-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
While no one can say for sure, you certainly at this stage cannot rule ANY possibility out. I do not think any says that we can 'hear" above 20khz.
I haven't ruled out people be affected, whether it is hearing or some other perception, by frequencies over 20 kHz. However, there is simply no audio equipment to produce these frequencies. When that day comes, and source material is recorded up to 100 kHz and amps can amplify 100 kHz and speakers have supertweeters at 100 kHz, then yes, let's ditch 44.1/16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
You can plainly see what 44.1khz does to a 1khz( I choose that frequency for my test) sinewave, and it's not pretty.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Even in your reference link they show a 10 kHz square wave that is processed with 44.1/16 and it produces a nice 10 kHz sine wave. That is really all we are asking 44.1/16 to do for us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
So you are right, in terms of dynamic range, and ability to produce signals up to the limit of human hearing, 16/44.1khz is adequate. If accurate tracking of the musical waveforms is highly desired, the 44.1khz just does not cut it.
I do not know what you mean here wrt to "accurate tracking" of musical waveforms. Higher sampling rates give you more bandwidth. Longer word lengths give you more dynamic range. What do you mean by "accurate tracking"?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by WmAx
I do not see any new issues being brought up. Only a defense of non-scientific evaluation. You can refer to my previous replies, as if i reply at this point, it will be redundant.
-Chris
I think I have learned enough from your replies that tell me that you would rather talk than listen. So I think its fair to say we have taken our debate as far as it can go.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
I think I have learned enough from your replies that tell me that you would rather talk than listen. So I think its fair to say we have taken our debate as far as it can go.
It is true that I have no desire to listen to a subjectively-based standpoint on the issue(bandwidth audibility). I did try to make it clear I was uninterested in subjective perspecitve on this issue. I apologize if I was not satisfactorily clear. In the event that research data collected via controlled scenarios is discussed in this matter, I am all ears. :-)
-Chris
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monstrous Mike
I haven't ruled out people be affected, whether it is hearing or some other perception, by frequencies over 20 kHz. However, there is simply no audio equipment to produce these frequencies. When that day comes, and source material is recorded up to 100 kHz and amps can amplify 100 kHz and speakers have supertweeters at 100 kHz, then yes, let's ditch 44.1/16
Mike, I don't know about that. My amp in my receiver is spec't out to 100khz. The tweeters in my speakers are flat to 45khz. My DVD player outputs DVD-A and SACD, so right there is the potential(key word) to playback higher frequencies. But admittedly you are right, not many speakers are flat past 19khz or so, but Tannoy has come out with a supertweeter that is flat to 54khz that can be added on to any speaker.
http://www.tannoyna.com/downloads/spec_ST50.pdf
Quote:
I'm not sure what you mean here. Even in your reference link they show a 10 kHz square wave that is processed with 44.1/16 and it produces a nice 10 kHz sine wave. That is really all we are asking 44.1/16 to do for us.
Mike, the square wave of 44.1khz is rounded(averaged with only 4.
4 samples). Now look at the 96khz, and the 192khz square wave, it more closely follows the form of the squarewave, with some variation in the 96khz due to harmonics appearing in the sample.
Quote:
I do not know what you mean here wrt to "accurate tracking" of musical waveforms. Higher sampling rates give you more bandwidth. Longer word lengths give you more dynamic range. What do you mean by "accurate tracking"?
You are correct about the longer word lengths, but only partially correct about the higher sampling rate. The higher sampling rate takes more snapshot of the waveform. So(to use an extreme example) when 44.1khz sample rate takes two snapshots at 20khz, 96khz takes four. The more snapshots taken, the more the digital audio looks like its original analog waveform. That is what I mean by more accurate tracking of the waveform.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by WmAx
It is true that I have no desire to listen to a subjectively-based standpoint on the issue(bandwidth audibility). I did try to make it clear I was uninterested in subjective perspecitve on this issue. I apologize if I was not satisfactorily clear. In the event that research data collected via controlled scenarios is discussed in this matter, I am all ears. :-)
-Chris
Chris,
How am I to take you seriously. You admittedly do not own DVD-A or SACD player, yet you are already dismissing the formats as unnecessary. You are trying to analyze a listening format with a bunch of technical mumbo jumbo. I am unimpressed with someone who chooses to do more talking and less listening to a format that REQUIRES listening.
As far as what you desire, I don't really care. Sorry
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Chris,
How am I to take you seriously. You admittedly do not own DVD-A or SACD player, yet you are already dismissing the formats as unnecessary. You are trying to analyze a listening format with a bunch of technical mumbo jumbo. I am unimpressed with someone who chooses to do more talking and less listening to a format that REQUIRES listening.
As far as what you desire, I don't really care. Sorry
Technical mumbo jumbo? Do you resent controlled studies/research?
