R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Black at 192...Blue Too?  (Read 15687 times)

Ronny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2739
Re: Black at 192...Blue Too?
« Reply #30 on: January 04, 2006, 11:59:56 PM »




As usual I agree 100% with your stance on 192k and the reasons for not supporting it and I always have Dan, but regarding the gate being a processor with color I'd like to point out that with a basic gate, not a range gate or an expander/gate, that there should be absolutely no color added to the signal, for once the signal falls below the threshold, there is no sound what-so-ever. When a gate is on and fully operating, meaning past the decay and hold times it is essentially a signal blocker. No signal, no color.
Logged
------Ronny Morris - Digitak Mastering------
---------http://digitakmastering.com---------
----------Powered By Experience-------------
-------------Driven To Perfection---------------

kraster

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 199
Re: Black at 192...Blue Too?
« Reply #31 on: January 05, 2006, 02:00:39 AM »

Dan,

Is there anywhere in your work as a designer that you must make an aesthetic decision after weighing up all the technical aspects?
I know the ultimate goal is to reproduce the source signal without non-linearities but have you come across a point where you are up against the limits of components and had to make choices based on your aesthetic judgment?


Thanks,

Karl
Logged

Brusby

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
Re: Black at 192...Blue Too?
« Reply #32 on: January 05, 2006, 02:42:17 AM »

Dan, we agree a designer should seek to make converters that reproduce the source as faithfully as possible. No controversy here.

And for the moment could we leave the motivation of manufacturers out of the discussion?  I'm not a manufacturer and frankly I think that obscures the real issue . . . the sound people are reporting when using high sample rates.

I have concerns about your statement:
danlavry wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 02:46

But please try to refrain from comments connecting the sound you like to higher rates, when in fact it is about some degradation in analog circuit performance, an architectural tradeoff and more.


Why refrain from stating facts?

Lets separate facts from mere conjecture.  

Fact: Many people have reported there is SOMETHING they like about the higher sample rates.  

Conjecture:  The many theories about the root cause of that phenomenon, including, I believe, the implication in your statement above that the cause is simply distortion. That may well turn out to be true, but where's the proof, not that distortion increases but that it's responsible for what people are finding attractive about the sound?

Seems to me the most important issue in this controversy is determining exactly what is causing those particular aspects of the sound so many people seem to like about higher sample rates. You pass is off as "some degradation in analog circuit performance".  Well, I agree with you distortion increases at higher sample rates.  But, you haven't proven to me, and I haven't seen any conclusive evidence that distortion alone is solely or even primarily responsible for the reported desirable effects.

So, my sole aim is just to ask, as a scientist, wouldn't it be prudent to try to pinpoint the exact source of this thing people report liking about higher sample rates before simply dismissing it all?  Isn't it possible there is something to be learned from that inquiry or are we absolutely sure the world is flat?

Logged

Jon Hodgson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
Re: Black at 192...Blue Too?
« Reply #33 on: January 05, 2006, 05:25:30 AM »

Brusby wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 07:42


Fact: Many people have reported there is SOMETHING they like about the higher sample rates.  

With most people who report that.. it's the number.
Seriously, given the difference in performance between a good 96kHz and a good 192kHz converter, the characteristics of the systems and rooms often being used to test these things, and average hearing ability I would say that the vast majority of these "improvements" are imagined.
I'm not saying that nobody can tell the difference between 96kHz and 192kHz on a given converter, given the right test setup you may well be someone who can, just that in most cases the differences in noise, distortion and bandwidth are completely swallowed up by the limitations of the test environment.
Tests have been done where people were convinced purely through suggestion that two IDENTICAL signals were "distinctly" different.

Brusby wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 07:42


Conjecture:  The many theories about the root cause of that phenomenon, including, I believe, the implication in your statement above that the cause is simply distortion. That may well turn out to be true, but where's the proof, not that distortion increases but that it's responsible for what people are finding attractive about the sound?

Seems to me the most important issue in this controversy is determining exactly what is causing those particular aspects of the sound so many people seem to like about higher sample rates. You pass is off as "some degradation in analog circuit performance".  Well, I agree with you distortion increases at higher sample rates.  But, you haven't proven to me, and I haven't seen any conclusive evidence that distortion alone is solely or even primarily responsible for the reported desirable effects.


