or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › 24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense - Page 6

post #151 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post

This is a follow-up, and it starts by linking to the original:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showth...esolved-issues

--Ethan

I read the entire thing and you did receive a lot of fire, not from Mike though. I did not see any disrespect from him. It is either:

I was reading too fast and missed it
or
they got deleted.

I must add that thread was a gem. I loved how Mike Lavigne kept educating Amir with no come back. None-zilch! It was like there is another Amir posting in that thread. It was also great to see Mike promote his Shanti Stones and cable lifters with no argument from our self-declared objectivist Amir. Zilch none. I wonder how much Mike shops?

Finally when Mike told you he will never ever try to prove what he heard, check this out:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post12239333

here was going for the cable challenge. take a wild guess about the results of his test.
post #152 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swampfox View Post

Hate to be hypercritical but it's 105 dB dynamic range per the link.

Hate to school you in the art of reading, but the 105 dB number relates to: "Dynamic range of the microphone amplifier (A-weighted)". The microphone amplifier is not the only significant contributor of noise in a microphone. ;-)

Quote:


The heartbeats, arm movements, and breathing are all part of the performance.

The distortion of factual information is not necessary.

The audiophile myth here is that digital can't portray signals below its noise floor. No information is being distorted. It's information that is down in then noise at the live performance.

Quote:


The point you are trying to make is that 16 bit dynamic range is more than adequate for recording once all the noise floor is taken into account and not that the equipment isn't good enough.

Says who? A guy who doesn't know that the electronics aren't the only noise sources in a microphone and thinks that digital can't reproduce signals below its noise floor? ;-)

Try talking to someone who knows what noise floors are, how to measure them, and has 24/96 equipment that he uses to do real world professional recording. Like me! I experimented with 24 bit recording for a number of live recordings that I made, both 2-track and multitrack. The noise due to the microphones and the room was well above the normal 16 bit noise floor.

Quote:


Frankly the vast majority of pop music doesn't come close to 16 bits dynamic range.

Neither does any pop or classical. The widest dynamic range recording I have ever found a classical piece that was still about 10 dB short of the 16 bit noise floor, and it was highly exceptional! The widest dyanamic range pop recording I've ever found was more like 20 dB short, and it was pretty exceptional.

Real world noise floors on classical and pop commerical recordings with natural dynamics are 55-70 dB down. Obviously, one can do some dynamic expansion or gain riding and have whatever you want, but most people do compression, not expansion.

Quote:


I know people love to win an argument, and obviously there a lot of back story among posters, but each side of the debate has some merit without both sides distorting facts, misrepresenting each others statements, and adding ad hominem attacks.

I try my best to treat people straight who treat me straight, and give quite a bit of latitude on top of that. But people who twist words, and obfuscate, not so much.
post #153 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post


Inherent? You are saying when I generated my tone using high resolution samples, it came with these harmonic distortion spikes?



Pig in a poke. Not even a hint of what that is supposed to be. Looks to me like digital data truncated at 8 bits, which is so far from being part of the real world, I don't know where to start!

BTW, yet another rookie mistake. If those spikes are quantization distortion, then it is absolutely not harmonic distortion. If you do the math, or just have some practical experience, you know that quantization distortion in general is aharmonic. IOW, it is anything but "Harmonic Distortion"! Just for fun Amir, read your own plot!

http://www.prismsound.com/define.php?term=Dither:

Quote:
Originally Posted by prism sound View Post

There are many points in a digital audio signal path where precision can be lost. For example, in a digital transfer from 24-bits to 16-bits, or in an analogue to digital conversion. In this situation it is not sufficient just to discard low-order bits - this causes truncation distortion, characterised by aharmonic frequency components and unnatural, harsh decays. Instead, it is preferable to use some sort of 'dithering' process, whereby the truncation process is linearized by modulating the signal prior to the truncation, usually by the addition of a small amount of noise.
post #154 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Hate to school you in the art of reading, but the 105 dB number relates to: "Dynamic range of the microphone amplifier (A-weighted)". The microphone amplifier is not the only significant contributor of noise in a microphone. ;-)

"Hate to school you in the art of reading" .Exactly the type of comment that is unworthy of a response.


Quote:


The audiophile myth here is that digital can't portray signals below its noise floor. No information is being distorted. It's information that is down in then noise at the live performance.

Are you saying you digital can portray signal below it's noise floor, or are just being argumentative?
Quote:


Says who? A guy who doesn't know that the electronics aren't the only noise sources in a microphone and thinks that digital can't reproduce signals below its noise floor? ;-)

Again you being argumentative, but since you bring it up twice.
You are now saying that digital can have a greater dynamic range by removing noise below the noise floor. I do understand that there are techniques for improving signal to noise ratios, but then again that goes against you argument that the dynamics are limited by recording noise.
Quote:


Try talking to someone who knows what noise floors are, how to measure them, and has 24/96 equipment that he uses to do real world professional recording. Like me! I experimented with 24 bit recording for a number of live recordings that I made, both 2-track and multitrack. The noise due to the microphones and the room was well above the normal 16 bit noise floor.

