Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
... I think it is pointless to use information reduction for high end audio as long we don't have an audio system that can produce a sound which is indistinguishable from live performances. ?????????? Doesn't it seem logical that as long as we can't get accurate reproduction anyway, that when useful we use information reduction for convenience sake? |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
"isw" wrote in message
... In article , If you can hear artifacts, you're using a poor encoder algorithm, or too low a bit rate, or both. Agreed. Finally an opinion from an informed source! |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Sep 30, 2:26=A0pm, Doug McDonald wrote:
It is exceedingly easy to match the levels to calculate distortion_plus_n= oise. What you say is very true but that is not the objective with perceptual encoding. What is sought with this class of encoders is to maximize transparency at given bit rates using human listeners as the means of evaluation. The problem with simply using mean squared error measures between the original and compressed recording is that frequencies are either removed or coarsely quantized resulting in noticeable degradation. In addition, perceptual coders use coarse quantization for components that are weakly perceived by listeners so will be unlikely to be heard which will be different from results using MSE Once can also, if one wishes, correct the phase. However, in my experienc= e doing computerized MP3 tests, using LAME, neither is necessary. If one tells LAME to use 320 kbps, the difference between files is very small and mostly noise. If one uses 96 kbps fixed bitrate, the distortion is fairly large and not all noise. The only question is "at what bitrate does it actually become audible in double blind tests?". At 96 kbps I can hear the difference. The difference signal is substantially nonlinear distortion. The residual (removed) components of compressed audio at low bit rates actually may be relatively linear since it consists of sounds that are largely masked in the original signal. At higher data rates, much more audio information is preserved and the residual components are likely to be much more nonlinear and contain significant amounts of quantization errors. You do indeed ask the 64,000,000 dollar question here. Clearly the vast majority of listeners outside of this newsgroup have little problem with lossy compression given sufficiently high data rates. Published results from properly conducted trials available on the web indicate that AAC compression at 128 kbps is close to or completely transparent in most cases. Obviously, this is heresy to some here. |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Sep 30, 2:14=A0pm, isw wrote:
snip How do you feel about hugely inefficient encoding methods which require vastly more data than is necessary for "transparent" reproduction? A lot of folks think *those* are "something to avoid when practicable". Isaac Agreed! Clearly, streaming services like Pandora will need to continue to use lossy compression for the foreseeable future since many ISP provide limited date rates and some put monthly caps on service. Many locations actually have slower internet speeds than what was available four or five years ago so there is no guarantee that things will be improving. Of particular note here is the mobile web since there is only a finite amount of spectrum available. |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Sep 30, 12:50=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"vlad" wrote in message ... On Sep 27, 7:35=3DA0am, Scott wrote: Scott is copying here an article of Steve Hoffman about comparison between master tape, acetate lacquer and digitized copy: http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...php?t=3D133328 We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping to the digital computer at the same time with the same moves. =A0 =A0Why do they need mastering moves? I guess, because final LP soun= ds different from original master tape. So they introduce distortion in a sound of master tape expecting these distortions to be compensated by specific distortions of LP. This is exactly right. In a high volume environment, tapes were produced that incorporated these compensating distortions. They were called "cutti= ng masters". Not sure what that would have to do with this situation. They weren't using a "cutting" master and Steve Hoffman explained in the article why he did the comparison with the "moves" in place. http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...ghlight=3Dmas= ter+tape "We had the master tape of the Riverside stereo LP Bill Evans Trio/ WALTZ FOR DEBBY at AcousTech and decided to do this little comparison. Since the actual master needs a bunch of "mastering" to make it sound the best, I set the title track up as if it was going to be mastered (which in a sense it was, being cut on to an acetate record).' The "moves" were the same ones he used to master the LP and SACD for Analog Productions. The "moves" were already designed to make the best sounding final product both for LP and SACD. They were not designed to obscure the differences between the fresh cut laquer and the feed from the master tape. =A0 =A0They digitized tape "with mastering moves". So I would expect th= at digital copy and LP should sound different. And what copy would have more "pleasing" sound? You guessed it - analog LP. Was the listening evaluation unbiased? It was blind and it was level matched and it was a comaprison between the feed from the master tape with the "moves" in place and the laquer that was cut with the "moves" in place. So I fail to see the issue with the "moves." Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first matching levels. Simultaneous playback of all three commenced and as Kevin switched, I listened. (We took turns switching and listening). First thing I noticed: The MASTER TAPE and the RECORD sounded the same. We couldn't tell one from the other during playback. This was of course playing back the tape on the master recorder with the mastering "moves" turned on. The acetate record was played back flat on the AcousTech lathe with the SME arm and Shure V15 through the Neumann playback preamp (as seen in so many pictures posted here of AcousTech)." I seriously doubt that an ABX of this same comparison would have failed. = The listeners wouldn't be reduced to random guessing. I'm not really sure what you are saying here Arny. This was in essence and AB/HR blind test. =A0 =A0So, their statement is that master tape "with moves" sounded identical to acetate lacquer. Why then "moves" were needed at all? The mastering moves are well-known and are required to obtain the most accurate-sounding LP. They were not needed. They were there because Hoffman felt the tape sounded better with the moves. Please see the quote and link to the original article above. The "moves" were not a factor since the signal fed to the cutting lathe and the signal used to do the comparison were the *same* signal. The "moves" are not an issue. |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:50:43 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "vlad" wrote in message ... On Sep 27, 7:35=A0am, Scott wrote: Scott is copying here an article of Steve Hoffman about comparison between master tape, acetate lacquer and digitized copy: http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...d.php?t=133328 We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping to the digital computer at the same time with the same moves. Why do they need mastering moves? I guess, because final LP sounds different from original master tape. So they introduce distortion in a sound of master tape expecting these distortions to be compensated by specific distortions of LP. This is exactly right. In a high volume environment, tapes were produced that incorporated these compensating distortions. They were called "cutting masters". They digitized tape "with mastering moves". So I would expect that digital copy and LP should sound different. And what copy would have more "pleasing" sound? You guessed it - analog LP. Was the listening evaluation unbiased? Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first matching levels. Simultaneous playback of all three commenced and as Kevin switched, I listened. (We took turns switching and listening). First thing I noticed: The MASTER TAPE and the RECORD sounded the same. We couldn't tell one from the other during playback. This was of course playing back the tape on the master recorder with the mastering "moves" turned on. The acetate record was played back flat on the AcousTech lathe with the SME arm and Shure V15 through the Neumann playback preamp (as seen in so many pictures posted here of AcousTech)." I seriously doubt that an ABX of this same comparison would have failed. The listeners wouldn't be reduced to random guessing. So, their statement is that master tape "with moves" sounded identical to acetate lacquer. Why then "moves" were needed at all? The mastering moves are well-known and are required to obtain the most accurate-sounding LP. Also, saying that the acetate lacquer sounds just like the cutting master is no great feat. Now, if he had said that the acetate lacquer sounded exactly like the RECORDING SESSION masters. now that would be saying something. BTW, with digital, that claim CAN be truthfully made all of the time from a technical standpoint. The fact that it is rarely true in commercial release practice is not due to any shortcoming or flaw in the technology. IOW, anyone can make a CD of a 44.1 KHz/16-bit master recording that would be, in any DBT, indistinguishable from that master recording. An SACD can be made from a DSD master recording that would be indistinguishable from that master, and ditto with either a 24/96KHz or 24/192 KHz DVD-A or Blu-Ray LPCM, Dolby TrueHD, or DTS-HD disc made from 24/96 KHz or 24/192 masters. |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:50:59 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "isw" wrote in message ... In article , If you can hear artifacts, you're using a poor encoder algorithm, or too low a bit rate, or both. Agreed. Finally an opinion from an informed source! Sorry, that's not my experience with MP3. Increasing the data rate merely makes it more difficult to hear the artifacts, they are still there. If one knows what one is listening for, compression artifacts can be heard on MP3's made with bit-rates as high as 320 bps - I doubt if they could be heard on speakers at that rate, but can be clearly heard on decent quality headphones. So, if this is a result of a "poor encoder algorithm", then that's what the entire industry is using - poor encoder algorithms, because these artifacts exist on every MP3 that I have ever tried to listen to on headphones. Most people don't seem to mind them, but I find them very annoying. Much, much more so than the occasional tick or pop on an LP. |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:14:40 -0700, isw wrote