Well there are only three things which could be responsible (in cases where the difference is shown repeatedly in blind testing thus eliminating personal bias and expectation).
1) More accurate capture in some aspect of level quantization in an area which appeals to human hearing...
- except there is NO more accurate capture in any aspect of level quantization when you increase sample rate
2) Greater bandwidth as a result of the sample rate
- except not only has it repeatedly shown that people can't hear anything above around 22kHz (and certainly not above 40kHz which would be where a 96kHz converter would reach).
3) Increased noise and/or distortion appealing to people's preference.

Brusby wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 07:42


So, my sole aim is just to ask, as a scientist, wouldn't it be prudent to try to pinpoint the exact source of this thing people report liking about higher sample rates before simply dismissing it all?  Isn't it possible there is something to be learned from that inquiry or are we absolutely sure the world is flat?



There is a lot to be learned from such an inquiry, but that's for you (as a musician or AE), or me (as a DSP developer), not for Dan (apart from curiosity). Why? Because Dan's job is to make accurate converters that produce what we throw at them, in or out. Messing with the signal should be a seperate, aesthetic CHOICE.
Logged

bobkatz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2926
Re: Black at 192...Blue Too?
« Reply #34 on: January 05, 2006, 07:09:08 AM »

danlavry wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 21:46




First, you seem to agree that if there is something that you hear, it must be in the audible range. So the proper thing to do is to figure out what it is. If you hear it is can be produced within the audio range (certainly within the 96KHz sampling anyway).





Yes. This is one of the best arguments for finding out WHY one piece sounds "better" than another.

Quote:



Say you take a bunch of AD ? DA pairs, say 100 pairs in series. If they are ?perfect converters? you will not know that they are there (other then some time delay). Now




Putting multiple converters in series will definitely expose their weaknesses, and train people's ears to find them. An excellent suggestion, hard to implement practically... it's hard enough to find one model of an expensive converter to audition. In lieu of that, you can compare an analog source to an A/D/A loop. Did it suddenly get "better"? (e.g. "added distortion"). And the only 100% analog source that I would accept for such a comparison would be a live microphone source. Anything that passed through a converter once is too suspect.

BK
Logged
There are two kinds of fools,
One says-this is old and therefore good.
The other says-this is new and therefore better."

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However a large number of
electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

Patrik T

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 833
Re: Black at 192...Blue Too?
« Reply #35 on: January 05, 2006, 09:33:30 AM »

Quote:

I did not really think it through completely, but my
Logged

Brusby

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
Re: Black at 192...Blue Too?
« Reply #36 on: January 05, 2006, 10:54:58 AM »

Jon Hodgson wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 10:25

Seriously, given the difference in performance between a good 96kHz and a good 192kHz converter, the characteristics of the systems and rooms often being used to test these things, and average hearing ability I would say that the vast majority of these "improvements" are imagined.


I just don't see the value in making such purely speculative statements.

You can't possibly know whether your statement is true or not unless you've actually done the scientific testing to see if these reported "improvements" are real or imagined.



Logged

Ashermusic

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 684
Re: Black at 192...Blue Too?
« Reply #37 on: January 05, 2006, 11:20:08 AM »

There are few people in the audio world I would assign this kind of credibility to but if Dan Lavry says 192 is less accurate than 96 for A/D/A then I need to know no more. I will strive to "improve" my sound quality through other ways than the higher sample rate.
Logged
Composer, Logic Pro Certified Trainer, Level 2
Author of "Going Pro with Logic Pro 8"

www.jayasher.com

Jon Hodgson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
Re: Black at 192...Blue Too?
« Reply #38 on: January 05, 2006, 11:42:00 AM »

Brusby wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 15:54

Jon Hodgson wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 10:25

Seriously, given the difference in performance between a good 96kHz and a good 192kHz converter, the characteristics of the systems and rooms often being used to test these things, and average hearing ability I would say that the vast majority of these "improvements" are imagined.


I just don't see the value in making such purely speculative statements.

You can't possibly know whether your statement is true or not unless you've actually done the scientific testing to see if these reported "improvements" are real or imagined.






You are quite right, I can't KNOW.

However when you've got noise and distortion figures which go from below the noise floor and distortion figures for the rest of the system, to slightly less far below the noise floor and distortion figures for the rest of the system, then I assign a pretty high probability to the possibility that they can't actually hear the difference.

