Question about 24bit and dithering down to 16bit - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 73 Old 07-19-2012, 11:32 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
nateo200's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 51
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Okay so I've read up a ton on how 24bit and sometimes even 16bit are considered overkill. Now when I create a multichannel mix I export it normally as 48khz/24bit ....when I run it through a lossless encoder almost always it reports back that the true bit depth is only 16-17 maybe 21bits, I expected this as allot of those extra bits are just noise. If I decide after seeing this that I want to use an uncompressed PCM mix can I "safely" dither 24bit down to 16bit without loosing any dynamic range other than the blank noise on the high or low end or however that works? Just curious as if I don't need 24bit then no sense in using it as a delivery format (unless the client specifies it). I still always capture at 96/24 because of the arguments over whether 48/16 or whatever is good enough, I figure better safe than sorry and a few rare times I do end up with a mix that does go to 20bits or so. Sorta new to this stuff and learning, just thought I would ask.
nateo200 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 73 Old 07-19-2012, 12:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: New Milford, CT, USA
Posts: 5,748
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 134
Using more than 16 bits for a delivery medium is a waste of bandwidth and storage. Dither rarely makes an audible difference, but it's free so there's no reason not to use dither. You may find this article interesting:

Dither Report

--Ethan

RealTraps - The acoustic treatment experts
Ethan's Audio Expert book

Ethan Winer is offline  
post #3 of 73 Old 07-19-2012, 04:09 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
nateo200's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 51
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Well lets say I'm planning on making a 6.1 PCM mix and I mixed it at 24bit and run it through a TrueHD or DTS-MA encoder, (which I have access to on a regular basis) if its compressed lossless would the 24bits be worth it? I realize that 16bit compresses MUCH better but allot of people argue that while 24bit is overkill 16bit is just adequate....I guess I'm less curious in dithering and more curious why I see 16bit and 24bit LPCM mix's if 24bit is "a waste of space", I mean I totally get marketing hype over bigger numbers attracting more people when in reality we won't here the difference but why is say Super 8 in TrueHD 48khz/24bit when 3:10 to Yuma is 48khz/16bit.....I guess I'm wondering why studios aren't downsampling to 16bit on EVERY release, I mean its not like "24bit" is branded on the box and everyone knows what it means....so why use it when you can achieve better compression with 16bit?

I've read so many topics on this on AVS, Doom9, Blu-ray.com, etc. and it always turns into an argument allot of the time with professionals and I never get a clear image of whether 24bit is worth it or if 16bit is fine...I don't ever go higher on sampling rate because I know it makes no difference for me at least and if I do go to say 96khz its because its a Vinyl rip and I just do it to do it and even then I look at the spectrum meter and see nothing significant past the 24-30khz mark (not like I can even hear than high anyways), my point is sample rate is very clear on the limits of hearing and there are arguments over it but bit depth is difficult to grasp.

I just want to make sure I deliver the best sound mix possible...especially if its for a client as I'm new to getting paid to do work for others (I mainly do video but I insist on a proper sound mix for each video I do and in addition I am working on my first serious short film and I want the best), I've done two DVD's so far for someone and they were very pleased with the sound but I felt like I could have delivered a better product if I did more than 16bit Dolby Digital. Sorry for the grammar nightmare its literally my achilles heel :/
nateo200 is offline  
post #4 of 73 Old 07-19-2012, 05:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MarkHotchkiss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Long Beach, California
Posts: 1,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 82
Hi Nate,
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateo200 View Post

. . . but why is say Super 8 in TrueHD 48khz/24bit when 3:10 to Yuma is 48khz/16bit.....
Those choices are made for a number of reasons. here are a few:

"3:10 to Yuma" might have had more demanding video, and since space on the disk is finite, a 24-bit track didn't fit.

The mixer for "Super 8" thought 24-bit was worth the extra space, either because he/she feels it sounds better, or because it markets better.

The mixer for "3:10" thought that 24-bit wouldn't sound any better than 16-bit.

The mixer for "3:10" knew that 24-bit would take longer to render, and he wanted to get home to watch the game on TV.

I think that, in most cases, the decision is arbitrary.

My personal feeling is that your final delivery need no be better than 16 bits, or faster than 44.1kHz (although I would us 48kHz because it is easier to work with). But 24 bits (or better yet, 32-bit floating point) would be preferred for mixing, so that you don't drop bits off the bottom. I prefer to record at no lower than 96kHz, so that the analog anti-aliasing filter can roll-off over a whole octave, rather than over just a few kHz. I also prefer 192kHz if I need to manipulate a track with a DSP algorithm, as some DSP effects would operate more accurately (if that's the best word) when the additional samples are available.

I realize that some of the issues I mention might not be audible, but I can't easily make that determination. So I play it safe. I trust the math more than my ears (or brain).
MarkHotchkiss is offline  
post #5 of 73 Old 07-19-2012, 07:24 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
nateo200's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 51
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkHotchkiss View Post

Hi Nate,
Those choices are made for a number of reasons. here are a few:
"3:10 to Yuma" might have had more demanding video, and since space on the disk is finite, a 24-bit track didn't fit.
The mixer for "Super 8" thought 24-bit was worth the extra space, either because he/she feels it sounds better, or because it markets better.
The mixer for "3:10" thought that 24-bit wouldn't sound any better than 16-bit.
The mixer for "3:10" knew that 24-bit would take longer to render, and he wanted to get home to watch the game on TV.
I think that, in most cases, the decision is arbitrary.
My personal feeling is that your final delivery need no be better than 16 bits, or faster than 44.1kHz (although I would us 48kHz because it is easier to work with). But 24 bits (or better yet, 32-bit floating point) would be preferred for mixing, so that you don't drop bits off the bottom. I prefer to record at no lower than 96kHz, so that the analog anti-aliasing filter can roll-off over a whole octave, rather than over just a few kHz. I also prefer 192kHz if I need to manipulate a track with a DSP algorithm, as some DSP effects would operate more accurately (if that's the best word) when the additional samples are available.
I realize that some of the issues I mention might not be audible, but I can't easily make that determination. So I play it safe. I trust the math more than my ears (or brain).

