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
  #2641
Lives for gear
 
GJ999x's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ezraz View Post
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.
But what the science has appeared to show is that, once that lipstick is applied, no-one can tell the difference between the beauitiful woman and the er...

Yeah, maybe we should drop the analogies
Old 9th April 2014
  #2642
All the theories and maths in this thread are about "DIGITAL AUDIO". NOT AUDIO.

Audio is analog and so are our ears. Sorry, I know this is GS and this should be obvious, but every one of these threads on the internet has people saying

"we can't hear xyz, so we throw it out. this is the fundamental rule of digital audio"

and then they say if we don't understand this, we don't understand digital audio.

but WE DO understand this. at least I do. and thats why I feel digital audio is still inferior to analog. the concept of digital audio is a very complicated problem -- to take analog sound, convert to pure math for transport, then reconstruct in real time. it is amazing technology but why does a cd still sound like it's in a box as compared to vinyl?

digital has made some progress, and finally getting 24/96 digital is a big step up. the move to 24 bits can be heard easily by anyone who loves good music because the tells are in the depth, soundstage, and reverbs.


also -- most of you ABX tests are garbage unless you are doing it on material your are familiar with, and following up over the course of weeks or months with the blind testing findings. your ears react to things they like and recognize differently than when taking in new tones. a taste test between two brownies might tell you which one tastes "better" at that moment, but unless you are testing which of those brownies gives you the most nourishment and happiness over the course of time, i'm not that interested.

call me the ignorant, backwards, amateur if you want (and by the way i listen to mp3 and cd's most the time, i'm no snob!) but i honestly can't accept these digital rules as anything more than digital rules. since audio is analog they don't concern the physical reality of the situation, digital rules represent compromises.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2643
Quote:
Originally Posted by GJ999x View Post
But what science has shown is that, once that lipstick is applied, in kissing tests, no-one can tell the difference between the beauitiful woman and the er... pig

Yeah, maybe we should drop the analogies
all i'm saying is that if you kiss a pigs digits, you are a scientist of lipstick.

or if you lipstick a scientist, he will kiss an ignorant pig.


People replying to my opinion -- i do ABX test on my own rig and my own material occasionally. i almost always can tell, within 5 seconds, which is which. just listen for the room in the recording.

--in mp3 there is no room and no center, just sounds coming out the speakers.

--in 16/44 there is a boxy, mid-sized room and a mushy center. the lows sound paper-y thin and the highs are chopped and i hear some sort of quantization on the highs - ride cymbals, splash, hi-hat, sounds "digital" with data loss and aliasing artifacts.

--in 24 bit digital there is a full, natural sounding room with a decent center. the highs and the lows lose the digital, filtered, lossy sound.

--in vinyl there is a huge room and a clear center. cymbals sound more natural (still compressed) and bass is full, round, and bubbly. of course this awesome playback gets degraded various ways that digital bypasses.


personally i listen to 70+ years of musical styles, probably about 75% of it made by real instruments. Of course, if most of your collection was created by digital instruments you might not care about this up resolution.

in fact, more resolution might be a bad thing for people who are into EDM, metal, thrash -- more room to hear crap, more frequencies to be concerned with.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2644
Lives for gear
 
GJ999x's Avatar
Email Justin Colleti then - he's offering a profile of your work in the mag he works for for anyone who can tell the difference between 320kps and lossless, he's happy for you to pick the material to do the test with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezraz View Post
all i'm saying is that if you kiss a pigs digits, you are a scientist of lipstick.

or if you lipstick a scientist, he will kiss an ignorant pig.


btw - people replying to my opinion -- i do ABX test on my own rig and my own material occasionally. i almost always can tell, within 5 seconds, which is which. just listen for the room in the recording.

--in mp3 there is no room and no center, just sounds coming out the speakers.

--in 16/44 there is a boxy, mid-sized room and a mushy center. the lows sound paper-y thin and the highs are chopped and i hear some sort of quantization on the highs - ride cymbals, splash, hi-hat, if analog, sounds "digital" with data loss and aliasing artifacts.

