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 9th April 2014
  #2611
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great'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.
That is your contention. Many people, myself included heartily disagree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post

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.
See above answer.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2612
I have an oak stake and a heavy hammer, can I please drive it into the heart of something
and end all this misery now!
Old 9th April 2014
  #2613
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
That is your contention. Many people, myself included heartily disagree.
You can disagree, but no offense, it only means you don't understand how digital audio works. It's not my opinion.. it's actually what happens.

I understand it's counterintuitive, but it's true.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2614
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
except we cannot.

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.


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.




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.




about dogs
Why doesn't everyone simply ABX for themselves?

The Geek Afterglow: ABX testing - how sensitive are your ears to music quality?

I have attached two 96k files with synthesized, not filtered (so, no filter artifacts) sounds which are identical other than one having harmonic content that ends at 22k and the other harmonic partials ending just under 30k.

This is not a converter test: your converter plays them back at the same rate. It is a test of whether harmonic content from 22-30k impacts perception. On a poor system we can't rule out distortions as a distinguishing feature, so the test is meant for at least halfway-decent 96k converters.
Attached Files

Ultrasonic22.wav (1.10 MB, 49 views)

UltrasonicTest29.wav (1.10 MB, 105 views)

Old 9th April 2014
  #2615
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
You can disagree, but no offense, it only means you don't understand how digital audio works. It's not my opinion.. it's actually what happens.
Why would I be offended by your conception of reality?


Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
I understand it's counterintuitive, but it's true.
That goes both ways.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2616
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Surely confirmation bias runs both ways. If you already 'know' you can't hear a difference, then you won't, whether it exists or not.
It's ok to raise confirmation bias, but with you it always happens to be the people who disagree with you who are subject to confirmation bias.
this is why proper ABX tests are forced choice
you can't pass or say "I give up" you still have state if "X" is A or B even if you think you are guessing. Many times a person who thinks he can't tell is surprised at the result.

in any case, anyone who talks about his sighted listenings has certainly failed to rule out confirmation bias. At that point he is merely relating an anecdote.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2617
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rd Degree View Post
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. ...
Ah, but what bit depth and sample rate were the digital instruments generated at?
Old 9th April 2014
  #2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
this is why proper ABX tests are forced choice
you can't pass or say "I give up" you still have state if "X" is A or B even if you think you are guessing.
Fair enough.
I just cry foul at one anonymous poster telling another they have 'confirmation bias'. How does anyone know the other's bias without being involved in the test, in person.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2619
Lives for gear
 
3rd Degree's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
Ah, but what bit depth and sample rate were the digital instruments generated at?
I actually tried to figure this out earlier and can't. It was made in Reason with Reason synths and samplers and going through the manual, I can't find specs for each sampler or synth. Same with the effects, it doesn't spec them out. With some of the samplers, I know the root file they use is 16 bit but I don't know how that translates with the internal routing of the sampler. Then they are further processed with both inserts and send effects, at an unknown sample rate, bit depth. I really can't find the info but I know some of it has to be 24 bit, I just can't verify that.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2620
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post

in any case, anyone who talks about his sighted listenings has certainly failed to rule out confirmation bias.
Every human thought has confirmation bias. That in itself doesn't void the validity of the conclusion though.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2621
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Let's not forget most of the greatest photographic images of all time were taken with lower resolution cameras using lower resolution film stock.
most? really?
Old 9th April 2014
  #2622
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
most? really?
Hasselblad is low end is it? my favourite photographer, Karl Blossfeldt, made his own camera. his photographs can hardly be called low resolution and he was taking them in the late 1800s.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2623
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Why would I be offended by your conception of reality? .
This has nothing to do with me. You are suggesting that maybe you can have an opinion that 2+2 does not equal 4. You can but you would be wrong.

In digital audio there is nothing other than higher frequencies in higher sample rates (which also means the filter can be higher, but in today's world that is a non issue). That is all. There is no other magic, nothing else there, no matter how you slice it.

There is no gray area on the science. I don't own this conception of reality anymore than 2+2=4.

Please read up a bit on it.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2624
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Every human thought has confirmation bias. That in itself doesn't void the validity of the conclusion though.
Knowing we all are subject to confirmation bias is exactly why we test.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2625
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
most? really?
Yep. Tri-X Pan 400 and 800. Grain city.
Unsophisticated lenses by modern standards.
Do you think high end photographers are using lenses from the 30's, 40's and 50's, like musicians use guitars, mics and studio outboard?
Old 9th April 2014
  #2626
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
Knowing we all are subject to confirmation bias is exactly why we test.
Perfect. I'm happy to agree.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2627
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Yep. Tri-X Pan 400 and 800. Grain city.
Unsophisticated lenses by modern standards.
Do you think high end photographers are using lenses from the 30's, 40's and 50's, like musicians use guitars, mics and studio outboard?
Hasselblad's traditional V-System cameras remain widely used by professional and serious amateur photographers. it was introduced in 1957.

Note, the best photographic lenses from forty or fifty years ago were already of very high image quality (twice the minimum resolution mentioned above) and it may not be possible to conclusively demonstrate the superiority of the best of today's lens without comparing 20×30 inch (about 50×75 cm) enlargements of exactly the same scene side by side.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2628
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Every human thought has confirmation bias. That in itself doesn't void the validity of the conclusion though.
in the testing of human perception there is no "conclusion" unless you remove confirmation bias from the test. Without this careful elimination of the bias = no conclusion, just opinion.