As far as 'my listening', do you think i should trust what I 'hear'? I don't. At least not the point I would try to state something as fact. Not under conditions that are not strictly controlled in order to remove psychological bias. Let's imagine I did own a SACD player. I can not compare to the RBCD layer or RBCD release, as these are very likely different masters/mixes. The only valid method would be to use a 44.1/16 A-D-A in line of the analogue SACD output and switch between the two outputs(SACD output vs. SACD output-->A-D-A output) in a carefully controlled, level matched DBT, ABX or other similar protocol and attempt to score positive signficnat statisical results. Let's assume I did score positive results...then it is still not safe to assume that the format is to blame. In this theoretical setup, I would have to analyse/measure the A-D-A system/process in order to insure that no known audible artifacts and/or distortions are being introduced to the original signal. IN addition, then the loudspeaker system or headphone would have to be analysed for these two discrete scenarios in order to see if IMD caused by non-linearity of the tranducer(s) is the cause of audibility. Not a quick task to accomplish. Besides, why should I think that I can achieve positive results where highly competant acoustics researchers have failed in a very similar subject? THis makes this particular test seemingly redundant and purposeless for me to carry out unless I suspect or identify a critical flaw in those tests which I attempt to account for in a new test.
-Chris
-
My take,
the 44.1 kHz/16 bit format was tested in one of the best studios in the world (i.e. highest sound quality, Studio Blue in Stockholm) and they could not hear the difference between a high-quality analog tape and the corresponding transfer to digital. Also, down-sampling from higher sampling rates did not improve the signal audibly. So for consumers there is no need to go higher.
Thomas
-
Also, a 20 kHz dithered sinewave will be perfectly reproduced by the 16/44.1 kHz standard. Increasing the sampling rate will not increase the resolution of a 20 kHz sinewave.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by WmAx
Technical mumbo jumbo? Do you resent controlled studies/research?
As far as 'my listening', do you think i should trust what I 'hear'? I don't. At least not the point I would try to state something as fact.
Controlled studies and research have their place, and no I do not resent them. But what do people who do controlled studies have over me? They listen with their ears, and so do I. When many people LISTEN and say the same thing, then I am willing to have an open mind. Your mind is pretty closed, and I am not interested in opening it, that is up to you. I never stated anything as FACT(that's what you gathered), its is a broad based opinion. While you are quick to dimiss it, I am not. Engineers who know their stuff have as much credibility to me as a scientist does.
Quote:
Not under conditions that are not strictly controlled in order to remove psychological bias. Let's imagine I did own a SACD player. I can not compare to the RBCD layer or RBCD release, as these are very likely different masters/mixes. The only valid method would be to use a 44.1/16 A-D-A in line of the analogue SACD output and switch between the two outputs(SACD output vs. SACD output-->A-D-A output) in a carefully controlled, level matched DBT, ABX or other similar protocol and attempt to score positive signficnat statisical results
A pschological bias would only exist if you were in favor of a certain format. I have no favorites and therefore no psycological bias.
I would suggest you do just what you propose instead of talking down a technology you haven't even heard. I did just what you suggested, and that is what convinced me to upgrade my processing boxes, and various equipment to handle high resolution audio. You would be surprised if you quit talking and started listening what you will learn.
Quote:
. Let's assume I did score positive results...then it is still not safe to assume that the format is to blame. In this theoretical setup, I would have to analyse/measure the A-D-A system/process in order to insure that no known audible artifacts and/or distortions are being introduced to the original signal.
The already have gear to do this on the fly, so there is no need for a second process as you suggest. Much of what you mention here I would have already done in the beginning.
Quote:
IN addition, then the loudspeaker system or headphone would have to be analysed for these two discrete scenarios in order to see if IMD caused by non-linearity of the tranducer(s) is the cause of audibility. Not a quick task to accomplish. Besides, why should I think that I can achieve positive results where highly competant acoustics researchers have failed in a very similar subject? THis makes this particular test seemingly redundant and purposeless for me to carry out unless I suspect or identify a critical flaw in those tests which I attempt to account for in a new test.
-Chris
When I was deciding to upgrade, I made no attempt to test so as to attain a peer review. I wasn't interested in proving, or disproving the increased bandwidth arguement. I was interested in improvements only within the audible band. My interest was to find out if it was worth the significant investment to upgrade my equipment to handle the higher resolution. After careful listening in at least 12 different studios during mixing and mastering sessions, my own listening room, several conferences and seminars, and recording sessions, I made my decision. All testing was DBT. My decision was based on what I heard, and saw on the scope, nothing more. No interest in peer review, publishing, challenging what is already known, or setting new trends, only does it improve the audio enough to warrant a upgrade.
I am not a scientist, and have no desire to do what scientist do. I do not want to publish, so I am not interested in having a protocol that passes peer scrutiny.
I have plenty of faith in my ears, I have no faith in claims made by equipment manufacturer unless my EARS can verify them. I have no biases, so my ears cannot fooled by biases. The object is to be open minded(something you have trouble doing) and if you cannot hear an improvement, then there is none to be found, test over.
-
Quote:
Engineers who know their stuff have as much credibility to me as a scientist does.
The issue of whether someone is a scientist or not is not the issue. The methodology used is the issue.
Quote:
A pschological bias would only exist if you were in favor of a certain format. I have no favorites and therefore no psycological bias.
Not true. It is an error to believe that your senses can be controlled this easily.
Quote:
I would suggest you do just what you propose instead of talking down a technology you haven't even heard. I did just what you suggested, and that is what convinced me to upgrade my processing boxes, and various equipment to handle high resolution audio. You would be surprised if you quit talking and started listening what you will learn.