--in 24 bit digital there is a full, natural sounding room with a decent center. the highs and the lows lose the digital, filtered, lossy sound.

--in vinyl there is a huge room and a clear center. cymbals sound more natural (still compressed) and bass is full, round, and bubbly. of course this awesome playback gets degraded various ways that digital bypasses.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2645
Quote:
Originally Posted by GJ999x View Post
Email Justin Colleti then - he's offering a profile of your work in the mag he works for for anyone who can tell the difference between 320kps and lossless, he's happy for you to pick the material to do the test with.
"lossless" is a marketing term.

sounds like a scam to me -- this guy is really looking for someone who can tell the difference between an mp3 and something else? who does he work for again?

what a joke.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2646
not saying you or your post was a joke, just the concept of the magazine article. i don't have his email but i'm interested in his test, i guess, but sounds like a major setup job and waste of time. what DSP interest does he serve? i'm getting married in 2 weeks so i don't have much time to subject myself to much more ;-)

wanna bet he won't convince me that mp3 is the future and i won't convince him that mp3s sounds like arse?

if all it took to get features in a magazine was good ears most of us would have our features.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2647
Lives for gear
 
O.F.F.'s Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezraz View Post
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.


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.
This is just plain wrong.

Our dominant sense is visual. Visual information always trumps auditory information if they conflict each other otherwise the McGurk effect (look it up) would not exist.
Also our visual cortex is much larger than our auditory cortex.
In other words: It crunches a lot more data than our auditory version.

Spotify and the other streaming services I checked stream in 320k if you pay for the subscription.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2648
Lives for gear
 
GJ999x's Avatar
No worries, I think he's serious, it's not a huge magazine or anything but it's a genuine challenge he's put out there, and no-one has taken him up on it.

I tried to find the details just now but couldnt, will find them later and put them here, totally up to you of course but my impression is his is a genuine and well-known proposition (and was discussed earlier in the thread).

Anyone who took the test would probably be gearslutz-famous either way, and especially if they passed, just sayin

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezraz View Post
not saying you or your post was a joke, just the concept of the magazine article. i don't have his email but i'm interested in his test, i guess, but sounds like a major setup job and waste of time. what DSP interest does he serve? i'm getting married in 2 weeks so i don't have much time to subject myself to much more ;-)

wanna bet he won't convince me that mp3 is the future and i won't convince him that mp3s sounds like arse?

if all it took to get features in a magazine was good ears most of us would have our features.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2649
Quote:
Originally Posted by O.F.F. View Post
This is just plain wrong.

Our dominant sense is visual. Visual information always trumps auditory information if they conflict each other otherwise the McGurk effect (look it up) would not exist.
Also our visual cortex is much larger than our auditory cortex.
In other words: It crunches a lot more data than our auditory version.

Spotify and the other streaming services I checked stream in 320k if you pay for the subscription.

Thanks for the reply - I will look up that stuff, I was not aware of some of that. I like the learnin!

But I am not swayed that easily -- ears trumps eyes, even nose trumps eyes, when it comes to survival of the fittest. Eyes are easily fooled and/or obstructed.

Science of our senses is so intense, yet somehow myopic since they are not allowed or trained to think large. They are not allowed to comment on human nature, just try to find measurements for it.

BTW - who caught the study released in Science Journal a couple weeks back about smell scientists discovering the world was round? Just now, in 2014, they will probably be upping the number of odors they think our noses can detect from ### to ###,###,###.

poor nose and ears (and skin) - always dissed for the eyes.

if the eyes were that important we wouldn't have stevie wonder, ray charles and the like. why can't deaf people see 70 miles or through a wall, or microscopically? i know the blind guy 7 houses up hears nearly everything i do. do they measure the auditory cortex of blind people? just wondering.

because the eyes just do what they do with the limited visual spectrum, it's just a camera with crazy good focus and tracking. Auditory can't see behind it and can only detect movement in it's frame. it has no 360 degree full immersion ability, and has real issues with depth perception. it also turns off for hours every day, not to mention it needs to close to wipe clean every 5-10 seconds!

i love my baby blues but i still vote ears as being more impressive. the sound computer upstairs might have some next-level lossless compression skills to be that small, and size isn't the only metric up there. i know that much.

more "proof": music is far more popular than video with no sound. our ears jack into our pleasure sense more.

would you prefer silent sex or sex with your eyes closed? ok don't get too happy answering that one, just think about it.