(in article ): In article , Audio Empire wrote: On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 06:39:46 -0700, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote (in article ): Audio Empire wrote: On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 04:00:45 -0700, Romy the Cat wrote (in article ): What I found the most amassing in this story is that presentation was made for Audio Engineering Society and it looks like they were AMAZED!!! I think that they were amazed by the sound of the difference signal between the unaltered master and the compressed copy. It was that so much "extraneous" info was removed from the master that it was apparently possible to still tell what the music was supposed to be and who was singing it. That's a lot of loss. But that's the whole point of psychoacustic compression! Remove what psychoacustic model deems unhearable (because it's masked by the other parts of the signal, and our brain could not preceive it). Wether that psychoacustic model is right or wrong is another story, though. And that's why telling that you hear artifacts with 320bps mp3's without disclosing encoder used is pretty useless. In lossy compression world 320bps does not necessarily equal 320bps (from another encoder). rgds \SK I'm not withholding the encoder used, Other than the fact that it's the one used in Audacity, and the one used in Apple iTunes, I don't know what encoder it is. I assume that since audio that's encoded with these plays back on any MP3 player, that these encoders follow the MP3 standard (whatever that might be). To be in compliance with the standard, an encoder must (1) produce data which is in compliance with the proper syntax, and (2) not break a "reference" decoder when played through it. That's all. Note that there is nothing there about how good it sounds... Yes, that would, of course, make sense. Since I eschew MP3 as much as possible, and do not rip music using it, I haven't spent any time learning anything other than a cursory amount about the subject. Lossy compression simply doesn't interest me except as something to avoid when practicable. How do you feel about hugely inefficient encoding methods which require vastly more data than is necessary for "transparent" reproduction? A lot of folks think *those* are "something to avoid when practicable". Isaac I think that this is more a "horses for courses" question. I record in Direct Stream Digital (SACD format) and make 24-bit/192 KHz DVD-A copies of those DSD recordings for myself (the software to burn "home-brew" SACDs is not available to the "enthusiast market (the cheapest, Sonic Studios' 'SACD Creator' is $5000!). The "client" usually gets regular "Redbook" CD copies unless he asks for something better. Having said that, I don't feel, in the least, that there is any such thing as a recording method that "requires vastly more data than is necessary for 'transparent' reproduction." BTW, I have no beef with using data compression schemes such as FLAC or ALC to save bandwidth or storage space, my bugaboo is with compression schemes that throw program material away in order to reduce file size. Also not all lossy compression schemes yield the same quality results. While MP3 sounds terrible to me, I find that Sony's ATRAC, the compression scheme they came up with for Minidisc, to be much more benign than MP3. To my knowledge, I have no experience with AAC and cannot comment on that. |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Sep 30, 6:22=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:50:43 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "vlad" wrote in message ... On Sep 27, 7:35=3DA0am, Scott wrote: Scott is copying here an article of Steve Hoffman about comparison between master tape, acetate lacquer and digitized copy: http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...php?t=3D133328 We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping t= o the digital computer at the same time with the same moves. Why do they need mastering moves? I guess, because final LP sounds different from original master tape. So they introduce distortion in a sound of master tape expecting these distortions to be compensated by specific distortions of LP. This is exactly right. In a high volume environment, tapes were produce= d that incorporated these compensating distortions. They were called "cut= ting masters". They digitized tape "with mastering moves". So I would expect that digital copy and LP should sound different. And what copy would have more "pleasing" sound? You guessed it - analog LP. Was the listening evaluation unbiased? Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first matching levels. Simultaneous playback of all three commenced and as Kevin switched, I listened. (We took turns switching and listening). First thing I noticed: The MASTER TAPE and the RECORD sounded the same. We couldn't tell one from the other during playback. This was of course playing back the tape on the master recorder with the mastering "moves" turned on. The acetate record was played back flat on the AcousTech lathe with the SME arm and Shure V15 through the Neumann playback preamp (as seen in so many pictures posted here of AcousTech)." I seriously doubt that an ABX of this same comparison would have failed= .. The listeners wouldn't be reduced to random guessing. So, their statement is that master tape "with moves" sounded identical to acetate lacquer. Why then "moves" were needed at all? The mastering moves are well-known and are required to obtain the most accurate-sounding LP. Also, saying that the acetate lacquer sounds just like the cutting master= is no great feat. Now, if he had said that the acetate lacquer sounded exact= ly like the RECORDING SESSION masters. now that would be saying something. Indeed it would be, given he altered that sound. But he did have the "recording session" or original master tape. So what is it you think would make a difference if Steve Hoffman's mastering "moves" were not in play? He is not compressing the signal. He is not summing the bass to mono and he is not rolling the deep bass. So what difference would it make? BTW, with digital, that claim CAN be truthfully made all of the time from a technical standpoint. The fact that it is rarely true in commercial relea= se practice is not due to any shortcoming or flaw in the technology. Well that depends on what you mean by technology. IOW, anyone can make a CD of a 44.1 KHz/16-bit master recording that would be, in any DBT, indistinguishable from that master recording. And yet under blind conditions both Hoffman and Gray were able to detect a difference. their protocols and equipment are presented in Hoffman's original article. http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...3328&highlight... An SACD can be made from a DSD master recording that would be indistinguishable from that master, And yet they heard a difference with that as well. and ditto with either a 24/96KHz or 24/192 KHz DVD-A or Blu-Ray LPCM, Dolby TrueHD, or DTS-HD disc made from 24/96 KHz or 24/192 masters. |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:50:54 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message ... I think it is pointless to use information reduction for high end audio as long we don't have an audio system that can produce a sound which is indistinguishable from live performances. ?????????? Doesn't it seem logical that as long as we can't get accurate reproduction anyway, that when useful we use information reduction for convenience sake? You have misattributed the above quote. Audio_Empire didn't write that. |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Sep 30, 8:47=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message ... On Sep 27, 7:51=3DA0am, Dick Pierce wrote: Scott wrote: "Gross distortions?" http://www.stevehoffman.tv/... Any mention of Steve Hoffman is incomplete without =3DA0 =3DA0http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm to put his views in a somewhat more complete perspective. Very interesting argument Dick. So is it your position that the results of *blind listening tests* are invalid if the listener has ever been swayed by bias effects under *sighted* conditions? I think you've missed the point, Scott. The point I see is that Mr Hoffman's credibility as an evaluator of hardw= are is suspect to many of us because he has so clearly thrown his personal support and reputation behind what most of us find to be obviously bogus hardware. The argument goes something like this: "If he'd stake his reputation on s= ome crazy piece of hardware like that, what good is his reputation for hardwa= re evaluation?" Note that I'm not addressing Mr. Hoffman's reputation for mastering recordings. I consider mastering recordings to be a vastly different technology and art than listening room acoustics or more generally, hardw= are evaluation. Yeah that pretty much is the nice way of saying what I said. The problem is the argument fails miserably. Nothing a person reports from listening under sighted conditions in any way has any bearing on what they report under blind conditions. It's a bizzarre form of guilt by association. It doesn't matter what Steve Hoffman believes or doesn't believe. It doesn't matter what he heard somewhere else under sighted conditions. What matters are the protocols. And other than a lack of double blindness the protocols that are spelled out look to work pretty well. If one feels that both Steve Hoffman and Kevin Gray were failing to hear differences that were present then the logical thing to do would be to repete the test. This is something that could be done and probably with little trouble. RTI is still there and still using the same hardware. Rmemeber we are talking about an assertion of "gross" distortion. I think it is pretty obvious that the laquer cut at RTI by Hoffman and Gray used to compare with the master tape feed was "grossly" distorting the original signal in any audible way. I also think it is pretty obvious that the difference between the laquer and the vinyl that would come from it would introduce any other "gross" audible distortions. It's kind of sad that some would take cheap shots at Hoffman because they don't like the results of his comparison. |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:26:43 -0700, Doug McDonald wrote