If you have done what you seem to claim("did just what i suggested"), then publish the data including the scores, confirmed measurements of the equipment, speakers, etc.. It would be interesting -- since you would have done what acoustics researchers have not been able to do. I have no good reason to do this testing, as I specified in the last reply. I would be motivated to change this perspective if you have positive test results that stand under scrutiny.
Quote:
. All testing was DBT. My decision was based on what I heard, and saw on the scope, nothing more. No interest in peer review, publishing, challenging what is already known, or setting new trends, only does it improve the audio enough to warrant a upgrade.
Quote:
I do not want to publish, so I am not interested in having a protocol that passes peer scrutiny.
You are not interested in a protocol that passes peer scrutiny? But all testing was DBT, no? Double blind testing is a valid protocol. I would be very interested in the test if it was scrutinized, with no errors found.
Quote:
I have no biases, so my ears cannot fooled by biases.
Not possible. Human senses are interpretted by the brain, which can and will subject your perception(s) to subconcious variables.
-Chris
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas_A
My take,
the 44.1 kHz/16 bit format was tested in one of the best studios in the world (i.e. highest sound quality, Studio Blue in Stockholm) and they could not hear the difference between a high-quality analog tape and the corresponding transfer to digital. Also, down-sampling from higher sampling rates did not improve the signal audibly. So for consumers there is no need to go higher.
Thomas
Thomas,
Hardly anyone uses analog tape anymore. So this is out of context with audio engineering done today. Downsampling from a higher sampling rate NEVER improves the signal, so this is a worthless statement. When I did use tape, 44.1khz NEVER sounded like my master tapes, and I think that is a pretty broad based opinion amoung most sound engineers.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by WmAx
The issue of whether someone is a scientist or not is not the issue. The methodology used is the issue.
Sorry, but the spirit of your posts don't translate this perspective.
Quote:
Not true. It is an error to believe that your senses can be controlled this easily.
It is more of an error to believe they can easily be pushed in any direction without my will.
Quote:
If you have done what you seem to claim("did just what i suggested"), then publish the data including the scores, confirmed measurements of the equipment, speakers, etc.. It would be interesting -- since you would have done what acoustics researchers have not been able to do. I have no good reason to do this testing, as I specified in the last reply. I would be motivated to change this perspective if you have positive test results that stand under scrutiny.
I am not quite understanding why you do not seem to comprehend what I have written. I believe I have mentioned multiple times that I have no interest in publishing, no, I HAVE NO INTEREST IN PUBLISHING. Did you get that? Can you also get this, I HAVE NO INTEREST IN CHANGING YOUR MIND. You may think whatever you desire, it has no reflection on me, or my business.
Quote:
You are not interested in a protocol that passes peer scrutiny? But all testing was DBT, no? Double blind testing is a valid protocol. I would be very interested in the test if it was scrutinized, with no errors found.
I am not interested in peer scrutiny, and DBT is what works for me when I am going to spend significant amounts of money on upgrades. That has nothing to do with my peers. What interests you, doesn't interest me obviously.
Quote:
Not possible. Human senses are interpretted by the brain, which can and will subject your perception(s) to subconcious variables.
-Chris
Human senses only effected when stimulated. No stimulation, and there is nothing to be interepreted by the brain. So if I haven't heard it, then there is no stimulus, and thus no interpretation by the brain. It's just that simple, you can't be bias in a listening test if you haven't heard anything right?
I walked into this not expecting anything, not to prove anything, and not trying to disprove anything. I had just one interest, is it worth it to upgrade my equipment. If there was any bias to be found, it would have went against the results that came of my tests. I didn't really want to spend the money, so my test should have been biased against hearing any differences.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas_A
Also, a 20 kHz dithered sinewave will be perfectly reproduced by the 16/44.1 kHz standard. Increasing the sampling rate will not increase the resolution of a 20 kHz sinewave.
Irrelevant, since nobody can hear that high anyway. I just used that as an example.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas_A
Also, a 20 kHz dithered sinewave will be perfectly reproduced by the 16/44.1 kHz standard. Increasing the sampling rate will not increase the resolution of a 20 kHz sinewave.
Great news for everyone who listens to sine waves.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Great news for everyone who listens to sine waves.
rw
Ah, the straw man argument, unsupported by facts. What else is new?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Irrelevant, since nobody can hear that high anyway. I just used that as an example.
Then what's the beef?
-
Quote:
Human senses only effected when stimulated. No stimulation, and there is nothing to be interepreted by the brain. So if I haven't heard it, then there is no stimulus, and thus no interpretation by the brain. It's just that simple, you can't be bias in a listening test if you haven't heard anything right?
With NO other variables this is true, and why DBT and ABX testing is extremely important in testing. However, in lack of protocols such as these, variables such as look, name, color, sound of the name, etc., etc. can effect your perception of what you *think that you may or may not hear. These work on a subconscious level, are subject to great variability and can not be over-ridden. DBT and ABX protocols prevent one from knowing exactly what they are listening to at a specific point in time so that potentially only the actual audible properties are present in the test -- not the other factors.
Since you have made it clear in a recent reply that is only your opinion(and that you are not asserting as fact) that a braoder bandwidth then RBCD provides is audible --- I don't understand what you are arguing in that regard or why you persist in that issue since I have constantly made a point that I am only interested in scientifically valid research with this subject - not speculation(s). If your supposed point is that most recording engineers 'believe' a higher bandwidth is audible for playback purposes - then I acknowledge that you made this point and I acknowledge that I read what you stated.