I'm team EAR.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2650
Quote:
Originally Posted by ezraz View Post
if the eyes were that important we wouldn't have stevie wonder, ray charles and the like. why can't deaf people see 70 miles or through a wall, or microscopically?
Because blind people don't develop super human hearing they are just forced to rely on and develop that sense more than the average sighted person.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2651
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ezraz View Post
All the theories and maths in this thread are about "DIGITAL AUDIO". NOT AUDIO.

Audio is analog and so are our ears.
Audio is most certainly not analog. Audio is the real deal: acoustic pressure gradients. Analog is the electromagnetic representation of the real thing; digital is the sampled/quantized representation of analog.

The good news is that the mathematics and physics of signal theory apply equally to all of them. The bad news is that each has its own engineering challenges. The most difficult -- by far -- is found at the analog interface with the world: accurately capturing and reproducing acoustic energy is incredibly difficult. Compared to everything else in the signal path, the transducers are the weak links.

Quote:
the concept of digital audio is a very complicated problem -- to take analog sound, convert to pure math for transport, then reconstruct in real time.
The idea may seem complicated but it's actually quite straightforward. Rest assured that nothing is converted to "pure math" (if only that were possible).

Quote:
digital has made some progress, and finally getting 24/96 digital is a big step up. the move to 24 bits can be heard easily by anyone who loves good music because the tells are in the depth, soundstage, and reverbs.
You are giving 24 bits too much credit; the only difference between 16 and 24 bits is the noise floor. It is equivalent to the difference between using a 5% resistor and a 1% resistor in an analog circuit.

Quote:
call me the ignorant, backwards, amateur if you want (and by the way i listen to mp3 and cd's most the time, i'm no snob!) but i honestly can't accept these digital rules as anything more than digital rules. since audio is analog they don't concern the physical reality of the situation, digital rules represent compromises.
Ok: you're ignorant, backwards, and an amateur. But seriously, the rules of analog present far more of a compromise than the rules of digital. I get that you and many others are highly skeptical of this. The intuitive distrust of the sampling/quantizing process makes you want higher and higher sampling rates and deeper and deeper bit depths -- more information can only be a good thing, right? But on a mathematical level, on a physical level, and on an engineering level: that is not how it works. And because the brain is so damn convinced that it must be true, we require blind testing to really be sure of what we're hearing.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2652
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezraz View Post
Thanks for the reply - I will look up that stuff, I was not aware of some of that. I like the learnin!

But I am not swayed that easily -- ears trumps eyes, even nose trumps eyes, when it comes to survival of the fittest. Eyes are easily fooled and/or obstructed.

I'm team EAR.
Honestly, this has NOTHING to do with the topic. And I do think you only make a favor for the argument opposite of yours, what ever it might be (I've honestly no idea).

Survival of the fittest competition between Team Ear and Team Eye? Should it be a boxing match? Running competition, or maybe a fishing competition? I can only say: Good luck with that Team Ear...
Old 9th April 2014
  #2653
Lives for gear
 
O.F.F.'s Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezraz View Post
would you prefer silent sex or sex with your eyes closed? ok don't get too happy answering that one, just think about it.

I'm team EAR.

Return question:
You are being dumped in a wilderness (ie you have to find food, shelter, avoid large predators and crevasses/other obstacles) with one sense missing.

Would you rate your chances of survival higher if you were deaf or if you were blind?
Old 9th April 2014
  #2654
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve'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?
I think they can get away with it because the ability to capture higher frequencies might be argued to be "higher resolution" in a marketing way.