I've certainly seen claims made by people characterizing random differences between two samples (actually one bit in 16, not correlated to the signal in any way, i.e. wide band noise) as one having more presence than the other, and the only explanation I can see for that is that they expected a qualitative difference between the two signals, and came up with one which by some surprising coincidence matched their own preconceptions of what the difference would be.
Logged

danlavry

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 997
Re: Black at 192...Blue Too?
« Reply #39 on: January 05, 2006, 02:15:46 PM »

Brusby wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 07:42

Dan, we agree a designer should seek to make converters that reproduce the source as faithfully as possible. No controversy here.

And for the moment could we leave the motivation of manufacturers out of the discussion?  I'm not a manufacturer and frankly I think that obscures the real issue . . . the sound people are reporting when using high sample rates.

I have concerns about your statement:
danlavry wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 02:46

But please try to refrain from comments connecting the sound you like to higher rates, when in fact it is about some degradation in analog circuit performance, an architectural tradeoff and more.


Why refrain from stating facts?

Lets separate facts from mere conjecture.  

Fact: Many people have reported there is SOMETHING they like about the higher sample rates.  

Conjecture:  The many theories about the root cause of that phenomenon, including, I believe, the implication in your statement above that the cause is simply distortion. That may well turn out to be true, but where's the proof, not that distortion increases but that it's responsible for what people are finding attractive about the sound?

Seems to me the most important issue in this controversy is determining exactly what is causing those particular aspects of the sound so many people seem to like about higher sample rates. You pass is off as "some degradation in analog circuit performance".  Well, I agree with you distortion increases at higher sample rates.  But, you haven't proven to me, and I haven't seen any conclusive evidence that distortion alone is solely or even primarily responsible for the reported desirable effects.

So, my sole aim is just to ask, as a scientist, wouldn't it be prudent to try to pinpoint the exact source of this thing people report liking about higher sample rates before simply dismissing it all?  Isn't it possible there is something to be learned from that inquiry or are we absolutely sure the world is flat?




I may have not been clear enough. Let me try again. I do not see a problem with you stating that you like the sound of some particular gear, and that gear may be anything - including some 192KHz converter.

I just do not see how you can CONNECT that sound you like to the fact that you are operating at 192KHz. CONNECTING the "cause" (higher sampling) to the "effect" (the sound you like) is VOID OF ANY EXPLANATIONS. Also, note that most previous cclaims about 192KHz were about "better audio", you are introducing a different angle, not better, not more transparent, but "more liked". So I get to argue 192KHz from both angles - the folks that say it is more accurate, and those that say it may be less accurate, but more pleasent... In either case, science and engineering tells you that increasing the rate yields less accuracy.

So what would your argument be? Is there an overwhelming statistics of say a long history of higher sampling rate, say 100 AD's all yielding a certain coloration liked by all?

The fact is - the IC makers later designs consist of about 2 very similar architectures, at the same time that they caved in for the 192KHz marketing hype, they also changed a number of other design variables. All of that is much less known to the "casual observer".

The large majority of 192KHz AD gear out there is based on a modern implementation by AKM and Cirrus, with 2 IC families, modern sigma delta multibits with some enhancements over the last generation IC's. Yes, technology has come a long way since the 90's. And we have done so DESPITE having the IC makers accommodate 192KHz.

My first point is: We would be better off having the resources put into a BETTER sampling rate, closer to the OPTIMUM RATE (such as 88.2-96KHZ).

My second point: You do NOT have any explanation, not even any statistics to make any claims CONNECTING what you like to the faster sample rate. You are in a situation with "TONS OF VARIABLES", and you are pointing at a "SINGLE ONE", which happened to echo what some large companies marketing spend millions to promote.

My third point: Again, while you like some sound, others do not. You can choose the gear that pleases you. I just do not think you should be so ready to CONNECT what you like to the higher rates. There are many people that do not like what you choose to call "192KHz sound characteristic", which again I am saying is not about higher sample rate.

Would you wish to be given medications by a doctor that does not care to either understand how the medicine work, or have some real valid statistics?

Something is wrong with the industry when so much money is spent on a baseless endeavour (from science and engineering standpoint), and marketing get all the say. A friend of mine from an IC manufacturer told me - my company is in the business of making money. If they give us an large order for 384KHz, we will do it. If they want 1MHz, we will do it.

I can not blame individuals with very limited say in a large company, relaying on a paycheck, for not standing up. On the other hand, it is a sad state of affair to see so often that engineers refuse to take any stand regarding to social, moral and ethical issues.

In the case of 192KHz, the whole process has been "run over" by the sheer power of large commercial interests. The proper scientific and engineering procedures (from CREDIBLE papers to CREDIBLE listening test BEFORE THE FACT)are still not there, years AFTER the fact.

An industry should NOT move to double the data file size, more then double the required processing all while going against science and engineering regarding precision, with NO EXPLANATIONS.

All I asked from you is to refrain from making a CONNECTION between what you like to higher rates, until such time that you can make such connection.

Meanwhile I get to say that whatever you hear is within you hearing range, including any sonic coloration, and all of it is contained way withing 96KHz sampling rate, thus does not call for 192KHz. I get to say so because unlike the 192KHz marketing guys, science and engineering are backing me up.

Regards
Dan Lavry
www.lavryenginering.com      

Logged

Brusby

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
Re: Black at 192...Blue Too?
« Reply #40 on: January 05, 2006, 04:07:16 PM »

This will probably be my last post on the subject because we may just have to agree to disagree.

From the tone of some of the posts I'm starting to get the feeling that discussing high sample rates is 'kinda like discussing race or religion.  No matter how delicately one tries to handle it, someone's gonna take offense.

Dan, you'll probably be surprised to find that I greatly admire what you're trying to do and I think your approach is basically correct.  I also agree with almost everything you've been posting.  Also, you're obviously a very bright person, which makes it that much more difficult for me to understand why you seem to me to be missing a relatively simple and pretty obvious point I've been trying to make.

Last try at stating the issue clearly:
danlavry wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 19:15


All I asked from you is to refrain from making a CONNECTION between what you like to higher rates, until such time that you can make such connection.


I've never expressed an opinion that I personally like or dislike the effects of high sample rates.  People keep ascribing that position to me but I don't know any clearer way to state it. I don't have a horse in this race.

So, it's not me that is making the connection.  For the purposes of these discussions I'm just relating the experience of many others who report hearing something they like, which some have noted to include a perception of greater accuracy, when using high sample rates including rates above 96k.

Do I have an explanation?  No, although there are several theories floating around, such as the effects of moving the low pass filter up in frequency, and/or distortion.

So, for the last time, my contentions are 1) it would be intellectually dishonest for anyone to deny those accounts exist, 2)for anyone who is truly interested in the best, and most accurate reproduction of sound, it would be foolish to dismiss those reports out of hand without first conducting some scientific inquiry to determine their validity, 3) although everything we can hear may be represented by sample rates under 96k, it doesn't follow that the process of sampling at 96k can capture everything we hear accurately (e.g, what if low pass filter ringing at 96k & lower distorts the signal, but not at higher Fs?), 4) although distortion increases with frequency its effects my be negligible or tolerable in light of other gains and 5) with the development of new devices in the future distortion products may not be as significant an issue as they are today.

I've enjoyed this discussion but I'll probably just follow it from here out.
Logged

kraster

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 199
Re: Black at 192...Blue Too?
« Reply #41 on: January 05, 2006, 04:39:30 PM »

Brusby wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 21:07




So, for the last time, my contentions are 1) it would be intellectually dishonest for anyone to deny those accounts exist, 2)for anyone who is truly interested in the best, and most accurate reproduction of sound, it would be foolish to dismiss those reports out of hand without first conducting some scientific inquiry to determine their validity,




Nobody is denying that there are people out there who indeed hear a difference between 96k and 192k. Some describe the difference as being a more accurate representation of the source. Others can't even tell the difference. But the scientific facts remain solid. 192k is less accurate than 96k from a technical point of view. There is no circumventing this fact.

Quote:

3) although everything we can hear may be represented by sample rates under 96k, it doesn't follow that the process of sampling at 96k can capture everything we hear accurately (e.g, what if low pass filter ringing at 96k & lower distorts the signal, but not at higher Fs?),




The Lowpass filter at 96k is somewhere well outside the accepted range of hearing. Most people cannot discern much above 17k-18k so at 48k it doesn't matter how much the filter rings.

Quote:

 4) although distortion increases with frequency its effects my be negligible or tolerable in light of other gains and 5) with the development of new devices in the future distortion products may not be as significant an issue as they are today.




What other gains? At 192k you gain a lot of useless bandwidth, moreover you lose accuracy, hard disk space and dsp power.
Logged

Jon Hodgson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
Re: Black at 192...Blue Too?
« Reply #42 on: January 05, 2006, 06:32:00 PM »

Brusby wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 21:07

5) with the development of new devices in the future distortion products may not be as significant an issue as they are today.



