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 8th April 2014
  #2581
Lives for gear
 
doncaparker's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rd Degree View Post
My dog didn't communicate it to me, she merely illustrated behavior.
Be careful about behaviors you pick up from your dog. To paraphrase a comedian I heard once, if I could reach that far, I might never leave the house.
Old 8th April 2014
  #2582
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Yes, I'm saying that many seasoned commentators say we reached the point where the pixels were enough a few years ago. And that announcing new products with higher pixel counts is just marketing.
I have just given you a real world example of why adding more pixels is a good thing.

It allows you to crop and zoom in a lot more and still keep your quality.

There is no similar reason with audio why adding kHz improves the audio. Adding bits allows you to record to more reasonable levels and not have to worry about overs, but we've already solved that by 24 bit recording.

So that's why the photography analogy is poor. There is no real benefit to increasing audio sample rate. There IS a potential benefit to more pixels, even if that benefit is only used by a small minority of users.
Old 8th April 2014
  #2583
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
I have just given you a real world example of why adding more pixels is a good thing.

It allows you to crop and zoom in a lot more and still keep your quality.

There is no similar reason with audio why adding kHz improves the audio. Adding bits allows you to record to more reasonable levels and not have to worry about overs, but we've already solved that by 24 bit recording.

So that's why the photography analogy is poor. There is no real benefit to increasing audio sample rate. There IS a potential benefit to more pixels, even if that benefit is only used by a small minority of users.
Is that accurate? I take cropping/zooming as taking a sample and then pitching it down in a DAW. So, since romplers have clocks for each sound they can do sample pitch downs better than sound cards which have just one clock so they can't just play back the sample slower (tape deck style) but stretch it so it affects the sound quality. So does having a better sample rate give you better quality when pitching down a sample?
Old 8th April 2014
  #2584
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezraz View Post
if a cd of a dog barking doesn't interest a real dog but analog does, that should really tell you all you need to know.
All I need to know about what? Communicating with dogs?

Do they make a pet pono?

Does this unit reproduce 65kHz?

Do your speakers?
Old 8th April 2014
  #2585
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
I have just given you a real world example of why adding more pixels is a good thing.

It allows you to crop and zoom in a lot more and still keep your quality.
Yes, and I fully accepted your example. I just added that experienced professionals say we reached the point where the pixel count was fine enough for zooming in, editing, cropping etc a few years ago. This is a debate that is raging in the digital image community. Is it being debated or not?
Old 9th April 2014
  #2586
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Yes, and I fully accepted your example. I just added that experienced professionals say we reached the point where the pixel count was fine enough for zooming in, editing, cropping etc a few years ago. This is a debate that is raging in the digital image community. Is it being debated or not?
Sorry, I didn't catch that.

I'm not sure how much it's being debated, but I know having a 25 megapixel shot gave me the flexibility I needed to both zoom in and do a large print of a shot I can never recreate. That's not an every day thing though. Not sure I could have done that with 15mpx... I guess it's possible, I don't feel like doing the math.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2587
Lives for gear
 
3rd Degree's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
Sure! I'm on a mac and there is the program "ABXtester" which is free. It will only allow you to test it 5 times per session, but run it multiple times.

I don't know on windows...
I found one. For a 196kps MP3 to a 24/96 file, this was my results:

Score: 8/10
Probability that you were guessing: 5.5%

Funny enough, I was 100% when I just tried to figure out which matched A and didn't care what matched B. When I cared about matching both A and B, I almost always got it wrong. Weird how I instantly got lost when I tried to do two tasks. So, I am pretty confident I can know the difference from the lowest common detonator to the top. That doesn't surprise me. However, I did find I would try to trick myself a lot so the mental factor still was high with those results and I really had to not fool myself. Subtle differences but they were apparent when I let myself not second guess myself.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2588
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rd Degree View Post
I found one. For a 196kps MP3 to a 24/96 file, this was my results:

Score: 8/10
Probability that you were guessing: 5.5%
Cool.. just for the heck of it, if you can, try 320kbps vs 24/96.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2589
Lives for gear
 
3rd Degree's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
Cool.. just for the heck of it, if you can, try 320kbps vs 24/96.
When I have time. I actually want to try a 16/44.1 to 24/96 because my feeling is that the 24 bit is more important than anything else. I also want to see if I am right in the fact that I likely can't tell the difference from 192kps to a 16/44.1 as well as I would think I should be able to.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2590
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post

I'm not sure how much it's being debated, but I know having a 25 megapixel shot gave me the flexibility I needed to both zoom in and do a large print of a shot I can never recreate.
Why we’ve reached the end of the camera megapixel race | Ars Technica

Quote:
Akira Watanabe, manager of Olympus Imaging's SLR planning department, has officially thrown down the gauntlet and drawn a line in the megapixel sand. "Twelve megapixels is, I think, enough for covering most applications most customers need,"
What Matters