I'm not arguing either way. My understanding is the purported reason for using 24 bit was in processing. I've also heard of using 32 bit floating point for the same reason.
Multiple previous posts in this thread indicate I'm dubious of the need for high res audio.

Quote:



I try my best to treat people straight who treat me straight, and give quite a bit of latitude on top of that. But people who twist words, and obfuscate, not so much.

That's not the way you come across. You and Amir both play the same game and are poured from the same mold, you apparently have animosity toward each other, and you try to assassinate anyone that get's caught in the crossfire, or doesn't accept your opinion as gospel.
post #155 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post

I've been arguing for years that people should aim to hear what the mixing and mastering engineers heard.

Wonderful .

Quote:


But they obviously don't care about that. If they did, every audiophile would have extensive acoustic treatment.

Every audiophile has to do that or else they can't complain about distortion elsewhere? Where have these commandments been written? You complain about Mike Lavigne in these posts. Have you seen his room? I have. He had it designed using a professional acoustician. I don't have my pictures of his room handy but here is a random one from the web:



You see the ceiling bass traps and diffusers around (let's not argue if they are right or wrong ).

Another person whose home I have been to is my partner in crime, Steve Williams:



I seem to recall him spending ~$20K on acoustic treatment and design.

So clearly the point is not lost on that community. If anything, they are far more aware of it than the typical consumer of audio equipment.

Quote:


Arguing about infinitesimal amounts of distortion while ignoring the elephant in the room - peaks and nulls spanning 30+ dB - shows that most 'phooles have very poor priorities, and don't really care about high fidelity as much as they think they do.

To borrow a line from Arny, that is a myth . Audiophiles care a great deal about that topic. On Whatsbestforum, we have one of the largest concentrations of acoustic experts. Anyone who is in the field has practically participated there. We have dedicated forums for folks like Art Nixon, yourself, etc.

Problem is, you all can't agree with yourselves what is the right answer . If you did, everyone would follow. Honestly, that is the biggest issue around room acoustics and treatment. The experts don't sing the same song and then wonder why people get confused and go without. Or worse yet, slap fiberglass around thinking that is the solution.

Quote:


When did I say that music quality should be downgraded? I might have said that 44/16 is adequate, but that's what I use to record in the first place. So do a lot of others.

And a lot more use higher resolution. For them, the customer wants that copy. For yours, they will accept 44/16 if that is what you used.

Quote:


What the hell is analog sound? 3 percent distortion of analog tape? 5 percent distortion and <20 dB crosstalk at best from vinyl?

How much distortion is there when digital clips? Or the compressors used to avoid it clipping? I am not here to defend analog. You can see what I named my company in my signature . But let's consider that recordings are done differently for analog domain and hence that alone, could contribute to their preference. If there are other euphoric reasons, I can't quantify them so please don't argue them with me . Or get us into that topic. We should be able to discuss what makes digital great, without having to resort to what is different with analog.

Quote:


That is a lie. I was told not to post anywhere but my own forum section.

You were *requested* to do that. We could have used forum tools to force that on you but we did not. Instead, we reached out to you in private in email, pleading for the sake of forum peace that you don't challenge people in every thread and every forum. What you wanted to say was told by you a hundred times. Repeated versions of it was not constructive especially when members thought you were more privileged than them give your "Technical Expert" title we had given you on WBF.

Between you and the other members, we thought you would be one to put down the sword, seeing how you were part of the "management team" with your own dedicated forum. At the same time, we reassured you that you could continue business as usual in your own dedicated area, including continuing those fights. But you chose to leave instead.

If you think any of this is a lie, I am happy to send you the email thread to you which I still have in my inbox.

Quote:


The only reason my posts a few weeks ago in that other section weren't deleted is because the thread was about my own upcoming book!

It was about your book until you came in and said this: "I look in from time to time. But since I'm not allowed to express my opinions freely, I have little to post." That is not a comment related to your book.

Quote:


Steve even threatened to delete me from that thread until someone pointed out the hypocrisy of not allowing me to participate in a thread about my own book.

I do not want to post a link to WBF. If you believe this is the version of the events, you are welcome to link to it for everyone to read it. For now, this is Steve's public response:

"Ethan

You and I both know that is far from the truth and unnecessary to post such knee jerk comments. Happy New Year to you and best of luck with your new book."


There is no threat in there.

Quote:


Amir, I don't take people on.

Of course you did. You just post a thread on WBF whose only purpose was to challenge one individual: Mike. You see me take on people here but even I am above calling someone out to have a fist fight that way. You are in the industry and respected member of our technical community. You should not act like general membership let alone go past them in calling for a duel. But you did and we let it be.

Quote:


I do call bullsh1t when I see it, but I always do so nicely, and I always explain why I think [whatever] is bullsh1t.