If you choose to once again argue this point based solely on popular opinion without the support of valid research/testing to validate this assertion, I will not reply to you again in this thread concernig this subject.
If you have something new or different to discuss, I'll be glad to reply.
-Chris
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Thomas,
Hardly anyone uses analog tape anymore. So this is out of context with audio engineering done today. Downsampling from a higher sampling rate NEVER improves the signal, so this is a worthless statement. When I did use tape, 44.1khz NEVER sounded like my master tapes, and I think that is a pretty broad based opinion amoung most sound engineers.
That's entitled to you opinion. Studio Blue in Stockholm uses the best equipment there is, and also, a place where scientific tests (i.e. blind tests) are performed. They were not able to distinguish the original master from the 16/44.1 kHz digitial copy when done under blind conditions.
T
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Irrelevant, since nobody can hear that high anyway. I just used that as an example.
Me too, I just used it as an example. The resolution of the 20 kHz sine wave will be no better at 192 kHz sampling rate. A 10 kHz square wave will look better, but since few can hear above about 18 kHz, it is as you say, irrelevant.
T
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by WmAx
With NO other variables this is true, and why DBT and ABX testing is extremely important in testing. However, in lack of protocols such as these, variables such as look, name, color, sound of the name, etc., etc. can effect your perception of what you *think that you may or may not hear. These work on a subconscious level, are subject to great variability and can not be over-ridden.
If you don't care about the look, name, color, sound of the name or any variable you present, then you arguement is moot. Don't you have control over your own brain? Can't you discipline your own mind? I came to listen, not look. A black box with the name Lexicon tells me nothing about how that product sounds. Once again I say to you, something has to be written to be over-written. The only thing written in my mind when I approach this is prove to me that your sound is worth the money. With that kind of attitude it is very difficult to be biased in favor of the product.
Quote:
DBT and ABX protocols prevent one from knowing exactly what they are listening to at a specific point in time so that potentially only the actual audible properties are present in the test -- not the other factors.
You are preaching to the choir here.
Quote:
Since you have made it clear in a recent reply that is only your opinion(and that you are not asserting as fact) that a braoder bandwidth then RBCD provides is audible --- I don't understand what you are arguing in that regard or why you persist in that issue since I have constantly made a point that I am only interested in scientifically valid research with this subject - not speculation(s).
It is apparent to me your mind is not keeping up with the thread. I took bandwidth off the table several responses ago. That was NEVER my arguement, its only what you choose to latch onto. My arguement is simple, 16/44.1khz is not good enough and it never was. That has been a complaint loooooong echo'd by audio engineers. It sounds digital, and nothing like the analog component it was sampled from. That is my arguement. Now I hope you get it this time so it doesn't have to be mentioned in every thread.
Quote:
If your supposed point is that most recording engineers 'believe' a higher bandwidth is audible for playback purposes - then I acknowledge that you made this point and I acknowledge that I read what you stated.
No Chris, this was not my point at all, what have you been reading these last several posts? Recording engineers believe that imaging, clarity, and tonality are improved by a higher sampling rate, not bandwidth. Bandwidth cannot be quickly dismissed, as the most recent testing at AES proved inconclusive. Unless something can be ruled completely out, then you cannot remove it's possibility
Quote:
If you choose to once again argue this point based solely on popular opinion without the support of valid research/testing to validate this assertion, I will not reply to you again in this thread concernig this subject.
If you have something new or different to discuss, I'll be glad to reply.
-Chris
Chris, you don't have to reply, and I hope you don't. You haven't one clue about the contents of this discussion based on what you wrote here. I feel like I have been talking to a wall that talks, but cannot read. You have argued one point, and stuck with that point even though it hasn't been apart of this discussion for days. So please, take you ball and jacks and go home!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas_A
That's entitled to you opinion. Studio Blue in Stockholm uses the best equipment there is, and also, a place where scientific tests (i.e. blind tests) are performed. They were not able to distinguish the original master from the 16/44.1 kHz digitial copy when done under blind conditions.
T
Thomas, that is not the only studio in the world that testing has been conducted. And what constitutes the BEST of anything is in the eye(or ear) of the beholder. Blind testing has been done in studio's all over the world, so there is nothing special or unique about studio blue. Gateaway Studio's in Los Angeles has been called the best mastering studio in the world, does that make it any better than Studio Blue?
If what you state is true concerning 16/44.1khz, then why do audio engineers have to tweak it some much to make it sound like the master tape? Why do I hear over and over at AES that 16/44.khz was never transparent when compared to the master tapes? I heard this myself at AES this year when they compared a master tape to red book CD 16/44.1khz, 16/48khz, 16/96khz, 24/44.1khz, 24/48khz and 24/96khz. 16/44.1khz and 24/44.1khz sounded subtlely(and sometimes not so subtle)different from the master depending on the genre of music that was played. I heard this with my own ears, instead of repeating what I read somewhere.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Thomas, that is not the only studio in the world that testing has been conducted. And what constitutes the BEST of anything is in the eye(or ear) of the beholder. Blind testing has been done in studio's all over the world, so there is nothing special or unique about studio blue. Gateaway Studio's in Los Angeles has been called the best mastering studio in the world, does that make it any better than Studio Blue?