Quote:
If we look at the various factors that comprise image quality, sensor size, pixel count, dynamic range, high ISO capability... all reached the point of de minimis advantage during the past few years. Yes, we now have cameras with OK image quality at ISO 25,000, but who really cares? Camera nerds debate the merits of 12.8 vs. 13.1 stops of dynamic range, but fail to realize that such tiny differences are of no real visual significance. 9 FPS vs. 6 FPS? Yawn. Is this enough to make one switch to a newer body or even a different brand?
Old 9th April 2014
  #2591
Lives for gear
 
3rd Degree's Avatar
 

196kbs MP3 vs. 16/44.1k wav


Score: 7/10
Probability that you were guessing: 17.2%

This one was a lot more challenging than the last but I still was able to tell a lot of the time. It's kind of fun doing this because I always think it's a trick question. Every time I new off the bat, I got it right. If I listened and got too critical, I got it wrong. Fun to test like this because it shows me that even when I do know, I can still trick myself into thinking I am wrong.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2592
Lives for gear
 
3rd Degree's Avatar
 

16/44.1 vs 24/96:

Score: 8/10
Probability that you were guessing: 5.5%

This was actually the easiest to tell so far, which doesn't suprise me. Even though I got the same score as another test, it was much more obvious.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2593
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rd Degree View Post
16/44.1 vs 24/96:

Score: 8/10
Probability that you were guessing: 5.5%

This was actually the easiest to tell so far, which doesn't suprise me. Even though I got the same score as another test, it was much more obvious.
Can you please post the two files? I'd love to take a shot at your files.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2594
Lives for gear
 
3rd Degree's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
Can you please post the two files? I'd love to take a shot at your files.
Unfortunately I am using a file from a client project I cannot share. I felt like I needed something familiar to weed out my learning the song, and I need to listen to it anyway. After my last test, I knew someone would ask.

I can either put another file up and we both try and share results or take one of yours and see how we fare. I am going to finish up this last test (maybe two) and if I have time tonight, I can get something and we can both do them.



EDIT-I guess I am done for the near future, my wife has a phone client and I can't be blasting music...how fun.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2595
Lives for gear
 
strings's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
There are reasons why more pixels are better, related to cropping, zooming, enlarging, etc. IMHO, those are real practical reasons that exist in the photo (and video) world. Those don't exist in the audio world.
Wait a minute...you may be completely right on this, I certainly don't know. How can you just rule that out (unless you’re an expert in the field)? I asked a similar question along the lines of what is going on when you mix down from a higher resolution to a lower one. The file size is "definitely smaller". What is being eliminated during compression/dither etc. process?

With photos it's "all" eyesight, with audio it's hearing and who knows what other senses. You often hear the analogy that you can't hear sub bass sounds, but you can feel it.

With photography it's being compressed (to jpg for example) and there is definitely a difference in the result.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2596
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rd Degree View Post
Unfortunately I am using a file from a client project I cannot share. I felt like I needed something familiar to weed out my learning the song, and I need to listen to it anyway. After my last test, I knew someone would ask.
Gotcha, makes sense!

I haven't recorded any projects at 96k myself. I wonder if grabbing a small segment of a commercially available release, say 10 seconds, would be long enough to judge and also fall under fair use?
Old 9th April 2014
  #2597
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by strings View Post
Wait a minute...you may be completely right on this, I certainly don't know. How can you just rule that out (unless you’re an expert in the field)? I asked a similar question along the lines of what is going on when you mix down from a higher resolution to a lower one. The file size is "definitely smaller". What is being eliminated during compression/dither etc. process?
When you go from 192 to 44.1, only high frequency content is taken away. Nothing is lost from 20hz-20khz.

When you go from 24 bits to 16 bits, you lose only lower level content that is below the threshold of hearing when it's a final mastered mix.

Again, it's very different in the photo world. With more pixels you are adding pixel density, which means there is more resolution... more pixels per inch. You can't always see that density, but there are times when you can... when you zoom in deeply on a photo for example. It's the CSI effect.. you know, where they say "enhance" and all the sudden the license plate is legible? More pixels means you can zoom in and are more likely to read the license plate.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2598
Lives for gear
 
3rd Degree's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
Gotcha, makes sense!

I haven't recorded any projects at 96k myself. I wonder if grabbing a small segment of a commercially available release, say 10 seconds, would be long enough to judge and also fall under fair use?
The file I took was an all digital instrumental so that everything except the drums I used were truly at the sample rate/bit depth, as far as I know. I felt that was a good way to insure nothing was unnecessarily up sampled and truly at that format. Actually, what usually was the telling difference with the clarity of the effects.

