--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4776 - Release Date: 01/30/12
>> 01/30/12- Id�zett sz�veg elrejt�se -
>>
>> - Id�zett sz�veg megjelen�t�se -
>> >http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound- Id�zett sz�veg elrejt�se
>> - Idézett szöveg megjelenítése -
>> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound- Id�zett sz�veg
>> elrejt�se
>> >> -
>> >>
>> >> - Id�zett sz�veg megjelen�t�se -
>> >
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups
>> > "SurroundSound" group.
>> > To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> > SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
>> > For more options, visit this group at
Thanks Realafrica, PM sent.
P.
-----Original Message-----
From: surrou...@googlegroups.com [mailto:surrou...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Steven Sullivan
Sent: 01 February 2012 18:02
To: surrou...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [SurroundSound] Re: Can you tell the difference and find the
original?
"....post their guesses...."
>> >http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound- Id�zett sz�veg elrejt�se
Is that right?
I could go back to the .iso file and rip right from that as a virtual DVD,
if something went wrong with burning.
Suggest you search for a "vanilla stereo" forum if you are that interested
in stereo.
Message-----
From: Steven Sullivan
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 10:07 PM
To: surrou...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [SurroundSound] Re: Can you tell the difference and find the
original?
Actually just using 2.0 tracks instead of 5.1 would probably have made the
>> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound- Idézett szöveg
>> elrejtése
>> >> -
>> >>
>> >> - Idézett szöveg megjelenítése -
>> > if something went wrong with burning.- Id�zett sz�veg elrejt�se -
>>
>> - Id�zett sz�veg megjelen�t�se -
>
>> > if something went wrong with burning.- Id�zett sz�veg elrejt�se -
>>
>> - Id�zett sz�veg megjelen�t�se -
>
"it is almost 100% agreed among scientists you need 600Khz recording to even
be close to what a professional analog open reel tape format can achieve"
Source, please?
"It is also regarded that due to the way digital is reproduced only BDA has
the ability to truly reproduce high Res digital material with the exception
of vinyl which can reproduce higher res but has physical limitations such as
surface noise and vinyl irregularities."
Excluding dbx encoding, what is the best that can be achieved with vinyl in
terms of dynamic range and channel separation, please?
I have a tape recorder with 0% W&F, >104bB dynamic range and around 100bB
channel separation. If I got a stereo master tape from a studio's DAW at
24/192 would my tape recorder be better than BDA? Would it be better than
vinyl?
(I am only discussing high-resolution stereo at present.)
P.
-----Original Message-----
From: surrou...@googlegroups.com [mailto:surrou...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Britre
Sent: 04 February 2012 16:25
To: SurroundSound
Subject: [SurroundSound] Re: Can you tell the difference and find the
original?
"Dbx encoding is not going to give vinyl any greater dynamic range, channel
separation or S/N then it has it will only mask the flaws electronically."
I don't have a dbx decoder at present but I'm sure a genuine increase in SNR
is achieved.
As for the "telling the difference" debate I don' have a dog in that
particular fight, as Justin (Sean) said. I like to rip my vinyl to digital
tape (DTRS) at 24/192 for stereo and 24/96 for quad. I get a convenient
'snap-shot' in time of that vinyl.
P.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com To
unsubscribe from this group, send email to
SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4786 - Release Date: 02/03/12
"Are we talking specifically about DBX encoded material"
Yes, dbx vinyl.
"your iPhone"
I don't own any Apple product. Saint Stephen might have been a good
marketeer but he didn't invent the portable music player (Sony), music
downloads (Napster) or the WIMP interface (Xerox PARC). The last one being
created 11 years before he copied it on the Macintosh.
P.
-----Original Message-----
From: surrou...@googlegroups.com [mailto:surrou...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Britre
Sent: 04 February 2012 23:47
To: SurroundSound
Subject: [SurroundSound] Re: Can you tell the difference and find the
original?
"Ok. I am baffled?"
Indeed. Hence your fantastical claims that "it is almost 100% agreed among
scientists you need 600Khz recording to even be close to what a professional
analog open reel tape format can achieve" and "only BDA has the ability to
truly reproduce high Res digital material with the exception of vinyl".
I simply pointed out that one of the worst analogue mediums, vinyl - could
be improved upon with dbx to CD-like levels of SNR.