If what you state is true concerning 16/44.1khz, then why do audio engineers have to tweak it some much to make it sound like the master tape? Why do I hear over and over at AES that 16/44.khz was never transparent when compared to the master tapes? I heard this myself at AES this year when they compared a master tape to red book CD 16/44.1khz, 16/48khz, 16/96khz, 24/44.1khz, 24/48khz and 24/96khz. 16/44.1khz and 24/44.1khz sounded subtlely(and sometimes not so subtle)different from the master depending on the genre of music that was played. I heard this with my own ears, instead of repeating what I read somewhere.
All equipment in Studio Blue has been tested for transparency using before/after tests or bypass/wire tests. The speaker system are capable of producing sound at realistic levels with very low distortion, e.g. reproducing a drum set at played at maximal possible level. The maximal level is 139 dB @ 20 Hz in-room response, before distorsion starts rise rapidly. Also, the speakers are recreating the original waveform, i.e. squarewaves and impulse responses. Those who have worked there praise it to be world-leading, e.g.
Cited and translated to english:
Roger Hinchliffe
american artist
"Studio Blue is the best Studio that I have worked in. Even studios in USA have a long way to go to match the sound quality in Studio Blue"
The link is in Swedish though and the studio is first of all a place for education of recording engineers.
http://www.studioblue.se/
I don't say that there are many other good studios, but can you really be sure that previous tests have included a careful selection method for the best and transparent equipment for a digital transfer? Can you be sure that there has been non-biased testing procedures?
T
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas_A
All equipment in Studio Blue has been tested for transparency using before/after tests or bypass/wire tests. The speaker system are capable of producing sound at realistic levels with very low distortion, e.g. reproducing a drum set at played at maximal possible level. The maximal level is 139 dB @ 20 Hz in-room response, before distorsion starts rise rapidly. Also, the speakers are recreating the original waveform, i.e. squarewaves and impulse responses. Those who have worked there praise it to be world-leading, e.g.
Alot of very good studios do the very same thing as this studio. Nothing noteworthy here.
Quote:
Cited and translated to english:
Roger Hinchliffe
american artist
"Studio Blue is the best Studio that I have worked in. Even studios in USA have a long way to go to match the sound quality in Studio Blue"
The link is in Swedish though and the studio is first of all a place for education of recording engineers.
http://www.studioblue.se/
I have never heard of the artist you have mentioned, but I have heard simular comments made about Gateaway studio's, Chuck Ainley studio's in Memphis, Elliot Schieners studio, Mi Casa in Los Angeles, Capitol Studio's in Hollywood, The Sound Plant here in San Francisco, Fantasy Studio's in Berkeley Cal. and the list goes on.
The stat's you mention for this studio are not above any high end studio in America.
Quote:
I don't say that there are many other good studios, but can you really be sure that previous tests have included a careful selection method for the best and transparent equipment for a digital transfer? Can you be sure that there has been non-biased testing procedures?
Are you insinuating that this place is the only proper place in the world were PROPER DBT test can be conducted? That's absurd! Surely you can see the foolishness of your own statement. AES does credible DBT at studio's all over the world. This studio you mention is not special in any way from other very good high end recording studio
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Alot of very good studios do the very same thing as this studio. Nothing noteworthy here.
I have never heard of the artist you have mentioned, but I have heard simular comments made about Gateaway studio's, Chuck Ainley studio's in Memphis, Elliot Schieners studio, Mi Casa in Los Angeles, Capitol Studio's in Hollywood, The Sound Plant here in San Francisco, Fantasy Studio's in Berkeley Cal. and the list goes on.
The stat's you mention for this studio are not above any high end studio in America.
Are you insinuating that this place is the only proper place in the world were PROPER DBT test can be conducted? That's absurd! Surely you can see the foolishness of your own statement. AES does credible DBT at studio's all over the world. This studio you mention is not special in any way from other very good high end recording studio
First, I am not insuinuating anything, but you have not provided anything that can be discussed so far.
Secondly, what studio use speakers that recreate the original waveform through the monitor speakers with ±1 dB 20 Hz to 20 khz at listening position (extending up to 40 kHz ± 3 dB), up to 139 dB SPL @ 20 Hz? Name 10 studios in the world that can do that.
Third, are you "insinuating" that digital transfers 16/44.1 khz when made with the highest possible standard is audibly different from the original? Or can you point out a series of peer reviewed articles that independently and consistently can distinguish the digital copy from the master?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas_A
Cited and translated to english:
Roger Hinchliffe
american artist
"Studio Blue is the best Studio that I have worked in. Even studios in USA have a long way to go to match the sound quality in Studio Blue
T
That sounds amazingly like a testimonial! Where are Mr Hinchliffe's citations and peer reviewed papers?
Sorry... YOU left the opening! :)
-
Human senses only effected when stimulated. No stimulation, and there is nothing to be interepreted by the brain.
Are you so sure about this?
Have you never responded just to be told they didn't ask a question or say anything to be responded to? Oh, please. The brain make up things all the time. Why do you think you use DBT then?