No dispute about either. You are a gentleman and a model of how to argue your point relative to others in the camp. We were hoping to make you even better by listening to a bit of wisdom from us. If you had been there and not left, you could have continued to spread your message both on room treatment and otherwise. Your hunger strike instead, served to do neither.

Quote:


It is always others who are rude and insulting to me first.

How do you think Arny has been toward me? It doesn't mean I act like him if I am part of the management of the forum.

Quote:


If you really wanted your forum to be a place for intelligent and civil discourse, you'd have banned the others who make trouble and call me wrong without ever explaining what is right.

Our goal on WBF is to use strong tools like banning as a last resort. Instead, we prefer to talk to them offline as we did with you and try to get people to act like adults and realize this is just a hobby. It is not easy for people to realize that. I am guilty of the same when I am on the other side of fence I am sure.

The differentiation we created on WBF was around people treating each other well first, discussing audio and other areas of interest second. We would not let anyone do 10% of what Arny is doing here example relative to calling me rookie in every other post. There is no goal for us to dictate what is the right opinion about audio any more than it is on AVS. We are the host and the rules are cordial conduct first. If that is not valued, then there are plenty of other forums where food fights and personal attacks are allowed.

Quote:


This is the real issue. People like Mike Lavigne are ignorant and arrogant, and deep down they know they can't defend their position. I imagine you know this, and realize how ridiculous was Mike's list of "what digital is unable to capture." Yet he was allowed to state his nonsense, and I was not allowed to correct him. Truly pathetic.

How far should that go Ethan? As you, I think Arny's explanation of science to be wanting. Should that be cause to get him banned from AVS? Should I be the judge of that you think? Where does it say in AVS forum that you have to be right about audio to post here? Where does it say on WBF the same thing?

Quote:


Sure, but if one distortion is 100 times larger than another, which it is in this case, only someone ignorant about human perception would believe the smaller distortion matters.

--Ethan

So explain it to them and then let them be.
post #156 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Pig in a poke. Not even a hint of what that is supposed to be. Looks to me like digital data truncated at 8 bits, which is so far from being part of the real world, I don't know where to start!

I generated that file and it was 16 bits.

Quote:


BTW, yet another rookie mistake. If those spikes are quantization distortion, then it is absolutely not harmonic distortion. If you do the math, or just have some practical experience, you know that quantization distortion in general is aharmonic. IOW, it is anything but "Harmonic Distortion"! Just for fun Amir, read your own plot!

Whether it is harmonic or not, depends on the relationship to the sampling frequency. http://oldweb.mit.bme.hu/books/quant...n/spectrum.pdf

"Example 20.2 Uniform Quantization of a Sine Wave

In Fig. 20.3 a sine wave of amplitude A is quantized using a quantum size q = A/3.5. It is clear that both x(t) and ν (t) are periodic, and, consequently, their spectra are discrete. Spectral broadening in the quantization noise means in this case that an infinite number of harmonics are produced, with a total power of about q2/12."


From paper: "Relationship between sampling rate and quantization noise"

"By using computer simulations with a sinusoidal input signal, here we show that the quantization noise spectrum can show a discrete or complex structure depending on the sampling rate used. The results confirm that an integer ratio between the sampling rate (fr) and the frequency of the input signal (fs) produces a quantization noise with components in odd harmonics of the signal frequency."

There are countless other references to show the same in the case of sinewave which is what the simulations and measurements show. The link you provided covers the general case where the input signal cannot be controlled as was here and yes, you will get a mix of harmonic and aharmoic distortion spikes. Neither bodes well for ignoring the problem or saying it vanishes due to reconstruction filter.
post #157 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swampfox View Post

That's not the way you come across. You and Amir both play the same game and are poured from the same mold, you apparently have animosity toward each other, and you try to assassinate anyone that get's caught in the crossfire, or doesn't accept your opinion as gospel.

I am not driven at all by animosity with Arny. I use his posts and others like him as an excuse to dig down and talk about science of audio. They provide the means if you will, to enable that. It is never personal with me. To wit, Arny joined WBF and went posting there. If I had some animosity, I could have used my powers there to ban him immediately. Instead, we asked him to be more cordial. And you know what happened? He became much nicer than he is here!

So if you want things to get better, do the same. Raise the standard of conduct. Call people when they get personal. And above all, don't throw me under the bus to make a point to Arny . He and I share passion for discussing a point of view about audio but that is where the similarities stop....
post #158 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

But, when used to record music, its effective dynamic range is limited by acoustic noise floor of the room. While there are rooms with residual noise in the 20-30 dB SPL range, putting a few people into the room who move, have heatbeats and move their limbs to say play instruments pushes that up another 10-20 dB.

But I like hearing the room in a recording! I am big into surroundsound and buy a lot of multichannel SACD and I also use an AVR to synthesise 2ch into 5.1. Having the sound field (not the soundstage) completely around me filling the room I find creates a better illusion of being there/having the band in your room.

Hearing not only the lead vocalist breathing, but also a guitarist or what have you that is sitting nearby moving and breathing as well adds to the realism. Or one music stand that vibrates when a string bass hits a low note or the reverberation of the room they are in that is different on one album to the next are things I want my system to reveal. I love the depth I can hear into the recording space at times. The greater the dynamic range of the recording and my system's capability to play it back and the absolute quietness of the room I am listening in makes for a much more rewarding musical experience.
post #159 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

The audiophile myth here is that digital can't portray signals below its noise floor. No information is being distorted. It's information that is down in then noise at the live performance.

The goal of a system needs to be transparency. While it is true that we hear through the noise, we don't want on purpose to use a system that has a noise floor above what we want to record when we have an alternatively that doesn't (i.e. larger bit depth).

Quote:


Try talking to someone who knows what noise floors are, how to measure them, and has 24/96 equipment that he uses to do real world professional recording. Like me! I experimented with 24 bit recording for a number of live recordings that I made, both 2-track and multitrack. The noise due to the microphones and the room was well above the normal 16 bit noise floor.

You are not taking your own advice above! First you say we can hear through the noise of a digital system. But here say that because the room has X amount of noise, that should set the floor for what we capture? You can't have it both ways.

And be careful in assuming that the brain and two ears work the same as a microphone and a meter. For example, the brain using directional cues of two speakers playing something, enabling it to hear unusually low levels of signal. Your microphone and meter don't measure such effects. Only listening tests do. To wit, the same listening tests with headphones shows that our detection threshold can actually be lower with speakers!

Quote:


Neither does any pop or classical. The widest dynamic range recording I have ever found a classical piece that was still about 10 dB short of the 16 bit noise floor, and it was highly exceptional! The widest dyanamic range pop recording I've ever found was more like 20 dB short, and it was pretty exceptional.

Do you have data to substantiate this broadly Arny? I am not doubting what you have experienced yourself but like to know if that is representative of what is there in the wild as opposed to what you have heard.

Quote:


Real world noise floors on classical and pop commerical recordings with natural dynamics are 55-70 dB down. Obviously, one can do some dynamic expansion or gain riding and have whatever you want, but most people do compression, not expansion.

I am sure there are recordings out there with 10 db dynamic range. That doesn't provide a proof point of what system we need to represent of music that we want to capture.

I would love to read research that shows these to be invalid: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=11981

"Dynamic Range Requirement for Subjective Noise Free Reproduction of Music

A dynamic range of 118 dB is determined necessary for subjective noise-free reproduction of music in a dithered digital audio recorder. Maximum peak sound levels in music are compared to the minimum discernible level of white noise in a quiet listening situation. Microphone noise limitations, monitoring loudspeaker capabilities, and performance environment noise levels are also considered.
....
The recent emergence of PCM recording techniques for music reproduction and the desire to standardize this format involves a re-examination of dynamic range requirements for natural music reproduction. Standardization of a 16 bit linear format would limit the dynamic range capability to 96 dB, and limit the quality of future PCM recorders if a wider range eventually became necessary.
....
The most accurate of previous examinations of dynamic range requirements was done by Fletcher [1] , who argued that 100 dB dynamic range was necessary.... Fletcher ignored the ear's ability to detect a noise source below that of the room noise by source localization.
...
For this particular microphone, the overload point is 130 dB and thus would allow the capturing of an equivalent dynamic range of 121 dB if peak levels of 130 dB exist in a performance. From the tabulation on peak sound levels close to musical instruments in Table 3, it is seen that musical instruments are capable of producing these high sound levels especially at distances less than 3 feet.
...
Four different microphones were measured which had overload levels between 120 to 140 decibels. They were all condenser microphones and as the graph shows the noise levels in the 3 - 7 kHz region were within 5 dB of each other. In summary, it is shown that close talking techniques and the proper selection of a microphone produces no limitation or reduction on the dynamic range requirement as determined by the playback experiments. Even a natural miking technique results in only a 9 dB white noise threshold.

In conclusion, several experiments were made to determine the dynamic range requirement for a recording system to produce no audible hiss when used to play back music at natural listening levels. These experiments resulted in a dynamic range requirement of 118 dB (non-amplified music), 124 dB (amplified music) for the professional, and 106 dB for the high quality consumer playback system."


http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=7948

"Dynamic-Range Issues in the Modern Digital Audio Environment

The peak sound levels of music performances are combined with the audibility of noise in sound reproduction circumstances to yield a dynamic-range criterion for noise-free reproduction of music. This criterion is then examined in light of limitations due to microphones, analog-to-digital conversion, digital audio storage, low-bit-rate coders, digital-to-analog conversion, and loudspeakers. A dynamic range of over 120 dB is found to be necessary in the most demanding circumstances, requiring the reproduction of sound levels of up to 129 dB SPL. Present audio systems are shown to be challenged to yield these values.
....
A survey of the dynamic range capabilities of ADCs shows values of 90-110 dB, with the highest value for the best configurations of 20-bit word length converters,Analog Devices, Crystal Semiconductor, and Ultra Ana-log all make ADCs with dynamic ranges of 106-110 above 1 kHz. Unfortunately these values of dynamic-range performance are inadequate to meet the professional and most demanding of the consumer requirements, and techniques to increase the apparent dynamic-range characteristics are necessary."