(in article ): On 9/30/2010 10:28 AM, Arny Krueger wrote: This is so bad to me that it hurts my head when I read it. If you mismatch the amplitude of two signals by 1 dB, the difference signal is 10%. Yet neither signal need have any added nonlinear distortion at all. You just got the levels a bit wrong. And this is aside from the inaudible phase shift issue that I raised above. So now *the grat man* would be appear to be talking trash on two levels. Ouch! I gotta stop, this sort of gross technical ignorance in high places makes my head hurt. Hopefully a verbatim report would be more reasonable. It is exceedingly easy to match the levels to calculate distortion_plus_noise. Once can also, if one wishes, correct the phase. However, in my experience doing computerized MP3 tests, using LAME, neither is necessary. If one tells LAME to use 320 kbps, the difference between files is very small and mostly noise. If one uses 96 kbps fixed bitrate, the distortion is fairly large and not all noise. The only question is "at what bitrate does it actually become audible in double blind tests?". At 96 kbps I can hear the difference. The difference signal is substantially nonlinear distortion. Doug McDonald I agree, On speakers, I find that I can listen to 128 Kbps and above and MOSTLY not notice anything untoward (of course, the higher the bit-rate, the less I notice) but on headphones I can hear artifacts clear out to 320 Kbps, and yes it is mostly noise. That wouldn't bother me if the noise didn't "ride" the music like it does. I listen to a lot of Internet radio via my AppleTV box (the old one, not the new one) and several "stations" that I listen to regularly sound very good (as background music while I'm reading). Invariably the ones I find myself listening to are 128 Kbps or higher. Fancy that. |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:12:25 -0700, jwvm wrote
(in article ): On Sep 30, 2:26=A0pm, Doug McDonald wrote: It is exceedingly easy to match the levels to calculate distortion_plus_n= oise. What you say is very true but that is not the objective with perceptual encoding. What is sought with this class of encoders is to maximize transparency at given bit rates using human listeners as the means of evaluation. The problem with simply using mean squared error measures between the original and compressed recording is that frequencies are either removed or coarsely quantized resulting in noticeable degradation. In addition, perceptual coders use coarse quantization for components that are weakly perceived by listeners so will be unlikely to be heard which will be different from results using MSE Once can also, if one wishes, correct the phase. However, in my experienc= e doing computerized MP3 tests, using LAME, neither is necessary. If one tells LAME to use 320 kbps, the difference between files is very small and mostly noise. If one uses 96 kbps fixed bitrate, the distortion is fairly large and not all noise. The only question is "at what bitrate does it actually become audible in double blind tests?". At 96 kbps I can hear the difference. The difference signal is substantially nonlinear distortion. The residual (removed) components of compressed audio at low bit rates actually may be relatively linear since it consists of sounds that are largely masked in the original signal. At higher data rates, much more audio information is preserved and the residual components are likely to be much more nonlinear and contain significant amounts of quantization errors. You do indeed ask the 64,000,000 dollar question here. Clearly the vast majority of listeners outside of this newsgroup have little problem with lossy compression given sufficiently high data rates. Published results from properly conducted trials available on the web indicate that AAC compression at 128 kbps is close to or completely transparent in most cases. Obviously, this is heresy to some here. What you are overlooking, Mr. Kruger, is that most people are very unsophisticated listeners. This is not an attempt by me to in any way belittle anyone, it's just fact (and always has been) that the average person who listens to music doesn't care that much about sound quality. Simply being able to hear the music they like is usually good enough for most. This can be easily seen. Very few CD or MP3 buyers have fancy stereo systems. Most listen on iPod -like devices or bedside CD players or perhaps a set of computer speakers or even a so-called boom-box (I believe that I read somewhere that a recent study showed that most people do the majority of their music listening in their CARS on the way to and from work - 'nuff said). The fact that these devices don't sound very good is of little consequence to these music buyers. They can hear the tunes they like and that's enough. Therefore it is not at all surprising or unusual for these same people have little problem with lossy compression systems. As long as the music isn't grossly distorted, the vast majority of listeners will be fine with any format that comes down the pike. OTOH, people who would have the interest to post on a NG like this one, would, ostensibly, be more inclined to be serious about the quality of their audio. Luckily, there is room in the world for both types. I have nothing against others embracing lossy compression schemes. If that's all they need to satisfy their listening "jones", so be it. As long as I still have the CHOICE to eschew such formats, I could care less. What I am a little afraid of, though, is that at some point, the recording industry is going to decide that since most people are fine with low bit-rate lossy compression schemes, that's really all the record industry needs to produce. That would be sad. |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:59:35 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ): On Sep 30, 6:22=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote: On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:50:43 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "vlad" wrote in message ... On Sep 27, 7:35=3DA0am, Scott wrote: Scott is copying here an article of Steve Hoffman about comparison between master tape, acetate lacquer and digitized copy: http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...php?t=3D133328 We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping t= o the digital computer at the same time with the same moves. Why do they need mastering moves? I guess, because final LP sounds different from original master tape. So they introduce distortion in a sound of master tape expecting these distortions to be compensated by specific distortions of LP. This is exactly right. In a high volume environment, tapes were produce= d that incorporated these compensating distortions. They were called "cut= ting masters". They digitized tape "with mastering moves". So I would expect that digital copy and LP should sound different. And what copy would have more "pleasing" sound? You guessed it - analog LP. Was the listening evaluation unbiased? Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first matching levels. Simultaneous playback of all three commenced and as Kevin switched, I listened. (We took turns switching and listening). First thing I noticed: The MASTER TAPE and the RECORD sounded the same. We couldn't tell one from the other during playback. This was of course playing back the tape on the master recorder with the mastering "moves" turned on. The acetate record was played back flat on the AcousTech lathe with the SME arm and Shure V15 through the Neumann playback preamp (as seen in so many pictures posted here of AcousTech)." I seriously doubt that an ABX of this same comparison would have failed= . The listeners wouldn't be reduced to random guessing. So, their statement is that master tape "with moves" sounded identical to acetate lacquer. Why then "moves" were needed at all? The mastering moves are well-known and are required to obtain the most accurate-sounding LP. Also, saying that the acetate lacquer sounds just like the cutting master= is no great feat. Now, if he had said that the acetate lacquer sounded exact= ly like the RECORDING SESSION masters. now that would be saying something. Indeed it would be, given he altered that sound. But he did have the "recording session" or original master tape. So what is it you think would make a difference if Steve Hoffman's mastering "moves" were not in play? He is not compressing the signal. He is not summing the bass to mono and he is not rolling the deep bass. So what difference would it make? Not sure I understand where you are going with this, but just off the top of my head, there would be a number differences, not the least of which would be generational degradation from the original master tape (assuming that more than just the original recording master is analog). When I worked for Century Records. "mastering moves" were different for different master tapes. In those days, we did sum all the bass to the left channel to make the discs "mono compatible", but it wouldn't surprise me to find that some compression was used or that some EQ (other than RIAA) was applied. BTW, with digital, that claim CAN be truthfully made all of the time from a technical standpoint. The fact that it is rarely true in commercial relea= se practice is not due to any shortcoming or flaw in the technology. Well that depends on what you mean by technology. Not at all. What it means is exactly what I described. An unaltered transfer from digital recording master to consumer medium (CD, DVD-A, SACD, Blu-Ray high-res download) can be identical to the master in every way. The key phrase here is "unaltered". It's rarely done. IOW, anyone can make a CD of a 44.1 KHz/16-bit master recording that would be, in any DBT, indistinguishable from that master recording. And yet under blind conditions both Hoffman and Gray were able to detect a difference. their protocols and equipment are presented in Hoffman's original article. http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...3328&highlight... Well, all I can say is that they have introduced another step, The original Bill Evans master was two-channel (or perhaps three channel) analog stereo. They had to quantize the analog master to make a CD of it. Now an original digital master straight from microphones, and a CD made from that master should be identical UNLESS somebody fiddled with the sound between the actual performance capture and the mastering of the CD. An SACD can be made from a DSD master recording that would be indistinguishable from that master, And yet they heard a difference with that as well. See above. But given what record companies routinely do with performance capture masters, I have no doubt that they heard a difference. I recently bought a new Chandos CD of a recent performance of Vaughn Williams score for the 1940 British film "The 49th Parallel". The CD cover has the words "recorded in 24-bit/96 KHz" emblazoned across it. It should sound very good. It doesn't. Reason? Some mix engineer thought that he could "improve" it. How do I know this? Because no modern recording company could possibly employ microphones and mixers and recording devices that sound this bad. The recording has no deep bass, the highs sound restricted and grainy, and the recording has little dynamic range and actually sounds thick vieled. Whoever did this should be banned from the industry. But this is the norm rather than the exception in the recording industry. That's why I got back into recording after a hiatus of many years. I have said this before and will say it again. I can routinely make better sounding recordings than 80% of the commercial product on the market and do so with a very modest complement of modern equipment. If I can do it on a shoestring, then the fact that the industry can't (or rather doesn't) even come close must be on purpose. |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
In article ,