I would be embarrassed if I were Neil Young to be part of that "underwater listening" farce.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2655
Lives for gear
 
GJ999x's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by O.F.F. View Post
You are being dumped in a wilderness (ie you have to find food, shelter, avoid large predators and crevasses/other obstacles) with one sense missing.
I sometimes feel like this when I log in to GS.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2656
Gear Head
 
bandpass's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
Audio is most certainly not analog. Audio is the real deal: acoustic pressure gradients. Analog is the electromagnetic representation of the real thing; digital is the sampled/quantized representation of analog.
With my pedant's hat on, audio is either analog or digital, and that stuff that hits your ears is 'sound'. E.g. acoustic instruments make sounds, no audio involved.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2657
Quote:
Originally Posted by O.F.F. View Post
Return question:
You are being dumped in a wilderness (ie you have to find food, shelter, avoid large predators and crevasses/other obstacles) with one sense missing.

Would you rate your chances of survival higher if you were deaf or if you were blind?

I already said it, I'm team ear!

Catching food could get quite difficult. But would you live long enough while deaf to even get to starving?

Haha, as I'm typing this some jungle sounding animal sound music just came on :-)
Old 9th April 2014
  #2658
Quote:
Originally Posted by bandpass View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort

Audio is most certainly not analog. Audio is the real deal: acoustic pressure gradients. Analog is the electromagnetic representation of the real thing; digital is the sampled/quantized representation of analog.
With my pedant's hat on, audio is either analog or digital, and that stuff that hits your ears is 'sound'. E.g. acoustic instruments make sounds, no audio involved.
Look at word. Think about its root.

< Latin audi- (stem of audire to hear)


Audio is what we hear.


That said, in common usage, it's been a term associated recording and transmission of sound-based signals.

Quote:
au·di·o [aw-dee-oh] Show IPA
adjective
1.
Electronics. designating an electronic apparatus using audio frequencies: audio amplifier.
2.
of, pertaining to, or employed in the transmission, reception, or reproduction of sound.
3.
of or pertaining to frequencies or signals in the audible range.
Origin:
1920–25; independent use of audio-

Dictionary.com Unabridged
audio-
a combining form used in the formation of compound words, with the meanings: “sound within the range of human hearing” ( audiometer ); “hearing” ( audiology ); “sound reproduction” ( audiophile ).
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/audio
Old 9th April 2014
  #2659
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
I think they can get away with it because the ability to capture higher frequencies might be argued to be "higher resolution" in a marketing way.

I would be embarrassed if I were Neil Young to be part of that "underwater listening" farce.
pono = righteous. i don't think Neil is embarrassed, he's been in this fight for decades now. are you claiming a digital guitar and amp can sound as good or better than neil's gibson rig?

i joined the first time i heard a CD in the mid-80's.
i rejoin every time i see a live band or an orchestra.

my ears have unlimited resolution and enough range to be fatal.

btw - if i come off like a luddite, sorry, i'm a programmer and a producer and musician and a fan and have been learning and using digital for decades now. that's why i have come to rant -- the truth about 16/44 digital audio is that it's lacking something that is almost impossible to label or quantify, but it's there, and i'll keep up the rants until redbook is long gone.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2660
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. 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.
there is no PROPER ABX test. it's a flawed methodology.

music touches our soul in an unmeasurable way. if you mess with it we can tell.

are you convinced that a digital version of your baby's cry would be the exact same thing to you?

watch out for the robots, they will have you fooled first ;-)

because the digitally recorded reverb or hi-hat (or dog bark) isn't the same.

digital just ain't the same as electrical. sampling frequency, nyquist shannon, other theories, all are based on the hope to replicate something in nature digitally for easier transport. it's a noble cause but it has to be kept in context, and they should be continually aiming for improved resolution.

digital audio marketing grid:
mp3, ogg = streaming (low) quality
cd/redbook = standard def
24bit anything = high def

i do put most the value in the 24 bits, because having 15,000,000 points on the Y axis is far better than 16,000 points.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2661
Lives for gear
 
GJ999x's Avatar
So now we're debating (without agreement) the very definiiotn of audio, and of science. Meta!!!