We're already at levels which compare with the minimum allowed by physics, so unless you're going to start keeping your converters in a bath of liquid Nitrogen don't expect some magical improvement in accuracy.

To be honest the distortion products are probably not particularly significant even today, in a well built converter... however they DO exist and they ARE unneccessary since they gain us nothing over a 96kHz converter.


Logged

danlavry

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 997
Re: Black at 192...Blue Too?
« Reply #43 on: January 05, 2006, 07:08:11 PM »

Brusby wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 21:07

This will probably be my last post on the subject because we may just have to agree to disagree...



You said:
“So, it's not me that is making the connection. For the purposes of these discussions I'm just relating the experience of many others who report hearing something they like, which some have noted to include a perception of greater accuracy, when using high sample rates including rates above 96k.”

I say:
I thought you were supporting that “connection”. I guess I was wrong, so I am sorry.

You said:
”1) it would be intellectually dishonest for anyone to deny those accounts exist”

I say:
I am not denying those accounts. They are spread “wall to wall” over audio magazines and sales brochures, altough I belive they lost a lot of steam...  

You said:
“2)for anyone who is truly interested in the best, and most accurate reproduction of sound, it would be foolish to dismiss those reports out of hand without first conducting some scientific inquiry to determine their validity”

I say:
I do not just “dismiss those reports out of hand without first conducting some scientific inquiry to determine their validity”! I worked a whole year on developing a 192KHz gear, which I decided after much examination not to sell. I took a whole month to write a paper “Sampling Theory”. I have stood the technical grounds against the technical light weights and their various false claims regarding “more dots is better”, its “about time location”, it is about “high frequency transients” and much more…
Again, I do not think I can be “accused” as dismissing things lightly, or not getting involved in a scientific inquiry.    

You said:
“3) although everything we can hear may be represented by sample rates under 96k, it doesn't follow that the process of sampling at 96k can capture everything we hear accurately (e.g, what if low pass filter ringing at 96k & lower distorts the signal, but not at higher Fs?)”

I say:
First, we have a real good handle on HOW MUCH or HOW LITTLE ringing a 96KHz filter has. Second, many of the people that “report about that 192KHz sonic signature” claim that it stays with the sound after converting to 96KHz – thus the filter is still there.
I can say much more…. In fact there are a ton of wrong filter arguments that are void of any real weight. When some people ran out of things to say, they started chanting “it’s the filter”. Those are the kind of arguments thrown about dismissing things lightly by people that “do not get involved in a scientific inquiry”.  

You said:
4) although distortion increases with frequency its effects my be negligible or tolerable in light of other gains and

I say:
There are no other gains presented short of the claims by some for sonic preference.
That is an important point – no single credible technical explanation what so ever for any benefit. On the contrary.

You said:
“5) with the development of new devices in the future distortion products may not be as significant an issue as they are today.”

I say: well, OK. But it is easier and cheaper to get there with 96KHz, you can always do it better at near the optimum rate. No reason to force people to double file size and a lot of DSP just because 192KHz may be almost as good as 96KHz…

You said:
“I've enjoyed this discussion but I'll probably just follow it from here out.”

I say:
I certainly do not wish to keep you from participating.

Regards
Dan Lavry
www.lavryengineering.com

Logged

Brusby

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
Re: Black at 192...Blue Too?
« Reply #44 on: January 05, 2006, 10:00:34 PM »

Well, I promise I'm trying to get out of this discussion . . . 'just can't help myself Rolling Eyes

One last point:

danlavry wrote on Fri, 06 January 2006 00:08

I do not just “dismiss those reports out of hand without first conducting some scientific inquiry to determine their validity”! I worked a whole year on developing a 192KHz gear, which I decided after much examination not to sell.



I applaud your efforts.  But, I think I've been suggesting (maybe inartfully) that it's a different inquiry which needs to be made, an inquiry to identify precisely WHAT is it that people have been hearing.

Here's the bottom line:  No one has yet identified whether differences some people report noticing between hi rate sampling and low are real or imagined, and if real, what the cause is.  It's entirely possible it's all just voodoo and all those people have been deceiving themselves.  But I think you must admit, we just don't have answers to those questions yet and no one seems interested in a pragmatic search to find out.  

Where are the double blind tests to see if people can repeatedly identify hi sample rate conversions versus low?   Without first determining whether the effect is real we can't possibly proceed to uncovering a cause.

Heck, Dan, if you could prove the claimed phenomenon is just an illusion that would end the debate and we could all get a little rest.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up