Audio Empire wrote: On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:14:40 -0700, isw wrote (in article ): In article , Audio Empire wrote: On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 06:39:46 -0700, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote (in article ): Audio Empire wrote: On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 04:00:45 -0700, Romy the Cat wrote (in article ): What I found the most amassing in this story is that presentation was made for Audio Engineering Society and it looks like they were AMAZED!!! I think that they were amazed by the sound of the difference signal between the unaltered master and the compressed copy. It was that so much "extraneous" info was removed from the master that it was apparently possible to still tell what the music was supposed to be and who was singing it. That's a lot of loss. But that's the whole point of psychoacustic compression! Remove what psychoacustic model deems unhearable (because it's masked by the other parts of the signal, and our brain could not preceive it). Wether that psychoacustic model is right or wrong is another story, though. And that's why telling that you hear artifacts with 320bps mp3's without disclosing encoder used is pretty useless. In lossy compression world 320bps does not necessarily equal 320bps (from another encoder). rgds \SK I'm not withholding the encoder used, Other than the fact that it's the one used in Audacity, and the one used in Apple iTunes, I don't know what encoder it is. I assume that since audio that's encoded with these plays back on any MP3 player, that these encoders follow the MP3 standard (whatever that might be). To be in compliance with the standard, an encoder must (1) produce data which is in compliance with the proper syntax, and (2) not break a "reference" decoder when played through it. That's all. Note that there is nothing there about how good it sounds... Yes, that would, of course, make sense. Since I eschew MP3 as much as possible, and do not rip music using it, I haven't spent any time learning anything other than a cursory amount about the subject. Lossy compression simply doesn't interest me except as something to avoid when practicable. How do you feel about hugely inefficient encoding methods which require vastly more data than is necessary for "transparent" reproduction? A lot of folks think *those* are "something to avoid when practicable". Isaac I think that this is more a "horses for courses" question. I record in Direct Stream Digital (SACD format) and make 24-bit/192 KHz DVD-A copies of those DSD recordings for myself (the software to burn "home-brew" SACDs is not available to the "enthusiast market (the cheapest, Sonic Studios' 'SACD Creator' is $5000!). The "client" usually gets regular "Redbook" CD copies unless he asks for something better. Having said that, I don't feel, in the least, that there is any such thing as a recording method that "requires vastly more data than is necessary for 'transparent' reproduction." I think a lot of folks would say that you described just such a method above. Isaac |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
... On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:50:54 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message ... I think it is pointless to use information reduction for high end audio as long we don't have an audio system that can produce a sound which is indistinguishable from live performances. ?????????? Doesn't it seem logical that as long as we can't get accurate reproduction anyway, that when useful we use information reduction for convenience sake? You have misattributed the above quote. Audio_Empire didn't write that. My apologies. You are right about this error of mine and of course I was wrong. The author was "Edmund". |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
... On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:50:59 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "isw" wrote in message ... In article , If you can hear artifacts, you're using a poor encoder algorithm, or too low a bit rate, or both. Agreed. Finally an opinion from an informed source! Sorry, that's not my experience with MP3. Please get back when you have some experiences with DBTs done to the standards that encoder designers and many of the more savvy consumers use. You can find out more about the practices and experiencs of these people on the Hydrogen Audio forum, where you may also contribute. |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
"Scott" wrote in message
... On Sep 30, 8:47=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Scott" wrote in message ... On Sep 27, 7:51=3DA0am, Dick Pierce wrote: Scott wrote: "Gross distortions?" http://www.stevehoffman.tv/... Any mention of Steve Hoffman is incomplete without =3DA0 =3DA0http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm to put his views in a somewhat more complete perspective. Very interesting argument Dick. So is it your position that the results of *blind listening tests* are invalid if the listener has ever been swayed by bias effects under *sighted* conditions? I think you've missed the point, Scott. The point I see is that Mr Hoffman's credibility as an evaluator of hardw= are is suspect to many of us because he has so clearly thrown his personal support and reputation behind what most of us find to be obviously bogus hardware. The argument goes something like this: "If he'd stake his reputation on s= ome crazy piece of hardware like that, what good is his reputation for hardwa= re evaluation?" Note that I'm not addressing Mr. Hoffman's reputation for mastering recordings. I consider mastering recordings to be a vastly different technology and art than listening room acoustics or more generally, hardw= are evaluation. Yeah that pretty much is the nice way of saying what I said. The problem is the argument fails miserably. If that argument truely fails then life as we know it should totally collapse instantly. Most of what we know about the reliability of information sources is based on their past history, IOW their reputation. Nothing a person reports from listening under sighted conditions in any way has any bearing on what they report under blind conditions. This is of course totally false. As long as the audible effect can be reliably demonstrated to be generally non-subtle, there's no need for blind tests to prove yet again that it is generally non-subtle. For example, mastering involves changes to levels and spectral balance that are widely known and easily demonstrable to be reliably audible, at least for reasonably well-trained listeners. That's the whole purpose of mastering - to introduce audible changes. I would liken mastering to the art of furniture making. Most casual observers will perceive something to be flat and square when in fact it contains easily measurable deviations that true craftman with his skilled eye would notice and dismiss as being characteristic of mediocre work. Skilled workers know that if something appears to the casual observer to be flat and square by eye, then that means that with careful observation it will appear to be non-flat and non-square. Therefore skilled workers craft their work to a higher standard that includes safety margins so that those things which need to be flat and square will always be seen as being such. The problem here is that many non-technical people seem to be unable to know, based on experience, perceptions, measurements and calculations, which differences are subtle and which are non-subtle. |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
|
#60
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Oct 1, 4:52=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:59:35 -0700, Scott wrote (in article ): Indeed it would be, given he altered that sound. But he did have the "recording session" or original master tape. So what is it you think would make a difference if Steve Hoffman's mastering "moves" were not in play? He is not compressing the signal. He is not summing the bass to mono and he is not rolling the deep bass. So what difference would it make? Not sure I understand where you are going with this, but just off the top= of my head, there would be a number differences, not the least of which woul= d be generational degradation from the original master tape (assuming that mor= e than just the original recording master is analog). I would disagree. IME when Hoffman makes mastering "moves" the result is improved sound. he is very respectful of what is on a master tape and has no problem making no changes if what is on the tape is ideal. Where I am going with this is that i don't see how the "moves" would affect the comparison. When I worked for Century Records. "mastering moves" were different for different master tapes. In those days, we did sum all the bass to the left channel to make the discs "mono compatible", but it wouldn't surprise me to find that some compress= ion was used or that some EQ (other than RIAA) was applied. But we are not talking about what happened at Century we are talking about the "moves" Steve Hoffman made with this particular tape. He did not use compression. he did not sum the bass to mono. Well that depends on what you mean by technology. Not at all. Oh yes absolutely. My old 14 bit CD player was and still is if it exists and is working somewhere, "technology." It is not transparent. What it means is exactly what I described. An unaltered transfer from digital recording master to consumer medium (CD, DVD-A, SACD, Blu-Ra= y high-res download) can be identical to the master in every way. =A0The ke= y phrase here is "unaltered". It's rarely done. =A0 That isn't technology that is a description of the ideal process. The "technology" is the stuff used to actually do it. And as you have pointed out that rarely gives us the ideal. In the case of the Hoffman/ Gray comparisons the results suggest that the transfer was not completely transparent. The equipment used is listed in the original article and at RTI's website. So if anyone feels the equipment was wanting feel free to check it out and tell us what was wrong with the gear. And yet under blind conditions both Hoffman and Gray were able to detect a difference. their protocols and equipment are presented in Hoffman's original article. http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...3328&highligh= t... Well, all I can say is that they have introduced another step, The origin= al Bill Evans master was two-channel (or perhaps three channel) analog stere= o. They had to quantize the analog master to make a CD of it. Yes of course. How else does one make a commercial CD? Now an original digital master straight from microphones, and a CD made from that master should be identical UNLESS somebody fiddled with the sound between the ac= tual performance capture and the mastering of the CD. =A0 Well, we are not talking about that and that will never ever happen with a Bill Evans recording. So not much point in talking about something so irrelevant to the comparisons I posted. But given what record companies routinely do with performance capture masters, I have no doubt that they heard a difference. I recently bought = a new Chandos CD of a recent performance of Vaughn Williams score for the 1= 940 British film "The 49th Parallel". The CD cover has the words "recorded in 24-bit/96 KHz" emblazoned across it. It should sound very good. It doesn'= t. |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Oct 1, 8:02=A0am, "C. Leeds" wrote:
On 10/1/2010 7:07 AM, Scott wrote (in nothing a person reports from listening under sighted conditions in any way has any bearing on what they report under blind conditions. It's a bizzarre form of guilt by association. That's absurd. It strains credibility to suggest that result of every sighted test, by any listener, under all conditions, of any combination of equipment, is inherently and always unrelated to the result obtained under blind conditions. It's one thing to suggest that you don't accept the result of any sighted test. But because some sighted listening test results can be validated under blind conditions, your claim is simply mistaken. The arguement you make is a classic logical fallacy of confusing association with causation. Here is a simple question. If you really believe that previous experiences under sighted conditions will affect the results of completely new listening tests under blind conditions please explain how. We need causation here. More specifically how would Steve Hoffman's previous experiences with a device claimed to affect the room acoustics under sighted conditions affect his percpetions when comparing a fresh cut laquer to a feed from the master tape that was used to cut that same laquer under blind conditions? |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Oct 1, 7:10=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message ... On Sep 30, 8:47=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Scott" wrote in message ... On Sep 27, 7:51=3D3DA0am, Dick Pierce wrote: Scott wrote: "Gross distortions?" http://www.stevehoffman.tv/... Any mention of Steve Hoffman is incomplete without =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm to put his views in a somewhat more complete perspective. Very interesting argument Dick. So is it your position that the results of *blind listening tests* are invalid if the listener has ever been swayed by bias effects under *sighted* conditions? I think you've missed the point, Scott. The point I see is that Mr Hoffman's credibility as an evaluator of hardw=3D are is suspect to many of us because he has so clearly thrown his personal support and reputation behind what most of us find to be obviously bog= us hardware. The argument goes something like this: "If he'd stake his reputation o= n s=3D ome crazy piece of hardware like that, what good is his reputation for hardwa=3D re evaluation?" Note that I'm not addressing Mr. Hoffman's reputation for mastering recordings. I consider mastering recordings to be a vastly different technology and art than listening room acoustics or more generally, hardw=3D are evaluation. Yeah that pretty much is the nice way of saying what I said. The problem is the argument fails miserably. If that argument truely fails then life as we know it should totally collapse instantly. Most of what we know about the reliability of information sources is based on their past history, IOW their reputation. As you so aptly pointed out we all have different levels of "reliability." As a listener under blind conditions Steve Hoffman's abilities are not in any way dependent on his beliefs about any room treatment. do you disagree? That is why the argument fails Nothing a person reports from listening under sighted conditions in any way has any bearing on what they report under blind conditions. This is of course totally false. No Arny it is totally true. It is absurd to think that prejudices from previous sighted listening experiences will affect the results of blind listening tests. As long as the audible effect can be reliably demonstrated to be generally non-subtle, there's no need for bli= nd tests to prove yet again that it is generally non-subtle. You can use this argument when you have demonstrated that is the case with the feresh cut laquer from RTI played back on their lathe. Since the equipment is still there you can always repete the test. Dismissing the test simply because you don't like the conclusion is hardly "scientific" or "objective." If you think the results were eroneous prove it buy repeting the test and getting a positive result. Anything else is just hand waving. For example, mastering involves changes to levels and spectral balance th= at are widely known and easily demonstrable to be reliably audible, at least for reasonably well-trained listeners. =A0That's the whole purpose of mastering - to introduce audible changes. Irrelevant to this case since the mastering moves were implimented on both the laquer and the feed from the master tape to which it was compared. I would liken mastering to the art of furniture making. Most casual observers will perceive something to be flat and square when in fact it contains easily measurable deviations that true craftman with his skilled eye would notice and dismiss as being characteristic of mediocre work. Skilled workers know that if something appears to the casual observer to = be flat and square by eye, then that means that with careful observation it will appear to be non-flat and non-square. Therefore skilled workers craf= t their work to a higher standard that includes safety margins so that thos= e things which need to be flat and square will always be seen as being such= |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 07:10:23 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Scott" wrote in message ... On Sep 30, 8:47=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Scott" wrote in message ... On Sep 27, 7:51=3DA0am, Dick Pierce wrote: Scott wrote: "Gross distortions?" http://www.stevehoffman.tv/... Any mention of Steve Hoffman is incomplete without =3DA0 =3DA0http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm to put his views in a somewhat more complete perspective. Very interesting argument Dick. So is it your position that the results of *blind listening tests* are invalid if the listener has ever been swayed by bias effects under *sighted* conditions? I think you've missed the point, Scott. The point I see is that Mr Hoffman's credibility as an evaluator of hardw= are is suspect to many of us because he has so clearly thrown his personal support and reputation behind what most of us find to be obviously bogus hardware. The argument goes something like this: "If he'd stake his reputation on s= ome crazy piece of hardware like that, what good is his reputation for hardwa= re evaluation?" Note that I'm not addressing Mr. Hoffman's reputation for mastering recordings. I consider mastering recordings to be a vastly different technology and art than listening room acoustics or more generally, hardw= are evaluation. Yeah that pretty much is the nice way of saying what I said. The problem is the argument fails miserably. If that argument truely fails then life as we know it should totally collapse instantly. Most of what we know about the reliability of information sources is based on their past history, IOW their reputation. Nothing a person reports from listening under sighted conditions in any way has any bearing on what they report under blind conditions. This is of course totally false. As long as the audible effect can be reliably demonstrated to be generally non-subtle, there's no need for blind tests to prove yet again that it is generally non-subtle. For example, mastering involves changes to levels and spectral balance that are widely known and easily demonstrable to be reliably audible, at least for reasonably well-trained listeners. That's the whole purpose of mastering - to introduce audible changes. That's interesting. And here I always thought that the purpose of mastering was to transfer a "master tape" into another format which can be easily and economically distributed to customers via mass production. I would liken mastering to the art of furniture making. Most casual observers will perceive something to be flat and square when in fact it contains easily measurable deviations that true craftman with his skilled eye would notice and dismiss as being characteristic of mediocre work. Skilled workers know that if something appears to the casual observer to be flat and square by eye, then that means that with careful observation it will appear to be non-flat and non-square. Therefore skilled workers craft their work to a higher standard that includes safety margins so that those things which need to be flat and square will always be seen as being such. ???? |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
"Scott" wrote in message
On Oct 1, 7:10=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: If that argument truely fails then life as we know it should totally collapse instantly. Most of what we know about the reliability of information sources is based on their past history, IOW their reputation. As you so aptly pointed out we all have different levels of "reliability." Furthermore our reliability varies depending on circumstance. For example much of the so-called evidence that circulates in audio's high end is basically eyewitness accounts. It is well known in law enforcment that eyewitness accounts are the most unreliable kind of evidence. As a listener under blind conditions Steve Hoffman's abilities are not in any way dependent on his beliefs about any room treatment. do you disagree? Since "Blind test" is generally used by you Scott to mean single blind evaluation, and since single blind evaluations are just defective DBTs, I don't need to comment further. That is why the argument fails Once again Scott your statements demonstrate how to combine inscrutable logic with made up facts, misunderstandings and other highly unreliable so-called evidence to reach dubious conclusions. Nothing a person reports from listening under sighted conditions in any way has any bearing on what they report under blind conditions. This is of course totally false. No Arny it is totally true. It is absurd to think that prejudices from previous sighted listening experiences will affect the results of blind listening tests. Please see my former comments about your seemingly habitual abuse of the phrase "blind test", and why that eliminates any need for me to comment further. As long as the audible effect can be reliably demonstrated to be generally non-subtle, there's no need for bli nd tests to prove yet again that it is generally non-subtle. You can use this argument when you have demonstrated that is the case with the feresh cut laquer from RTI played back on their lathe. I can use this argument today and wait for you to refute it for the first time, Scott. Since the equipment is still there you can always repete the test. Dismissing the test simply because you don't like the conclusion is hardly "scientific" or "objective." If you think the results were eroneous prove it buy repeting the test and getting a positive result. Anything else is just hand waving. I feel no need to refute purported tests that fail to meet basic standards for good subjective testing. For example, mastering involves changes to levels and spectral balance th= at are widely known and easily demonstrable to be reliably audible, at least for reasonably well-trained listeners. =A0That's the whole purpose of mastering - to introduce audible changes. Irrelevant to this case since the mastering moves were implimented on both the laquer and the feed from the master tape to which it was compared. I don't see any evidence to support this contention. We've got a clear case Scott where the document you cited does not support your claim(s). |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 06:56:55 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message ... On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:50:59 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "isw" wrote in message ... In article , If you can hear artifacts, you're using a poor encoder algorithm, or too low a bit rate, or both. Agreed. Finally an opinion from an informed source! Sorry, that's not my experience with MP3. Please get back when you have some experiences with DBTs done to the standards that encoder designers and many of the more savvy consumers use. You can find out more about the practices and experiencs of these people on the Hydrogen Audio forum, where you may also contribute. No need. I can hear the artifacts. They are there and NOT subtle. When I play the original non-compressed version, those same artifacts are NOT present. To make an analogy, do you have to have a DBT to tell you that a phonograph record has ticks, pops and "vinyl rush" that are not present on the master tape? Of course not. |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 06:56:01 -0700, isw wrote