You all win gearslutz today, congrats.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezraz View Post
there is no PROPER ABX test. it's a flawed methodology.

music touches our soul in an unmeasurable way. if you mess with it we can tell.

are you convinced that a digital version of your baby's cry would be the exact same thing to you?

watch out for the robots, they will have you fooled first ;-)

because the digitally recorded reverb or hi-hat (or dog bark) isn't the same.

digital just ain't the same as electrical. sampling frequency, nyquist shannon, other theories, all are based on the hope to replicate something in nature digitally for easier transport. it's a noble cause but it has to be kept in context, and they should be continually aiming for improved resolution.

digital audio marketing grid:
mp3, ogg = streaming (low) quality
cd/redbook = standard def
24bit anything = high def

i do put most the value in the 24 bits, because having 15,000,000 points on the Y axis is far better than 16,000 points.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2662
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
Audio is most certainly not analog. Audio is the real deal: acoustic pressure gradients. Analog is the electromagnetic representation of the real thing; digital is the sampled/quantized representation of analog.

The good news is that the mathematics and physics of signal theory apply equally to all of them. The bad news is that each has its own engineering challenges. The most difficult -- by far -- is found at the analog interface with the world: accurately capturing and reproducing acoustic energy is incredibly difficult. Compared to everything else in the signal path, the transducers are the weak links.



The idea may seem complicated but it's actually quite straightforward. Rest assured that nothing is converted to "pure math" (if only that were possible).



You are giving 24 bits too much credit; the only difference between 16 and 24 bits is the noise floor. It is equivalent to the difference between using a 5% resistor and a 1% resistor in an analog circuit.



Ok: you're ignorant, backwards, and an amateur. But seriously, the rules of analog present far more of a compromise than the rules of digital. I get that you and many others are highly skeptical of this. The intuitive distrust of the sampling/quantizing process makes you want higher and higher sampling rates and deeper and deeper bit depths -- more information can only be a good thing, right? But on a mathematical level, on a physical level, and on an engineering level: that is not how it works. And because the brain is so damn convinced that it must be true, we require blind testing to really be sure of what we're hearing.

haha awesome response, i ain't mad!

but you say it yourself:
  • Analog is the electromagnetic representation of the real thing; digital is the sampled/quantized representation of analog.

so what is the sample and quantize? well, it's throwing out data based on theories. yes analog "misses" data based on physical limitations, but it does not decide to throw something out based on theories.

theories are sometimes wrong. i don't care how old it is. don't act like some digital sampling theory from the WW2 era is the same as 2+2=4. it's nowhere near that settled. i wouldn't be surprised if mr. nyquist was on my side of this argument in 2014.

why is that you can find enough ABX tests to proves that no one can hear a damn thing? because most of them have an agenda of confusion or marketing, or pushback against said marketing.

oh well, back to work --- the proof will be in the pudding. to think there's people on gearslutz that can't or won't hear a difference between 16 bit and 24 bit makes me think a little differently about this place.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2663
Quote:
Originally Posted by ezraz View Post
pono = righteous. i don't think Neil is embarrassed, he's been in this fight for decades now. are you claiming a digital guitar and amp can sound as good or better than neil's gibson rig?

i joined the first time i heard a CD in the mid-80's.
i rejoin every time i see a live band or an orchestra.

my ears have unlimited resolution and enough range to be fatal.

btw - if i come off like a luddite, sorry, i'm a programmer and a producer and musician and a fan and have been learning and using digital for decades now. that's why i have come to rant -- the truth about 16/44 digital audio is that it's lacking something that is almost impossible to label or quantify, but it's there, and i'll keep up the rants until redbook is long gone.
I know you think you're being cute -- but we burned through cute a long time ago.