So again, if you have other research that show the much lower bar you are advocating here, I would love to read them.

Quote:


I try my best to treat people straight who treat me straight, and give quite a bit of latitude on top of that. But people who twist words, and obfuscate, not so much.

We will use those rules to judge your response to this post .
post #160 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

I don't have my pictures of his room handy but here is a random one from the web:


Where is the subwoofer? Did he run out of money after spending it on Shanti stones and cable lifters to purchase one thing that WILL make a difference?
post #161 of 761
I take it -6dB @ 7 Hz is not low enough for you

Quote:
Originally Posted by hd_newbie View Post

Where is the subwoofer? Did he run out of money after spending it on Shanti stones and cable lifters to purchase one thing that WILL make a difference?
post #162 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Skubinski View Post

I take it -6dB @ 7 Hz is not low enough for you

It is not about going low, it is about creating an accurate response. You can't do that without separate subs. Then again maybe he has it hidden somewhere not showing in the picture.
post #163 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd_newbie View Post

Where is the subwoofer?

Each of his Evolution Acoustics speakers have two 15 inch woofer driving by something like a 1000 watt switchmode amplifier. They claim -6db point at 7 Hz.

Quote:


Did he run out of money after spending it on Shanti stones and cable lifters to purchase one thing that WILL make a difference?

Where is the picture of your room and equipment that we can critique?
post #164 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd_newbie View Post

It is not about going low, it is about creating an accurate response. You can't do that without separate subs.

He has "separate" subs. They happen to be positioned with his speakers. If optimally placed as he has them, it attenuates the first three modes.
post #165 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinjuku View Post

Xiph.org article on why 24/192 isn't necessary and can actually be detrimental.

Snippet:

192kHz digital music files offer no benefits. They're not quite neutral either; practical fidelity is slightly worse. The ultrasonics are a liability during playback.

And:

Lossless formats like FLAC avoid any possibility of damaging audio fidelity [18] with a poor quality lossy encoder, or even by a good lossy encoder used incorrectly.

You are definately a FLAC junkie, flac cant be played back by most devices.
And Ultrasonics arent even an audible part of the spectrum, and to determine fidelity you need to know exact details about the source down to the instruments used and how they produce sound or if the singer used autotune or not to even begin to determine fidelity.

If its nout audible I dont worry about it, I can only hear so much. and so can you.
post #166 of 761
Raymond Leggs has spoken.
post #167 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond Leggs View Post

...

If its nout audible I dont worry about it, I can only hear so much. and so can you.

The problem is that some claim a lot more is audible
post #168 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond Leggs View Post

You are definately a FLAC junkie, flac cant be played back by most devices.

Huh? Let me guess, you own all Apple products.

List of hardware and software that supports FLAC

If you're quoting off the internet, you might want to lift a quote from something that's in this century.
post #169 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Another person whose home I have been to is my partner in crime, Steve Williams:


I love what little I can see if the chair at primary viewing position, do you have any idea the furniture maker?

Thanks in advance.
post #170 of 761
I can make my laptop speakers measure -6dB at 7Hz. Yay for tossing around meaningless unqualified specs.
post #171 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swampfox View Post

"Hate to school you in the art of reading" .Exactly the type of comment that is unworthy of a response.

But I know you Mr. Fox. You responded anyhow. Just another guy who can hand it out but winces when there's a little incoming.

Quote:
Are you saying you digital can portray signal below it's noise floor, or are just being argumentative?

If you don't know that digital can handle signals below the noise floor, where have you been? Seriously.

Both analog and digital can handle signals below their noise floor. The fact that digital can do it is pretty counter-intuitive, but it shows how totally dither makes digital analog-like.


Quote:
Again you being argumentative, but since you bring it up twice.

No, I've detected that your schooling in the facts about digital is seriously lacking.

Quote:
You are now saying that digital can have a greater dynamic range by removing noise below the noise floor.

No, I'm saying that digital can deliver musical sounds to your ears that are below the noise floor, just like analog can.

Quote:
I do understand that there are techniques for improving signal to noise ratios, but then again that goes against your argument that the dynamics are limited by recording noise.

No, I'm saying that noise can be compared to noise, no matter what the source. What you do have to do is consider the statistical properties of each noise, but you can't tell the difference between HVAC noise and noise from analog electronics tape noise and groove noise and digital noise if they have similar PDFs and spectral contents. They often do.

Quote:
I'm not arguing either way. My understanding is the purported reason for using 24 bit was in processing. I've also heard of using 32 bit floating point for the same reason.

Your use of words like "purported" shows a healthy amount of skepticism.

Its all about using the right tool for the job. For example, I have no problem with using 32 bit floating point for audio in certain contexts. My favorite daily-driver DAW software does this.

Quote:
Multiple previous posts in this thread indicate I'm dubious of the need for high res audio.

And that my friend is a good thing.

Quote:
That's not the way you come across. You and Amir both play the same game and are poured from the same mold, you apparently have animosity toward each other, and you try to assassinate anyone that get's caught in the crossfire, or doesn't accept your opinion as gospel.

Trust me, Amir and I are *not* cut from the same cloth. I can play his game but he can't play most of mine. Get out of this thread and you'll see me in my preferred mode, just helping people with problems. If Amir stayed out of my face, the world would be a different place.
post #172 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

I generated that file and it was 16 bits.


Whether it is harmonic or not, depends on the relationship to the sampling frequency. http://oldweb.mit.bme.hu/books/quant...n/spectrum.pdf

"Example 20.2 Uniform Quantization of a Sine Wave

In Fig. 20.3 a sine wave of amplitude A is quantized using a quantum size q = A/3.5. It is clear that both x(t) and ν (t) are periodic, and, consequently, their spectra are discrete. Spectral broadening in the quantization noise means in this case that an infinite number of harmonics are produced, with a total power of about q2/12."


From paper: "Relationship between sampling rate and quantization noise"

"By using computer simulations with a sinusoidal input signal, here we show that the quantization noise spectrum can show a discrete or complex structure depending on the sampling rate used. The results confirm that an integer ratio between the sampling rate (fr) and the frequency of the input signal (fs) produces a quantization noise with components in odd harmonics of the signal frequency."

Just because not everybody who puts a pen to paper knows the relevant facts, doesn't mean that Prism and Sound and I are wrong.

If you change the signal in your example from 100 Hz (which happens to divide evenly into 44,100) to 101 Hz, you will see what I mean. In general real-world audio signals don't divide evenly into the sampling frequency, right?

In general, quantization distortion is not a harmonic series. It pops right out of the math that predicts what quantization noise results from a given quantization. Ask Dr. Stan Lipshitz, for example. Ask JJ.

That might even be a good acid test for a paper. If someone tells you that quantization noise is a harmonic series, doubt the rest of what they say unless you know better.

They get to be wrong, and Amir if you believe their errors, so do you! ;-)
post #173 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

The goal of a system needs to be transparency.

However, the system only needs to be able to be transparent for signals that it actually handles.

That's the problem with the paper you cited. They didn't consider what comes out of actual microphones in actual recording studios or actual live venues.

It's all based on theory, not hands-on practice. If the authors had gone into studios and checked out masters and tracks, they would have told a completely different story.

The paper in question is again very old. It was part of the justification for HDCD. Remind me again about how HDCD took the world by storm and changed audio forever?

It didn't. HDCD was a solution looking for a problem. Its failure in the marketplace anticipated what happened to DVD-A and SACD.

You know what they say about people who do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result, right?

BTW Amir, were you the guy who talked MS into buying HDCD? ;-)
post #174 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

But I know you Mr. Fox. You responded anyhow. Just another guy who can hand it out but winces when there's a little incoming.

Quote:
16 bits is an overkill format, when it comes to recording music. It has about 20 dB more dynamic range than the signals that come out of microphones in recording studios and live venues.

Dynamic Range Definition:is the ratio between the largest and smallest possible values of a signals.
Quote:
The microphone by itself only has about 100 dB dynamic range from its self-noise to the SPL that is used for specifying distortion.

But, when used to record music, its effective dynamic range is limited by acoustic noise floor of the room. While there are rooms with residual noise in the 20-30 dB SPL range, putting a few people into the room who move, have heatbeats and move their limbs to say play instruments pushes that up another 10-20 dB.

The manufacturer gives its SNR as being 80 dB or less.

So basically, here you change the topic to SNR, because your microphone dynamic range comment was inaccurate. I guess you were hoping I didn't know the difference between DNR and SNR.
Definition: Signal-to-noise ratio is the measure compares the level of a desired signal to the level of background noise.
Quote:
Both analog and digital can handle signals below their noise floor. The fact that digital can do it is pretty counter-intuitive, but it shows how totally dither makes digital analog-like.

Back to dither and noise shaping.
So dither is useful in 16 bit audio.
post #175 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Just because not everybody who puts a pen to paper knows the relevant facts, doesn't mean that Prism and Sound and I are wrong.

The answer I gave was inclusive of the answer Prism sound gave. As for you, all this time you have been arguing that quantization noise occurs at multiples of sampling rate. You made fun of the third-party author for not graphing above 16 Khz to show that. Yet, all of a sudden, you are claiming expertise by saying what type of *in band* distortion this causes? Harmonic or otherwise?

It is clear this discussion is your first exposure to this topic. You googled and found that Prism quote and cut and paste it here, not realizing this is the same company whose designer had written the EDN article which you fought me tooth and nail on. All of a sudden, you are a friend of what they have to say? You make things worse by thinking that what they said is in conflict with the references I provided which it is not.

Quote:
If you change the signal in your example from 100 Hz (which happens to divide evenly into 44,100) to 101 Hz, you will see what I mean. In general real-world audio signals don't divide evenly into the sampling frequency, right?

Which is exactly what I and the articles described. Since 100 Hz is the test tone in question, your claim that what I post is not showing harmonic distortion was wrong then. Right? And at any rate, the distortion was at multiples of source tone, not sampling rate. Right?

Quote:
In general, quantization distortion is not a harmonic series. It pops right out of the math that predicts what quantization noise results from a given quantization. Ask Dr. Stan Lipshitz, for example. Ask JJ.

I don't need to ask. I was not the one claiming a dozen times that that distortion occurs at multiples of sampling rate. Or that it is a myth that having fixed amplitude causes no problem at all for digital. Or that the distortion magically goes away because you have an ultrasonic reconstruction filter. Your belief in unicorns would have gotten you pretty sharp punishment from JJ and Stan. That is probably the reason JJ calls you the worst advocate for the position you advocate.

Quote:
That might even be a good acid test for a paper. If someone tells you that quantization noise is a harmonic series, doubt the rest of what they say unless you know better.

You didn't read the whole reference as I cite, did you? Or even the snippet in my post:

""By using computer simulations with a sinusoidal input signal, here we show that the quantization noise spectrum can show a discrete or complex structure depending on the sampling rate used. The results confirm that an integer ratio between the sampling rate (fr) and the frequency of the input signal (fs) produces a quantization noise with components in odd harmonics of the signal frequency."

As to them being wrong, the fist book is from Cambridge University press, titled: Quantization Noise: Roundoff Error in Digital Computation, Signal Processing, Control, and Communication: http://oldweb.mit.bme.hu/books/quantization/flyer.pdf



Entire book written on the topic is wrong and Arny is right? This is Professor Widrow's bio: http://www-isl.stanford.edu/~widrow/

Research
Prof. Widrow's research focuses on adaptive signal processing, adaptive control systems, adaptive neural networks, human memory, and human-like memory for computers. Applications include signal processing, prediction, noise cancelling, adaptive arrays, control systems, and pattern recognition."

The other reference came from IEEE conference paper: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freea...number=1028213

Still you think your late, two-second google search, got you more informed than these experts?

Quote:
They get to be wrong, and Amir if you believe their errors, so do you! ;-)

"They" are experts who teach these topics. "They" got it right and I quoted even the section that said they were right which you say they didn't. I quoted a specific section relative to 100 Hz tone of a 44100 sampling rate because you claimed:

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

BTW, yet another rookie mistake. If those spikes are quantization distortion, then it is absolutely not harmonic distortion. If you do the math, or just have some practical experience, you know that quantization distortion in general is aharmonic.

So did you do the math on 100 Hz then and found it aharmonic when you wrote that post, but in this post now it is harmonic? You even bolded the word "absolutely." To summarize, you have gone from quantization noise being at multiples of sampling rate, to for a 100 Hz being aharmonic, to it being harmonic now. And you say I made a "rookie mistake?" So did the authors of college textbooks in this area?

At least we are making forward progress. I trust your argument that author's graph doesn't show ultrasnoics is out the door with regards to effects of quantization noise. And by stipulation that the reconstruction filter does anything useful for us relative to quantization noise because it operates at one half of sampling rate and hence, can't get rid of these spikes, whether they are harmonic or not.

Last but not least, let's judge you by how you said others should treat you:

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I try my best to treat people straight who treat me straight, and give quite a bit of latitude on top of that. But people who twist words, and obfuscate, not so much.

Put me aside. You think you treated the authors properly? And deserve "latitude" when you have changed your story three times on quantization effects in digital signals? You know, the ABCs of signal processing?
post #176 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

That's the problem with the paper you cited. They didn't consider what comes out of actual microphones in actual recording studios or actual live venues.

They did. Clearly you don't bother reading references before claiming they are mistaken. From the last part of the Ampex article:

"I am also grateful to Bob Meuse and the San Jose Symphony Orchestra for assisting me in the measurement of the noise present during quiet periods in a classical music performance."

Quote:
It's all based on theory, not hands-on practice. If the authors had gone into studios and checked out masters and tracks, they would have told a completely different story.

Putting aside your continued claims in this area without foundation, I asked you to provide third party references that back your claim. And you come back with more of your own opinion and data. That's cool. You believe what you believe. What you lack is generalization to all content out there.

Quote:
The paper in question is again very old. It was part of the justification for HDCD. Remind me again about how HDCD took the world by storm and changed audio forever?