So if I haven't heard it, then there is no stimulus, and thus no interpretation by the brain. It's just that simple, you can't be bias in a listening test if you haven't heard anything right?
That is too funny to respond to, from a professional. Or, is that rhetorical?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas_A
First, I am not insuinuating anything, but you have not provided anything that can be discussed so far.
I believe it was you who chimed in rather late in this discussion. What needed to be said, already has.
Quote:
Secondly, what studio use speakers that recreate the original waveform through the monitor speakers with ±1 dB 20 Hz to 20 khz at listening position (extending up to 40 kHz ± 3 dB), up to 139 dB SPL @ 20 Hz? Name 10 studios in the world that can do that.
Irrelevant to the topic at hand, please stay on the topic being discussed, you are hijacking this thread.
Third, are you "insinuating" that digital transfers 16/44.1 khz when made with the highest possible standard is audibly different from the original? Or can you point out a series of peer reviewed articles that independently and consistently can distinguish the digital copy from the master?[/QUOTE]
Not many recording are made to the highest of standards. Economics prevent this from happening. So this is out of line with reality, and does not represent everyday events from which I am coming from. VERY few audio engineers publish, but they do hold listening seminars. The one comment you hear over and over amoung those in my industry is that 16/44.1khz blunts transients, cannot reproduce muted trumpets, cymbals, or any other instruments with high frequency harmonics. this is almost universally heard in every seminar I have attended in the last couple of years. Where there is smoke, there is fire, and when so many people say the same thing, my ears perk up. When this information is delivered via some of the best audio engineers in the world, I am definately going to pay some attention. When I experience it myself, then it really drives the point home.
Since I have nothing to prove to you(or anyone else for that matter) I see no need in providing anyone with peer reviewed papers or articles.
As far as I am concerned, this thread is dead. It's just going around, and around in circles.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtrycraft
Human senses only effected when stimulated. No stimulation, and there is nothing to be interepreted by the brain.
Are you so sure about this?
Have you never responded just to be told they didn't ask a question or say anything to be responded to? Oh, please. The brain make up things all the time. Why do you think you use DBT then?
So if I haven't heard it, then there is no stimulus, and thus no interpretation by the brain. It's just that simple, you can't be bias in a listening test if you haven't heard anything right?
That is too funny to respond to, from a professional. Or, is that rhetorical?
Mtry, just because you are a weak minded fool doesn't mean everyone is
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtrycraft
Ah, the straw man argument, unsupported by facts. What else is new?
I forget that in your non-experience world there is no music. My apologies. Enjoy your test tones.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMK
That sounds amazingly like a testimonial! Where are Mr Hinchliffe's citations and peer reviewed papers?
Sorry... YOU left the opening! :)
:)
Well,
the issue in this thread is whether 16/44.1 is transparent or not. I have provided some data of the studio where the 16/44.1 tests were made. Besides, how do you test a studio in a peer reviewed report? One can start with the weakest point, the speakers, for which I already have mentioned some spec. I also mentioned the procedure for testing the equipment, with before/after test. If you don't know the method, see:
http://www.sonicdesign.se/amptest.htm
So, again, what studio has the spec I mentioned?
And if the digital transfer has been made with the highest quality standard and listened to with carefully selected equipment with no audible loss under blind conditions, what are the conditions where the 16/44.1 khz standard has been detected to be audibly different? Have there been controlled listening tests with removal of bias? Apparently, it is not known, as I understand it from this thread. It is only "generelly agreed" among studio people, that the 16/44.1 is not good enough. Since studio people I know has another opinion based on controlled listening tests with some of the best equpiments that can be bought for money and there apparently appear to be no peer reviewed report of audible difference, why should anyone believe the "general opinion"?
T
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
I believe it was you who chimed in rather late in this discussion. What needed to be said, already has.
Irrelevant to the topic at hand, please stay on the topic being discussed, you are hijacking this thread.
Third, are you "insinuating" that digital transfers 16/44.1 khz when made with the highest possible standard is audibly different from the original? Or can you point out a series of peer reviewed articles that independently and consistently can distinguish the digital copy from the master?
Not many recording are made to the highest of standards. Economics prevent this from happening. So this is out of line with reality, and does not represent everyday events from which I am coming from. VERY few audio engineers publish, but they do hold listening seminars. The one comment you hear over and over amoung those in my industry is that 16/44.1khz blunts transients, cannot reproduce muted trumpets, cymbals, or any other instruments with high frequency harmonics. this is almost universally heard in every seminar I have attended in the last couple of years. Where there is smoke, there is fire, and when so many people say the same thing, my ears perk up. When this information is delivered via some of the best audio engineers in the world, I am definately going to pay some attention. When I experience it myself, then it really drives the point home.
Since I have nothing to prove to you(or anyone else for that matter) I see no need in providing anyone with peer reviewed papers or articles.
As far as I am concerned, this thread is dead. It's just going around, and around in circles.[/QUOTE]
I agree that many CDs are not produced to the highest standard, especially taken into account the many mastering processes. But the issue is the quality of the medium itself. I also agree that there is no way this discussion can continue without any credible data.
-
Just one more comment. Higher performance PCM encoding (96 and 192 kHz/24 bits etc) and decoding is of course welcome for recording engineers because of the easier way of recording (better headroom etc).