Hmm well 3:10 to Yuma was a LPCM 7.1 mix which is pretty large to begin with at 16bit let alone 24bit (dunno why they don't use DTS-MA or TrueHD, could be a number of reasons like compatibility). I never really thought a decision like 16bit or 24bit would be left to such small things.

As for what I capture/mix at, I capture at 32bit float if I'm using Audacity or if I'm in Final Cut Pro the default is 24bit and I don't believe 32bit float is an option when I'm working on the multichannel mix. Regardless of all that I capture audio at 96khz at minimum then down sample to 48khz for encoding and then into delivery format (I don't use 44.1khz because I don't deliver to CD, mostly DVD/Blu-ray). When you say "some issues i mention might not be audible, but i can't easily make that determination. So I play it safe" thats sorta how I feel with bit depth. If I could export to 20bit I would be happier but none of my software exports other than 16/24bit. My sound card doesn't go past 192khz so setting audacity to 192khz would be sort of a waste...I use the default sound card in my Mac during the few times I need to capture analog so far (though I plan on getting a nicer sound card soon since I will be getting my hands on an $8000 sound board of some type my boss just ordered, it sounds like a big deal I guess).

Side note: The sound mixer for Super 8 did several interviews on YouTube, I was surprised to hear he had never done a 7.1 mix before Super 8! Only has a 5.1 system at home too! Just goes to show bigger numbers aren't always better I guess haha.
nateo200 is offline  
post #6 of 73 Old 07-20-2012, 01:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kilian.ca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ex-50Hz, now 60Hz
Posts: 1,901
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 36
When BD first launched dts-HD MA decoding wasn't ready and many discs had MCH PCM. They could use Dolby but not sure why not.

Back to your dilemma, if content is for commercial movie BD then people expect 24-bit nowadays, esp. when space (BD50) and bandwidth allows. Doesn't matter if it's really beneficial. With codec compression 2-3x, the saving between 16- and 24-bit is not much. If it's for streaming or personal project then it's different.

You say you want the best, and if you're not sure and there is no consensus when 16-bit is good enough 100% of the time for all contents then going higher doesn't hurt.

If client is willing to pay for the best, then what is the issue?

It's ironic this is a hard decision when Dolby's new gimmick is up-dither and upsampling to 24/96.

Audiosceptics accept audio trials using 25 people. A recent Oxford study with over 353,000 patient records from 639 separate clinical trials shows for every 1,000 people taking diclofenac or ibuprofen there would be 3 additional heart attacks, 4 more cases of heart failure and 1 death every year.

Kilian.ca is offline  
post #7 of 73 Old 07-20-2012, 05:54 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 762 Post(s)
Liked: 1175
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateo200 View Post

Okay so I've read up a ton on how 24bit and sometimes even 16bit are considered overkill. Now when I create a multichannel mix I export it normally as 48khz/24bit ....when I run it through a lossless encoder almost always it reports back that the true bit depth is only 16-17 maybe 21bits, I expected this as allot of those extra bits are just noise.

If you had an essentially noiseless pair of microphones connected to an essentially noiseless preamp and then to an essentially noiseless DAC with tons of resolution, you will often (actually always) find that the dynamic range of your recordings is less than 75 dB due to the limitations of vocalists and musical instruments and ambient noise in your studio or performance space. I know this to be true because I've been doing live and studio recording digitall steadily for the last 12 years and have recorded literally 100s of soloists and groups in dozens of different contexts with any number of different sets of equipment.

With fairly ordinary modern equipment I can assemble a recording rig up that has about 100 dB or more dynamic range until I apply phantom power to the microphones. This is the approximate limit of the electronics, sometimes right up to the microphone's diaphragm. Turn on the phantom power to the mics, and voila the dynamic range is about 20-30 dB lower.

75 dB real world dynamic range at the microphone leaves your 16 bit recording with upwards of 20 dB headroom if you can somehow get the levels set properly. It is my claim that if you can't set levels within 20 dB after a rehearsal, you don't deserve to call yourself a recording engineer! ;-)

Quote:
If I decide after seeing this that I want to use an uncompressed PCM mix can I "safely" dither 24bit down to 16bit without loosing any dynamic range other than the blank noise on the high or low end or however that works?

Sure, been there done that. If you are into fancy-schmancy, you can even dither your 24 bit recording down to 16 bits using technology, such as perceptually shaped dither, that is only available to you in software. Of course, its all moot for the reason I just described.
Quote:
Just curious as if I don't need 24bit then no sense in using it as a delivery format (unless the client specifies it).

If you do recordings of regular live events, you can end up with amazingly large masses of data. For example here's a real world example - I record an event that runs continuously for 90 minutes with 24 tracks. My two choices for capture file format are 16 bits and 32 bits. The back of the envelope says that I have 36 track*hours of audio at 5.3 megabytes per track minute or 317 megabytes per track-hour @ 16 bits. I think thats about 12 gigabytes of data. If I go > 16 bits then the 12 gigs jumps to 24 gigs. So, compare and contrast copying and transporting 12 gigs of data versus 24 gigs from the live venue to your mixing facility. Even in 2012 I prefer the 12 gigs!
Quote:
I still always capture at 96/24 because of the arguments over whether 48/16 or whatever is good enough, I figure better safe than sorry and a few rare times I do end up with a mix that does go to 20bits or so. Sorta new to this stuff and learning, just thought I would ask.

I've never had a client who cared about how I made the recording, just that the recording sounded good to him. If I deliver it in the format of his choice, the client always seems to be willing to pay the bill and even call me back the next time.