(in article ): In article , Audio Empire wrote: On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:14:40 -0700, isw wrote (in article ): In article , Audio Empire wrote: On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 06:39:46 -0700, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote (in article ): Audio Empire wrote: On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 04:00:45 -0700, Romy the Cat wrote (in article ): What I found the most amassing in this story is that presentation was made for Audio Engineering Society and it looks like they were AMAZED!!! I think that they were amazed by the sound of the difference signal between the unaltered master and the compressed copy. It was that so much "extraneous" info was removed from the master that it was apparently possible to still tell what the music was supposed to be and who was singing it. That's a lot of loss. But that's the whole point of psychoacustic compression! Remove what psychoacustic model deems unhearable (because it's masked by the other parts of the signal, and our brain could not preceive it). Wether that psychoacustic model is right or wrong is another story, though. And that's why telling that you hear artifacts with 320bps mp3's without disclosing encoder used is pretty useless. In lossy compression world 320bps does not necessarily equal 320bps (from another encoder). rgds \SK I'm not withholding the encoder used, Other than the fact that it's the one used in Audacity, and the one used in Apple iTunes, I don't know what encoder it is. I assume that since audio that's encoded with these plays back on any MP3 player, that these encoders follow the MP3 standard (whatever that might be). To be in compliance with the standard, an encoder must (1) produce data which is in compliance with the proper syntax, and (2) not break a "reference" decoder when played through it. That's all. Note that there is nothing there about how good it sounds... Yes, that would, of course, make sense. Since I eschew MP3 as much as possible, and do not rip music using it, I haven't spent any time learning anything other than a cursory amount about the subject. Lossy compression simply doesn't interest me except as something to avoid when practicable. How do you feel about hugely inefficient encoding methods which require vastly more data than is necessary for "transparent" reproduction? A lot of folks think *those* are "something to avoid when practicable". Isaac I think that this is more a "horses for courses" question. I record in Direct Stream Digital (SACD format) and make 24-bit/192 KHz DVD-A copies of those DSD recordings for myself (the software to burn "home-brew" SACDs is not available to the "enthusiast market (the cheapest, Sonic Studios' 'SACD Creator' is $5000!). The "client" usually gets regular "Redbook" CD copies unless he asks for something better. Having said that, I don't feel, in the least, that there is any such thing as a recording method that "requires vastly more data than is necessary for 'transparent' reproduction." I think a lot of folks would say that you described just such a method above. No, I described a high-resolution recording method that produces superior results to CD - quality recording methods. That a "lot of folks" can't hear the difference, or, don't think the improvement worth the extra trouble, is not my problem. |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Oct 1, 11:34=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message On Oct 1, 7:10=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: If that argument truely fails then life as we know it should totally collapse instantly. Most of what we know about the reliability of information sources is based on their past history, IOW their reputation. As you so aptly pointed out we all have different levels of "reliability." Furthermore our reliability varies depending on circumstance. For example much of the so-called evidence that circulates in audio's high end is basically eyewitness accounts. It is well known in law enforcment that eyewitness accounts are the most unreliable kind of evidence. As a listener under blind conditions Steve Hoffman's abilities are not in any way dependent on his beliefs about any room treatment. do you disagree? Since "Blind test" is generally used by you Scott to mean single blind evaluation, and since single blind evaluations are just defective DBTs, I don't need to comment further. I suppose you need not. That is plainly incorrect. they are simply single blind tests. While they are not *as* reliable as DBTs and for that matter DBT are not as reliable as triple blind tests. and no blind test is perfectly reliable or unreliable. But maybe if you care to discuss it further you can explain how single blindedness would give us a false negative? |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Oct 1, 12:25=A0pm, Dick Pierce wrote:
Scott wrote: It's a bizzarre form of guilt by association. And, once again, that would be YOUR association. No. It belongs to the person who made the association. That was not me. It doesn't matter what Steve Hoffman believes or doesn't believe. It doesn't matter what he heard somewhere else under sighted conditions. What matters are the protocols. And other than a lack of double blindness the protocols that are spelled out look to work pretty well. No, they are not. They are not what? A description of the blinding process, the number of trials, the results of the trials and a whole raft of information about the protocols is simply not in his description. That is true it was a pretty informal description of what took place. But that is not the same as poor protocols. In fact, the word "blind" or "db" (as in double-blind) isn't even to be found in his post. (http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...hp?t=3D133328= ) That is odd. But if you check the thread you will find in post #94 Hoffman confirms that it was a blind comparison. "These were Blind as I mentioned in my first post. Kevin did the knobs and then I did..." http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...33328&page=3D5 But some subset of the poseters are assuming it was a blind test, and a subset of that is assuming that it is a valid blind test. Where's the actual data to support that? No not an assumption. It is stated in the thread that it is blind. as for it's validity...that seems to depend on a persons prejudices more than anything else. The article was posted by me in response to the assertion that vinyl "gorssly" distorts the sound we hear. I think it highly unlikely that the inherent distortions are so gross that Steve Hoffman and Kevin Gray would fail to hear any differences between the fresh cut laquer and the feed from the master tape. Nothing more nothing less. IMO we have learned more about how people react to undesirable results than anything else from this thread. |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
In article ,
Audio Empire wrote: On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 06:56:01 -0700, isw wrote (in article ): In article , Audio Empire wrote: On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:14:40 -0700, isw wrote (in article ): [ excess quotation snipped -- dsr ] How do you feel about hugely inefficient encoding methods which require vastly more data than is necessary for "transparent" reproduction? A lot of folks think *those* are "something to avoid when practicable". Isaac I think that this is more a "horses for courses" question. I record in Direct Stream Digital (SACD format) and make 24-bit/192 KHz DVD-A copies of those DSD recordings for myself (the software to burn "home-brew" SACDs is not available to the "enthusiast market (the cheapest, Sonic Studios' 'SACD Creator' is $5000!). The "client" usually gets regular "Redbook" CD copies unless he asks for something better. Having said that, I don't feel, in the least, that there is any such thing as a recording method that "requires vastly more data than is necessary for 'transparent' reproduction." I think a lot of folks would say that you described just such a method above. No, I described a high-resolution recording method that produces superior results to CD - quality recording methods. That a "lot of folks" can't hear the difference, or, don't think the improvement worth the extra trouble, is not my problem. My point (evidently lost) was that you are, undoubtedly, dealing with considerably more data than necessary. Or to put it another way, it is undoubtedly the case that some of the data you've recorded could be removed without your being able to detect that it had been. Isaac |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On 10/1/2010 11:32 AM, Scott wrote:
nothing a person reports from listening under sighted conditions in any way has any bearing on what they report under blind conditions. It's a bizzarre form of guilt by association. I answered (in full): That's absurd. It strains credibility to suggest that result of every sighted test, by any listener, under all conditions, of any combination of equipment, is inherently and always unrelated to the result obtained under blind conditions. It's one thing to suggest that you don't accept the result of any sighted test. But because some sighted listening test results can be validated under blind conditions, your claim is simply mistaken. Scott now says: The arguement you make is a classic logical fallacy of confusing association with causation. Here is a simple question. If you really believe that previous experiences under sighted conditions will affect the results of completely new listening tests under blind conditions please explain how... Don't be silly. I never expressed that "belief." Neither has anyone else in this group who disputes your original claim. |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 19:11:01 -0700, isw wrote