But as a consumer, is it relevant? Quality-wise, that is. If the consumers have no reason for having higher quality than 16/44.1 kHz as a medium for 2-channel music, there is no reason to distribute higher than 16/44.1 kHz. The reason for introducing a new media is pushed on by market forces and not by the proposal that nobody will ever hear a difference with higher sampling rates. As has been discussed previously, is it so that the quality is decreased on purpose on 16/44.1 to push for other media? What has the recording industry to prove for the consumers? Do the push for a new media so that most records need to be bought again, claiming its superiority to 16/44.1 kHz? But when people look for this. there is no evidence for it. I suggest that the recording industry really have something they need to show and prove and that they take responsibility for the many poor recordings that are produced today.
(I have not talked about DSD and SACD, with its inherent non-linearites (or any other single-bit system). Highest possible quality and consistency is achieved with multibit systems. The inconsistency of one-bit systems and DSD can be seen on the impulse response where asymmetry and inconsistency is seen in and between pulses. This is not observed with good-quality multibit systems. I have also not talked about multi-channel music, but only to 2-channel recordings.)
T
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas_A
:)
Well,
the issue in this thread is whether 16/44.1 is transparent or not. I have provided some data of the studio where the 16/44.1 tests were made. Besides, how do you test a studio in a peer reviewed report? One can start with the weakest point, the speakers, for which I already have mentioned some spec. I also mentioned the procedure for testing the equipment, with before/after test. If you don't know the method, see:
http://www.sonicdesign.se/amptest.htm
So, again, what studio has the spec I mentioned?
And if the digital transfer has been made with the highest quality standard and listened to with carefully selected equipment with no audible loss under blind conditions, what are the conditions where the 16/44.1 khz standard has been detected to be audibly different? Have there been controlled listening tests with removal of bias? Apparently, it is not known, as I understand it from this thread. It is only "generelly agreed" among studio people, that the 16/44.1 is not good enough. Since studio people I know has another opinion based on controlled listening tests with some of the best equpiments that can be bought for money and there apparently appear to be no peer reviewed report of audible difference, why should anyone believe the "general opinion"?
T
I'm sure there are exceptions, but most of the posts I've read on this board show that the poster isn't concerned with what others believe. I know that I'm not and it doesn't appear that Sir Terrence is, either. I have posted a few things that go against the grain of the "naysayer" crowd and if they don't believe, they're free to test for themselves. Most of we poor audio lovers don't have the wherewithal or the desire to have our listening tests peer reviewed as we seek only musical enjoyment. This is a hobby for us, not a means to change the world of electronics and audiology theory. Perhaps that's shortsighted of us but it is what it is.
I brought up my earlier post to call your quote into question (in what I hope was a non-threatening way!) for a reason. You first question whether 16/44.1 is transparent and then you produce test results to show evidence that it is. Fine. But then you quote the artist who provides nothing more than anecdotal info regarding sound quality. It's the same type of posts that draw ire when we discuss the sound of the latest CDP or amp. Why should we believe Mr Hinchliffe, particularly when I've never heard of him? The specs are impressive but so are the specs on a $50 Pioneer receiver. Why should I believe this receiver sounds as good as anything when I've heard otherwise? Why should Sir Terrence believe something that goes against what he's heard?
For the record, I'll state that I own an SACD player and several SACD's. They sound better than their corresponding RBCD's and on some, they have dual layers. I'm not convinced it's the medium at this point. It may simply be the mix/mastering quality is better on the SACD. The jury (MY jury) is still out. But there is no question that my SACD's sound better. Consequently, I'm purchasing more. Results speak more loudly to me than measurements or lack of peer reviewed papers.
-
I'm quite convinced that 44.1 khz mastering is transparent. No offense intended to the yeasaysers. One thing I do wonder about, though, is whether mastering at 96 khz thingies (I'm a layman, obviously) can make it more likely that future mastering changes of the recording in the digital domain can be accomplished without sonic degradation, sort of the way a 196 kbps mp3 might be transparent but a 196 kbps MP3 of a 196 kbps mp3 would likely not be transparent. If so, this could justify studio sampling at higher rates, I suppose. Any thoughts? I just don't know the answer.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMK
I'm sure there are exceptions, but most of the posts I've read on this board show that the poster isn't concerned with what others believe. I know that I'm not and it doesn't appear that Sir Terrence is, either. I have posted a few things that go against the grain of the "naysayer" crowd and if they don't believe, they're free to test for themselves. Most of we poor audio lovers don't have the wherewithal or the desire to have our listening tests peer reviewed as we seek only musical enjoyment. This is a hobby for us, not a means to change the world of electronics and audiology theory. Perhaps that's shortsighted of us but it is what it is.
I brought up my earlier post to call your quote into question (in what I hope was a non-threatening way!) for a reason. You first question whether 16/44.1 is transparent and then you produce test results to show evidence that it is. Fine. But then you quote the artist who provides nothing more than anecdotal info regarding sound quality. It's the same type of posts that draw ire when we discuss the sound of the latest CDP or amp. Why should we believe Mr Hinchliffe, particularly when I've never heard of him? The specs are impressive but so are the specs on a $50 Pioneer receiver. Why should I believe this receiver sounds as good as anything when I've heard otherwise? Why should Sir Terrence believe something that goes against what he's heard?