I won't make such fantastical claims as you. I'll just say a commercially
released quarter-track 7 ½ ips RTR album is a better representation of the
musical experience envisaged by the artist/producer than vinyl, 8 track,
cassette or Red Book CD. And that applies to quadraphonic as well as stereo.
P.
As for the rest, most of what Britre wrote (the parts that are correct at
least -- not all of it is. The 600kHz claim is absurd for example) I
would have expected people to know already, who claim e.g. to hate/hear
lossy, redbook, or whatever. So maybe I'm understanding better now why
there has been such incredulity and hostility to some of my claims.
-S.
>> tov�bb �- Id�zett sz�veg elrejt�se -
>> tovább »- Idézett szöveg elrejtése -
>>
>> - Idézett szöveg megjelenítése -
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "SurroundSound" group.
> To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
Incorrect. The filtering is done to avoid introducing distortion into the
20-20kHz band -- the part we *can* hear. It has nothing to do with the
'error correction circuitry'. Look up 'aliasing'.
>which also does proove we can hear above 20Khz despite what
> equipment and record companies think.
No, it doesn't. It is simply following from the criteria set up by the
Nyquist theorem, for accurate digital sampling.
> Oversampling, dithering, sound mapping ect all help the digital format
> achieve a closer approximation to analog wave forms.
Do you understand what any of those three things are?
And do you understand that analog recording methods also require methods
to help them output the best approximation of the original sound?
> Notice I said
> "approximation" as it is almost 100% agreed among scientists you need
> 600Khz recording to even be close to what a professional analog open
> reel tape format can achieve.
Nonsense. The best analog tape can have a 'usable' range out to past
30kHz, but its response is not LINEAR ('flat') at either the low or the
high end of that range. (And of course with each playback you are
smudging the high frequencies more and more.) A 600kHz SR for a PCM
digital system would give you a flat frequency response from 0 to 300 kHz,
something no analog recording system even begins to approach. I have
never seen anyone propose such a thing so where are you getting this from?
> Little known fact never brought up is
> that most digital recording up until the mid 90's (about the time the
> loudness wars started) were actually 44.1/14 bit PCM renderings. How
> is that for resolution.
It's better than analog. The best pro reel-to-reel tape (which is better
than vinyl) offers dynamic range of ~72dB. Meanwhile , 14 bits works out
to ~84 dB of DR.
> It is also regarded that due to the way
> digital is reproduced only BDA has the ability to truly reproduce high
> Res digital material with the exception of vinyl which can reproduce
> higher res but has physical limitations such as surface noise and
> vinyl irregularities.
Do you understand that 'noise' and 'resolution' are intimately related
concepts, and that the former tends to reduce the latter? Vinyl
absolutely cannot reproduce 'higher res' than digital, unless you're
talking about 8-bit!
> When a fully digital recording is transfered to
> a pro Analog tape deck it can exceed anything available to us as
> consumers which would truly be a test of if we can hear a difference
> between low res (redbook CD) and that high res source.
Transferring it to any analog tape will actually reduce its objective
quality. You will add various kinds of measurable, possibly audible,
distortion, for sure.
> Thats right
> friends at this time in history the lowest resolution product is
> redbook CD reproduction. MP3 is simply compressed redbook and does not
> count in our discussion.
Well, no, mp3 can be compressed Redbook or some other input format, like
96/24. And it is not 'simply' compression, it is a lossy *perceptual*
encoding method that relies on psychoacoustic models to 'decide' what
information can be discarded to minimuze the audible impact of file size
reduction.
> So, bearing all that in mind we go back to our test presented here. If
> Lokks had the ability to press a vinyl of the test and offer it to us
> I am sure you would all hear significant differences or better yet
> offered a professionally mastered tape then you could imediately
> identify the original, compressed version, altered version ect.
Why do you imagine that to be true?
> If you are listening to it the way it was presented you are brick wall
> filtered regardless of what you are listening to it on which means
> there is no difference in the resolution really.
This makes no sense. All recording technologies have usable bandwidth
limits. So do human ears. And you still don't understand what
'resolution' means.