I think technically using a commercial release is fair use in this case, it's technically educational but I can probably shoot you a snippet of some work, I just don't want to put anything of mine up super publicly as it's either something I don't want other people to have access to, or something that sucks and is a bad reflection of my skill set. Plus a lot of it has 16 bit samples and I usually record at 24/44.1 as well.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2599
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RaySoul View Post

Pono is the music industry's attempt to regain control of the sale of high-priced music.

I think this is a good point but unfortunately I don't see what would change.

Pirates take huge movie files, why not bigger music files?

Why not make the files exclusive to Pono with an inability to get them in or out?
Old 9th April 2014
  #2600
Lives for gear
 
3rd Degree's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
Can I ask you why you're using a 196k mp3 when a 256k AAC file (which is better than an equal mp3) is the standard on iTunes?

The question in this thread is whether anything is better than 44.1 kHz 16 bit.

I would bet most of us would get similar results in your test as without an ABX test I found 192k AAC files to be the point where I heard degradation.
Because it's what I personally listen to. Or more so, because that's what my fits on my iPod, and I can't fit everything on my phone, both 16 gig.

I wasn't really trying to be scientific but I knew what I could hear without a blind test. I just felt I had the time to substantiate my claim but I also never tried ABX software and wanted to have fun.

That said, I don't know that I could tell the difference between any of those files if I put my same speakers in the living room, much less used a consumer playback system. I really don't think I could tell, honestly. My wife or most my friends, even musicians likely couldn't tell the difference.

I didn't really try to prove my point, I was interested in if I could prove myself right or wrong. My first post was kind of a rant, about how tech bloggers try to talk down on things without really understanding and make blanket statements.

Again, nobody can hear the difference anyway. Well, I proved to myself I can and it wasn't all that challenging. It's more so about the format though, I see absolutely no negatives in the present by moving it up to better quality, even if the every day person cannot tell. More importantly, once mixing engineers have a higher lowest common denominator, I think that the format will get better, and the infrastructure will get better.

For example, I am not at all convinced that the best converters on the market are the best converters that will ever exist, short term or long term. I am not convinced that all consumers use crappy playback systems so there is no need to care about subtle differences. I am not even convinced that frequencies we cannot hear don't effect a recording, especially when summed, in no way shape or form. Obviously I can't hear that so it's just an opinion or belief.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2601
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Thanks for being so open minded.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2602
Lives for gear
 
strings's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
When you go from 192 to 44.1, only high frequency content is taken away. Nothing is lost from 20hz-20khz.

When you go from 24 bits to 16 bits, you lose only lower level content that is below the threshold of hearing when it's a final mastered mix.

Again, it's very different in the photo world. With more pixels you are adding pixel density, which means there is more resolution... more pixels per inch. You can't always see that density, but there are times when you can... when you zoom in deeply on a photo for example. It's the CSI effect.. you know, where they say "enhance" and all the sudden the license plate is legible? More pixels means you can zoom in and are more likely to read the license plate.
Doesn't higher audio resolution add more "audio density" by sampling more often?
Even if the frequency goes out of range for human hearing, would it be accurate to say that plugins especially reverb and delay plugins may use that extra range for processing?

Photo and Audio software are obviously different, but in the digital world it all comes down to ones and zeros.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2603
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by strings View Post
Doesn't higher audio resolution add more "audio density" by sampling more often?
you mean the stairsteps are smaller?
Old 9th April 2014
  #2604
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by strings View Post
Doesn't higher audio resolution add more "audio density" by sampling more often?
No, higher sampling rate doesn't mean more audio density. Sampling more often only means higher frequency content can be represented. That is the only advantage that happens with sampling more often.

The easiest way to think about is, as you move the sampling points together, it means that you can represent a sine wave that is higher frequency. As they are further apart, the sine wave is longer... and thus lower frequency.

You might think that that means more accuracy, but it's not true. Digital audio at 44.1k means that the wave at 20khz can only be a sine wave... so you'd think that would be limiting. But more complex waveforms only mean additional harmonics above the fundamental frequency (beyond the range of hearing).

I hope I'm explaining this well enough.

The answer is no additional density of information beyond additional frequency.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2605
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rd Degree View Post
I do remember people saying that.
I don't remember even one person saying HD video did not make a difference
Quote:
If you have a "first generation" HD TV, you can see the difference between that an a new one.
nonetheless, I don't think anybody argued that they could not see a difference between the "first generation HDTV" and a Standard Def TV. Not one single person.