For the record, I'll state that I own an SACD player and several SACD's. They sound better than their corresponding RBCD's and on some, they have dual layers. I'm not convinced it's the medium at this point. It may simply be the mix/mastering quality is better on the SACD. The jury (MY jury) is still out. But there is no question that my SACD's sound better. Consequently, I'm purchasing more. Results speak more loudly to me than measurements or lack of peer reviewed papers.
Regarding the quote, I agree. It's no use to put them there and I made a mistake. The studio is not primarily not a recording studio, but they have educational programs for students that wants to be recording engineers. Only a few records have been made there, but mainly as demonstration of the potential of how it may sound when everything has been recorded the best way. The records can be bought from them, but it's not easy to get them though.
A second point, even if a person has not been heard of before (no matter what the subject), there is nothing that says that there some substance in it. Just because someone don't want to be seen or heard does not mean he/she is incorrect, or? I know that there are people that are not known among the audience at forums like this, but they may be known by others in the audio industry. See e.g. this discussion:
http://www.fivechannels.com/artiklar...A-followup.htm
The english has not been good translated, but anyway.
Third,
as I mentioned above - is the pushing for new formats only a way to get more money for the industry OR that the 16/44.1 kHz is flawed audibly? As consumers we can choose the best format if both are available. But there is no way the consumer can decide which is best if poor quality is deliberately put on 16/44.1 medium, is there? Marketforces decide, and the recording industry have "decided" that the new formats are audibly better. But nothing has ever come up when one looks at what has been done. There is no evidence that the new format IS audibly better. Simply put.
T
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve1000
I'm quite convinced that 44.1 khz mastering is transparent.
As a admitted layman, what experience can you draw from that supports this conclusion?
My experience certailnly doesn't support this claim. If you receive a product that has been RECORDED at 176.4khz, and you mix, master it, and downsample for release to 16/44.1khz, you will notice some significant losses in air, imaging, tonality, cymbals sound different, and god forbid any muted trumpet is the mix. What also noticeably missing but takes some critical listening is the inner detail of the mix. The leading edge of transients in percussion sound blurred and fuzzy. This is the case with every one of the recordings I have done at a high sample rate, and downconverted to 16/44.1khz, so redbook is far from transparent. you cannot throw samples away and not expect some degredation.
Quote:
No offense intended to the yeasaysers. One thing I do wonder about, though, is whether mastering at 96 khz thingies (I'm a layman, obviously) can make it more likely that future mastering changes of the recording in the digital domain can be accomplished without sonic degradation, sort of the way a 196 kbps mp3 might be transparent but a 196 kbps MP3 of a 196 kbps mp3 would likely not be transparent. If so, this could justify studio sampling at higher rates, I suppose. Any thoughts? I just don't know the answer.
MP3 are never transparent unless the recorded sources were of lower quality than the potiential resolution at the highest bit rate. With the exception of high bitrate Dts, no lossy codec is completely transparent, especially at the low data rates MP3 uses. Secondly if you record at 176.4khz or 88.2khz and have to downconvert to redbook, you will also experience losses. Archiving at a higher sampling rate for release in a format with a higher sampling rate is advantageous. Recording at a high sampling rate for transparency into a lower sample rate yields no benefits whatsoever. It won't be transparent.
-
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas_A
as I mentioned above - is the pushing for new formats only a way to get more money for the industry OR that the 16/44.1 kHz is flawed audibly? As consumers we can choose the best format if both are available. But there is no way the consumer can decide which is best if poor quality is deliberately put on 16/44.1 medium, is there? Marketforces decide, and the recording industry have "decided" that the new formats are audibly better. But nothing has ever come up when one looks at what has been done. There is no evidence that the new format IS audibly better. Simply put.
T
I'll leave it to folks such as Sir Terrence and others who have a stake in proving one format or the other. I can't comment on that, other than my own experience. But your looking to determine if there is a format that is audibly superior and I differ in that I'm only looking for an audibly superior finished product. On the other hand, I would be horrified to learn that the 16/44.1 recordings were deliberately tampered with in order to make SACD sound inferior with the further intent to force consumers to repurchase our collection (which I'd never do, anyway - at least not on a wholesale scale).
One area not covered (although you specifically said you were NOT covering it) is that SACD has the ability to give us multi-channels. That could tip the scales soundly (pardon the pun) in the higher rez format's favor. If for no other reason, I'd have to say higher rez digital is superior to redbook for the purpose of multichannel.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Mtry, just because you are a weak minded fool doesn't mean everyone is
I suppose then, you are the perfect one. Good for you.
However, a bit of consulting with clinical psychologists might shed some light on human senses, gullibility, bias, fallibility of perception, brain filling in empty or missing data.
Hey, maybe you are right, but I seriously doubt it.
TGry a little outside research beyond the mixing panel. Might do you some good, or it might be embarrassing to your beliefs.
-
brain
"brain filling in empty or missing data"
yes, yours seems to. that is why rbcd is adequate for you. the missing data just isnt missing for you. you never heard the complete data to start with.
of all mouths here on the AR, yours is the one spouting comparison testing. i assure you that the terrible one could easily prove his statements using your favorite dbt methodology.
|