> It is what sounds
> better to the listener and as we all hear different we will all say
> different things sound better. I personally like good vinyl and the
> way the loud and soft dynamics present themselves and the fact you
> actually have to listen several times to try to hear everything
> contained in the recording. Most digital esspecially made now looses
> that flavor. Example. Get a copy of Alice Cooper Welcome 2 My
> Nightmare 2 on CD, it really could have sounded awesome but all the
> detail is gone, everything is at the same level and fatigue sets in
> after the third track. Then listen to the original first nighmare on
> vinyl, you can't stop listening because everytime you hear it you hear
> more detail.
How was the CD mastered? Was the dynamic range purposely compressed?
More to the point, if you recorded the vinyl to digital, and compared them
blind and level-matched in playback , would you be able to tell them apart
reliably? With 16/44 recording? 24/96?
> So in conclusion I support Lokks statement as to what you hear is what
> is good. Resolution bits and bytes do not matter because they will
> always be the same regardless of what they appear on and are played
> through.
I can't even tell if this makes sense or not. Bit depths are certainly
not the same on Redbook vs 96/24. Resolution (in objective terms) aren't
either.
> Only your amps, speakers, room and ears will be the tell tale
> of what is good. Oh wait, forgot air pressure which is significany in
> how sound reproduces anyplace. Try listening to Lokks test on the
> moon, I bet all the tracks sound low res and smear the highs.
Has to be a joke. No sound transmission in a vaccuum.
> As I write this I am listening to a first pressing Teaser And The
> Firecat by Cat Stevens. I have this in all the formats offered and
> this vinyl exceeds the sound of any of the other formats. Crisp highs,
> clear transients, realistic acoustic insturments and no muddiness.
> This was pressed in 1970 and came from analog tape. it has 50-60 db S/
> N at best and my phono cart is rated 18khz to 48khz.
'Rated' how? -3dB at ....?
> My room is
> 14X15.I can hear a huge difference between this and the compact disc
> and even bigger differences between the MFSL digital 200 gram vinyl
> and this. How could that be when the CD is supposed to be the best
> resolution out there according to society? Because it sounds good to
> me and my ears. Just like Lokks stated. This is my 2 cents.
Or maybe the mastering is very different between the three. And one
playback method also introduces 'euphonic' distortion. (Guess which one
that is)
Did I actually write that what you claim to hear is 'impossible'?
I certainly have never written that audible difference between lossless
and lossy is *impossible*. It isn't.
I use words like 'likely' and 'unlikely' for a reason.
I have said your claims of difference can be mistaken, for some very
normal, very common reasons related to us (human beings) not being perfect
perceivers, especially when we already 'know' what we are listening to.
(That is what 'sighted' listening is.)
THAT seems to be what sticks in your craw, but you're arguing with science
there, not me.
> So please take your time we can all wait on your comments when they come
> but please do no knock others for their views.
It is not 'knocking' except when someone appears to operate from a stance
that anything they claim to 'hear' must always be a real audible
difference, just by virtue of them 'hearing' it. They're just plain wrong
there.
> Personally being a R2R person I don't believe that 60Khz is anywhere near
> what you would get out from analogue tape and not 600KHz, (giving a
> "straight" Nyquist sampling of 120Khz) but you can sure hear a difference
> when you sample at 96/24 from a reel as compared to redbook, which was the
> point to the exercise.
And again...your 'sureness' here is supported by what method, exactly? Is
it one where common sources of mistakes have been taken care of?
From what I recall of your post, you had to find and focus on short
segments like reverb tails to 'hear' differences.
I myself could probably differentiate 16 bit from 24 bit if I play back
the lowest-level signals (the ends of reverb tails as they fade into
background), at unnaturally high levels. (This is how they did it in the
famous Myer & Moran SACD vs Redbook test, as a matter of face.) Similarly,
there are musical samples that will be particularly good at showing up
lossy artifacts; developers seek these out and use them to tune lossy
codecs. So no one says lossy will always be indistinguishable from
source.
That doesn't mean one is justified in claiming they could tell 16 from 24
'routinely', or that these differences are 'obvious', or something that
they can tell 'right away', or writing "OH NOES THEY'RE ONLY RELEASING
THIS ON DTS OR DUBLY DIGITAL, WHAT A SHAMEFUL DISGRACE"...which is the
sort of thing 'audiophiles' do.
