject should hear it.

Quote:
"it's like coming up for air after being underwater"
Old 6th April 2014
  #2423
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Everyone has taken double blind testing for this issue? I guess I missed the memo.
It's free! I've done it, why not you?

Don't you think we all should if we are going to make claims about what we hear, considering the known factor of confirmation bias?
Old 6th April 2014
  #2424
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
the Sighted Listeners are reporting an effect so strong! Surely even the worst test should find it, even the most average Subject should hear it.
This.
Old 6th April 2014
  #2425
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
I would like to understand more about how you feel this way please... elaborate please?
It's just one of the fundamentals of electronics design or any real world design, you design beyond specifications to ensure specifications are met. Look at high end analog gear, it often has bandwidth up to 100 kHz or higher. As a designer you do this to ensure that the performance is as good as can be at 20 kHz

Digital systems have to deal with anti-aliasing and anti-image filters, converters use oversampling to minimize the artifacts, but they are still there, higher sampling rates minimize them even further.

To me CDs sound better upsampled, there is obviously no content above 22k, but the converter is behaving better. I have measured my Lynx Aurora and it is actually more accurate at 88.2/96k than at 44.1/48k.

And let's also remember that the reason we have 16/44.1 is a product of the cd medium itself, it was a compromise. If a cd could have stored 1 or 2 GB the standard would have been different.
Old 6th April 2014
  #2426
Gear Maniac
 
gavriloP's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Concentrate on what happens in the range we hear. Does raising the sample/bit rate effect the result of sampling in the audible range? I think it does.
Why does this come up again and again? It has been debunked time and time again. Those extra points look moor accurate ON SCREEN but not on audio that comes out of DAC and well, turns to sound. The extra points only allows there to be detail that is BEYOND OUR HEARING. Hell, you could have infinite number of points to describe a straight line and it would still be a straight line. You only need that "resolution" to have difference in waves over 20kHz range.

I think the whole term hi res is problematic in audio because it comes from video side of things and those things are COMPLETELY different. It doesn't increase the resolution within the range we hear, it only affects to those frequencies we don't hear. Proper analogy with video would be to have monitors, sensors and images that would not filter ultraviolet/infrared range and would boast that this photograph here has more data on the ends of spectrum than there is on the viewable range (as is the case with 192kHz if you think about it).

The proper name should be something like infrasound audio

Marketing gimmick that really got out of hand...
Old 6th April 2014
  #2427
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyc View Post
And let's also remember that the reason we have 16/44.1 is a product of the cd medium itself,
i would have thought it was the product of design. probably using mathematics. likely using proven theoretical understanding at the time.
Old 6th April 2014
  #2428
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyc View Post
there is obviously no content above 22k, but the converter is behaving better.
exactly. another converter might filter more accurately at 44.1. than 192. it is not the file. it is the filter. pono is selling it as the file. they need to for the web site to work. there is a business plan. and a marketing strategy.
Old 6th April 2014
  #2429
Lives for gear
 
stinkyfingers's Avatar
 

there should be a new Oxygen series called 'Converters Behaving Badly'...
Old 6th April 2014
  #2430
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
You mean all those vinyl records that went through a 16/44.1 digital delay on their way to the cutting head?
In the mid-sixties? When I'm talking about sonorous classical records I'm thinking Mercs and Shaded Dogs. It's news to me that MY records went through a 16/44.1 digital delay. On the other hand, this could explain a lot about why I got turned off to records past a certain point. Seemed like the mojo went away, but the problems (skips, rumble, noise etc) stayed.

You don't say.
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