I agree with teofunk. Visual analogies are moot and not only have no place in the audio discussion, they are destructive to proper understanding .
Old 9th April 2014
  #2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post

Again, it's very different in the photo world. With more pixels you are adding pixel density, which means there is more resolution... more pixels per inch.
Yes, but the quality of lens has a far bigger impact, not to mention the ability of the operator to focus so finely.
That's the point professionals are making about 12 megapixels and 16 megapixels. How many people are using lenses capable of capturing detail that pushes the capability of a 16 megapixel sensor.
It's like asking why you need 192khz to fully appreciate an album recorded on 2" tape.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2607
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
Visual analogies are moot and not only have no place in the audio discussion, they are destructive to proper understanding .
Sure, except it's the same digital debate that is going on in most creative industries.
Just like analog vs digital, film versus digital has been a raging argument for years.
Also, the consumer's new found passion for small portable music players and cameras is what is impacting our industries: the cell phone, and tablet entertainment centre.
Do our customers care about audio quality, do they care about still image quality. The current evidence says no.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2608
Lives for gear
 
3rd Degree's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
I don't remember even one person saying HD video did not make a difference


nonetheless, I don't think anybody argued that they could not see a difference between the "first generation HDTV" and a Standard Def TV. Not one single person.

I agree with teofunk. Visual analogies are moot and not only have no place in the audio discussion, they are destructive to proper understanding .
Well, again, I restated that I heard many people say they were "unimpressed". Either way, we don't have to agree.

My argument had nothing to do with understanding visual things. My point was that if you improve the format, the industry follows, grows, and ultimately does things better than the previous when it's a logical step forward, and those changes become much more significant over time, rather than the day it is released. It's not about television, or movies. The example was used because it's one of the only other industries I can think of where the technology is limited by what the consumer has, the technology has to work around a set limitation, the format will only change if the consumer adapts, and the industry has similar end goals.

I have not compared any technology, I have not made the comparison scientific, I merely have stated in that industry, when the technology changed, the change wasn't just an overnight change. It's a continual change, people push to do more with it.

Again, my reason for that particular post, was to illustrate, again, how I don't personally like tech bloggers who can't see past the next day. So what if 99.99% of users won't know the difference. That doesn't mean we should keep some barrier up for the format because it doesn't do anything positive by keeping it. Even my stock sound card in my 6+ year old computer does 24 bit audio. Everything that does DVD does. So what's the point of keeping that barrier. Lets say theoretically, this catches on (and not the product, the format), and it has no impact on the sound of music. Converters don't get better either. So what, we didn't loose anything. The initial cost hike will go away after everyone who doesn't care doesn't buy it. The ones who do will be convinced they are getting something better and enjoy the purchase.

I just think it's a little odd to base an opinion on things we know will change. Consumer electronics will have better converters, they will do 24 bit audio if they don't already, and they are things we all buy anyway. There is room for improvement. Well, that's my opinion on it, I should say.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2609
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezraz View Post
Except we can sense more than 20k range of vibration data.
except we cannot.

Quote:
"hearing science" assigns everything outside of the inner ear to the sense of touch and ignores it.
If human beings can use "touch" to sense the range above 20k, why does their sense of "touch" abandon them whenever they are being tested?

The mechanism by which someone can sense ultrasonics is not what is being tested for. Only the ability to do so. No contribution is being ruled out. Even if you consider "touch" a cheat, CHEATING IS ALLOWED. Whatever "sense" enabled you to enjoy Ultrasonic music more than regular music is brought with you into the lab. What happened to it?

And still no humans can identify the presence or absence of +20k, isolated or in a musical context.

Quote:
. that's an awful lot of data they are throwing out to get their maths.
It is not about maths or theory. It is about empirical testing of the ability to sense something. Human beings cannot see infrared but they might detect the warmth from it. Humans could "pass" an infrared test by noticing that it just got warmer. But humans so far have failed to pass an ultrasound test by noticing "touch" or any other sense. That's because this sense does not exist in humans. Only in the fevered imagination of magical thinkers.

Quote:
Just cuz you can't hear it isolated doesn't mean it isn't there affecting your other signals.

do you really believe you are the first person to think of the idea of testing for ultrasonic perception in context? What do you think we are talking about when we say nobody has passed The Tests? Plenty of tests have been run with, for example, identical musical content with the ultrasound filtered out and nobody can tell. Not even a statistical trend. And yes, they had stereo speakers .

Your "hear it isolated" tests are a straw man. They are not the reason that science says human beings cannot hear ultrasound. The idea that the entire scientific community is engaged in a vast conspiracy to deny you your superpowers is a very strange notion to have. Never mind to cherish and promote.


Quote:
Make all the dog jokes you want -- if a cd of a dog barking doesn't interest a real dog but analog does, that should really tell you all you need to know.
about dogs
Old 9th April 2014
  #2610
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonwagner View Post
Are you on a mac, have you seen this? It's free and makes doing ABX tesing by yourself really easy. I believe there are Windows versions too.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/abxt...27554135?mt=12
No, I want to test DSD, I'm not going to do that on a computer. I have to do it between a CD player and a DSD player.
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