> My sureness is supported by what drives me to make these comments and to
> keep this forum going, my love of the music and appreciation for it. I can
> hear the difference and years of recording and playback and a bit of audio
> design thrown in gives me my tacit knowledge.
>
> Absolute science, that is so called checked and peer reviewed, is renowned
> for being accurate; (lol) remember cold fusion, swine flu, Thalidomide,
> Piltdown man, N Rays? You are probably just as gullible believing that
> peer approved "scientific" papers are 100% accurate. Did you conduct the
> tests yourself, if not how do you know the evidence is accurate? Same
> stance really with sighted tests.
I'm afraid much of this gobbledygook, starting with the phrase 'absolute
science', bears no resemblance to any words or stance I have written or
taken here or elsewhere. So you're knocking down a straw man there.
As for how one determines that tests are accurate, that's where detailed
description of methods and results and their analysis helps a lot. And
anyone who knows that, knows why 'I trust my ears and experience' is just
not sufficient.
> What I suggest is that you climb down your tree, start to see others, less
> "scientific" but equally genuine opinions - "cubism" was a good example of
> polarised opinion this time in art, and then investigate as to the why
> that
> we feel passionately this way.
'Seeing' opinions about audio is one thing, assuming that all such
opinions are equally likely to be based in fact, is quite another. I
don't do that. And I tend to avoid the former too, because others'
subjective opinions about audio quality, divorced from any other lines of
evidence, are about as boring to me as can be. The bench test writeups in
'Stereophile' are far more informative than the subjective burbling about
'veils being lifted' and such in the accompanying review. But that's,
like, just my opinion, man.
> My point is, that surely your audio experience cannot be the same as mine
> because if it was you would be trying to find out why and then doing a
> scientific paper on your findings and then not being so aggressively
> defensive about people that are not so.
Am I offensive or defensive? You can't seem to decide.
Forgive me if I'm not interested in writing a paper on why *your*
experience is different from *mine*. If nothing else, I doubt you'd submit
to the time and methods it would take to really explore the matter
scientifically.
> One final point, I have always tested my own views in my state of the art
> double blind testing centre using a brilliantly trained laboratory
> technician - my wife.
> She doesn't do music well (although she trained to play a piano) and has
> expressions about music that don't match the established reviewing
> fraternities descriptions; - common one "sounds boomy" , she can normally
> pick a 96/24 out in an adjacent room, probably due to the lack of the
> loudness war. Try EC - Reptile CD versus DVD-A in stereo then #5.1. (this
> is 88/24 BTW, lol) However what she did note is that the Beatles remasters
> sounded better on 24bit than 16 and that Love sounds even better on #5.1.
> Not science, just absolute incontrovertible reality. I rest my case
> m'lud!!
> But then as Smiley said you know Anne..... (my wife's name is not Anne
> BTW,
> I'm not being literal.....)
>
Rather an utter empty waste of words , that 'final point', wasn't it,
guv'nor?
-S.
None of this is true. You made all this up. Why?
Lossy vs lossless encoding and "high rez' vs 'lower rez' aren't the same
things; they don't even operate on the same principles.
> You admit to owning an oppo and a
> library of SACD and DVD-A recordings. That's quite a waste of money when
> a
> nice CD would "likely" work just as well.
> S
I bought such releases for the hope of a better remastering (better
source, better EQ), and/or a surround mix. I bought an Oppo because it
could play them. The Oppo isn't even necessary anymore, hence it is
typically disconnected.
So, any more imaginary arguments against me you care to make?
>
Not sure it needs to be 'surround' though, unless the proposition is also
that surround is more 'revealing' of these differences than two-channel or
mono.
>> - Id�zett sz�veg elrejt�se -
>>
>> - Id�zett sz�veg megjelen�t�se -
>
Wasn't this about Rebook vs Hi Res (ie 16/44 vs 24/96 etc), not about lossless vs lossy.
Sorry if I have missed something..
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>> - Idézett szöveg elrejtése -
>>
>> - Idézett szöveg megjelenítése -
I myself could probably differentiate 16 bit from 24 bit if I play back
the lowest-level signals (the ends of reverb tails as they fade into
background), at unnaturally high levels. (This is how they did it in the
famous Myer & Moran SACD vs Redbook test, as a matter of face.) Similarly,
there are musical samples that will be particularly good at showing up
lossy artifacts; developers seek these out and use them to tune lossy
codecs. So no one says lossy will always be indistinguishable from
source.