(in article ): In article , Audio Empire wrote: On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 06:56:01 -0700, isw wrote (in article ): In article , Audio Empire wrote: On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:14:40 -0700, isw wrote (in article ): [ excess quotation snipped -- dsr ] How do you feel about hugely inefficient encoding methods which require vastly more data than is necessary for "transparent" reproduction? A lot of folks think *those* are "something to avoid when practicable". Isaac I think that this is more a "horses for courses" question. I record in Direct Stream Digital (SACD format) and make 24-bit/192 KHz DVD-A copies of those DSD recordings for myself (the software to burn "home-brew" SACDs is not available to the "enthusiast market (the cheapest, Sonic Studios' 'SACD Creator' is $5000!). The "client" usually gets regular "Redbook" CD copies unless he asks for something better. Having said that, I don't feel, in the least, that there is any such thing as a recording method that "requires vastly more data than is necessary for 'transparent' reproduction." I think a lot of folks would say that you described just such a method above. No, I described a high-resolution recording method that produces superior results to CD - quality recording methods. That a "lot of folks" can't hear the difference, or, don't think the improvement worth the extra trouble, is not my problem. My point (evidently lost) was that you are, undoubtedly, dealing with considerably more data than necessary. Or to put it another way, it is undoubtedly the case that some of the data you've recorded could be removed without your being able to detect that it had been. Isaac If you are trying to say that shorter word length (say, 20 or 16-bit instead of 24-bit) and lower sampling rates (say, 96, 88.2, 48, or 44.1 KHz) will yield sound indistinguishable from 24-bit/192 Khz, you are incorrect. high-res audio sounds much more alive, with much better localization cues, more "air" around the instruments, and much better low-level detail and ambience than is possible with 16/44.1 or 48 Khz. Granted, normal CD resolution is very good, but the higher bit-rates and longer word lengths are much better yet. They gild the lily in such a way as to make the argument of analog vs digital sound completely moot and will disarm the digital skeptics completely. |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 07:10:23 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): This is of course totally false. As long as the audible effect can be reliably demonstrated to be generally non-subtle, there's no need for blind tests to prove yet again that it is generally non-subtle. For example, mastering involves changes to levels and spectral balance that are widely known and easily demonstrable to be reliably audible, at least for reasonably well-trained listeners. That's the whole purpose of mastering - to introduce audible changes. That's interesting. And here I always thought that the purpose of mastering was to transfer a "master tape" into another format which can be easily and economically distributed to customers via mass production. That's the purpose, but that is not a detailed description of what the process we know as mastering involves. Here's an independent description of some of the details of mastering from an independent source: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/AudioFAQ/pro-audio-faq/ Q6.3 - What is mastering? " Mastering is a multifaceted term that is often misunderstood. Back in the days of vinyl records, mastering involved the actual cutting of the master that would be used for pressing. This often involved a variety of sonic adjustments so that the mixed tape would ultimately be properly rendered on vinyl. The age of the CD has changed the meaning of the term quite a bit. There are now two elements often called mastering. The first is the eminently straightforward process of preparing a master for pressing. As most mixdowns now occur on DAT, this often involves the relatively simple tasks of generating the PQ subcode necessary for CD replication. PQ subcode is the data stream that contains information such as the number of tracks on a disc, the location of the start points of each track, the clock display information, and the like. This information is created during mastering and prepared as a PQ data burst which the pressing plant uses to make the glass pressing master. Mastering's more common meaning, however, is the art of making a recording sound "commercial." Is is the last chance one has to get the recording sounding the way it ought to. Tasks often done in mastering include: adjustment of time between pieces, quality of fade-in/out, relation of levels between tracks (such that the listener doesn't have to go swinging the volume control all over the place), program EQ to achieve a desired consistency, compression to make one's disc sound LOUDER than others on the market, the list goes on. A good mastering engineer can often take a poorly-produced recording and make it suitable for the market. A bad one can make a good recording sound terrible. Some recordings are so well produced, mixed, and edited that all they need is to be given PQ subcode and sent right out. Other recordings are made by people on ego trips, who think they know everything about recording, and who make recordings that are, technically speaking, wretched trash. Good mastering professionals are acquainted with many styles of music, and know what it is that their clients hope to achieve. They then use their tools either lightly or severely to accomplish all the multiple steps involved in preparing a disc for pressing. [Gabe] " Particularly: "Mastering's more common meaning, however, is the art of making a recording sound "commercial." Is is the last chance one has to get the recording sounding the way it ought to. Tasks often done in mastering include: ... ....(adjustment of the) relation of levels between tracks... ....(adjustment of) program EQ to achieve a desired consistency.. IOW: ....mastering involves changes to levels and spectral balance... "Program Eq" and "changes to spectral balance" are two ways to describe the identical same processing. |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Oct 2, 7:28=A0am, "C. Leeds" wrote:
On 10/1/2010 11:32 AM, Scott wrote: nothing a person reports from listening under sighted conditions in any way has any bearing on what they report under blind conditions. It's a bizzarre form of guilt by association. I answered (in full): That's absurd. It strains credibility to suggest that result of every sighted test, by any listener, under all conditions, of any combinatio= n of equipment, is inherently and always unrelated to the result obtaine= d under blind conditions. It's one thing to suggest that you don't accept the result of any sighted test. But because some sighted listening test results can be validated under blind conditions, your claim is simply mistaken. Scott now says: The arguement you make is a classic logical fallacy of confusing association with causation. Here is a simple question. If you really believe that previous experiences under sighted conditions will affect the results of completely new listening tests under blind conditions please explain how... Don't be silly. I never expressed that "belief." Neither has anyone else in this group who disputes your original claim. I said 1, "nothing a person reports from listening under sighted conditions in any way has any bearing on what they report under blind conditions." That means previous experiences under sighted conditions will not give direction to or affect the results of new tests under blind conditions. Nothing more nothing less. That is all *I* (the author) meant. which you say is "absurd." If you think that is absurd then you must by logical deduction "believe that previous experiences under sighted conditions will affect or give direction to the results of completely new listening tests under blind conditions." To which you say you never "expressed that 'belief'" .. Do you or do you not think that Steve Hoffman's results of his blind comparisons were affected by his previous experiences with room acoustic treatments of a subious nature under sighted conditions? I am saying they were not. Nothing more nothing less. |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
If you are trying to say that shorter word length (say, 20 or 16-bit instead of 24-bit) and lower sampling rates (say, 96, 88.2, 48, or 44.1 KHz) will yield sound indistinguishable from 24-bit/192 Khz, you are incorrect. This is a clear case of someone trying to establish their opinon by fiat as being the only valid opinion, in the face of a world of evidence that is seemingly far more compelling than the limited and questionable data which he himself has presented. Just to repeat the obvious, there is considerable evidence, gathered under highly controlled circumstances by a large number of independent qualified and amateur observers that says that shorter word length (say, 20 or 16-bit instead of 24-bit) and lower sampling rates (say, 96, 88.2, 48, or 44.1 KHz) will yield sound indistinguishable from 24-bit/192 Khz. Understanding this puts you are in total agreement with the best information that is currently available, both theoretical and real-world. Reliable and up-to-date knowlege of the real world performance of recording setups and psychoacoutics, predicts this result. IOW, if you know how listeners perform and you know what kind of results you obtain when you actually record acoustic music, the above real-world results are no surprise to you at all. high-res audio sounds much more alive, with much better localization cues, more "air" around the instruments, and much better low-level detail and ambience than is possible with 16/44.1 or 48 Khz. This is one of those effects, like the benefits of talking to plants, that disappers under reasonble experimental controls. Granted, normal CD resolution is very good, but the higher bit-rates and longer word lengths are much better yet. They gild the lily in such a way as to make the argument of analog vs digital sound completely moot and will disarm the digital skeptics completely. Intreresting that so many (probably thousands) have done comparisons like this and been reduced to random guessing, once the statistical results are known. Unfortunately our correspondent's approach to this problem has seemingly been to simply avoid gathering enough data for a proper statistical analysis. |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 08:18:28 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 07:10:23 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): This is of course totally false. As long as the audible effect can be reliably demonstrated to be generally non-subtle, there's no need for blind tests to prove yet again that it is generally non-subtle. For example, mastering involves changes to levels and spectral balance that are widely known and easily demonstrable to be reliably audible, at least for reasonably well-trained listeners. That's the whole purpose of mastering - to introduce audible changes. That's interesting. And here I always thought that the purpose of mastering was to transfer a "master tape" into another format which can be easily and economically distributed to customers via mass production. That's the purpose, but that is not a detailed description of what the process we know as mastering involves. Here's an independent description of some of the details of mastering from an independent source: I was being sarcastic. Of course I know the process. I used to do it for a living. 