You need to either step up your game, facts and logic-wise, or find somewhere else to play. What you write above is all but meaningless. I assume you mean you code computer applications. What kind of programming do you do?
Old 9th April 2014
  #2664
Gear Head
 
bandpass's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
the only difference between 16 and 24 bits is the noise floor.
Set the noise floor the same and have the extra at the top... Pono stun grenade.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2665
Quote:
Originally Posted by ezraz View Post
haha awesome response, i ain't mad!

but you say it yourself:
  • Analog is the electromagnetic representation of the real thing; digital is the sampled/quantized representation of analog.

so what is the sample and quantize? well, it's throwing out data based on theories. yes analog "misses" data based on physical limitations, but it does not decide to throw something out based on theories.

theories are sometimes wrong. i don't care how old it is. don't act like some digital sampling theory from the WW2 era is the same as 2+2=4. it's nowhere near that settled. i wouldn't be surprised if mr. nyquist was on my side of this argument in 2014.

why is that you can find enough ABX tests to proves that no one can hear a damn thing? because most of them have an agenda of confusion or marketing, or pushback against said marketing.

oh well, back to work --- the proof will be in the pudding. to think there's people on gearslutz that can't or won't hear a difference between 16 bit and 24 bit makes me think a little differently about this place.
You don't seem to have the semantic understanding to begin to discuss this.

The limits of human hearing are not theory in any normal sense -- they are based on experiential data, on long term observation. We have high confidence in those observations because we have no credible evidence to outweigh the enormous amount of data already collected and collated and arranged into our current understanding.

The Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem is NOT a theory.

It is a theorem. Two entirely different things. Some people apparently get them confused just because they sound kind of the same. Pretty silly, huh? Well, just look around you.

Illuminate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorem


In digital sampling of audio signals, the data we 'throw out' is the data above our selected band limit. That band limit may be below the nominally accepted threshold of human hearing or, in high fidelity use, high enough above it that we will have adequate 'headroom' for the operation of antialias filters. (The last requirement has been relaxed in a sense by the now widespread use of multibit oversampling converters.)

You have presented a bunch of nonsense and non-facts. That kind of nonsense may be good enough for you to fill up your head with -- but you do a real disservice to newbs who really want to learn and may be confused by your nonsensical spouting.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2666
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
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.
My full ABX session, unedited, from beginning to end. I told you I wouldn't be able to identify the harpsichords, and I couldn't, though I thought I could. I bailed out of several tests because I could tell they'd be too tricky to do 20 times in a row. 5 is 4, with Airwindows SlewOnly applied identically to both 4 examples (this is like a really vicious highpass, for mix checking purposes). At first I didn't think I was gonna be able to do 4, even.

24-96.zip with new 5 (all-brightness 4)
free SlewOnly plugin, for cleanly wiping out all lows


ABX Test Completed: 2014-04-09 10:57:00 -0400

Number of tests performed: 0
Number of correct answers: 0
Percentage correct: -2147483648%

File 1 = /Users/christopherjohnson/Desktop/24-96/1a.wav
File 2 = /Users/christopherjohnson/Desktop/24-96/1b.wav
File placement was static.

n [A] [X] [B] Choice Score

--------------------------------------------------------------

ABX Test Completed: 2014-04-09 10:59:55 -0400

Number of tests performed: 0
Number of correct answers: 0
Percentage correct: -2147483648%

File 1 = /Users/christopherjohnson/Desktop/24-96/1a.wav
File 2 = /Users/christopherjohnson/Desktop/24-96/1b.wav
File placement was static.

n [A] [X] [B] Choice Score

--------------------------------------------------------------

ABX Test Completed: 2014-04-09 11:06:48 -0400

Number of tests performed: 1
Number of correct answers: 1
Percentage correct: 100%

File 1 = /Users/christopherjohnson/Desktop/24-96/2a.wav
File 2 = /Users/christopherjohnson/Desktop/24-96/2b.wav
File placement was static.

n [A] [X] [B] Choice Score
1 [1] [2] [2] B 1/1

--------------------------------------------------------------

ABX Test Completed: 2014-04-09 11:19:23 -0400

Number of tests performed: 20
Number of correct answers: 11
Percentage correct: 55%

File 1 = /Users/christopherjohnson/Desktop/24-96/3a.wav
File 2 = /Users/christopherjohnson/Desktop/24-96/3b.wav
File placement was static.