> You know, in daily listening, one doesn't need to analyze the reverb tailsLossy vs lossless encoding and "high rez' vs 'lower rez' aren't the same
> or anything else. All this subconsciously adds up to a lesser listening
> experience. When we hear the hi rez lossless, we perceive the difference
> whether routinely audible or not. Being routinely audible doesn't change
> the fact that all the artifacts are there and decreasing the quality of
> the
> experience. As a listener who has trained their ears to expect a certain
> quality, it is not snobish to purposely avoid a lossy encoding or lower
> rez
> file where you know such artifacts will be found... especially if a there
> is an alternative. You must know this.
things; they don't even operate on the same principles.
The test provides better-than-average data -- that's to say, better than
just the standard, useless, 'sighted' reports. But there are controls that
could make it more bulletproof. Grill understands that. Do you?
-S.
>> >> - Id�zett sz�veg elrejt�se -
>> >>
>> >> - Id�zett sz�veg megjelen�t�se -
I also never wrote, or implied, that no one could ever distinguish DTS
from lossless. I write in terms of 'likelihood' for a reason.
So why did you try to imply otherwise?
-S.
That lossy compression has characteristic artifacts, more or less audible
depending on degree of data compression/codec used/sample used, is not in
doubt. Audibility of high vs standard res, and the reasons behind it, on
the other hand, is *very* controversial. If you really understood that
then you would not lump the two comparisons together.
Well, if you know how to read a spectral view, or a waveform, the use of
lossy encoding is about as obvious as the use of 'standard' vs 'hi res'
(though in the latter case, if the source was already 'standard res', then
'high res' won't be much different! There are certain cases where the
'high res' release was sourced from standard resolution audio.)
> Personally I'm interested in testing surround and imo this would be a
> bit more unique but I accept the will of majority, ofc.
My own vote would be for 2-channel, which I can much more easily adapt to my
setup, and to ABX presentation -- as well as use headphones, for maximum
discrimination.
-S.
>> >http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound- Id�zett sz�veg elrejt�se
>> >> - Idézett szöveg elrejtése -
>> >>
>> >> - Idézett szöveg megjelenítése -
No, you *don't* get it. I already noted at least one obvious aspect that
wouldn't pass muster in an actual scientific study of this sort. If you
got it, you'd have got that.
But instead of me repeating it, ask grill if you can write these test
results up. When you do, make sure the methods section reports that
subjects self-administered the test and submitted their responses by
email. Submit the paper to a reputable journal. See what the reviewers
have to say about improving the work.
-S.
PS, no offense to grill, who acknowledged up front that this isn't a
scientific study...which doesn't stop it from being an *interesting* one.
To be *rigorous* about it, a positive result could have several causes
that couldn't be ruled out without further information:
1) real audible difference, due to formats. (true positive)
2) real audible difference, due to something else (false positive)
3) difference not heard, 'correct' answer due to chance (false positive)
And if we could narrow it down to (1), there would still be the
interesting question of how much the result depends on the particular
sample music and encoding methods chosen; both are factors well known to
influence audibility of lossy artifacts -- another being training. There
would even be the question of what effect just knowing beforehand that the
choice here was between lossless (GOOD!) and lossy (EVIL!), has on
*preference*. These are all variables that a scientific study would
investigate, or at least address in discussion. (See Sean Olive's classic
series of studies in JAES, for a great example of work that investigates
the relative contributions of multiple variables to listeners' loudspeaker
preferences.)
Btw if you don't quote me verbatim that's fine. Just don't mangle my
meaning if you paraphrase.
> And that whether lossy vs lossless "OR" low rez vs hi
> rez,
> there are artifacts/identifying qualities that add up to the perception of
> a lesser listening experience whether you can scientifically quantify it
> or
> not. (I understand that they are two different comparisons of two
> different things with two different sets of, I would argue, audible
> differences or artifacts as fits the example. The end is the same... a
> lesser quality listening experience in my opinion, whether subconsciously
> perceived or determinately analyzed and noted.)
> S
And again, what are the plausible artifacts of standard rez vs high res?
Various artifacts of lossy compression are pretty well characterized.
(Which doesn't mean they are routinely perceived.)