IME recording SQ is about 99% about context, micing, mixing and editing. One of the biggest money makers I ever bought was a Microtrak which almost always gets used at 44/16.
arnyk is offline  
post #8 of 73 Old 07-20-2012, 06:02 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 762 Post(s)
Liked: 1175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilian.ca View Post

When BD first launched dts-HD MA decoding wasn't ready and many discs had MCH PCM. They could use Dolby but not sure why not.
Back to your dilemma, if content is for commercial movie BD then people expect 24-bit nowadays, esp. when space (BD50) and bandwidth allows. Doesn't matter if it's really beneficial. With codec compression 2-3x, the saving between 16- and 24-bit is not much. If it's for streaming or personal project then it's different.
You say you want the best, and if you're not sure and there is no consensus when 16-bit is good enough 100% of the time for all contents then going higher doesn't hurt.
If client is willing to pay for the best, then what is the issue?
It's ironic this is a hard decision when Dolby's new gimmick is up-dither and upsampling to 24/96.

It is ironic that retroactive investigation of the past decade's worth of DVD-A and SACD commercial releases suggests that about 50% of them were upsampled from nothing better than 48/16, and often just 44/16 or worse.

Note that as these recordings trickled out into the audiophile world, there was no public outcry from reviewers or audiophiles about their diminished sound quality until just lately when people started noticing the difference using technical tools.

Furthermore, investigation of new recordings shows that the ready availability of improved recording equipment including mics and preamps that are capable of far more dynamic range has had negligible effect on the actual dynamic range of commercial recordings.

If you study the history of audio recordings, you can find public outcry against recordings with what was perceived as excess dynamic range going back to the days when the LP was all we had.
arnyk is offline  
post #9 of 73 Old 07-20-2012, 12:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: New Milford, CT, USA
Posts: 5,748
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateo200 View Post

I've read so many topics on this on AVS, Doom9, Blu-ray.com, etc. and it always turns into an argument allot of the time with professionals and I never get a clear image of whether 24bit is worth it or if 16bit is fine.

The reason these discussions always turn into fights is because the sound isn't really better, but people who hold what are basically religious beliefs need to believe it's better. Since they can't prove their beliefs with proper listening tests or even measurements, all that's left is arguing.

All you need to determine this for yourself is to listen honestly, and compare specs. As Arny explained, even 16 bits exceeds the demands of recorded music.

--Ethan

RealTraps - The acoustic treatment experts
Ethan's Audio Expert book

Ethan Winer is offline  
post #10 of 73 Old 07-20-2012, 08:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
A9X-308's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Australia; now run by adults.
Posts: 5,444
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 170 Post(s)
Liked: 115
Why not let the available space on the disc determine the format and resolution? I'm not saying higher res will make any audible difference, but if this is a commercial project, it might get sales amongst those whom believe it does.
A9X-308 is offline  
post #11 of 73 Old 07-21-2012, 08:13 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
nateo200's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 51
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

It is ironic that retroactive investigation of the past decade's worth of DVD-A and SACD commercial releases suggests that about 50% of them were upsampled from nothing better than 48/16, and often just 44/16 or worse.
Note that as these recordings trickled out into the audiophile world, there was no public outcry from reviewers or audiophiles about their diminished sound quality until just lately when people started noticing the difference using technical tools.
Furthermore, investigation of new recordings shows that the ready availability of improved recording equipment including mics and preamps that are capable of far more dynamic range has had negligible effect on the actual dynamic range of commercial recordings.
If you study the history of audio recordings, you can find public outcry against recordings with what was perceived as excess dynamic range going back to the days when the LP was all we had.
I heard allot about this practice as well...if you upsample and it gets run through lets say a top end DAC does the high resolution give more headroom for maintaining quality throughout the Digital Analog conversion how ever many times that is depending on whether your using Multi Analog/HDMI or if the receiver does Bass management or pass through analog? I think the reason DVD-Audio/SACD sounds better is because the care that is taken in mastering and not necessarily the resolution. I think the industry just pumps out CD's in 44/16 at good quality but with DVD audio the studios seam to put allot of care into the quality because people are willing to pay for it. I could be wrong though.

Side note I read about a test where some big name ran SACD quality audio through a top end 44/16 DAC and everyone thought it was better than some 384/24 DAC or something of that nature...interesting. I always believe in quality over quantity with few exceptions (like I'm a multichannel sound nut so Ill buy a good multichannel PCM receiver and slowly build versus a all in one 2.1 system that is amazing, I admire the art of multichannel sound too much I guess you could say)
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

If you had an essentially noiseless pair of microphones connected to an essentially noiseless preamp and then to an essentially noiseless DAC with tons of resolution, you will often (actually always) find that the dynamic range of your recordings is less than 75 dB due to the limitations of vocalists and musical instruments and ambient noise in your studio or performance space. I know this to be true because I've been doing live and studio recording digitall steadily for the last 12 years and have recorded literally 100s of soloists and groups in dozens of different contexts with any number of different sets of equipment.
With fairly ordinary modern equipment I can assemble a recording rig up that has about 100 dB or more dynamic range until I apply phantom power to the microphones. This is the approximate limit of the electronics, sometimes right up to the microphone's diaphragm. Turn on the phantom power to the mics, and voila the dynamic range is about 20-30 dB lower.
75 dB real world dynamic range at the microphone leaves your 16 bit recording with upwards of 20 dB headroom if you can somehow get the levels set properly. It is my claim that if you can't set levels within 20 dB after a rehearsal, you don't deserve to call yourself a recording engineer! ;-)
Sure, been there done that. If you are into fancy-schmancy, you can even dither your 24 bit recording down to 16 bits using technology, such as perceptually shaped dither, that is only available to you in software. Of course, its all moot for the reason I just described.
If you do recordings of regular live events, you can end up with amazingly large masses of data. For example here's a real world example - I record an event that runs continuously for 90 minutes with 24 tracks. My two choices for capture file format are 16 bits and 32 bits. The back of the envelope says that I have 36 track*hours of audio at 5.3 megabytes per track minute or 317 megabytes per track-hour @ 16 bits. I think thats about 12 gigabytes of data. If I go > 16 bits then the 12 gigs jumps to 24 gigs. So, compare and contrast copying and transporting 12 gigs of data versus 24 gigs from the live venue to your mixing facility. Even in 2012 I prefer the 12 gigs!
I've never had a client who cared about how I made the recording, just that the recording sounded good to him. If I deliver it in the format of his choice, the client always seems to be willing to pay the bill and even call me back the next time.
IME recording SQ is about 99% about context, micing, mixing and editing. One of the biggest money makers I ever bought was a Microtrak which almost always gets used at 44/16.
Makes allot of sense to me! About the last part, I had to record a 3 hour event once and to prevent like you mention ridiculous amounts of gigabytes I recorded at 48/16, it was mostly dialog but something inside of me was dying to know if it would have sounded better at 48/24. I guess as long as I don't record in 8-bit ill be good ;D
Quote:
The reason these discussions always turn into fights is because the sound isn't really better, but people who hold what are basically religious beliefs need to believe it's better. Since they can't prove their beliefs with proper listening tests or even measurements, all that's left is arguing.
I knew this had to be at least 90% of the reasoning behind it!! Haha I guess if you've been told for years and years that bigger is better its hard to let go....
nateo200 is offline  
post #12 of 73 Old 07-22-2012, 01:00 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,371
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 977 Post(s)
Liked: 546
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Note that as these recordings trickled out into the audiophile world, there was no public outcry from reviewers or audiophiles about their diminished sound quality until just lately when people started noticing the difference using technical tools.
You must have been absent during that era or are rewriting history Arny. I remember reviewers and letters to editors routinely complaining about such things from day one. Here is a quick example: http://www.stereophile.com/features/404metrics/index.html

"New Media Metrics
By Keith Howard • Posted: May 2, 2004 • Published: Apr 1, 2004

http://www.stereophile.com/content/new-media-metrics-graphs

SACD
Alison Krauss: Forget About It "Forget About It"
Rounder SACD 11661-0465-6
Duration: 3:28
Original recording: PCM

Clearly a 48kHz PCM original, so the spectra plummet above 23kHz—not an obvious candidate for SACD release, I'd have to say.

DVD-A
Frank Sinatra: Sinatra at the Sands "Fly Me to the Moon"
Reprise 8122 73777-9
Duration: 2:47
Original recording: analog
Bit depth/sample Rate: 24-bit/192kHz
S/PDIF sample Rate: 48kHz

Although the stereo track is 24/192 this historic recording delivers nothing above 20kHz other than spuriae that ought not to be there—did anyone at Reprise check with a spectrum analyser?"


And you really think spectrum analysis was not available a decade back?
Quote:
Furthermore, investigation of new recordings shows that the ready availability of improved recording equipment including mics and preamps that are capable of far more dynamic range has had negligible effect on the actual dynamic range of commercial recordings.
That's because your analysis ignores how our hearing system works. I have shown that to you extensively based on authoritative published research.

Back to OP, good advice was given by a couple of other people. If target bandwidth and storage is not a problem, please distribute the high resolution sources as you have them. Nothing is gained by truncating it and something could be lost. If you are constrained, please use appropriate noise shaping and dither. Without that 16 bits at 44.1 Khz can be shown mathematically be to be insufficient to provide transparency to your source.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is online now  
post #13 of 73 Old 07-22-2012, 04:53 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 762 Post(s)
Liked: 1175
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk 
Note that as these recordings trickled out into the audiophile world, there was no public outcry from reviewers or audiophiles about their diminished sound quality until just lately when people started noticing the difference using technical tools.
You must have been absent during that era or are rewriting history Arny. I remember reviewers and letters to editors routinely complaining about such things from day one. Here is a quick example: http://www.stereophile.com/features/404metrics/index.html

The article is relatively unique. I clearly spoke about the absence of a trend, and this one mostly irrelevant article obviously does not make a trend. What are you trying to pull?

The article above was published in 2004, so it did not come out until years after the introduction of the SACD, and after 100's of SACDs and DVD-As had been released without much if any unfavorable comment: Per Wikipedia "Super Audio CD (SACD) is a high-resolution, read-only optical disc for audio storage. Sony and Philips Electronics jointly developed the technology, and publicized it in 1999."

The article is based on technical tests, not reliable listening tests.

The article is based primarily on a test record, and makes only fleeting reference to just a few regular musical releases.

The article is not a regular review of a musical recording.

The article does rather belatedly say:

"Something I discovered the hard way in compiling this report is that too many DVD-A and SACD releases tell you not nearly enough about the origin of their content. CD's three-letter SPARS code—which indicates which domain, analog or digital, the recording, mixing, mastering, were done in (AAD, ADD, DAD, DDD)—tells you only so much, granted, but it's more than some hi-rez releases do. Hell, one of the discs I chose didn't even include track timings, either on the tray card or in the booklet, which by any account is plain inept. You can appreciate, though, why record companies would sometimes prefer to be coy about such things. Discovering that the Alison Krauss SACD was derived from a 48kHz PCM master, for instance, makes you scratch your head in wonder. And I doubt that Reprise would be keen to concede that the Frank Sinatra track had been ineptly upsampled at some point—although that is what its spectrum clearly indicates."

The article is about a few isolated recordings, and does not reveal that a high percentage (about 50%) of all so-called hi-rez recordings had these failings.

The article defends high resolution recordings in general:

"On the positive side, I was gratified to find more than the occasional example of spectral content reaching out to beyond 40kHz. Many studio microphones have a high-frequency response that falls away beyond (or even before!) 20kHz, and this characteristic can be seen in some of the results (for example, the Friendship SACD). But some engineers are clearly making the effort to use microphones with a more extended HF capability. Whether this matters is one of the continuing uncertainties surrounding high-rate digital audio, but when the extra bandwidth capability is available, it seems at least miserly not to exploit it."

Amir, you would do well to review your posts before you claim that they criticize something that they are in fact almost totally irrelevant to. This article demonstrates more about its poor critical thinking and poor command of relevant facts than anything else.
arnyk is offline  
post #14 of 73 Old 07-22-2012, 10:37 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,371
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 977 Post(s)
Liked: 546
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

The article is relatively unique. I clearly spoke about the absence of a trend, and this one mostly irrelevant article obviously does not make a trend. What are you trying to pull?
What am I doing? I am trying to make sure you don’t soil the reputation of people and magazines with misinformation. You said and I quote: " there was no public outcry." There clearly was and only a person not being aware of the discussions of the era or one intent on distorting the same would say otherwise as you said. As I noted, there were plenty of that kind of talk. Another two seconds of searching shows more references: http://ixbtlabs.com/articles2/sacd-dvd-a/index.html

"SACD vs. DVD-Audio: High Definition Formats Evaluation
August 17, 2004

And what does the science say about the sound difference in DVD-A and SACD in comparison with CD-DA and the reasons for such differences or their lack? Let's take a look at Dr. David Griesinger's presentation. Together with Jim Fosgate he is one of most known scientists in the multi-channel surround sound theory, the man who created and developed Logic7 (Lexicon's proprietary surround sound processing algorithm). This respected professor conducted serious research and found out that very often DVD-A and SACD discs do not contain the advertised ultrasonics.."


The link doesn't work in that article but the Powerpoint is available: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CGEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidgriesinger.com%2Fintermod.ppt&ei=5iIMUKnlCIqU2gX3vOCJCg&usg=AFQjCNFmYSOE_fFvRPXFyLDSgzJIWRyEkA

Here is a relevant slide from that PPT:

i-cStTRCF.png

You claimed audiophiles did not know about such things. Here is a discussion of the above article: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=26218 (Aug 19 2004, 16:01)

"I found much of this article difficult to read. Half the time, it's not entirely clear what the author is trying to say. Though one of the main themes seems to be that many SACDs and DVD-As are mastered from ~20kHz band limited sources – that wouldn't surprise me - most of the normal audio world still uses 24-bit 48kHz."

You are so anxious to battle the other side that you make up stuff Arny. With the age of the Internet where everything gets archived you can't get away with things like this.
Quote:
The article above was published in 2004, so it did not come out until years after the introduction of the SACD, and after 100's of SACDs and DVD-As had been released without much if any unfavorable comment: Per Wikipedia "Super Audio CD (SACD) is a high-resolution, read-only optical disc for audio storage. Sony and Philips Electronics jointly developed the technology, and publicized it in 1999."
That is more nonsense Arny. The article came out 8 years ago. Yet you made it sound like just yesterday people have figured out the issues there: "there was no public outcry from reviewers or audiophiles about their diminished sound quality until just lately when people started noticing the difference using technical tools." Just lately means 2004 in your book? And how do you know there were no earlier articles? And what about the claim that such tools did not exist then? Were you personally not aware of any PC tools that gave you the spectrum prior to “just lately?”
Quote:
The article is based on technical tests, not reliable listening tests.The article is based primarily on a test record, and makes only fleeting reference to just a few regular musical releases.The article is not a regular review of a musical recording.
So for there to be a "public outcry from reviewers and audiophiles" there had to be listening tests? And a "regular review of musical recording?" Of course not. It is clear that you lack the knowledge or are intent on distorting the truth here. I vividly remember the outcry and repeatedly so in letters written to editors of high-end magazines. People felt duped and they showed it. You may have just discovered these issues but the others predated you by a decade. All that was needed to prove their point was spectrum measurements, not listening tests.
Quote:
The article is about a few isolated recordings, and does not reveal that a high percentage (about 50%) of all so-called hi-rez recordings had these failings.
50%? Where did you get that? You knew the exact percentage? Why didn't you talk about it then Arny? You are big on protests. How come you didn't write about it?
Quote:
The article defends high resolution recordings in general:
"On the positive side, I was gratified to find more than the occasional example of spectral content reaching out to beyond 40kHz. Many studio microphones have a high-frequency response that falls away beyond (or even before!) 20kHz, and this characteristic can be seen in some of the results (for example, the Friendship SACD). But some engineers are clearly making the effort to use microphones with a more extended HF capability. Whether this matters is one of the continuing uncertainties surrounding high-rate digital audio, but when the extra bandwidth capability is available, it seems at least miserly not to exploit it."
Yet despite that it presented an honest view of how some titles were rehashed low res content. A pure advertising piece for the new format would not do that.
Quote:
Amir, you would do well to review your posts before you claim that they criticize something that they are in fact almost totally irrelevant to. This article demonstrates more about its poor critical thinking and poor command of relevant facts than anything else.
Poor critical thinking? Forget that. How about learning to use Google and spend five seconds searching for something before claiming it doesn't exist? Do you try to get out of speeding tickets too because you claim you did not see the speed limit sign and hence it must not exist? As they say ignorance of the law is no excuse. Please learn to do a bit of research and don’t create propaganda that can be readily be shown to be wrong. We have better things to do than spend time dealing with absurd junk you manufacture.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is online now  
post #15 of 73 Old 07-22-2012, 12:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CruelInventions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 4,570
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 199
He said "no outcry" (bolding mine). And there wasn't. A smattering of occasional critical articles or commentary and letters to the editor does not an outcry make.

Definition for the word, "outcry":
Quote:
outcry
1. a widespread or vehement protest
2. clamour; uproar

You'll have to come up with many many more citations to anywhere near approach a "widespread" and "uproar" degree of criticism from the audiophile community. And I certainly wouldn't cite the folks over at hydrogenaudio as another example to support your premise. The people who inhabit that forum aren't the type of audiophiles being referred to. They've always been firmly in the "prove it with properly conducted listening tests" camp, so it's completely unsurprising that they would have been skeptical from fairly early on.

With that said, perhaps you'll be able to bring up dozens more citations of audiophile community protest and begin to form a more compelling case.

Mourning the disappearing usage of the -ly suffix. Words being cut-off before they've had a chance to fully form, left incomplete, with their shoelaces untied and their zippers undone. If I quote your post (or post in your thread) without comment, please check your zipper.
CruelInventions is offline  
post #16 of 73 Old 07-22-2012, 04:08 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 762 Post(s)
Liked: 1175
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

What am I doing? I am trying to make sure you don’t soil the reputation of people and magazines with misinformation. You said and I quote: " there was no public outcry."

There are as yet no posts showing even a tiny fraction of a public outcry over this issue. A few writers have recently taken note. However, many if not all of these articles are based on technical testing, not reliable listening tests.

I guess that the common meanings of words has been to date removed from this discussion because this is what outcry means:
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.thefreedictionary.com/outcry 

Outcry (definition):

1. a widespread or vehement protest
2. clamour; uproar
Quote:
Originally Posted by amir 
There clearly was

In what alternative universe? ;-)

Amir, there were thousands of SACD and DVD-A titles and hundreds if not articles prasining SACD and DVD-A recordings. About half of those recordings actually had the same or worse resolution than a good modern Redbook CD.

For there to be a "widespread or vehement protest" there would have to be a very large number of articles bemoaning this problem starting back in 1999. The number would have to compare to the vast number of reviews and articles about recordings that compose the public outcry over recordings with clipping and hypercompression. This wouldn't be just one article or a few articles. it would dozens or 100s of articles.

So far you have shown one article that wasn't even actually relevant! It was not a regular reveiw and it was not based on listening, sighted, blind or however. it was based on technical tests.

The second article you cited was also based on technical tests and came, but it can not from a high end reviewer but rather Hydrogen Audio, a site that is about critiizing high end audio's excesses. You can't defend high end audio reviewers by citing the activities of their critics who did what the high end reviewers should have been doing!

Amir, the amount of relevant evidence that you have provided of a widespread incidence of high end reviewers detecting this problem by ear and raising an outcry remains: Zero!

Amit, now that you know what outcry means, your work is cut out for you!
arnyk is offline  
post #17 of 73 Old 07-22-2012, 04:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
A9X-308's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Australia; now run by adults.
Posts: 5,444
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 170 Post(s)
Liked: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

The second article you cited was also based on technical tests and came, but it can not from a high end reviewer but rather Hydrogen Audio, a site that is about critiizing high end audio's excesses. You can't defend high end audio reviewers by citing the activities of their critics who did what the high end reviewers should have been doing!
Amir, the amount of relevant evidence that you have provided of a widespread incidence of high end reviewers detecting this problem by ear and raising an outcry remains: Zero!
By 94, I'd had an SACD player for over 3 years and probably 50 discs and by that time I'd read little real criticism of SACD in the press - I subscribed to SP and hifi+ through this period and read a lot online. I bought SACD initially because I'd used the Sony 700 DSD recorder in the early days of PCM and was impressed with it, compared to the PCM units I had available. I'd hoped the improvements over time would parallel that difference and translate into something better than RBCD.

I'd never bothered to measure any of the discs, only listened compared to the CD I owned. To say I was underwhelmed with all the discs I bought is an understatement. When I saw the measurements, I stopped buying SACDs and eventually sold them and the player. I don't like paying a premium for something that isn't any better.
A9X-308 is offline  
post #18 of 73 Old 07-22-2012, 05:28 PM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by A9X-308 View Post

By 94, I'd had an SACD player for over 3 years and probably 50 discs and by that time I'd read little real criticism of SACD in the press - I subscribed to SP and hifi+ through this period and read a lot online. I bought SACD initially because I'd used the Sony 700 DSD recorder in the early days of PCM and was impressed with it, compared to the PCM units I had available. I'd hoped the improvements over time would parallel that difference and translate into something better than RBCD.

You had ~50 discs and a SACD player by 1994 for a technology that was not even announced until late 1999???rolleyes.gif

Now that's efficiency!!!biggrin.gif
dragonfyr is offline  
post #19 of 73 Old 07-22-2012, 06:38 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,371
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 977 Post(s)
Liked: 546
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

There are as yet no posts showing even a tiny fraction of a public outcry over this issue. A few writers have recently taken note.
The "few writers" who have recently taken note is significant in your mind. But the few who took note in 2004 and earlier don't count? And what happened to your excuse that people did not have the tools to analyze the content. I have asked twice. Did tools not exist a decade back to analyze spectrum?
Quote:
However, many if not all of these articles are based on technical testing, not reliable listening tests.
Listening test? You need a listening test to verify an SACD had the same bandwidth as CD? Measurement was not sufficient? What would listening tests show? That they sound the same? You mean if they are not from the same master they do sound different? And high-res then does have value?
Quote:
For there to be a "widespread or vehement protest"
So you meant to say there were protests. That there were complaints. That both the press and audiophiles participated in such complaints. That there were research papers, articles and forum discussions saying the same. All of this happened. But since folks did not go to the street and set cars on fire and loot the stores it was not "vehement" enough for you. is this what you are saying?
Quote:
there would have to be a very large number of articles bemoaning this problem starting back in 1999. The number would have to compare to the vast number of reviews and articles about recordings that compose the public outcry over recordings with clipping and hypercompression. This wouldn't be just one article or a few articles. it would dozens or 100s of articles.
How do you know there were not dozens? You continue to equate your lack of knowledge in this regard as being how the history transpired. Here is the result another 5 second search, this time with DVD-A: http://www.stereophile.com/features/282/index.html

What's Going On Up There?
By John Atkinson • Posted: Oct 29, 2000 [Note: the follow ups appear to be from 2001]

So what conclusions can we draw?

First, true 96kHz-sampled commercial recordings are few and far between, particularly when it comes to nonclassical music. While this magazine has found that upsampling low-bandwidth digital recordings to 96kHz and 192kHz can make them sound better, it is a waste of the space on a DVD-A disc to use that space to store upsampled data. (It should be noted that the respected mastering engineer, Bob Katz, disagrees.) It also doesn't seem honest to label a commercial recording that has been processed in such a manner as "96kHz," even if that is the sample rate on the disc. Of the seven nonclassical 96kHz tracks on the Warner sampler, fully three appeared to have been originally recorded digitally using a 48kHz sample rate."

Quote:
So far you have shown one article that wasn't even actually relevant! It was not a regular reveiw and it was not based on listening, sighted, blind or however. it was based on technical tests.
The second article you cited was also based on technical tests and came, but it can not from a high end reviewer but rather Hydrogen Audio, a site that is about critiizing high end audio's excesses. You can't defend high end audio reviewers by citing the activities of their critics who did what the high end reviewers should have been doing! Amir, the amount of relevant evidence that you have provided of a widespread incidence of high end reviewers detecting this problem by ear and raising an outcry remains: Zero! Amit, now that you know what outcry means, your work is cut out for you!
Forget about this topic. The real outcry should be about your continued use of manufactured propaganda that heavily distort the truth. You do so technically and here, as a matter of history. Anyone else would have backed off after my first reply knowing that more could easily come. But not Arny. He is going to dig up dictionaries for us as his defense. As if that is going to paper over outlandish claims like people not having analysis tools until recently. Why not say there were no cars before 1970 while you were at it?

Let the facts be as they are Arny. When you twist and manipulate them this way, you soil any good message that may have been there are the same time. No one wants to hear from a corrupt witness no matter what he has to say....

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is online now  
post #20 of 73 Old 07-23-2012, 02:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
A9X-308's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Australia; now run by adults.
Posts: 5,444
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 170 Post(s)
Liked: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

You had ~50 discs and a SACD player by 1994 for a technology that was not even announced until late 1999???rolleyes.gif
Now that's efficiency!!!biggrin.gif
I was always well advanced for my age.
Obviously a typo; I meant 04
A9X-308 is offline  
post #21 of 73 Old 07-23-2012, 04:33 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 762 Post(s)
Liked: 1175
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

The "few writers" who have recently taken note is significant in your mind.

No, Amir they appear to be imaginary in your mind! ;-)
Quote:
But the few who took note in 2004 and earlier don't count?

They would count if:

(1) They existed in significant numbers
(2) They based their opinions on their much-vaunted and self-professed subjectivism.
Quote:
And what happened to your excuse that people did not have the tools to analyze the content.
[quote

That would be another one of your imaginary playmates, Amir. I never said any such thing. It's not true. It is a fabrication of your overheated mind.
Quote:
I have asked twice.

It is too dumb of a question to bother answering. It's another one of your distractions, Amir/
Quote:
Did tools not exist a decade back to analyze spectrum?

What do you think, Amir? Are you too poorly informed to know? Of course the tools existed. They existed decades before. You don't know that? Why do you have to ask me?
Quote:
Listening test? You need a listening test to verify an SACD had the same bandwidth as CD?

Amir this isn't about me, its about all of these flaming subjectivists who repeatedly affirm their naive belief in the so-called superiority of their ears over mere measurements.
Quote:
Measurement was not sufficient?

According them they, measurements are inferior to their golden ears, How many times do I have to quote them repeating this like a mantra?
Quote:
What would listening tests show?

That they could hear squat!

..which of course they obviously can't.
Quote:
That they sound the same?

That is the right answer, but does not appear to be the golden ear high end audio journalist's answer. If there ever was evidence that high end audio reviewing is far less than it makes itself out to be, this is it!

But you buy their fantastic stories hook, line, and sinker Amir, don't you?

BTW Amir, where is that reliable listening test that shows that asynch USB DACs sound different, let alone better? ;-)

Amir, you are one of their disciples. You are one of them.
arnyk is offline  
post #22 of 73 Old 07-23-2012, 08:43 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,371
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 977 Post(s)
Liked: 546
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Amir this isn't about me, its about all of these flaming subjectivists who repeatedly affirm their naive belief in the so-called superiority of their ears over mere measurements.
Yet, in this instance it is them who are using measurements to discover that what was sold to them is not what ls labeled! I quoted John Atkinson. He used measurements to prove his point. What did Arny propose? Repeatedly asking for listening tests instead! Here it is again in black and white:
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

A few writers have recently taken note. However, many if not all of these articles are based on technical testing, not reliable listening tests.

How can you not get who is arguing which way three times in a row? You are throwing stones at yourself by proposing that listening tests be used to prove two masters are the same. You honestly think that two different masters where one is truncated above 24 Khz cannot sound the same? Have you forgotten what camp you are in?
Quote:
No, Amir they appear to be imaginary in your mind! ;-)
See, here you are again. This is what you said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Note that as these recordings trickled out into the audiophile world, there was no public outcry from reviewers or audiophiles about their diminished sound quality until just lately when people started noticing the difference using technical tools.

You didn't mean to imply that the tools became available "lately" to enable that? Why did you have to say that then? If technical tools were available then and now then that would be a constant in both situations.
Quote:
They would count if:
(1) They existed in significant numbers
Nonsense on two fronts. First, no one would read the above statement that way. And second as I have repeatedly shown, you are substituting your lack of knowledge or false manipulation of the data for what happened. Besides, as I asked you, how come you didn't ring the sirens on this point? Did you know about it and stayed silent? Or you are one of the people who recently discovered the problem so the news is fresh to you?
Quote:
(2) They based their opinions on their much-vaunted and self-professed subjectivism.
Hah? You think graphs like this from people in the industry is self-professed subjectivism?

i-cStTRCF-X2.png

You continue to fallaciously fabricate people's positions. If you are that blind to data in front of you, then you cannot by definition to be trusted to know the full story about audio.
Quote:
But you buy their fantastic stories hook, line, and sinker Amir, don't you?
You mean you want me to buy your fantastic stories instead? The camp you hate documented their work using *objective* measurements. You on the other hand are in the fantasy land denying the entire history of what happened.
Quote:
BTW Amir, where is that reliable listening test that shows that asynch USB DACs sound different, let alone better? ;-) Amir, you are one of their disciples. You are one of them.
If I am one of their disciples, then we have made HUGE progress! That's because I have a shot at teaching them what I know about the science of audio. Alas, I don't think I have gone that far. My hope though is to change the view of objective camp as zealots who only accept one side of the audio science. That this fight need not be personal but focused on the science itself. Sadly for every bit of good I try to do there, you poison the well ten different ways with fallacious commentary and conduct unbecoming an objectivists as you have shown in this interchange.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is online now  
post #23 of 73 Old 07-23-2012, 09:09 AM
 
diomania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Forget about this topic. The real outcry should be about your continued use of manufactured propaganda that heavily distort the truth. You do so technically and here, as a matter of history. Anyone else would have backed off after my first reply knowing that more could easily come. But not Arny. He is going to dig up dictionaries for us as his defense. As if that is going to paper over outlandish claims like people not having analysis tools until recently. Why not say there were no cars before 1970 while you were at it?
Let the facts be as they are Arny. When you twist and manipulate them this way, you soil any good message that may have been there are the same time. No one wants to hear from a corrupt witness no matter what he has to say....
amirm, still trying to discredit the debunker of your marketing in disguise. All it does is to reconfirm the effectiveness of the debunking that took place here: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1326576/usb-vs-hdmi-for-2ch-audio-to-receiver
diomania is offline  
post #24 of 73 Old 07-23-2012, 10:25 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 762 Post(s)
Liked: 1175
Quote:
Originally Posted by amir 
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk 

Note that as these recordings trickled out into the audiophile world, there was no public outcry from reviewers or audiophiles about their diminished sound quality until just lately when people started noticing the difference using technical tools.
You didn't mean to imply that the tools became available "lately" to enable that?

Never in my wildest nightmares did I expect my words to be twisted in that egregious and nonsensical way.
Quote:
Why did you have to say that then?

I didn't say what you misinterpreted my words into, so the answer is: I didn't say that.
Quote:
If technical tools were available then and now then that would be a constant in both situations.

Availability and use are two different things. Many golden ears despise the use of technical tools, or didn't you know that? ;-)

BTW Amir, where is that reliable listening test that shows that asynch USB DACs sound different, let alone better? ;-)
arnyk is offline  
post #25 of 73 Old 07-23-2012, 10:51 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,371
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 977 Post(s)
Liked: 546
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

BTW Amir, where is that reliable listening test that shows that asynch USB DACs sound different, let alone better? ;-)
Why do you ask Arny? For the last few weeks you have repeatedly sided with people who advocate measurements over listening tests. Here is an example:
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Good example of professional behavior, eh? ;-)
Hardly. Professional behavior would call standing by the side of the truth, and not the opposite of the guy you don't like wink.gif.

I wrote in my last post to you asking why you stood silent while Dragon soiled the reputation of Clark and professors Lipshitz and Vanderkooy . Even after that reminder you have nothing to say but this one-liner complaint. Yet just a few days ago when the work of these people in the area of double blind testing was called into question in a far more professional manner, you joined that forum, and resurrected a two year old thread (which was linked to from AVS) to post this: http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?104973-A-Historical-Overview-of-Stereophonic-Blind-Testing&p=1787111&viewfull=1#post1787111

"I have known Lipshitz and Vanderkooy personally for decades, have sat with them in DBTs whose results they subsequently published in the JAES, and they think no such thing, and engage in no such practices.
[....]
Clark's (Clark is a decades-long personal friend, one time business partner, AES Fellow and past AES national officer, a highly -respected and internationally known audio expert) primary tool for listener training is a collection of music from regular commercial soruces, much highly appreciated by other listening test advocates both sighted and blind, that is known as the LTT. "


Yet in this thread, neither deserved any such support from you. You sat quiet let it all go down even post my reminder. It took me to come to their defense and praise of their accomplishments. This is on top of letting listening tests being thrown under the bus relative to measurements. Dragon and Local called them "polls and surveys" and Arny sits there calm and quiet as if to tacitly agree with them.

The Internet has long memory Arny. I once did a Google looking for my last name and found a recipe from my wife on making cookies posted in early 1980s! Hope you like what it is recording regarding what you are baking smile.gif

So please excuse me if I not longer believe that you care about listening tests. It is all a propaganda tool to beat someone into submission that you don't like. Nothing more it seems in your book...

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is online now  
post #26 of 73 Old 07-23-2012, 12:43 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 762 Post(s)
Liked: 1175
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk 

BTW Amir, where is that reliable listening test that shows that asynch USB DACs sound different, let alone better? ;-)

Why do you ask Arny? .

Same reason I suspect that most people watch "Dancing With The Stars": To watch people dance. ;-)
arnyk is offline  
post #27 of 73 Old 07-23-2012, 01:55 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,371
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 977 Post(s)
Liked: 546
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Same reason I suspect that most people watch "Dancing With The Stars": To watch people dance. ;-)
Well, it didn't work out for you in this instance. We got to cover how you turn your back on listening tests and support of your business partner and someone you frequently quote on that topic. I defended him and listening tests while you took the other side. And you continue to do so even after my reminders. You sold the objectivity camp Arny. How you can walk around with head up high and joking now is beyond me. Well, it isn't actually. You battle the person, not argue the topic. That much is clear.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is online now  
post #28 of 73 Old 07-23-2012, 04:57 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 762 Post(s)
Liked: 1175
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Well, it didn't work out for you in this instance. We got to cover how you turn your back on listening tests and support of your business partner and someone you frequently quote on that topic. I defended him and listening tests while you took the other side. And you continue to do so even after my reminders. You sold the objectivity camp Arny. How you can walk around with head up high and joking now is beyond me. Well, it isn't actually. You battle the person, not argue the topic. That much is clear.

I have no clue about what you are talking about, Amir.
arnyk is offline  
post #29 of 73 Old 07-23-2012, 07:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bigus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The South
Posts: 4,258
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Join the club arny. Amir battles the battle, and often becomes unintelligible in the process.

Bigus is offline  
post #30 of 73 Old 07-23-2012, 07:58 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
nateo200's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 51
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Well as much as I like to learn from battles that get off topic (so don't delete posts) can we get back to the original concept of the topic with less fighting over disagreements and more solid thoughts on 24bit and 16bit in addition to sample rates now that thats been thrown in.
nateo200 is offline  
Reply Audio Theory, Setup, and Chat

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off