Without the blindfold, there is no "test" in any meaningful sense of the word. If I am allowed to peek at the labels, I can tell "the difference" every time!! In fact, I can do this 100% of the time without even turning on the speakers! The validity of your 'conclusions' if you don't blind yourself is worth exactly the same as that.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2629
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
Hasselblad's traditional V-System cameras remain widely used by professional and serious amateur photographers. it was introduced in 1957.
Yeah, I think you've missed my point entirely.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2630
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
In digital audio there is nothing other than higher frequencies in higher sample rates (which also means the filter can be higher, but in today's world that is a non issue). That is all. There is no other magic, nothing else there, no matter how you slice it.
You are acting under the assumption of some mythical ideal converter. While technology continues to improve it is still not reality in today's world.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2631
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyc View Post
You are acting under the assumption of some mythical ideal converter. While technology continues to improve it is still not reality in today's world.
Please clarify... choice of converters is not relevant in this discussion about sample rates from what I can see, but maybe I don't get your point?
Old 9th April 2014
  #2632
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Yeah, I think you've missed my point entirely.
you stated that lens technology has made vast improvements and that old lenses are not in use due to the quality of the manufacturing/design. that was the point i was responding to. it seems to be a refutable point.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2633
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Yep. Tri-X Pan 400 and 800. Grain city.
Unsophisticated lenses by modern standards.
this is where my confusion starts. you talk about the quality of film and then apply it to lenses.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2634
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
you stated that lens technology has made vast improvements and that old lenses are not in use due to the quality of the manufacturing/design. that was the point i was responding to. it seems to be a refutable point.
Top professional photographers mate. I'm not saying no one uses old Hasselblad's and vintage lenses.
I don't think you can argue that the iconic photos of WWII and the 1960's have the same pinprick detail as modern photography, except work like Ansell Adams.
It was a tiny point.
Just saying, like the fairly rough recordings of the 50's and 60's, digital technology and modern computer aided design has revolutionised music audio, stills and videography.
A 1950's jazz album sounds amazing because of the musicianship, vibe and atmosphere. Just like the jazz photography of the 1950's has iconic atmosphere.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2635
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Top professional photographers mate. I'm not saying no one uses old Hasselblad's and vintage lenses.
I don't think you can argue that the iconic photos of WWII and the 1960's have the same pinprick detail as modern photography, except work like Ansell Adams.
It was a tiny point.
Just saying, like the fairly rough recordings of the 50's and 60's, digital technology and modern computer aided design has revolutionised music audio, stills and videography.
A 1950's jazz album sounds amazing because of the musicianship, vibe and atmosphere. Just like the jazz photography of the 1950's has iconic atmosphere.
but if Ansel Adams could do it it was not a question of the technology being at fault. it was the understanding of the person capturing the moment, especially when it comes to light if we discuss photography. this is a fascinating anecdote about Ansel Adams:

On a trip in New Mexico in 1941, Adams shot a scene of the Moon rising above a modest village with snow-covered mountains in the background, under a dominating black sky. The photograph is one of his most famous and is named Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico. Adams's description in his later books of how it was made probably enhanced the photograph's fame : the light on the crosses in the foreground was rapidly fading, and he could not find his exposure meter; however, he remembered the luminance of the Moon, and used it to calculate the proper exposure.

your revolution is about convenience and cost, not the expertise of the end user and the resulting product.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2636
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
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 answer is no additional density of information beyond additional frequency.
So 192K and 44.1K are the same resolution. And a phrase like "We only sell Hi-Res 192KHz files. Others sell lower resolution 44.1k (CD quality) files." (ok, given the 16 bit difference), but that would border on false advertising, wouldn't it? And the use of 'Hi-Res' to describe only 96 and 192 is wrong too, right?
Old 9th April 2014
  #2637
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
your revolution is about convenience and cost, not the expertise of the end user and the resulting product.
Horses for courses.
You don't want to lug an 8 x 10 box camera into a warzone. Or use one for discrete street photography in manhattan.
You are continually missing my point, small though it was.
Iconic images made on lower resolution image systems. At the same time lower resolution recordings were made in jazz and early rock. All iconic and still loved today.
Classic images and classic albums.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2638
Gear Head
 
bandpass's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by walter88 View Post
So 192K and 44.1K are the same resolution. And a phrase like "We only sell Hi-Res 192KHz files. Others sell lower resolution 44.1k (CD quality) files." (ok, given the 16 bit difference), but that would border on false advertising, wouldn't it? And the use of 'Hi-Res' to describe only 96 and 192 is wrong too, right?
If the thing doing the resolving is the human ear/brain (as opposed to a DSP) then yes, to the best of human knowledge (as reflected in what gets taught at universities etc.), 44.1k/48k could be called "full resolution".

96k etc. might be more aptly called "high bitrate" than "high res".

Interesting point about the advertising. Sony btw, were recently forced to tone down some of their "hi-res" advertising claims in the UK.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2639
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
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.
Yes, people do rage about digital vs film on internet forums, that much is true. Are professionals arguing about that? Nope. You use the tool that's best for the job.

Since you know your audio so well I suggest you use that knowledge instead of photography analogies.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2640
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
I agree with teofunk. Visual analogies are moot and not only have no place in the audio discussion, they are destructive to proper understanding .

Because our ears are far more sensitive and send more data than our eyes do.

I believe this to be true. I don't think bad science and lack of understanding of human perception by mathematicians will change my mind.

HD visuals are important and sell so well because people believe their eyes, and frankly, using your visuals is mainly a way to relax, or make a paycheck on your computer.

HD audio, on the other hand, is made to seem irrelevant and fraudulent by the DSP industry so they can continue to sell us more of less. It's very easy to confuse people if they can't see the results. Our ADHD society won't slow down enough to hear the obvious difference.

Also --- if 320k mp3's sound so amazing, why isn't everyone streaming them? Because it's still just lipstick on the pig. It's AM radio in a HD world.
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