n [A] [X] [B] Choice Score
1 [1] [2] [2] A 0/1
2 [1] [1] [2] B 0/2
3 [1] [1] [2] B 0/3
4 [1] [2] [2] B 1/4
5 [1] [2] [2] A 1/5
6 [1] [1] [2] A 2/6
7 [1] [2] [2] A 2/7
8 [1] [2] [2] B 3/8
9 [1] [1] [2] A 4/9
10 [1] [1] [2] A 5/10
11 [1] [2] [2] B 6/11
12 [1] [2] [2] A 6/12
13 [1] [1] [2] A 7/13
14 [1] [1] [2] B 7/14
15 [1] [1] [2] A 8/15
16 [1] [1] [2] A 9/16
17 [1] [1] [2] B 9/17
18 [1] [1] [2] A 10/18
19 [1] [1] [2] A 11/19
20 [1] [1] [2] B 11/20

--------------------------------------------------------------

ABX Test Completed: 2014-04-09 11:24:05 -0400

Number of tests performed: 0
Number of correct answers: 0
Percentage correct: -2147483648%

File 1 = /Users/christopherjohnson/Desktop/24-96/4a.wav
File 2 = /Users/christopherjohnson/Desktop/24-96/4b.wav
File placement was static.

n [A] [X] [B] Choice Score

--------------------------------------------------------------

ABX Test Completed: 2014-04-09 11:32:54 -0400

Number of tests performed: 20
Number of correct answers: 20
Percentage correct: 100%

File 1 = /Users/christopherjohnson/Desktop/24-96/5a.wav
File 2 = /Users/christopherjohnson/Desktop/24-96/5b.wav
File placement was static.

n [A] [X] [B] Choice Score
1 [2] [1] [1] B 1/1
2 [2] [2] [1] A 2/2
3 [2] [1] [1] B 3/3
4 [2] [1] [1] B 4/4
5 [2] [1] [1] B 5/5
6 [2] [1] [1] B 6/6
7 [2] [2] [1] A 7/7
8 [2] [1] [1] B 8/8
9 [2] [1] [1] B 9/9
10 [2] [2] [1] A 10/10
11 [2] [2] [1] A 11/11
12 [2] [1] [1] B 12/12
13 [2] [2] [1] A 13/13
14 [2] [2] [1] A 14/14
15 [2] [2] [1] A 15/15
16 [2] [1] [1] B 16/16
17 [2] [2] [1] A 17/17
18 [2] [1] [1] B 18/18
19 [2] [2] [1] A 19/19
20 [2] [2] [1] A 20/20

--------------------------------------------------------------

ABX Test Completed: 2014-04-09 11:36:30 -0400

Number of tests performed: 20
Number of correct answers: 20
Percentage correct: 100%

File 1 = /Users/christopherjohnson/Desktop/24-96/4a.wav
File 2 = /Users/christopherjohnson/Desktop/24-96/4b.wav
File placement was static.

n [A] [X] [B] Choice Score
1 [2] [2] [1] A 1/1
2 [2] [2] [1] A 2/2
3 [2] [1] [1] B 3/3
4 [2] [1] [1] B 4/4
5 [2] [1] [1] B 5/5
6 [2] [2] [1] A 6/6
7 [2] [2] [1] A 7/7
8 [2] [1] [1] B 8/8
9 [2] [1] [1] B 9/9
10 [2] [2] [1] A 10/10
11 [2] [1] [1] B 11/11
12 [2] [2] [1] A 12/12
13 [2] [2] [1] A 13/13
14 [2] [1] [1] B 14/14
15 [2] [1] [1] B 15/15
16 [2] [2] [1] A 16/16
17 [2] [2] [1] A 17/17
18 [2] [2] [1] A 18/18
19 [2] [2] [1] A 19/19
20 [2] [2] [1] A 20/20

--------------------------------------------------------------

ABX Test Completed: 2014-04-09 11:38:55 -0400

Number of tests performed: 0
Number of correct answers: 0
Percentage correct: -2147483648%

File 1 = /Users/christopherjohnson/Desktop/24-96/1a.wav
File 2 = /Users/christopherjohnson/Desktop/24-96/1b.wav
File placement was static.

n [A] [X] [B] Choice Score

--------------------------------------------------------------



This was grueling and unpleasant, and gave me my final 'take' on Neil's claims about 192K. I think 24 bit is great but 192K is seriously way in excess of what's needed or wanted, unless we're using noise shaping that cuts down error in the audible band using that samplerate (I have a noise shaper like that, and DSD works that way). Only then is it relevant.

I'm still a little dissatisfied with 44.1K but would probably be fine with even 48K, and I'm not worried about 44.1K anymore if it's handled properly. The problem is more causing it to splatter by making the reconstruction have to stress out the DAC beyond its design limits (Gibb effect, intersample peaking which can be shown using SSL's "X-ISM" meter). If you run this meter and the analog clip lights up on intersample peaks, there's your '44.1K' problem right there. The problem naturally goes away at higher sample rates, but at 44.1K your headroom for super highs is MANY DB down from full scale, whether you know it or not.

Furthermore, ABX testing is still insensitive. I can tell whether I will or won't be able to keep up an observation 20 times in a row. When your heart starts pounding and you have to hold your head in precisely the same place and you're listening painfully loud, it's distracting. ABX sucks. All it can tell us is that, human beings can conclusively tell the difference between two 24/96 files otherwise identical except for the filtering of all >20K information.

Turns out this is a lot harder than it appears.

The reason it appears so easy is that, when pleasure listening, we are constantly getting hints of this reality but they are fugitive. They're not in the same place two times running. To pin them down every time requires that you hear and fix your attention exactly the same, over and over, maddeningly.

ABX sucks, but it has its uses. Please cut it out with the 'there are no audible differences' when there are.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2667
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ezraz View Post
are you convinced that a digital version of your baby's cry would be the exact same thing to you?
The reason it won't is the speaker's fault.

Quote:
i do put most the value in the 24 bits, because having 15,000,000 points on the Y axis is far better than 16,000 points.
Why stop at 24 bits? Why not 128, or even better 1024?
Old 9th April 2014
  #2668
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Funny, Chris...I arrive at 24/48 as a happy place by my senses. This is without any ABX as it were. But I better get out of here quick before someone steps up to tell me I'm tripping again......
Old 9th April 2014
  #2669
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ezraz View Post
theories are sometimes wrong. i don't care how old it is. don't act like some digital sampling theory from the WW2 era is the same as 2+2=4. it's nowhere near that settled. i wouldn't be surprised if mr. nyquist was on my side of this argument in 2014.
In 1948 Claude Shannon published a mathematical proof of the sampling theorem (theorem not theory). This means that it will be true now, tomorrow, and in the year 9293048. It is exactly as certain as 2 + 2 = 4.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2670
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezraz View Post

--in 16/44 there is a boxy, mid-sized room and a mushy center. the lows sound paper-y thin and the highs are chopped and i hear some sort of quantization on the highs - ride cymbals, splash, hi-hat, sounds "digital" with data loss and aliasing artifacts.

--in 24 bit digital there is a full, natural sounding room with a decent center. the highs and the lows lose the digital, filtered, lossy sound.

--in vinyl there is a huge room and a clear center. cymbals sound more natural (still compressed) and bass is full, round, and bubbly. of course this awesome playback gets degraded various ways that digital bypasses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezraz View Post
also -- most of you ABX tests are garbage unless you are doing it on material your are familiar with, and following up over the course of weeks or months with the blind testing findings. your ears react to things they like and recognize differently than when taking in new tones. a taste test between two brownies might tell you which one tastes "better" at that moment, but unless you are testing which of those brownies gives you the most nourishment and happiness over the course of time, i'm not that interested.
You do know that the people making the music (like me) do not mix or produce records for months before deciding on a particular piece of signal processing to add to any one sound. Right?

As engineers, we make decisions quickly. If we can't hear a difference, it doesn't exist to us.

Now I understand that as a listener you might get lost in the finished product based on the relative humidity of the closet where your power amp sits, but the people making the music just don't have that kind of time.

Go mushy center!!!

Go mushy center!!!!

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