8^) http://www.faqs.org/faqs/AudioFAQ/pro-audio-faq/ Q6.3 - What is mastering? " Mastering is a multifaceted term that is often misunderstood. Back in the days of vinyl records, mastering involved the actual cutting of the master that would be used for pressing. This often involved a variety of sonic adjustments so that the mixed tape would ultimately be properly rendered on vinyl. The age of the CD has changed the meaning of the term quite a bit. There are now two elements often called mastering. The first is the eminently straightforward process of preparing a master for pressing. As most mixdowns now occur on DAT, this often involves the relatively simple tasks of generating the PQ subcode necessary for CD replication. PQ subcode is the data stream that contains information such as the number of tracks on a disc, the location of the start points of each track, the clock display information, and the like. This information is created during mastering and prepared as a PQ data burst which the pressing plant uses to make the glass pressing master. Mastering's more common meaning, however, is the art of making a recording sound "commercial." Is is the last chance one has to get the recording sounding the way it ought to. Interesting that the phrase "...make it sound like it ought to..." More often than not, means "screw it up out of all recognition so that it has little in common with the actual recording capture master". Tasks often done in mastering include: adjustment of time between pieces, quality of fade-in/out, relation of levels between tracks (such that the listener doesn't have to go swinging the volume control all over the place), program EQ to achieve a desired consistency, compression to make one's disc sound LOUDER than others on the market, the list goes on. A good mastering engineer can often take a poorly-produced recording and make it suitable for the market. A bad one can make a good recording sound terrible. Bingo! There seem to be a lot more bad ones these days than there are good ones. Some recordings are so well produced, mixed, and edited that all they need is to be given PQ subcode and sent right out. Other recordings are made by people on ego trips, who think they know everything about recording, and who make recordings that are, technically speaking, wretched trash. And some recordings are excellent and the commercial mastering process turns them into "wretched trash". |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On 10/2/2010 10:47 AM, Dick Pierce wrote:
Scott wrote: Do you or do you not think that Steve Hoffman's results of his blind comparisons were affected by his previous experiences with room acoustic treatments of a subious nature under sighted conditions? Your question is irrelevant because we have no definitive evidence, that is, we have no description of the protocol, no statement of blinding conditions, no mention of controls, no revelation of the number of trials, no listing of the statistics, NOTHING, other than a casual, off the cuff comment which is contradictory, that there was ANY truly blind, objective test that Mr. Hoffman engaged in and reported. Clearly any test without adequate controls can, and likely will be affected by *any and all* prior experiences - i.e. such prior experiences are the basis for any extant biases. But, that aside, I think what Dick had in mind in his original post to which you're objecting (and if not, it's in *my* mind)is that a man who believes the "hallograph" hogwash that Steve has endorsed, is either ignorant of physics and engineering in the specific, or scientific rigor in general, assuming his veracity is not in question. That he believes in such snake oil raises significant doubt about his technical ability to design, proctor, or execute a valid controlled test. Lacking any evidence to indicate a proper test was conducted, one should be very skeptical of his unusual results. And no, just letting someone else "fiddle with the knobs" doesn't indicate "blinding" conditions were utilized. Nor does being a mastering wizard, should you be of that opinion, in any way demonstrate possession of technical expertise in test design. Keith |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Oct 2, 11:17=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
snip If you are trying to say that shorter word length (say, 20 or 16-bit inst= ead of =A024-bit) and lower sampling rates (say, 96, 88.2, 48, or 44.1 KHz) w= ill yield sound indistinguishable from 24-bit/192 Khz, you are incorrect. high-res audio sounds much more alive, with much better localization cues= , more "air" around the instruments, and much better low-level detail and ambience than is possible with 16/44.1 or 48 Khz. Granted, normal CD resolution is very good, but the higher bit-rates and longer word lengths= are much better yet. They gild the lily in such a way as to make the argument= of analog vs digital sound completely moot and will disarm the digital skept= ics completely. =A0 This is a remarkable claim. Can you cite any credible unbiased tests that have been published in reputable publications to back this up? |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Oct 2, 1:39=A0pm, KH wrote:
On 10/2/2010 10:47 AM, Dick Pierce wrote: Scott wrote: Do you or do you not think that Steve Hoffman's results of his blind comparisons were affected by his previous experiences with room acoustic treatments of a subious nature under sighted conditions? Your question is irrelevant because we have no definitive evidence, that is, we have no description of the protocol, no statement of blinding conditions, no mention of controls, no revelation of the number of trials, no listing of the statistics, NOTHING, other than a casual, off the cuff comment which is contradictory, that there was ANY truly blind, objective test that Mr. Hoffman engaged in and reported. Clearly any test without adequate controls can, and likely will be affected by *any and all* prior experiences - i.e. such prior experiences are the basis for any extant biases. How do you know the controls were inadequate? And how would one get a false negative from that? But, that aside, I think what Dick had in mind in his original post Dick has chosen not to explain what he had in mind in his original post. You can ask him. I did. Got no answer. |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On 10/2/2010 5:43 PM, Scott wrote:
On Oct 2, 1:39=A0pm, wrote: On 10/2/2010 10:47 AM, Dick Pierce wrote: Scott wrote: Do you or do you not think that Steve Hoffman's results of his blind comparisons were affected by his previous experiences with room acoustic treatments of a subious nature under sighted conditions? snip Clearly any test without adequate controls can, and likely will be affected by *any and all* prior experiences - i.e. such prior experiences are the basis for any extant biases. How do you know the controls were inadequate? And how would one get a false negative from that? I don't *know* that the controls were inadequate, and I made no such claim, nor has any evidence of adequacy been provided or cited. But that point is irrelevant to the question you asked, i.e. did Steve's previous experiences with room treatments affect his "blind" comparisons. The answer is, clearly they *can*, in the absence of adequate controls. And a false negative is absolutely trivial to achieve with inadequate controls, e.g. all I need to know is that a switch has taken place (A/B etc.), and as long as I am convinced that there is no difference, then it is likely that I will perceive none, despite it being above the audible threshold. Hence the need for "X" in the ABX test. As long as you know that a binary switch is in use (i.e. *either* A or B), and as long as that switching function is perceivable, you *know* a change has been made, and your biases are given free range to predetermine the outcome - either positive or negative - relative to *difference* discrimination. Such a test is not even close to blind, and based on all the information provided for the cited test, nothing suggests that it was indeed "blind" other than one assertion, sans definition. But, that aside, I think what Dick had in mind in his original post Dick has chosen not to explain what he had in mind in his original post. You can ask him. I did. Got no answer. Nor was one needed, in that I clearly stated that the argument that followed the snipped disclaimer was mine, irrespective of Dick's concurrence. Although from his followup post he certainly appears to agree with the premise. Keith |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Oct 2, 10:47=A0am, Dick Pierce wrote:
Scott wrote: Do you or do you not think that Steve Hoffman's results of his blind comparisons were affected by his previous experiences with room acoustic treatments of a subious nature under sighted conditions? Your question is irrelevant because we have no definitive evidence, No the question is relevant since you chose to make an issue out of it. One need not have any "evidence" of anything other than what is already presented to answer the question. Do you or do you not think Steve Hoffman's comparisons http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...ghlight=3Dmas= ter+tape were affected by his previous experiences with room acoustic treatments of a dubious nature under sighted conditions. http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm I can understand why at this point you would like to avoid this question but you are wrong about what is needed to answer it. Everything one needs to answer this specific question is in this thread already. Heck I'll answer it. NO. Why? Because there is no cause and effect here. Impressions formed under sighted conditions in a previous experience like the one Steve Hoffman had with said room treatments will not affect one's aural perceptions in a blind comparison between a fresh cut laquer and the feed from the master tape with which the laquer was cut. They are mutually independent events. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
real time audio level compression for computer audio output | Tech | |||
fa yamaha high compression driver with horn $3 | Marketplace | |||
Multiband Compression for preserving high end frequencies? | Pro Audio | |||
Audio compression | Pro Audio | |||
Audio Compression | Tech |