I knew as sun rises from the east that this argument would come . You should start a petition that AES and such delete anything other than, say, older than 5 years old? I am sure you are right that folks play music less loud than they did 10 or 20 years ago. And that our electronics have gotten worse, not better during that time. Importantly, our ears must have evolved a ton as to invalidate all the *listening tests* they did to arrive at their conclusions. Is this what you are saying by "old"?

Quote:
It didn't. HDCD was a solution looking for a problem. Its failure in the marketplace anticipated what happened to DVD-A and SACD.

For folks like you who strive for how crappy you can make audio and get away with it, that is true I am sure. What you don't know perhaps is that HDCD encoding to represent 20 bits in compatible way in 16 bits, helped in dithering the word even when playing in non-HDCD players. You know, the topic we are discussing! But you have never read their paper and patent so why would you know they did something related to the topic at hand.

As to it being a failure in the marketplace, isn't remarkable that some 10 years after the company went away, HDCD is still supported in new products? http://www.oppodigital.com/blu-ray-bdp-93/

"Additional Disc & Media Formats - Additional disc and file formats, such as DVD, audio CD, HDCD...."

http://www.digitaltrends.com/receive...4311ci-review/

"....It even supports SACD and HDCD playback via HDMI."

http://www.bestavreceiver.com/2011/04/denon-avr-4308ci/
"The receiver also includes High-Definition-Compatible Digital (HDCD), an encoding/decoding technology that encodes with 20 bits of real musical information-as compared with 16 bits for all other CDs-thereby greatly reducing distortion."

Quote:
You know what they say about people who do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result, right?

Yeh, sadly it is true that general consumer could care less about quality as I noted earlier in this thread. And there is not a mass market for people who do. Combine that with misinformation campaign you are on to dumb down audio quality and we have what we have.

Quote:
BTW Amir, were you the guy who talked MS into buying HDCD? ;-)

I didn't "talk" MS into it. We acquired it into my grou. The reason wasn't HDCD. We sold of that part of the (hardware) business. The reason was speaker correction technology that Keith Johnson and crew had invented. They would characterize performance of 10 cent speakers used in computers, and apply reverse correction in software to take them from sounding like trash, to sounding well, at least audible . In addition, I got an education in audio reproduction I could not have gotten any other way. Spend an hour with "Professor" Johnson and I guarantee you that you will be far smarter than spending weeks here. To avoid the next post that shows you don't know one of the industry's best recording engineers, this picture would stop the next negative post to come: http://www.stereophile.com/content/p...s-first-grammy

post #177 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

I can see how the choice can cause vinyl aficionados raised blood pressure which is why I've rewritten the above choosing softer terms.

LOL, but vinyl does degrade the sound. The frequency response is skewed, noticeable amounts of distortion and various noises are added, and channel separation is reduced considerably which narrows imaging. I understand that people are offended when these truths are pointed out, but they are still truths.

--Ethan
post #178 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

He has "separate" subs. They happen to be positioned with his speakers. If optimally placed as he has them, it attenuates the first three modes.

So he measured his room and the optimal place for the subs happened to be identical with the speakers! wow
post #179 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd_newbie View Post

you did receive a lot of fire, not from Mike though.

Right, the real hate came from others.

Quote:
Finally when Mike told you he will never ever try to prove what he heard, check this out:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post12239333
here was going for the cable challenge. take a wild guess about the results of his test.

LOL, that's great. But that was 2007. I guess Mike learned his lesson (not), but at least realized he cannot defend his beliefs using logic and listening tests.

--Ethan
post #180 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

You complain about Mike Lavigne in these posts. Have you seen his room? I have. He had it designed using a professional acoustician.

Sure, a few very well heeled or more savvy audiophiles do have acoustic treatment. But by and large most do not, even the ones who have spent thousands of dollars on useless trinkets like the ART bowls and Shunyata products etc.

Quote:
Problem is, you all can't agree with yourselves what is the right answer .

Yes, unlike basic audio engineering, acoustics is as much an art as a science. Not that there's universal agreement on all non-acoustics aspects of audio. Some say cables matter, others say don't waste your money. Some say Class A amps sound best, and others say Class AB and Class D can sound just as good and show measurements to prove it.

Quote:
How much distortion is there when digital clips?

Another red herring. Analog tape and vinyl distort audibly at levels far below hard clipping.

Quote:
You were *requested* to do that. We could have used forum tools to force that on you but we did not. Instead, we reached out to you in private in email, pleading for the sake of forum peace that you don't challenge people in every thread and every forum.

Semantics. I was told to not post in any forum section but my own, or else.

Quote:
You just post a thread on WBF whose only purpose was to challenge one individual: Mike.

Sure, but that was after he "took me on" with his preposterous claim that digital audio can't capture various aspects of music.

Quote:
You are a gentleman and a model of how to argue your point relative to others in the camp.

Yet the guys who are truly vile, like mep and microstrip, were allowed to insult me all day long while I was banned from posting. I expected better at WBF.

--Ethan
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Audio theory, Setup and Chat
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › 24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense