Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
High-end audio
102 views
Skip to first unread message
Mxsmanic
Mar 20, 2012, 2:03:43 AM3/20/12
to
Well, I've learned something new again on this group. I've learned about the
existence of high-end audio, a bizarre world that I had never heard about
before. It seems to be a very small world that presumably appeals to people of
low intelligence and high income (e.g., people working in financial markets).
I don't think that any ordinary consumer would be seduced by anything in this
world, and I presume that professionals would be immune to its charms as well,
so it's really only a source of amusement.
I recall hearing about Monster Cables ages ago, and they seemed overpriced and
excessive at the time to me. Clearly, that market went off the deep end long
ago.
existence of high-end audio, a bizarre world that I had never heard about
before. It seems to be a very small world that presumably appeals to people of
low intelligence and high income (e.g., people working in financial markets).
I don't think that any ordinary consumer would be seduced by anything in this
world, and I presume that professionals would be immune to its charms as well,
so it's really only a source of amusement.
I recall hearing about Monster Cables ages ago, and they seemed overpriced and
excessive at the time to me. Clearly, that market went off the deep end long
ago.
Mike Rivers
Mar 20, 2012, 7:01:51 AM3/20/12
to
On 3/20/2012 2:03 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Well, I've learned something new again on this group. I've learned about the
> existence of high-end audio
Well, there's a rec.audio.high-end newsgroup. Get your butt
> Well, I've learned something new again on this group. I've learned about the
> existence of high-end audio
over there and quit bugging us here. But I'll warn you -
it's moderated.
http://tinyurl.com/rec-audio-high-end-Moderation
--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson
http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff
Message has been deleted
Luxey
Mar 20, 2012, 5:01:36 AM3/20/12
to
On Tuesday, 20 March 2012 07:03:43 UTC+1, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Well, I've learned something new again on this group.
I see you did research for best trolling themes. Your next post will be about overcompression and loudness wars, than vinyl vs CD, than ...
> Well, I've learned something new again on this group.
William Sommerwerck
Mar 20, 2012, 9:34:04 AM3/20/12
to
"High-end" audio has been around at least 60 years, though it was not called
that. In fact, it arguably extends back to the 30s, with E H Scott making
horribly expensive radio receivers, and Avery Fisher assembling custom
systems.
Its modern incarnation began with Macintosh and Marantz products after WWII,
which most people could not afford. $250 power amps and preamps were beyond
the reach of most listeners. (I remember this very well.)
The high end really got going when Crown introduced the DC-300, a $545
transistor power amplifier, in the early 60s. It was one of the first "good"
transistor amps, not only in having decent sound, but not blowing up. Though
intended as an industrial amplifier, it sold very well to consumers.
What happened since then is too complex to explain in a brief post.
that. In fact, it arguably extends back to the 30s, with E H Scott making
horribly expensive radio receivers, and Avery Fisher assembling custom
systems.
Its modern incarnation began with Macintosh and Marantz products after WWII,
which most people could not afford. $250 power amps and preamps were beyond
the reach of most listeners. (I remember this very well.)
The high end really got going when Crown introduced the DC-300, a $545
transistor power amplifier, in the early 60s. It was one of the first "good"
transistor amps, not only in having decent sound, but not blowing up. Though
intended as an industrial amplifier, it sold very well to consumers.
What happened since then is too complex to explain in a brief post.
Arny Krueger
Mar 20, 2012, 8:22:35 AM3/20/12
to
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c77gm7pvhqlt95i6u...@4ax.com...
> Well, I've learned something new again on this group. I've learned about
> the
> existence of high-end audio, a bizarre world that I had never heard about
> before.
Sorry to drag you near this can of worms.
> It seems to be a very small world that presumably appeals to people of
> low intelligence and high income (e.g., people working in financial
> markets).
well educated (but usually not not in audio) who are generally quick
learners and think they can master other "lesser" professions like audio
quite easily. Being highly arrogant seems to help.
> I don't think that any ordinary consumer would be seduced by anything in
> this
> world, and I presume that professionals would be immune to its charms as
> well,
> so it's really only a source of amusement.
rule, audio production is far more pragmatic.
> I recall hearing about Monster Cables ages ago, and they seemed overpriced
> and
> excessive at the time to me. Clearly, that market went off the deep end
> long
> ago.
eth...@ethanwiner.com
Mar 20, 2012, 11:34:30 AM3/20/12
to
On Tuesday, March 20, 2012 2:03:43 AM UTC-4, Mxsmanic wrote:
> I don't think that any ordinary consumer would be seduced by anything in this
> world, and I presume that professionals would be immune to its charms as well,
> so it's really only a source of amusement.
Full story here:
> I don't think that any ordinary consumer would be seduced by anything in this
> world, and I presume that professionals would be immune to its charms as well,
> so it's really only a source of amusement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ
--Ethan
Soundhaspriority
Mar 20, 2012, 12:18:51 PM3/20/12
to
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jka10n$faf$1...@dont-email.me...
oggle that amp. William, why couldn't you have been a decent human being and
slipped me a DC300 out the back door ? :)
But if I recall correctly, the DC300 did not stand the test of time in
comparison with later high-end transistor amps that appeared later. And
while it did not routinely blow up like the Carver amps, blowups were not in
the rare category.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Richard Webb
Mar 20, 2012, 3:38:34 PM3/20/12
to
On Tue 2012-Mar-20 08:34, William Sommerwerck writes:
> The high end really got going when Crown introduced the DC-300, a
> $545 transistor power amplifier, in the early 60s. It was one of the
> first "good" transistor amps, not only in having decent sound, but
> not blowing up. Though intended as an industrial amplifier, it sold
> very well to consumers.
YEp, and sound reinforcement people liked it as well.
> The high end really got going when Crown introduced the DC-300, a
> $545 transistor power amplifier, in the early 60s. It was one of the
> first "good" transistor amps, not only in having decent sound, but
> not blowing up. Though intended as an industrial amplifier, it sold
> very well to consumers.
Iirc at least according to urban legend, might be true, its
first and intended application was for use on shake tables.
Iow for those not familiar, put the component or product on
the table and pump low frequency audio through the amplifier to make the surface shake and see what happens.
LEgend has it, being very religious the owenrs of Crown
weren't real happy with their amplifiers being used to power sound reinforcement for rock 'n roll shows.
My favorite Crown dealer in NEw ORleans told a story
repeatedly about calling Crown for service info, etc. and
having to call back because all the staff was in a prayer
meeting.
Them, and a guy used to cut disks back in Iowa where I grew
up had bgw amplifiers he liked as well.
Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
#! rnews 2733
Path: ftn!116-901!NOT-FOR-MAIL
From: R
hank alrich
Mar 20, 2012, 1:45:35 PM3/20/12
to
Soundhaspriority <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> But if I recall correctly, the DC300 did not stand the test of time in
> comparison with later high-end transistor amps that appeared later. And
> while it did not routinely blow up like the Carver amps, blowups were not in
> the rare category.
If PA use more than once I saw DC300's outputs fail in a way that took
> But if I recall correctly, the DC300 did not stand the test of time in
> comparison with later high-end transistor amps that appeared later. And
> while it did not routinely blow up like the Carver amps, blowups were not in
> the rare category.
out all downstream drivers. Not a pretty sight.
On top of that, take a look at the spec for phase @ 20KHz relative to
1KHz.
--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri
Scott Dorsey
Mar 20, 2012, 2:09:33 PM3/20/12
to
Richard Webb <Richard.We...@116-901.ftn.wpusa.dynip.com> wrote:
>On Tue 2012-Mar-20 08:34, William Sommerwerck writes:
>> The high end really got going when Crown introduced the DC-300, a
>> $545 transistor power amplifier, in the early 60s. It was one of the
>> first "good" transistor amps, not only in having decent sound, but
>> not blowing up. Though intended as an industrial amplifier, it sold
>> very well to consumers.
>
>YEp, and sound reinforcement people liked it as well.
>
>Iirc at least according to urban legend, might be true, its
>first and intended application was for use on shake tables.
Yes, we have a bunch of them running shaker tables still, at a customer of
>On Tue 2012-Mar-20 08:34, William Sommerwerck writes:
>> The high end really got going when Crown introduced the DC-300, a
>> $545 transistor power amplifier, in the early 60s. It was one of the
>> first "good" transistor amps, not only in having decent sound, but
>> not blowing up. Though intended as an industrial amplifier, it sold
>> very well to consumers.
>
>YEp, and sound reinforcement people liked it as well.
>
>Iirc at least according to urban legend, might be true, its
>first and intended application was for use on shake tables.
mine.
The things sound godawful, especially into the high efficiency speakers
of the seventies, because they have a lot of crossover distortion. But
they put lot lots of power down to insanely low frequencies.
>LEgend has it, being very religious the owenrs of Crown
>weren't real happy with their amplifiers being used to power sound reinforcement for rock 'n roll shows.
>My favorite Crown dealer in NEw ORleans told a story
>repeatedly about calling Crown for service info, etc. and
>having to call back because all the staff was in a prayer
>meeting.
call sign stands for Heralding Christ Jesus' Blessings. The Crown broadcast
division basically started out supporting them.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Scott Dorsey
Mar 20, 2012, 2:11:05 PM3/20/12
to
hank alrich <walk...@nv.net> wrote:
>Soundhaspriority <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> But if I recall correctly, the DC300 did not stand the test of time in
>> comparison with later high-end transistor amps that appeared later. And
>> while it did not routinely blow up like the Carver amps, blowups were not in
>> the rare category.
>
>If PA use more than once I saw DC300's outputs fail in a way that took
>out all downstream drivers. Not a pretty sight.
That's the downside of DC coupling. When one output transistor fails into
>Soundhaspriority <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> But if I recall correctly, the DC300 did not stand the test of time in
>> comparison with later high-end transistor amps that appeared later. And
>> while it did not routinely blow up like the Carver amps, blowups were not in
>> the rare category.
>
>If PA use more than once I saw DC300's outputs fail in a way that took
>out all downstream drivers. Not a pretty sight.
a short, you get DC on the output.
Today's DC-coupled amps employ fancy protection circuits to shut everything
down when this happens, but back in the DC300's day nobody had a good
understanding on how important this is.
>On top of that, take a look at the spec for phase @ 20KHz relative to
>1KHz.
William Sommerwerck
Mar 20, 2012, 2:15:18 PM3/20/12
to
>> What happened since then is too complex to explain in a brief post.
> I made occasional visits to the store on the Mainline that you managed,
> to ogle that amp. William, why couldn't you have been a decent human
> I made occasional visits to the store on the Mainline that you managed,
> being and slipped me a DC300 out the back door ? :)
What about your back door?
I didn't manage the store (Barclay Recording and Electronics).
> But if I recall correctly, the DC300 did not stand the test of time in
> comparison with later high-end transistor amps that appeared later.
> And while it did not routinely blow up like the Carver amps, blowups
> were not in the rare category.
could compete with good modern amps.
William Sommerwerck
Mar 20, 2012, 2:16:50 PM3/20/12
to
> Today's DC-coupled amps employ fancy protection circuits to
> shut everything down when this happens, but back in the DC300's
> day nobody had a good understanding on how important this is.
I owned a modern amp with such protection that, when the output stage
> shut everything down when this happens, but back in the DC300's
> day nobody had a good understanding on how important this is.
failed, did not shut off. One of my speakers was nearly destroyed.
William Sommerwerck
Mar 20, 2012, 2:23:04 PM3/20/12
to
>> The high end really got going when Crown introduced the DC-300, a
>> $545 transistor power amplifier, in the early 60s. It was one of the
>> first "good" transistor amps, not only in having decent sound, but
>> not blowing up. Though intended as an industrial amplifier, it sold
>> very well to consumers.
>> $545 transistor power amplifier, in the early 60s. It was one of the
>> first "good" transistor amps, not only in having decent sound, but
>> not blowing up. Though intended as an industrial amplifier, it sold
>> very well to consumers.
> Iirc at least according to urban legend, might be true, its
> first and intended application was for use on shake tables.
> Iow for those not familiar, put the component or product on
> the table and pump low frequency audio through the amplifier
> to make the surface shake and see what happens.
> My favorite Crown dealer in New Orleans told a story
> first and intended application was for use on shake tables.
> Iow for those not familiar, put the component or product on
> the table and pump low frequency audio through the amplifier
> to make the surface shake and see what happens.
> repeatedly about calling Crown for service info, etc. and
> having to call back because all the staff was in a prayer
> meeting.
Probably true. They had a prayer session every morning.
> having to call back because all the staff was in a prayer
> meeting.
When Barclay went out of business, Crown offered several employees jobs. Not
me, of course. Even if they'd offered it, I wouldn't have taken it.
Crown had a later industrial amp, the M300. We used two bridged pairs to
power Dayton-Wright electrostatics (one of the nastiest loads in the history
of loudspeakers) in a huge, acoustically dead basement. The Crowns drove
them effortlessly and cleanly, to near-earsplitting levels.
david gourley
Mar 20, 2012, 3:30:35 PM3/20/12
to
klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) said...news:jkah7p$g49$1...@panix2.panix.com:
When I worked in a radio design lab in the 80s, we used one to power a
mechanical shake table. It did a great job throwing inductors across
the room.
david
mechanical shake table. It did a great job throwing inductors across
the room.
david
Mike Rivers
Mar 20, 2012, 5:30:55 PM3/20/12
to
On 3/20/2012 2:11 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Today's DC-coupled amps employ fancy protection circuits to shut everything
> down when this happens, but back in the DC300's day nobody had a good
> understanding on how important this is.
> Today's DC-coupled amps employ fancy protection circuits to shut everything
> down when this happens, but back in the DC300's day nobody had a good
> understanding on how important this is.
> It's a fine amp for applications that don't exceed 1 KHz though.
A test lab that I used to work with used them to drive shake
tables.
Arny Krueger
Mar 20, 2012, 5:57:18 PM3/20/12
to
"Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:CdudnXYbyPRxMPXS...@giganews.com...
>
> But if I recall correctly, the DC300 did not stand the test of time in
> comparison with later high-end transistor amps that appeared later. And
> while it did not routinely blow up like the Carver amps, blowups were not
> in the rare category.
It was pushing the limits of the then available output devices, and the
> But if I recall correctly, the DC300 did not stand the test of time in
> comparison with later high-end transistor amps that appeared later. And
> while it did not routinely blow up like the Carver amps, blowups were not
> in the rare category.
numbers of them that were used.
Richard Webb
Mar 20, 2012, 10:07:56 PM3/20/12
to
On Tue 2012-Mar-20 13:09, Scott Dorsey writes:
<snip>
>Iirc at least according to urban legend, might be true, its
>first and intended application was for use on shake tables.
> Yes, we have a bunch of them running shaker tables still, at a
> customer of mine.
Wouldn't doubt that.
> The things sound godawful, especially into the high efficiency
> speakers of the seventies, because they have a lot of crossover
> distortion. But they put lot lots of power down to insanely low
> frequencies.
Yep, used them for the dreaded voice of the theater
cabinets, then switched them to monitor amp dut when I
bought some qsc power in the mid-eighties for mains. YEah
yeah I'm showing my age again.
>>LEgend has it, being very religious the owners of Crown
wasn't sure how much credence to give it though, as amateur
call signs for Columbia are hk prefixes, iirc hk3. Every
one I've ever worked from down there on 20 meters was an hk3 anyway, and I think boats in columbian waters must since
/hk3.
<snip>
>Iirc at least according to urban legend, might be true, its
>first and intended application was for use on shake tables.
> Yes, we have a bunch of them running shaker tables still, at a
> customer of mine.
> The things sound godawful, especially into the high efficiency
> speakers of the seventies, because they have a lot of crossover
> distortion. But they put lot lots of power down to insanely low
> frequencies.
cabinets, then switched them to monitor amp dut when I
bought some qsc power in the mid-eighties for mains. YEah
yeah I'm showing my age again.
>>LEgend has it, being very religious the owners of Crown
>>weren't real happy with their amplifiers being used to power sound
>> reinforcement for rock 'n roll shows.
>>My favorite Crown dealer in NEw ORleans told a story
>repeatedly about calling Crown for service info, etc. and
>>having to call back because all the staff was in a prayer
>>meeting.
> Crown is still one of the major supporters of HCJB Radio in Ecuador.
> Their call sign stands for Heralding Christ Jesus' Blessings. The
> Crown broadcast division basically started out supporting them.
I'd heard that one too, at leastthe acronym for hcjb. I
>> reinforcement for rock 'n roll shows.
>>My favorite Crown dealer in NEw ORleans told a story
>repeatedly about calling Crown for service info, etc. and
>>having to call back because all the staff was in a prayer
>>meeting.
> Crown is still one of the major supporters of HCJB Radio in Ecuador.
> Their call sign stands for Heralding Christ Jesus' Blessings. The
> Crown broadcast division basically started out supporting them.
wasn't sure how much credence to give it though, as amateur
call signs for Columbia are hk prefixes, iirc hk3. Every
one I've ever worked from down there on 20 meters was an hk3 anyway, and I think boats in columbian waters must since
/hk3.
Trevor
Mar 20, 2012, 6:40:15 PM3/20/12
to
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@cocmast.net> wrote in message
news:mJKdnQ-ucp0TYPXS...@giganews.com...
>> But if I recall correctly, the DC300 did not stand the test of time in
>> comparison with later high-end transistor amps that appeared later. And
>> while it did not routinely blow up like the Carver amps, blowups were not
>> in the rare category.
>
> It was pushing the limits of the then available output devices, and the
> numbers of them that were used.
And yet a lot less often than the early Phase Linear, Bose and Carver amps
>> comparison with later high-end transistor amps that appeared later. And
>> while it did not routinely blow up like the Carver amps, blowups were not
>> in the rare category.
>
> It was pushing the limits of the then available output devices, and the
> numbers of them that were used.
that all came later.
Trevor.
Mxsmanic
Mar 20, 2012, 7:11:01 PM3/20/12
to
Arny Krueger writes:
> Sorry to drag you near this can of worms.
It was entertaining. Some of the equipment I saw looked like a UFO.
> Sorry to drag you near this can of worms.
> The people who fall for High End audio hype are often very smart people,
> well educated (but usually not not in audio) who are generally quick
> learners and think they can master other "lesser" professions like audio
> quite easily. Being highly arrogant seems to help.
some of the claims apparently being made for some high-end audio products.
There are basic scientific principles that any technically-minded, reasonably
educated person would be familiar with that conflict with some of these
claims. The notion that cables could be directional seems very suspect, even
to someone who has never been exposed to audio systems before.
> High End cable madness struck in the early 1970s, if memory serves.
am wary, as even those have always seemed unjustifiably extreme to me. The
more recent exaggerations thereof are very difficult to take seriously.
Mxsmanic
Mar 20, 2012, 7:20:18 PM3/20/12
to
Luxey writes:
> I see you did research for best trolling themes.
No, I didn't, but I thought it might be an attractive topic of discussion.
> I see you did research for best trolling themes.
Scott Dorsey
Mar 20, 2012, 7:43:20 PM3/20/12
to
Richard Webb <Richard.We...@116-901.ftn.wpusa.dynip.com> wrote:
>> Their call sign stands for Heralding Christ Jesus' Blessings. The
>> Crown broadcast division basically started out supporting them.
>
>I'd heard that one too, at leastthe acronym for hcjb. I
>wasn't sure how much credence to give it though, as amateur
>call signs for Columbia are hk prefixes, iirc hk3. Every
>one I've ever worked from down there on 20 meters was an hk3 anyway, and I think boats in columbian waters must since
>/hk3.
Well, it's no sillier than WSB being Welcome South Brother, or
>> Their call sign stands for Heralding Christ Jesus' Blessings. The
>> Crown broadcast division basically started out supporting them.
>
>I'd heard that one too, at leastthe acronym for hcjb. I
>wasn't sure how much credence to give it though, as amateur
>call signs for Columbia are hk prefixes, iirc hk3. Every
>one I've ever worked from down there on 20 meters was an hk3 anyway, and I think boats in columbian waters must since
>/hk3.
WGST for the Georgia School of Technology....
--soctt
Soundhaspriority
Mar 20, 2012, 8:13:12 PM3/20/12
to
news:jkahrr$oi9$1...@dont-email.me...
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
>>> The high end really got going when Crown introduced the DC-300, a
>>> $545 transistor power amplifier, in the early 60s. It was one of the
>>> first "good" transistor amps, not only in having decent sound, but
>>> not blowing up. Though intended as an industrial amplifier, it sold
>>> very well to consumers.
>
What are your memories of the 300A ?
>>> $545 transistor power amplifier, in the early 60s. It was one of the
>>> first "good" transistor amps, not only in having decent sound, but
>>> not blowing up. Though intended as an industrial amplifier, it sold
>>> very well to consumers.
>
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
William Sommerwerck
Mar 20, 2012, 8:54:18 PM3/20/12
to
>> The high end really got going when Crown introduced the DC-300, a
>> $545 transistor power amplifier, in the early 60s. It was one of the
>> first "good" transistor amps, not only in having decent sound, but
>> not blowing up. Though intended as an industrial amplifier, it sold
>> very well to consumers.
> What are your memories of the 300A ?
Only that it was supposedly "better". The designer, Gerry Stanley, said that
>> $545 transistor power amplifier, in the early 60s. It was one of the
>> first "good" transistor amps, not only in having decent sound, but
>> not blowing up. Though intended as an industrial amplifier, it sold
>> very well to consumers.
> What are your memories of the 300A ?
it could properly drive a reactive load, something the 300 wouldn't do. He
promised to "never make that mistake again".
Mxsmanic
Mar 20, 2012, 9:04:58 PM3/20/12
to
Not long ago I got into an argument of sorts on another forum with someone who
insisted that YouTube was dramatically, criminally distorting the sound of the
music he played in a video. After I expressed doubts on the degree of
distortion that YouTube's encoding and compression might cause, he finally
sent me sound files of the original recording and the YouTube recording. I
couldn't hear a difference, but I was flamed in the most arrogant way
imaginable for daring to say so. So I took the files again into Sound Forge
and nulled them in the same way shown in this video. The result was silence
... which means, objectively, that there was no significant difference between
the YouTube version of the music recording and the original. I even looked at
the waveform resulting from the nulling, and it was essentially flat right
down to individual samples (a maximum amplitude of perhaps 2-4, out of
16,777,216). So obviously this guy was blowing smoke, but I could not convince
him of that.
gregz
Mar 20, 2012, 9:32:16 PM3/20/12
to
old overheated caps and such.
Greg
gregz
Mar 20, 2012, 9:32:17 PM3/20/12
to
Great anchors, but my 2000 watt peavy's got them beat.
Greg
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
Mar 21, 2012, 12:14:50 AM3/21/12
to
I met someone about 10 years ago whose living room could have been a
showroom for all that snake oil. For basically a CD player, amplifier,
pair of speakers, and connecting cables, he had spent almost $300,000.
And it was all nonsense because his room was so sonically poor,
and the building A/C contributed a ton of uncontrollable noise.
He had even managed to pipe in his own dedicated power supply
so he could avoid the "noisy" standard power from his outlets.
Out of curiosity, I asked him what he thought was the one most
significant change I could do to make my stereo system sound better.
His answer was "replace your power outlets with hospital-grade outlets".
And yes, he had the Shakti stones. That guy was really lost.
Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
showroom for all that snake oil. For basically a CD player, amplifier,
pair of speakers, and connecting cables, he had spent almost $300,000.
And it was all nonsense because his room was so sonically poor,
and the building A/C contributed a ton of uncontrollable noise.
He had even managed to pipe in his own dedicated power supply
so he could avoid the "noisy" standard power from his outlets.
Out of curiosity, I asked him what he thought was the one most
significant change I could do to make my stereo system sound better.
His answer was "replace your power outlets with hospital-grade outlets".
And yes, he had the Shakti stones. That guy was really lost.
Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
cedricl
Mar 21, 2012, 12:49:31 AM3/21/12
to
On Tuesday, March 20, 2012 9:14:50 PM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:
> I met someone about 10 years ago whose living room could have been a
> showroom for all that snake oil. For basically a CD player, amplifier,
> pair of speakers, and connecting cables, he had spent almost $300,000.
> And it was all nonsense because his room was so sonically poor,
> and the building A/C contributed a ton of uncontrollable noise.
> He had even managed to pipe in his own dedicated power supply
> so he could avoid the "noisy" standard power from his outlets.
Yep, I have a friend who was/is like that. He's calmed down quite a bit after I've told him what matters and what doesn't. He initially didn't even have a grounded AC outlet in his room. I installed one for him. He used to put arrows on his connecting cables so he could install them in the same direction because "that was the way they were burned in". He'd change out the power cables to some upgraded stuff. He had a different set of inter-connects for classical and another for jazz and another for vocals. It was crazy just trying to listen to music at his house. I got a lot of my "high end" stuff from him because he was constantly trading pieces out. I'd get stuff I could never afford at rock bottom prices or for free. In reality, everything he did, did something. It was subtle and you'd have to debate wether the $300 cable was $270 better than the $30 cable. But, I have to admit, things did change, for better or worse, with all the tweaks he did. Unfortunately, he ended up listening to the equipment instead of the music.
> I met someone about 10 years ago whose living room could have been a
> showroom for all that snake oil. For basically a CD player, amplifier,
> pair of speakers, and connecting cables, he had spent almost $300,000.
> And it was all nonsense because his room was so sonically poor,
> and the building A/C contributed a ton of uncontrollable noise.
> He had even managed to pipe in his own dedicated power supply
> so he could avoid the "noisy" standard power from his outlets.
William Sommerwerck
Mar 21, 2012, 7:14:14 AM3/21/12
to
> I met someone about 10 years ago whose living room could have been
> a showroom for all that snake oil. For basically a CD player, amplifier,
> pair of speakers, and connecting cables, he had spent almost $300K.
> a showroom for all that snake oil. For basically a CD player, amplifier,
> And it was all nonsense because his room was so sonically poor,
> and the building A/C contributed a ton of uncontrollable noise.
> He had even managed to pipe in his own dedicated power supply
> so he could avoid the "noisy" standard power from his outlets.
> Out of curiosity, I asked him what he thought was the one most
> significant change I could do to make my stereo system sound better.
> His answer was "replace your power outlets with hospital-grade outlets".
> And yes, he had the Shakti stones. That guy was really lost.
How unfortunate. For example, for a tenth that prices, he could have had
> and the building A/C contributed a ton of uncontrollable noise.
> He had even managed to pipe in his own dedicated power supply
> so he could avoid the "noisy" standard power from his outlets.
> Out of curiosity, I asked him what he thought was the one most
> significant change I could do to make my stereo system sound better.
> His answer was "replace your power outlets with hospital-grade outlets".
> And yes, he had the Shakti stones. That guy was really lost.
components that almost certainly more-accurately reproduced the recording.
William Sommerwerck
Mar 21, 2012, 7:18:03 AM3/21/12
to
>> I met someone about 10 years ago whose living room could have been
>> a showroom for all that snake oil. For basically a CD player, amplifier,
>> pair of speakers, and connecting cables, he had spent almost $300K.
>> a showroom for all that snake oil. For basically a CD player, amplifier,
>> And it was all nonsense because his room was so sonically poor,
>> and the building A/C contributed a ton of uncontrollable noise.
>> He had even managed to pipe in his own dedicated power supply
>> so he could avoid the "noisy" standard power from his outlets.
> Yep, I have a friend who was/is like that. He's calmed down quite a
> bit after I've told him what matters and what doesn't. He initially didn't
> even have a grounded AC outlet in his room. I installed one for him.
> He used to put arrows on his connecting cables so he could install
> them in the same direction because "that was the way they were
> burned in". He'd change out the power cables to some upgraded stuff.
> He had a different set of inter-connects for classical and another for
> jazz and another for vocals. It was crazy just trying to listen to music
> at his house. I got a lot of my "high end" stuff from him because he
> was constantly trading pieces out. I'd get stuff I could never afford at
> rock bottom prices or for free. In reality, everything he did, did
> something. It was subtle and you'd have to debate wether the $300
> cable was $270 better than the $30 cable. But, I have to admit, things
> did change, for better or worse, with all the tweaks he did.
Unfortunately,
> he ended up listening to the equipment instead of the music.
The irony is that one buys high-quality equipment because it is
>> and the building A/C contributed a ton of uncontrollable noise.
>> He had even managed to pipe in his own dedicated power supply
>> so he could avoid the "noisy" standard power from his outlets.
> Yep, I have a friend who was/is like that. He's calmed down quite a
> bit after I've told him what matters and what doesn't. He initially didn't
> even have a grounded AC outlet in his room. I installed one for him.
> He used to put arrows on his connecting cables so he could install
> them in the same direction because "that was the way they were
> burned in". He'd change out the power cables to some upgraded stuff.
> He had a different set of inter-connects for classical and another for
> jazz and another for vocals. It was crazy just trying to listen to music
> at his house. I got a lot of my "high end" stuff from him because he
> was constantly trading pieces out. I'd get stuff I could never afford at
> rock bottom prices or for free. In reality, everything he did, did
> something. It was subtle and you'd have to debate wether the $300
> cable was $270 better than the $30 cable. But, I have to admit, things
> did change, for better or worse, with all the tweaks he did.
Unfortunately,
> he ended up listening to the equipment instead of the music.
(supposedly) neutral -- rather than "musical" -- so that you can appreciate
the performance, and ignore the hardware.
anahata
Mar 21, 2012, 9:36:46 AM3/21/12
to
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 02:04:58 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Not long ago I got into an argument of sorts on another forum with
> someone who insisted that YouTube was dramatically, criminally
> distorting the sound of the music he played in a video.
My experience of YouTube is that it can distort sound really badly, and
> Not long ago I got into an argument of sorts on another forum with
> someone who insisted that YouTube was dramatically, criminally
> distorting the sound of the music he played in a video.
also that different uploaders get quite different results, depending on
(possibly) what video format they use for uploading. After numerous
experiments I came to the conclusion that the only useful advice offered
(in several forums where this has been widely discussed) was that uploads
in HD format (720p or higher) get treated better than lower resolution
uploads.
In my case, the difference was so obvious I didn't need to do any nulling
tests.
I obviously don't know the technical details of your story, but my first
reaction would be to question whether what you get when you download a
YouTube video (for comparison with the "original") is exactly what you
get when you play it in real time.
As for Ethan's "Audio Myths" video, I saw that a couple of weeks ago and
there's a lot of good stuff there, though I'm not sure sure everyone
would agree with his views about the (un)importance of dither.
--
Anahata
ana...@treewind.co.uk --/-- http://www.treewind.co.uk
+44 (0)1638 720444
Jonathan
Mar 21, 2012, 9:38:04 AM3/21/12
to
On Mar 21, 7:14 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:
Maybe even for a hundredth :)
wrote:
William Sommerwerck
Mar 21, 2012, 9:58:14 AM3/21/12
to
"Jonathan" <gosto.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6dab5909-05ac-428a...@qg3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
Probably not, but... One can put together an extremely good stereo system
for $3K.
news:6dab5909-05ac-428a...@qg3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
for $3K.
Message has been deleted
Arny Krueger
Mar 21, 2012, 11:04:29 AM3/21/12
to
"Trevor" <tre...@home.net> wrote in message
news:jkb0vr$664$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
It is alleged that even fairly benign speakers such as AR3s would force the
protective circuits to react audibly.
Of course, the defensive nature of these circuits protected the amp itself
from damage.
Neil Gould
Mar 21, 2012, 11:05:08 AM3/21/12
to
William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
> The high end really got going when Crown introduced the DC-300, a $545
> transistor power amplifier, in the early 60s.
>
1967 would be "...the late '60s, William. By then, transistor amps were not
>
> The high end really got going when Crown introduced the DC-300, a $545
> transistor power amplifier, in the early 60s.
>
uncommon in music, but audiophiles were, and some still are, "tube heads"
when it came to selecting their preferred amplifiers.
--
best regards,
Neil
William Sommerwerck
Mar 21, 2012, 11:25:49 AM3/21/12
to
"Neil Gould" <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote in message
news:jkcr0m$dft$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
My memory is that it was earlier -- say, 1964 -- but if you're right, thanks
for the correction.
The point, of course, is that the DC-300 was not an inexpensive amplifier,
and it received general acceptance as a "good" amplifier.
news:jkcr0m$dft$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
for the correction.
The point, of course, is that the DC-300 was not an inexpensive amplifier,
and it received general acceptance as a "good" amplifier.
Scott Dorsey
Mar 21, 2012, 11:43:30 AM3/21/12
to
William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>The point, of course, is that the DC-300 was not an inexpensive amplifier,
>and it received general acceptance as a "good" amplifier.
It was a unique and amazing amplifier. I wouldn't say it sounded very good,
>
>The point, of course, is that the DC-300 was not an inexpensive amplifier,
>and it received general acceptance as a "good" amplifier.
but it had so much damn power in that tiny little box that nobody really
cared. On one level, it was not a "good" amplifier, but on another level
it was better than good, it was revolutionary.
--scott
eth...@ethanwiner.com
Mar 21, 2012, 12:57:28 PM3/21/12
to
On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 9:36:46 AM UTC-4, anahata wrote:
> As for Ethan's "Audio Myths" video, I saw that a couple of weeks ago and
> there's a lot of good stuff there, though I'm not sure sure everyone
> would agree with his views about the (un)importance of dither.
Download and play the files from this Dither article, then email me your guesses as to which are dithered and which are not:
> As for Ethan's "Audio Myths" video, I saw that a couple of weeks ago and
> there's a lot of good stuff there, though I'm not sure sure everyone
> would agree with his views about the (un)importance of dither.
http://www.ethanwiner.com/dither.html
As this short excerpt from my Audio Myths video shows, I do *not* argue against using dither:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl0U_L3tb_M
But it's not nearly as important as some people claim, at least not for most music that's recorded at sensible levels.
--Ethan
William Sommerwerck
Mar 21, 2012, 2:42:24 PM3/21/12
to
There are two good reasons for dither.
First, it prevents obvious distortion when a musical note is a
"sub-multiple" of the sampling frequency.
Second, optimized dither makes the output of the DAC -- which is, strictly
speaking, digital -- look like an analog signal with random noise.
First, it prevents obvious distortion when a musical note is a
"sub-multiple" of the sampling frequency.
Second, optimized dither makes the output of the DAC -- which is, strictly
speaking, digital -- look like an analog signal with random noise.
Luxey
Mar 21, 2012, 2:46:09 PM3/21/12
to
Who'll place bet Mxsmainic is composite personality created by Krooger, Schnitzel & Smallerdick, .
Mxsmanic
Mar 21, 2012, 3:00:08 PM3/21/12
to
anahata writes:
> I obviously don't know the technical details of your story, but my first
> reaction would be to question whether what you get when you download a
> YouTube video (for comparison with the "original") is exactly what you
> get when you play it in real time.
I was going by the audio files he gave me, and he claimed that there was a
> I obviously don't know the technical details of your story, but my first
> reaction would be to question whether what you get when you download a
> YouTube video (for comparison with the "original") is exactly what you
> get when you play it in real time.
huge, horrible difference between them. I did the nulling test and found
essentially no difference at all, and I trust the numbers more than I trust
his ear or his ego.
I think YouTube probably adopted the same position that I did. You can't fix
something that isn't broken.
> As for Ethan's "Audio Myths" video, I saw that a couple of weeks ago and
> there's a lot of good stuff there, though I'm not sure sure everyone
> would agree with his views about the (un)importance of dither.
seems reasonable.
Arny Krueger
Mar 21, 2012, 3:40:49 PM3/21/12
to
news:jkd7c2$bk9$1...@dont-email.me...
The counterpoint is that virtually every real world audio signal has enough
noise to dither itself. Enough of it comes from the analog domain, which
just isn't that clean compared to 16 bits.
noise to dither itself. Enough of it comes from the analog domain, which
just isn't that clean compared to 16 bits.
William Sommerwerck
Mar 21, 2012, 5:07:25 PM3/21/12
to
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:n69km7tqdgho42b10...@4ax.com...
It costs nothing to properly dither the signal. Therefore, there's no reason
not to do it.
The reason that an undithered signal /doesn't/ sound awful, is that musical
tones are rarely at (or close-enough to) sub-multiples of the sampling
frequency, and/or don't last long enough, for correlated quantization error
to be audible.
To hear what this error sounds like, listen to a test CD with an undithered
sweep tone. (I think the Denons are undithered, but I don't remember.)
news:n69km7tqdgho42b10...@4ax.com...
not to do it.
The reason that an undithered signal /doesn't/ sound awful, is that musical
tones are rarely at (or close-enough to) sub-multiples of the sampling
frequency, and/or don't last long enough, for correlated quantization error
to be audible.
To hear what this error sounds like, listen to a test CD with an undithered
sweep tone. (I think the Denons are undithered, but I don't remember.)
PStamler
Mar 21, 2012, 4:34:25 PM3/21/12
to
> It is alleged that even fairly benign speakers such as AR3s would force the
> protective circuits to react audibly.
AR3s weren't all that benign. First off, they had unusually low
> protective circuits to react audibly.
sensitivity, meaning they needed more voltage than yer average speaker
to produce a given SPL.
Second, trey were nominally 4 ohms, in an era when 8 ohm speakers were
the norm, and they could dip down to 3 ohms at some frequencies,
meaning they also needed a lot of current to produce a given SPL.
Finally, it was the beginning of the era when rock music was taken
seriously by audio fans, who had mostly listened to classical, jazz
and Persuasive Percussion. In his excellent book on solid-state power
amp design, Bob Cordell discusses how repeated low-frequency signals
(read: kickdrum hits) can interact with the back-EMF from an
underdamped woofer (the AR speakers had a Qtc of 1.1, meaning they
were mildly underdamped) to make the speaker draw a good deal more
current than its nominal impedance rating would imply. The AR3s, when
hit by kickdrum-type signals, demanded current levels corresponding to
an effective load impedance of 1-1.5 ohms.
Most of the craze for super-powered amplifiers in the 1970s (think
Phase Linear, Ampzilla, etc.) was fueled by the desire to drive AR-
type speakers to high volumes on rock music. It took a while for folks
to realize that current delivery mattered more than raw power, and
that an amp which voltage-clipped at, say, 100W (but with ample
current capability) could do as well as a "700W" amplifier. I have
such an amp (from Parasound) in the other room, and it will drive just
about anything happily. Doesn't burn up, either.
Peace,
Paul
William Sommerwerck
Mar 21, 2012, 6:27:00 PM3/21/12
to
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@cocmast.net> wrote in message
news:QeidnYfeYNiysvfS...@giganews.com...
doing some checking.
Don Pearce
Mar 21, 2012, 6:32:46 PM3/21/12
to
sure that this is correct, and not by a small margin either. You need
the noise to be better than about 100dB below signal to prevent any
degree of natural dither. There certainly isn't a recording studio
that can achieve that. There is one sound lab I know that I believe
can - it is buried deep underground in an old salt mine.
d
Anahata
Mar 21, 2012, 7:21:56 PM3/21/12
to
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:57:28 -0700, ethanw wrote:
[re: dither]
However I remember going to a startling demonstration of what dither is
for, at an AES convention here in the UK somewhere around 1980. Some BBC
engineers did a demo rather like the part of your video where you
gradually reduce the number of bits used to digitise sound. They played a
piano recording truncated to only 4 bits, then the same but dithered. The
dither noise was like standing next to a steam engine, but the way the
piano notes decayed smoothly in to the noise compared with the crackling
and buzzes of the undithered version was very memorable.
Audio wasn't all often 16 bit then (The BBC used 12 bit and 14 bit
systems) and the dither/noise was arguably more likely to be audible.
--
Anahata
ana...@treewind.co.uk -+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827
[re: dither]
>
> But it's not nearly as important as some people claim, at least not for
> most music that's recorded at sensible levels.
Very likely.
> But it's not nearly as important as some people claim, at least not for
> most music that's recorded at sensible levels.
However I remember going to a startling demonstration of what dither is
for, at an AES convention here in the UK somewhere around 1980. Some BBC
engineers did a demo rather like the part of your video where you
gradually reduce the number of bits used to digitise sound. They played a
piano recording truncated to only 4 bits, then the same but dithered. The
dither noise was like standing next to a steam engine, but the way the
piano notes decayed smoothly in to the noise compared with the crackling
and buzzes of the undithered version was very memorable.
Audio wasn't all often 16 bit then (The BBC used 12 bit and 14 bit
systems) and the dither/noise was arguably more likely to be audible.
--
Anahata
ana...@treewind.co.uk -+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827
Mxsmanic
Mar 21, 2012, 8:40:02 PM3/21/12
to
William Sommerwerck writes:
> It costs nothing to properly dither the signal. Therefore, there's no reason
> not to do it.
If dithering makes no difference in the final result, then there is no reason
> It costs nothing to properly dither the signal. Therefore, there's no reason
> not to do it.
to waste time or energy to do it, however small the required time or energy
might be (it is never zero). However ... if it makes no difference in the
final result, there's no harm in doing it, either.
> The reason that an undithered signal /doesn't/ sound awful, is that musical
> tones are rarely at (or close-enough to) sub-multiples of the sampling
> frequency, and/or don't last long enough, for correlated quantization error
> to be audible.
difference, there isn't any, or at least none that is worth worrying about,
provided that the recording is intended to be heard (and not analyzed by a
computer or something).
> To hear what this error sounds like, listen to a test CD with an undithered
> sweep tone. (I think the Denons are undithered, but I don't remember.)
it doesn't matter, because none of my recording projects involve sweep tones.
Trevor
Mar 21, 2012, 9:35:42 PM3/21/12
to
news:jkcdat$btf$1...@dont-email.me...
Nope, people pay that sort of money for bragging rights, nothing to do with
music or sound quality.
Trevor.
music or sound quality.
Trevor.
Trevor
Mar 21, 2012, 9:40:29 PM3/21/12
to
"Anahata" <ana...@treewind.co.uk> wrote in message
news:NPydnfAArKUJ__fS...@brightview.co.uk...
>> But it's not nearly as important as some people claim, at least not for
>> most music that's recorded at sensible levels.
>
> Very likely.
>
> However I remember going to a startling demonstration of what dither is
> for, at an AES convention here in the UK somewhere around 1980. Some BBC
> engineers did a demo rather like the part of your video where you
> gradually reduce the number of bits used to digitise sound. They played a
> piano recording truncated to only 4 bits, then the same but dithered. The
> dither noise was like standing next to a steam engine, but the way the
> piano notes decayed smoothly in to the noise compared with the crackling
> and buzzes of the undithered version was very memorable.
Right, dither is extremely CRITICAL in 4 bit systems! Even 8 bit ones :-)
>> most music that's recorded at sensible levels.
>
> Very likely.
>
> However I remember going to a startling demonstration of what dither is
> for, at an AES convention here in the UK somewhere around 1980. Some BBC
> engineers did a demo rather like the part of your video where you
> gradually reduce the number of bits used to digitise sound. They played a
> piano recording truncated to only 4 bits, then the same but dithered. The
> dither noise was like standing next to a steam engine, but the way the
> piano notes decayed smoothly in to the noise compared with the crackling
> and buzzes of the undithered version was very memorable.
Trevor.
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
Mar 22, 2012, 1:56:52 AM3/22/12
to
Trevor <tre...@home.net> wrote:
: Nope, people pay that sort of money for bragging rights, nothing to do with
: music or sound quality.
Indeed, I remmeber that the brand name of his cables was "Statements".
Tells you something right there.
: Nope, people pay that sort of money for bragging rights, nothing to do with
: music or sound quality.
Indeed, I remmeber that the brand name of his cables was "Statements".
Tells you something right there.
Arny Krueger
Mar 22, 2012, 8:51:37 AM3/22/12
to
"PStamler" <psta...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:c697ecf1-c5cb-460f...@t6g2000pba.googlegroups.com...
>> It is alleged that even fairly benign speakers such as AR3s would force
>> the
>> protective circuits to react audibly.
> AR3s weren't all that benign. First off, they had unusually low
> sensitivity, meaning they needed more voltage than yer average speaker
> to produce a given SPL.
Right. First off there wasn't just one AR3. The product's technical details
>> the
>> protective circuits to react audibly.
> AR3s weren't all that benign. First off, they had unusually low
> sensitivity, meaning they needed more voltage than yer average speaker
> to produce a given SPL.
drifted somewhat even prior to the introduction of the AR3a. By modern
standards it was pretty efficient, but in a world that still had a lot of
604s, JBL component-series speakers with horns and high-effeciency woofers,
Altec Voice of the Theatre, and EV Patricians, they had low effciency and
low impedance.
> Second, trey were nominally 4 ohms, in an era when 8 ohm speakers were
> the norm, and they could dip down to 3 ohms at some frequencies,
> meaning they also needed a lot of current to produce a given SPL.
was pretty intimidating. But, there were some bad-boy speakers in those
days like the Quad, Janzen, KLH and Crown electrostats.
> Finally, it was the beginning of the era when rock music was taken
> seriously by audio fans, who had mostly listened to classical, jazz
> and Persuasive Percussion.
Records formula was lots of mid-bass and midrange, but no real bass. The
politely- played string bass and drum kits on most jazz recordings were also
light on real bass.
> In his excellent book on solid-state power
> amp design, Bob Cordell discusses how repeated low-frequency signals
> (read: kickdrum hits) can interact with the back-EMF from an
> underdamped woofer (the AR speakers had a Qtc of 1.1, meaning they
> were mildly underdamped) to make the speaker draw a good deal more
> current than its nominal impedance rating would imply. The AR3s, when
> hit by kickdrum-type signals, demanded current levels corresponding to
> an effective load impedance of 1-1.5 ohms.
forced out of the magnetic field and then suddenly popped back in. A voice
coil out of its magnetic field generates no counter-EMF, and so its
impedance is very low - basically DCR. Negative resistance effects are
possible with highly nonlinear loads.
> Most of the craze for super-powered amplifiers in the 1970s (think
> Phase Linear, Ampzilla, etc.) was fueled by the desire to drive AR-
> type speakers to high volumes on rock music. It took a while for folks
> to realize that current delivery mattered more than raw power, and
> that an amp which voltage-clipped at, say, 100W (but with ample
> current capability) could do as well as a "700W" amplifier. I have
> such an amp (from Parasound) in the other room, and it will drive just
> about anything happily. Doesn't burn up, either.
running hard open-circuited, but shorts and low impedance loads didn't seem
to really bother them much. A really huge tubed amp was 60 wpc. Many of the
second generation SS amps started at 30-40 watts and ran up to 150-350 wpc.
Some could be killed instantly by a hard short. I fried an early Heathkit SS
amp with my roomates AR-3s.
Push on a speaker harder, and it fights back harder. AFAIK the SOA of a
tube is near-infinite, while the SOA of the early SS power devices was a bad
joke. The big amps of the day had half or less the SOA than modern amps
with the same power output. Development of SS devices that could handle big
reactive loads was stimulated by automotive electronic ignition systems and
computer hard drive voice coil drivers.
Scott Dorsey
Mar 22, 2012, 9:00:40 AM3/22/12
to
Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Not long ago I got into an argument of sorts on another forum with someone who
>insisted that YouTube was dramatically, criminally distorting the sound of the
>music he played in a video. After I expressed doubts on the degree of
>
>Not long ago I got into an argument of sorts on another forum with someone who
>insisted that YouTube was dramatically, criminally distorting the sound of the
>distortion that YouTube's encoding and compression might cause, he finally
>sent me sound files of the original recording and the YouTube recording. I
>couldn't hear a difference, but I was flamed in the most arrogant way
>imaginable for daring to say so. So I took the files again into Sound Forge
>and nulled them in the same way shown in this video. The result was silence
>... which means, objectively, that there was no significant difference between
>the YouTube version of the music recording and the original. I even looked at
>the waveform resulting from the nulling, and it was essentially flat right
>down to individual samples (a maximum amplitude of perhaps 2-4, out of
>16,777,216). So obviously this guy was blowing smoke, but I could not convince
>him of that.
I suggest you actually try this instead of just pretending to have done
so. Take an uncompressed file like a .wav, put it into a video container
file and upload it. What comes back won't be anything like what you sent
up.
What's interesting is that the same thing is apt to happen to the video
as well as to the audio. Youtube uses perceptual encoding for both, so
for they audio they basically throw away anything that the algorithm thinks
won't be audible. What gets thrown away is between 70% and 90% of the
actual data stream going up if you're sending up uncompressed audio.
It's worse if you send up a typical MP3 file that has already been through
a perceptual encoding stage because the artifacts are made much worse by
transcoding.
The only way to get an absolute copy as you describe is to upload a data file
in the precise format that Youtube uses for internal representation, so that
no encoding or transcoding is required. This format is documented (and in
fact, Final Cut Pro has a specific setting for generating youtube files).
Arny Krueger
Mar 22, 2012, 8:59:31 AM3/22/12
to
news:jkdkh5$p1$1...@dont-email.me...
Funny story that involves your good buddy Mr. JA. He wrote a glowing SP
review of a Meridian ADC with selectable dither, centerpieced by his
experiences transcribing one of his analog master tapes. In his sighted
evaluations he seemed to find a different poetic description of every
different dither that the Meridian added. I did a little study of the
situation and found that as a rule, the analog tape had 10s of dB more
noise, even on an fractional-octave basis.
review of a Meridian ADC with selectable dither, centerpieced by his
experiences transcribing one of his analog master tapes. In his sighted
evaluations he seemed to find a different poetic description of every
different dither that the Meridian added. I did a little study of the
situation and found that as a rule, the analog tape had 10s of dB more
noise, even on an fractional-octave basis.
Arny Krueger
Mar 22, 2012, 9:06:11 AM3/22/12
to
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:57:28 -0700, ethanw wrote:
>
> [re: dither]
>>
>> But it's not nearly as important as some people claim, at least not for
>> most music that's recorded at sensible levels.
>
> Very likely.
>
> However I remember going to a startling demonstration of what dither is
> for, at an AES convention here in the UK somewhere around 1980. Some BBC
> engineers did a demo rather like the part of your video where you
> gradually reduce the number of bits used to digitise sound. They played a
> piano recording truncated to only 4 bits, then the same but dithered. The
> dither noise was like standing next to a steam engine, but the way the
> piano notes decayed smoothly in to the noise compared with the crackling
> and buzzes of the undithered version was very memorable.
That demo makes its point well, but it doesn't apply well to modern
>
> [re: dither]
>>
>> But it's not nearly as important as some people claim, at least not for
>> most music that's recorded at sensible levels.
>
> Very likely.
>
> However I remember going to a startling demonstration of what dither is
> for, at an AES convention here in the UK somewhere around 1980. Some BBC
> engineers did a demo rather like the part of your video where you
> gradually reduce the number of bits used to digitise sound. They played a
> piano recording truncated to only 4 bits, then the same but dithered. The
> dither noise was like standing next to a steam engine, but the way the
> piano notes decayed smoothly in to the noise compared with the crackling
> and buzzes of the undithered version was very memorable.
recording for the reason that Don just brought up.
> Audio wasn't all often 16 bit then (The BBC used 12 bit and 14 bit
> systems) and the dither/noise was arguably more likely to be audible.
and if you are down at 8 bits or less, there is no choice but to use it and
your choices about noise shaping become very important.
BTW dither has been around for a long time in purely analog systems. It can
do wonders for the listenability of a slightly misadjusted class B power
amp, for example. Of course in modern times, we don't have them to worry
about. ;-)
Arny Krueger
Mar 22, 2012, 9:11:33 AM3/22/12
to
news:jkdfrv$3sv$1...@dont-email.me...
If you work with systems that really do require dither, the above
considerations don't seem to hold much water IME. The odd collection of
noises that you can get with music has to be heard to be believed.
The two reasons that undithered signals don't sound awful in modern systems
is:
(1)Whatever nasty sounds they make are limited to to 1 or 2 LSB, and in 16
bit systems they are very, very small
(2) Self-dither - the analog domain sources we use diigital with have noise
on the order of 10 LSBs or more. (thats 10x 1 LSB, not the 10 lowest bits).
> To hear what this error sounds like, listen to a test CD with an
> undithered
> sweep tone. (I think the Denons are undithered, but I don't remember.)
Not a bad do it yourself project for most DAW software users.
considerations don't seem to hold much water IME. The odd collection of
noises that you can get with music has to be heard to be believed.
The two reasons that undithered signals don't sound awful in modern systems
is:
(1)Whatever nasty sounds they make are limited to to 1 or 2 LSB, and in 16
bit systems they are very, very small
(2) Self-dither - the analog domain sources we use diigital with have noise
on the order of 10 LSBs or more. (thats 10x 1 LSB, not the 10 lowest bits).
> To hear what this error sounds like, listen to a test CD with an
> undithered
> sweep tone. (I think the Denons are undithered, but I don't remember.)
William Sommerwerck
Mar 22, 2012, 9:26:11 AM3/22/12
to
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@cocmast.net> wrote in message
news:PaadnRwcU4ckv_bS...@giganews.com...
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:jkdkh5$p1$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> The counterpoint is that virtually every real-world audio signal
> news:jkdkh5$p1$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> has enough noise to dither itself. Enough of it comes from the
>>> analog domain, which just isn't that clean compared to 16 bits.
>> I'm not sure this is correct. But I'm not going to argue the point
>> before doing some checking.
> Funny story that involves your good buddy, Mr. JA.
>>> analog domain, which just isn't that clean compared to 16 bits.
>> I'm not sure this is correct. But I'm not going to argue the point
>> before doing some checking.
I hope you mean that sarcastically. John is no more my "good buddy" than you
are.
> He wrote a glowing SP review of a Meridian ADC with selectable dither,
> centerpieced by his experiences transcribing one of his analog master
> tapes. In his sighted evaluations he seemed to find a different poetic
> description of every different dither that the Meridian added. I did a
little
> dB more noise, even on an fractional-octave basis.
So... are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?
The purpose of dither is to sufficiently randomize the quantization error
that it's no longer correlated with the signal. This requires noise with a
P-P value of two quantization steps (I think). The background noise of an
analog signal is unlikely to be at this level.
Mike Rivers
Mar 22, 2012, 9:36:41 AM3/22/12
to
On 3/21/2012 3:00 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
> I think YouTube probably adopted the same position that I did. You can't fix
> something that isn't broken.
But a lot of people try to do just that.
> I think YouTube probably adopted the same position that I did. You can't fix
> something that isn't broken.
--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson
http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff
Scott Dorsey
Mar 22, 2012, 9:48:45 AM3/22/12
to
Arny Krueger <ar...@cocmast.net> wrote:
>
>Funny story that involves your good buddy Mr. JA. He wrote a glowing SP
>review of a Meridian ADC with selectable dither, centerpieced by his
>experiences transcribing one of his analog master tapes. In his sighted
>evaluations he seemed to find a different poetic description of every
>different dither that the Meridian added. I did a little study of the
>situation and found that as a rule, the analog tape had 10s of dB more
>noise, even on an fractional-octave basis.
It's weird, though. With the Prism AD-124, as I go around with different
>
>Funny story that involves your good buddy Mr. JA. He wrote a glowing SP
>review of a Meridian ADC with selectable dither, centerpieced by his
>experiences transcribing one of his analog master tapes. In his sighted
>evaluations he seemed to find a different poetic description of every
>different dither that the Meridian added. I did a little study of the
>situation and found that as a rule, the analog tape had 10s of dB more
>noise, even on an fractional-octave basis.
noise shaping patterns, I can hear slight tonal differences in the
program audio, even recording at levels where the noise floor should make
no difference at all.
I don't know why I hear the tonal differences, and I think the flat Gaussian
dither gives the most neutral effect, but it's audible in a single-blind
test.
This may well be an artifact of the converter, but if so it's a really
interesting one.
Mxsmanic
Mar 22, 2012, 5:20:55 PM3/22/12
to
Scott Dorsey writes:
> I suggest you actually try this instead of just pretending to have done
> so.
I actually tried it.
> I suggest you actually try this instead of just pretending to have done
> so.
> Take an uncompressed file like a .wav, put it into a video container
> file and upload it. What comes back won't be anything like what you sent
> up.
YouTube versions. If they were truly what he told me they were, there was no
significant degradation in the YouTube audio.
> What's interesting is that the same thing is apt to happen to the video
> as well as to the audio. Youtube uses perceptual encoding for both, so
> for they audio they basically throw away anything that the algorithm thinks
> won't be audible. What gets thrown away is between 70% and 90% of the
> actual data stream going up if you're sending up uncompressed audio.
days. Otherwise YouTube would not be able to compressed video by nearly 500 to
1 with so few artifacts.
> The only way to get an absolute copy as you describe is to upload a data file
> in the precise format that Youtube uses for internal representation, so that
> no encoding or transcoding is required. This format is documented (and in
> fact, Final Cut Pro has a specific setting for generating youtube files).
least at my end).
Trevor
Mar 22, 2012, 9:28:15 PM3/22/12
to
news:jkf972$ssn$1...@dont-email.me...
> P-P value of two quantization steps (I think) The background noise of an
Trevor.
> analog signal is unlikely to be at this level.
Right, analog tape will be FAR more for 16 bit recordings :-)
Trevor.
Mark
Mar 22, 2012, 9:54:15 PM3/22/12
to
>
> So... are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?
>
> The purpose of dither is to sufficiently randomize the quantization error
> that it's no longer correlated with the signal. This requires noise with a
> P-P value of two quantization steps (I think). The background noise of an
> analog signal is unlikely to be at this level.
level as a MINIMUM. That amount of noise OR MORE will properly dither
the quantization.
Mark
Mxsmanic
Mar 22, 2012, 11:04:05 PM3/22/12
to
Mark writes:
> No, it doesn't require that level of noise exactly, it requires that
> level as a MINIMUM. That amount of noise OR MORE will properly dither
> the quantization.
It sounds like you're just trading one noise for another. Since it is noise
> No, it doesn't require that level of noise exactly, it requires that
> level as a MINIMUM. That amount of noise OR MORE will properly dither
> the quantization.
either way, what's the advantage, particularly if it is inaudible?
Trevor
Mar 23, 2012, 12:01:10 AM3/23/12
to
"Mark" <mako...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:94f38b32-6700-4a13...@h5g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
>> The purpose of dither is to sufficiently randomize the quantization error
>> that it's no longer correlated with the signal. This requires noise with
>> a
>> P-P value of two quantization steps (I think). The background noise of an
>> analog signal is unlikely to be at this level.
>
> No, it doesn't require that level of noise exactly, it requires that
> level as a MINIMUM. That amount of noise OR MORE will properly dither
> the quantization.
It doesn't even require a "minimum" 2 bits P-P, but more, as with most
>> that it's no longer correlated with the signal. This requires noise with
>> a
>> P-P value of two quantization steps (I think). The background noise of an
>> analog signal is unlikely to be at this level.
>
> No, it doesn't require that level of noise exactly, it requires that
> level as a MINIMUM. That amount of noise OR MORE will properly dither
> the quantization.
analog sources, will do the job fine.
Trevor.
Marc Wielage
Mar 23, 2012, 4:57:06 AM3/23/12
to
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 04:08:47 -0700, Luxey wrote
(in article
<24504044.276.1332241727760.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbmf37>):
> No, he did research for best trolling themes. Next from him will be
> vinyl vs. CD, digital vs. analog, overcompression and loudness wars,...
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<
I'm waiting for somebody to bring up religion.
Can't somebody just yell "HITLER" and get back to real conversations?
--MFW
(in article
<24504044.276.1332241727760.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbmf37>):
> No, he did research for best trolling themes. Next from him will be
> vinyl vs. CD, digital vs. analog, overcompression and loudness wars,...
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<
I'm waiting for somebody to bring up religion.
Can't somebody just yell "HITLER" and get back to real conversations?
--MFW
Marc Wielage
Mar 23, 2012, 5:04:29 AM3/23/12
to
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 21:14:50 -0700, sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com wrote
(in article <4f6955ba$0$12002$742e...@news.sonic.net>):
> I met someone about 10 years ago whose living room could have been a
> showroom for all that snake oil. For basically a CD player, amplifier,
> pair of speakers, and connecting cables, he had spent almost $300,000.
Gordon Holt of STEREOPHILE told me on several occasions that he felt that
room acoustics were the single biggest factor that could help or hinder sound
quality. Unfortunately, there's no way to package room acoustics and sell
them for $99.95 (more like $995.95) like you can an expensive cable. Holt
was dismayed and unhappy that so few people grasped the importance of the
room itself.
I've also been to some very wealthy homes that had very costly audio and/or
home theater systems, but their acoustical properties were so bad, it was a
pain to listen to -- marble floors, reflective walls, high ceilings, tons of
reverb, weird nodes... just a sonic disaster. But they had all the right
gear. Nobody apparently told them to redecorate... or they just were
determined to keep the room itself the same.
--MFW
(in article <4f6955ba$0$12002$742e...@news.sonic.net>):
> I met someone about 10 years ago whose living room could have been a
> showroom for all that snake oil. For basically a CD player, amplifier,
> And it was all nonsense because his room was so sonically poor,
> and the building A/C contributed a ton of uncontrollable noise.
> He had even managed to pipe in his own dedicated power supply
> so he could avoid the "noisy" standard power from his outlets.
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<
> and the building A/C contributed a ton of uncontrollable noise.
> He had even managed to pipe in his own dedicated power supply
> so he could avoid the "noisy" standard power from his outlets.
Gordon Holt of STEREOPHILE told me on several occasions that he felt that
room acoustics were the single biggest factor that could help or hinder sound
quality. Unfortunately, there's no way to package room acoustics and sell
them for $99.95 (more like $995.95) like you can an expensive cable. Holt
was dismayed and unhappy that so few people grasped the importance of the
room itself.
I've also been to some very wealthy homes that had very costly audio and/or
home theater systems, but their acoustical properties were so bad, it was a
pain to listen to -- marble floors, reflective walls, high ceilings, tons of
reverb, weird nodes... just a sonic disaster. But they had all the right
gear. Nobody apparently told them to redecorate... or they just were
determined to keep the room itself the same.
--MFW
Marc Wielage
Mar 23, 2012, 5:08:10 AM3/23/12
to
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 06:00:40 -0700, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article <jkf7po$oub$1...@panix2.panix.com>):
> What's interesting is that the same thing is apt to happen to the video
> as well as to the audio. Youtube uses perceptual encoding for both, so
> for they audio they basically throw away anything that the algorithm thinks
> won't be audible. What gets thrown away is between 70% and 90% of the
> actual data stream going up if you're sending up uncompressed audio.
>
> It's worse if you send up a typical MP3 file that has already been through
> a perceptual encoding stage because the artifacts are made much worse by
> transcoding.
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<
Yep, that's what I see and hear, too. Horrific compression for sound and
picture. I would agree with a previous comment that they don't seem to crush
the 720P HD videos as much, depending on the source.
--MFW
(in article <jkf7po$oub$1...@panix2.panix.com>):
> What's interesting is that the same thing is apt to happen to the video
> as well as to the audio. Youtube uses perceptual encoding for both, so
> for they audio they basically throw away anything that the algorithm thinks
> won't be audible. What gets thrown away is between 70% and 90% of the
> actual data stream going up if you're sending up uncompressed audio.
>
> It's worse if you send up a typical MP3 file that has already been through
> a perceptual encoding stage because the artifacts are made much worse by
> transcoding.
Yep, that's what I see and hear, too. Horrific compression for sound and
picture. I would agree with a previous comment that they don't seem to crush
the 720P HD videos as much, depending on the source.
--MFW
William Sommerwerck
Mar 23, 2012, 9:17:55 AM3/23/12
to
>> The purpose of dither is to sufficiently randomize the quantization
>> error that it's no longer correlated with the signal. This requires
>> noise with a P-P value of two quantization steps (I think). The
>> background noise of an analog signal is unlikely to be at this level.
> No, it doesn't require that level of noise exactly, it requires that
> level as a MINIMUM. That amount of noise OR MORE will properly
> dither the quantization.
This Bothers Me. My gut reaction is No, that's not right. Noise at that
>> error that it's no longer correlated with the signal. This requires
>> noise with a P-P value of two quantization steps (I think). The
>> background noise of an analog signal is unlikely to be at this level.
> No, it doesn't require that level of noise exactly, it requires that
> level as a MINIMUM. That amount of noise OR MORE will properly
> dither the quantization.
level "looks like" part of the signal. How can it properly randomize the
quantization errors?
For the time being, I remain unconvinced.
Arny Krueger
Mar 23, 2012, 9:21:07 AM3/23/12
to
news:jkf972$ssn$1...@dont-email.me...
So far so good.
> The background noise of an analog signal is unlikely to be at this level.
It is likely to be this high or appreciably higher almost all of the time.
William, you need some time in the real world, actually looking at recorded
signals and signals at the output of a mic preamp or even just the mic.
> The background noise of an analog signal is unlikely to be at this level.
William, you need some time in the real world, actually looking at recorded
signals and signals at the output of a mic preamp or even just the mic.
Arny Krueger
Mar 23, 2012, 9:24:00 AM3/23/12
to
news:uvpnm7h75a8rsli4d...@4ax.com...
Quantization noise related to real world audio signals is both coherent and
represents aharmonic distortion. IOW, nasty sounding and audible if anything
that level is audible. Not easily masked.
Normal random noise of the same level is always preferable. The noise
related to dither can be spectrally shaped so that it is far less noticeable
than red, pink or white noise of the same amplitude.
represents aharmonic distortion. IOW, nasty sounding and audible if anything
that level is audible. Not easily masked.
Normal random noise of the same level is always preferable. The noise
related to dither can be spectrally shaped so that it is far less noticeable
than red, pink or white noise of the same amplitude.
Arny Krueger
Mar 23, 2012, 9:33:28 AM3/23/12
to
news:jkht3m$v48$1...@dont-email.me...
William, you don't seem to understand that when dither is properly added, it
hits the quantizer looking just like the rest of the signal. I would chalk
that up to a failure of logic.
With a lot of DAW software and stand alone resamplers, you can turn dither
off during conversions that should have it.
I've confirmed experimentally that adding identical noise to the signal
before conversion has the effect as turning on the dither.
I don't know if you read my earlier post about dither helping sound quality
in pure analog systems, like class B amplifiers with the bias slightly
misadjusted. If so, you missed its meaning.
hits the quantizer looking just like the rest of the signal. I would chalk
that up to a failure of logic.
With a lot of DAW software and stand alone resamplers, you can turn dither
off during conversions that should have it.
I've confirmed experimentally that adding identical noise to the signal
before conversion has the effect as turning on the dither.
I don't know if you read my earlier post about dither helping sound quality
in pure analog systems, like class B amplifiers with the bias slightly
misadjusted. If so, you missed its meaning.
Scott Dorsey
Mar 23, 2012, 10:12:48 AM3/23/12
to
Marc Wielage <m...@musictrax.com> wrote:
>
>Yep, that's what I see and hear, too. Horrific compression for sound and
>picture. I would agree with a previous comment that they don't seem to crush
>the 720P HD videos as much, depending on the source.
On the video side there are some interesting tricks that you can play.
>
>Yep, that's what I see and hear, too. Horrific compression for sound and
>picture. I would agree with a previous comment that they don't seem to crush
>the 720P HD videos as much, depending on the source.
For example, these two films were shot similarly, and transferred identically:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2s1w3WlsTR0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4gDmdKXatE
Just watch the opening countdown leader to see the difference.
One of these was uploaded as a standard Pro-Res file, the other was a
similar Pro-Res file encoded with the FCP "Youtube" preset.
William Sommerwerck
Mar 23, 2012, 11:47:36 AM3/23/12
to
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@cocmast.net> wrote in message
news:gKWdnSZm76K65PHS...@giganews.com...
>> The purpose of dither is to sufficiently randomize the quantization error
>> that it's no longer correlated with the signal. This requires noise with
a
>> P-P value of two quantization steps (I think).
> So far so good.
>> The background noise of an analog signal is unlikely to be at this level.
> It is likely to be this high or appreciably higher almost all of the time.
William Sommerwerck
Mar 23, 2012, 11:52:12 AM3/23/12
to
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@cocmast.net> wrote in message
news:Tv6dnSyJwtua4fHS...@giganews.com...
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:jkht3m$v48$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> The purpose of dither is to sufficiently randomize the quantization
>>>> error that it's no longer correlated with the signal. This requires
>>>> noise with a P-P value of two quantization steps (I think). The
>>>> background noise of an analog signal is unlikely to be at this level.
>>> No, it doesn't require that level of noise exactly, it requires that
>>> level as a MINIMUM. That amount of noise OR MORE will properly
>>> dither the quantization.
>> This Bothers Me. My gut reaction is No, that's not right. Noise at that
>> level "looks like" part of the signal. How can it properly randomize the
>> quantization errors?
> William, you don't seem to understand that when dither is properly added,
> it hits the quantizer looking just like the rest of the signal. I would
chalk
> that up to a failure of logic.
Not at all. I understand that. See below. One of my points is that how noise
> news:jkht3m$v48$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> The purpose of dither is to sufficiently randomize the quantization
>>>> error that it's no longer correlated with the signal. This requires
>>>> noise with a P-P value of two quantization steps (I think). The
>>>> background noise of an analog signal is unlikely to be at this level.
>>> No, it doesn't require that level of noise exactly, it requires that
>>> level as a MINIMUM. That amount of noise OR MORE will properly
>>> dither the quantization.
>> This Bothers Me. My gut reaction is No, that's not right. Noise at that
>> level "looks like" part of the signal. How can it properly randomize the
>> quantization errors?
> William, you don't seem to understand that when dither is properly added,
> it hits the quantizer looking just like the rest of the signal. I would
chalk
> that up to a failure of logic.
that is comparable in level to the signal itself randomize quantization
errors that are much lower in level?
> I've confirmed experimentally that adding identical noise to the signal
> before conversion has the effect as turning on the dither.
background noise produce the same dithering effect as (supposedly)
theoretically "correct", optimized values.
> I don't know if you read my earlier post about dither helping sound
quality
> in pure analog systems, like class B amplifiers with the bias slightly
> misadjusted. If so, you missed its meaning.
I am not agreeing or disagreeing. I simply want to see a clear explanation.
Luxey
Mar 23, 2012, 12:05:30 PM3/23/12
to
петак, 23. март 2012. 16.52.12 UTC+1, William Sommerwerck је написао/ла:
> Not at all. I understand that. See below. One of my points is that how noise
> that is comparable in level to the signal itself randomize quantization
> errors that are much lower in level?
Seams your question is if the low level signal is actually dithering higher level noise, instead of being vice versa?
> Not at all. I understand that. See below. One of my points is that how noise
> that is comparable in level to the signal itself randomize quantization
> errors that are much lower in level?
eth...@ethanwiner.com
Mar 23, 2012, 12:28:47 PM3/23/12
to m...@musictrax.com
On Friday, March 23, 2012 5:04:29 AM UTC-4, Marc Wielage wrote:
> Unfortunately, there's no way to package room acoustics and sell
> them for $99.95 (more like $995.95) like you can an expensive cable.
Well, some expensive cables sell for $5,000 each, and you can buy a room full of great acoustic treatment for the cost on a stereo pair of wires like that.
> Unfortunately, there's no way to package room acoustics and sell
> them for $99.95 (more like $995.95) like you can an expensive cable.
> Holt was dismayed and unhappy that so few people grasped the importance of
> the room itself.
> I've also been to some very wealthy homes that had very costly audio and/or
> home theater systems, but their acoustical properties were so bad, it was a
> pain to listen to -- marble floors, reflective walls, high ceilings, tons of
> reverb, weird nodes... just a sonic disaster. But they had all the right
> gear. Nobody apparently told them to redecorate... or they just were
> determined to keep the room itself the same.
--Ethan
William Sommerwerck
Mar 23, 2012, 12:30:17 PM3/23/12
to
"Luxey" <lux...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:23826693.1455.1332518730099.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbtv42...
?????, 23. ???? 2012. 16.52.12 UTC+1, William Sommerwerck ?? ???????/??:
>> Not at all. I understand that. See below. One of my points is how
>> can noise that is comparable in level to the signal itself randomize
it be self-dithering?
news:23826693.1455.1332518730099.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbtv42...
?????, 23. ???? 2012. 16.52.12 UTC+1, William Sommerwerck ?? ???????/??:
>> Not at all. I understand that. See below. One of my points is how
>> can noise that is comparable in level to the signal itself randomize
>> quantization errors that are much lower in level?
> Seams your question is if the low level signal is actually dithering
> higher level noise, instead of being vice versa?
I don't think so. Wouldn't truly random noise not require dither? Wouldn't
> Seams your question is if the low level signal is actually dithering
> higher level noise, instead of being vice versa?
it be self-dithering?
Neil Gould
Mar 23, 2012, 12:32:54 PM3/23/12
to
and pink noise, can be affected by different dithering alogorithms, for
example. One may have a difficult time *hearing* the impact of dither on
noise, but it these days it can be proven beyond any doubt simply by
comparing samples.
--
best regards,
Neil
Scott Dorsey
Mar 23, 2012, 3:27:48 PM3/23/12
to
this, the noise floor will not be properly reproduced but signals above the
noise floor probably will be.
>For the time being, I remain unconvinced.
Ron Capik
Mar 23, 2012, 3:44:45 PM3/23/12
to
to that point, and forcing the point is a violation.
[YMMV]
==
Later...
Ron Capik
--
William Sommerwerck
Mar 23, 2012, 3:52:11 PM3/23/12
to
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:jkiirk$jjb$1...@panix2.panix.com...
The issue is whether the noise already in a signal -- regardless of level --
automatically dithers it. I don't believe it does. I would to see an
explanation that goes beyond hand-waving.
news:jkiirk$jjb$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> For the time being, I remain unconvinced.
> Dither is a good idea and it doesn't hurt to use it.
I said that!
>> For the time being, I remain unconvinced.
> Dither is a good idea and it doesn't hurt to use it.
The issue is whether the noise already in a signal -- regardless of level --
automatically dithers it. I don't believe it does. I would to see an
explanation that goes beyond hand-waving.
Don Pearce
Mar 23, 2012, 4:06:37 PM3/23/12
to
ready when the quantization occurs. It matters not a jot how long
before quantization the noise got there. If it is added at the
microphone, it is exactly the same as if it was added a nanosecond
before quantization. All that matters is that it is a signal free from
correlation. Noise, in other words.
Remember it does not remove the energy associated with quantization
artefacts - it simply spreads that energy across the audio band.
d
William Sommerwerck
Mar 23, 2012, 4:30:19 PM3/23/12
to
>> The issue is whether the noise already in a signal -- regardless
>> of level -- automatically dithers it. I don't believe it does. I would
>> like to see an explanation that goes beyond hand-waving.
>> of level -- automatically dithers it. I don't believe it does. I would
> Dither is simply noise that is added to the signal, so it is there
> ready when the quantization occurs. It matters not a jot how
> long before quantization the noise got there. If it is added at the
> microphone, it is exactly the same as if it was added a nanosecond
> before quantization. All that matters is that it is a signal free from
> correlation. Noise, in other words.
read what I wrote.
Don Pearce
Mar 23, 2012, 4:59:14 PM3/23/12
to
A to D is, as you say, already in the signal. That includes artificial
dither, people breathing, traffic outside in the street. It is the sum
of all that noise which provides the dither. As long as it is large
enough to bridge the gap between adjacent sampling levels, it will do
the job. That is all that is required of it. Any more is unnecessary,
but certainly won't stop it working. Do the maths if you remain
unconvinced.
d
Luxey
Mar 23, 2012, 5:45:53 PM3/23/12
to
Fortunately, there are some great and sane people here who drove the thread into something interesting and applicable. However, usual suspects are determined for the oposite. Just out of nowhere dithering emerged as side topic, soon enough ...
Is there anybody here interested in runing studio, being hired to record/ mix bands, music, ..., for real, ...
hank alrich
Mar 23, 2012, 10:01:40 PM3/23/12
to
would it really do dither's job?
--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri
Trevor
Mar 23, 2012, 10:04:37 PM3/23/12
to
"Marc Wielage" <mwie...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.CB9188F2...@news.giganews.com...
> Can't somebody just yell "HITLER" ...
You just did.
Trevor.
Trevor
Mar 23, 2012, 10:13:57 PM3/23/12
to
<eth...@ethanwiner.com> wrote in message
news:9670737.1461.1332520127195.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbux23...
>I think it's mainly ignorance, and also being brainwashed by audio
>salespeople and magazines.
>Yes, I've been told more than once "I don't want my living room to look
>like a recording studio" and I understand that. But if someone has $100k
>invested in "gear" and doesn't >have a dedicated room, or doesn't care
>enough to obtain what their system is capable of, their priorities are
>really screwed up IMO.
Well if they've spent $100k then that probably goes without saying. But it's
>salespeople and magazines.
>Yes, I've been told more than once "I don't want my living room to look
>like a recording studio" and I understand that. But if someone has $100k
>invested in "gear" and doesn't >have a dedicated room, or doesn't care
>enough to obtain what their system is capable of, their priorities are
>really screwed up IMO.
simple, bragging rights come from the equipment itself, not it's sound. And
they don't want to spoil the $1million decor with room treatments for sound.
However some billionaires DO have a proper acouticaly designed dedicated
listening rooms. The room costs *FAR* more than $100k though, so that's the
problem for mere millionaires :-)
Trevor.
Trevor
Mar 23, 2012, 10:22:18 PM3/23/12
to
"hank alrich" <walk...@nv.net> wrote in message
news:1khfgzz.gwmit811vgcg0N%walk...@nv.net...
> If the noise floor weren't random to the extent decent dither is random,
> would it really do dither's job?
If it's not random you shouldn't call it "noise", but an unwanted signal.
> would it really do dither's job?
eg. some people may call hum, "noise", but that's just a sloppy definition.
Trevor.
Mike Rivers
Mar 24, 2012, 7:26:55 AM3/24/12
to
On 3/23/2012 12:30 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> Wouldn't truly random noise not require dither? Wouldn't
> it be self-dithering?
Boy! Is that ever a question for the philosophers! That's
> Wouldn't truly random noise not require dither? Wouldn't
> it be self-dithering?
in the same category as "If a tree falls in the forest, can
you hear the sound of one hand clapping?"
--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson
http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff
Mxsmanic
Mar 24, 2012, 9:09:37 AM3/24/12
to
Trevor writes:
> Well if they've spent $100k then that probably goes without saying. But it's
> simple, bragging rights come from the equipment itself, not it's sound. And
> they don't want to spoil the $1million decor with room treatments for sound.
People with this type of personality not only do not care about the sound, but
> Well if they've spent $100k then that probably goes without saying. But it's
> simple, bragging rights come from the equipment itself, not it's sound. And
> they don't want to spoil the $1million decor with room treatments for sound.
are afraid to say that a system doesn't sound good to them. So when the
dominant wealthy individual with the expensive equipment says that the sound
is great, his non-wealthy and sycophantic friend will nod his head in
agreement, even though he cannot seem to hear the fabulous sound that his
alpha friend claims to hear. He doesn't want to seem dumb or uneducated, so he
assumes that he's just missing something and pretends that he hears fabulous
sound, too.
It's like the emperor's new clothes.
Arny Krueger
Mar 24, 2012, 3:01:51 PM3/24/12
to
"Luxey" <lux...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:23826693.1455.1332518730099.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbtv42...
> Not at all. I understand that. See below. One of my points is that how
> noise
> that is comparable in level to the signal itself randomize quantization
> errors that are much lower in level?
> Seams your question is if the low level signal is actually dithering
> higher level noise, instead of being vice versa?
whether that signal is noise or other, doesn't matter.
Dither is only needed to randomize quantization error, whose size is the
size of a LSB. However, quantization conserves energy, so the noise in the
signal is not diminished when it becomes the source of dither. What does
happen is that the portion of the noise that is engaged in randomizing the
quantization error changes from being one random signal to a different, but
still random signal.
IOW you can take the noise floor of the signal, and split it into two
pieces. One piece is changed by its application as dither, and the other
piece is unchanged. The portion that was used for dither remains random, but
its spectrum and probability distribution may be changed somewhat. Whether
there is an audible difference depends on the ratio of the sizes of the two
pieces. The piece that gets changed is about twice the amplitude of the
LSB. If the noise floor is say 10 dB higher, the part affected by
quantization is very likely to be completely masked by the larger portion
of the noise floor, which is unchanged.
stereo...@earthlink.net
Mar 24, 2012, 4:25:56 PM3/24/12
to
On Mar 22, 8:59 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@cocmast.net> wrote:
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:jkdkh5$p1$1...@dont-email.me...
> >> The counterpoint is that virtually every real world audio signal has
terms
as described by Arny Krueger can be found at
http://www.stereophile.com//asweseeit/523/index.html .
> I did a little study of the situation and found that as a rule, the analog
> tape had 10s of dB more noise, even on an fractional-octave basis.
As I discuss in the article, there was no "analog tape"; the source
was
20-bit files that had been recorded on a Nagra-D recorder.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:jkdkh5$p1$1...@dont-email.me...
> > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@cocmast.net> wrote in message
> >news:QeidnYfeYNiysvfS...@giganews.com...
> >> The counterpoint is that virtually every real world audio signal has
> >> enough noise to dither itself. Enough of it comes from the analog
> >> domain, which just isn't that clean compared to 16 bits.
>
> > I'm not sure this is correct. But I'm not going to argue the point before
> > doing some checking.
>
> Funny story that involves your good buddy Mr. JA. He wrote a glowing SP
> >> domain, which just isn't that clean compared to 16 bits.
>
> > I'm not sure this is correct. But I'm not going to argue the point before
> > doing some checking.
>
> review of a Meridian ADC with selectable dither, centerpieced by his
> experiences transcribing one of his analog master tapes. In his sighted
> evaluations he seemed to find a different poetic description of every
> different dither that the Meridian added.
The article in which I discuss this situation in somewhat different
> experiences transcribing one of his analog master tapes. In his sighted
> evaluations he seemed to find a different poetic description of every
> different dither that the Meridian added.
terms
as described by Arny Krueger can be found at
http://www.stereophile.com//asweseeit/523/index.html .
> I did a little study of the situation and found that as a rule, the analog
As I discuss in the article, there was no "analog tape"; the source
was
20-bit files that had been recorded on a Nagra-D recorder.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Soundhaspriority
Mar 24, 2012, 7:11:23 PM3/24/12
to
<eth...@ethanwiner.com> wrote in message
news:11844376.419.1332349048567.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbht7...
> On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 9:36:46 AM UTC-4, anahata wrote:
>> As for Ethan's "Audio Myths" video, I saw that a couple of weeks ago and
>> there's a lot of good stuff there, though I'm not sure sure everyone
>> would agree with his views about the (un)importance of dither.
>
> Download and play the files from this Dither article, then email me your
> guesses as to which are dithered and which are not:
>
This is all synth, am I correct? If it isn't, it sounds a lot like synth,
delivered as an mp3.
When CD was young, my gravitation was towards new-age synthetic music,
because it sounded a heck of a lot better than CD recordings of orchestral
and chamber recordings. As enhanced techniques of recording and production
arrived, in the form of 20 bit capture, and then, noise-shaping dither, I
reveled in the experience of "Being There", where "There" is Carnegie Hall,
or the upstairs Weill Recital Hall.
Ethan, your statement, as applied to the musical material of the experiment,
is probably true. Yet I find myself rather unsympathetic to the message. The
message encourages people to think a certain way, and it is unfortunately
the case that many naďve home recordists are likely to misinterpret the
message, resulting in application you did not intend. Perhaps you should
write another article to rebalance the message, one in which a recording is
made with such care, and delivered to the consumer in a format unblemished
by compression, so that the effect of dither becomes apparent.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Soundhaspriority
Mar 24, 2012, 10:18:17 PM3/24/12
to
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jka10n$faf$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> What happened since then is too complex to explain in a brief post.
>
But there is room for a simplified version.
There was at first a powerful thrust towards technical excellence, with
tremendous ferment in the areas of circuit theory and devlces. These
improvements were first appreciated by thousands of hobbyists, technicians,
and engineers, because in those days, the U.S. had a vibrant electronics
manufacturing industry. New discrete devices appeared frequently, driven by
rapid advances in power conversion, and quickly adopted by engineer
entrepreneurs.
Lagging this by about five years was the development of digital audio. When
the CD hit, it immediately gave a kick to analog, resulting in the
development of better amplifiers than the DC300 et al. All this continued
into the early 90's, when an early form of market saturation occurred. Every
techie with good ears had very good equipment, mostly without aesthetics.
The worth of the "Hafler Brick" was in the weight of the transformer. Hafler
saw what was coming, and sold his company, because what was coming was not
good.
To expand the market, manufacturers of audio equipment exploited the concept
of the "household altar." Hifi would become something that inspired
reverence, a reverence consonant with the listening experience, a reverence
unbounded by the technical limitations of reproduced music. Now the
subjective experience was unbounded, but now the price of the experience
became unbounded as well.
Now prices spiraled upwards, as makers competed to provide the best
subjective experience, in the form of the most attractive household altar.
My own inspections revealed that, as the altars became more and more
attractive, the makers were omitting parts on the inside -- in some cases,
heatsinks were weakly attached to what they were supposed to cool, or not at
all! Transformers were downsized. Transistor packages migrated from the
robust TO-3 to the TO-72, a hunk of plastic on a metal tab. Appearances
became ever more elaborate, to capture more and more of that disposable
income Wall Streeters are famous for.
How can one draw the boundary between pleasing the customer, and fraud? This
is a contentious question. Today, still, there are some superb products
marketed to the wealthy. There will always be some who can tell the
difference, though cultural pressures seem to push against exercise of the
faculties some are born with.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Luxey
Mar 24, 2012, 10:41:53 PM3/24/12
to
eth...@ethanwiner.com
Mar 25, 2012, 11:44:27 AM3/25/12
to
On Saturday, March 24, 2012 7:11:23 PM UTC-4, Soundhaspriority wrote:
> This is all synth, am I correct? If it isn't, it sounds a lot like synth,
> delivered as an mp3.
No, it's not all synths. There are live acoustic and electric guitars, a live cello section, and sampled drums (which started life as Wave file recordings). But why do you believe that music made using synthesizers isn't valid for testing the audibility of dither?
> This is all synth, am I correct? If it isn't, it sounds a lot like synth,
> delivered as an mp3.
> ... a recording is
> made with such care, and delivered to the consumer in a format unblemished
> by compression, so that the effect of dither becomes apparent.
I'll make you the same offer I make everyone else: Please create your own example file showing that dither makes an audible difference for music recorded at normal levels, and post it for all to hear. I know you won't do this because you can't, just as others have never been able to create such a file to prove their beliefs.
> by compression, so that the effect of dither becomes apparent.
What bothers me most is this is so common. Someone makes a claim, such as dither is audible on typical pop music recorded at a normal level. I ask for proof, which should be simple if dither actually mattered. But the person never posts proof (they're always too busy), yet they continue to hold the same beliefs.
Tell you what Bob, if you can show that dither is audible on any pop music type mix recorded at a sensible level, I promise I will change my opinion immediately and delete the Dither article from my web site. But if you can't, I expect you to acknowledge here that you were unable to create a compelling example, and stop posting publicly that dither makes a difference for most music.
Deal?
--Ethan
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages