R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 3 [All]   Go Down

Author Topic: 24-bit it '256 times more accurate' than 16 Bit - Roger Nichols debunking?  (Read 20714 times)

blueintheface

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24

Hi - this is my first post here, though I've been a voyeur for some time.  Cool

That mammoth thread that was here somewhere on the virtues - or otherwise - of high sample-rates was as informative and interesting as anything I've ever read anywhere - in the audio field. Anyone bookmark a link?

Anyway, Roger Nichols is not my favourite person at the moment - Elemental Audio and price hikes and all - but this isn't about that. This is about Roger's article in Sound On Sound May 2006.

Either I'm not understanding something, or the science is a bit dubious - like MOTU's demo's of the superiority of high sample rates!

Roger's main assertion is that the resson 24 Bit audio sounds better - 'particularly at the bass end' is because:

Quote:

The 256 times higher resolution is in effect everywhere in the waveform, from the lowest levels to the highest peaks. A sample point nearing 0dB full scale is 256 times more accurate than the same sample recorded at 16-bit.


Hmmm.

Is it more accurate to say that the 24-bit sample is digitally described with greater resolution, but does that mean what you get post D/A is 256 times more accurate?

Quote:

Let's cut down the confusion with bit sizes, let's use the smallest bit in the 24-bit scale as a reference and call it a step. The difference between Sample A and Sample B in the 24-Bit recording is 16 steps. The difference between the same samples in the 16-Bit recording is 112 steps. That is 96 steps away from where it should have been - a 700% error in low-frequency signal.


Again, I'm not disputing the superiority of 24-Bit resolution, I'm just skeptical of the 'science' behind these explanations.
 
Anyone?

Edit: spelling
Logged

Barry Hufker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8228

I don't know the answer to your question, but am dying to have someone provide it.  This isn't my area of expertise.

But related to your question is this: Many people assume a 24 bit A/D converter can actually offer a dynamic range greater than what is common.  Looking at the specs of many systems with 24 bit converters, one only finds a signal to noise ratio of 108dB.  That comes out to being 18 bit conversion.

Barry
Logged

AndreasN

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 247

Quote:

Let's cut down the confusion with bit sizes, let's use the smallest bit in the 24-bit scale as a reference and call it a step. The difference between Sample A and Sample B in the 24-Bit recording is 16 steps. The difference between the same samples in the 16-Bit recording is 112 steps. That is 96 steps away from where it should have been - a 700% error in low-frequency signal.


The difference in bit depth equals difference in low level information, not low frequency signal.

Lowest level is noise. More bits, less error, less noise. The accuracy does not do anything magic to the upper bits, they're still holding the same information.

Logged

danlavry

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 997

blueintheface wrote on Mon, 05 June 2006 12:28

Hi - this is my first post here, though I've been a voyeur for some time.  Cool

That mammoth thread that was here somewhere on the virtues - or otherwise - of high sample-rates was as informative and interesting as anything I've ever read anywhere - in the audio field. Anyone bookmark a link?

Anyway, Roger Nichols is not my favourite person at the moment - Elemental Audio and price hikes and all - but this isn't about that. This is about Roger's article in Sound On Sound May 2006.

Either I'm not understanding something, or the science is a bit dubious - like MOTU's demo's of the superiority of high sample rates!

Roger's main assertion is that the resson 24 Bit audio sounds better - 'particularly at the bass end' is because:

Quote:

The 256 times higher resolution is in effect everywhere in the waveform, from the lowest levels to the highest peaks. A sample point nearing 0dB full scale is 256 times more accurate than the same sample recorded at 16-bit.


Hmmm.

Is it more accurate to say that the 24-bit sample is digitally described with greater resolution, but does that mean what you get post D/A is 256 times more accurate?

Quote:

Let's cut down the confusion with bit sizes, let's use the smallest bit in the 24-bit scale as a reference and call it a step. The difference between Sample A and Sample B in the 24-Bit recording is 16 steps. The difference between the same samples in the 16-Bit recording is 112 steps. That is 96 steps away from where it should have been - a 700% error in low-frequency signal.


Again, I'm not disputing the superiority of 24-Bit resolution, I'm just skeptical of the 'science' behind these explanations.
 
Anyone?

Edit: spelling


Are you quoting the statements accurately?

The first statement (as posted) was about having 256 more accuracy with 24 bits (then 16 bits). That one is correct IN THEORY. Each additional bit is a factor of 2 improvement so with 8 bits you have 2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2 = 256. From an ear stand point, each bit is 6dB additional improvement, so 8 more bits will improve the dynamic range by 48dB.

But first, even in theory, note that the improvement is about fine detail BELOW the 96dB range offered by a 16 bit format. In other words, a perfect 16 bits yields 0.001526% accuracy so the additional bits will improve on that.

Second, we can talk about 24 bits all day long, but there is no converter that will yield real 24 bits. The lowest bits are noise. In fact, take a mic, any mic. Take a mic-pre, any mic pre. Set the mic pre gain to say 30-40dB. You now have enough noise to burry the top 5-6 bits with noise making them useless. Your real world statement becomes: My 20 bit AD is receiving enough noise to make it function as an 18 bit AD (or much less), so I have a 4 times improvement over a 16 bits machine, that is 12dB more accuracy.

Regarding the second statement. It is completely flawed. Using the lowest bit as a reference is off, causing that very misleading conclusion, about 700% error.
Say we have a million dollars deal, and I call a million 100%.

Say I got short changed by a dollar. What is the percent “error”? It is only 0.0001%.

Say I use a dollar as a “reference”, making it the “100% point”. Then a missing dollar is 100% error. Such “approach” is of course ridiculous! It is 100% out of 100000000%, where the maximum starting point (when talking percentage) should be 100%.

Not to mention that that lowest step is buried in huge amount of noise to start with.
Not to mention that you do not need 24 bits – 144dB dynamic range. Having 120dB is fantastic range from ear standpoint.

The rest of the comment about sample A vs. B having 112 steps error is weird. Why 112?

But the weirdest statement was about: “700% error in low frequency signal”. It is totally and completely out to lunch. What does any of it has to do with frequency? Nothing! In theory, one can have 256 more accuracy BELOW the 0.0015%. In practice, nowhere near it. And that is for any signal and ANY FREQUENCY.

Regards
Dan Lavry
http://www.lavryengineering.com


 
Logged

Reuben Ghose

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53

I saw that article too and thought that it was full of inaccuracies.  I have a lot of respect for Sound On Sound, so I was really surprised that they would publish an article that was so misleading.  Maybe they just went with it because it was by Roger Nichols?

Reuben Ghose

Logged

blueintheface

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24

Yes I did accurately transcribe those paragraphs from Sound On Sound - if anyone want to point me towards some easy and effective OCR software - y'know, some that actaully works - I'll take some more - in the interests of healthy discussion.  Mad

Thanks for your comments thus far.
Logged

danlavry

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 997

blueintheface wrote on Tue, 06 June 2006 22:29

Yes I did accurately transcribe those paragraphs from Sound On Sound - if anyone want to point me towards some easy and effective OCR software - y'know, some that actaully works - I'll take some more - in the interests of healthy discussion.  Mad

Thanks for your comments thus far.


Can you just point at the artical?

Regards
Dan Lavry
www.lavryengineering.com
Logged

blueintheface

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24

Hi Dan - well I'm pointing at the article now but I don't have a webcam  Mad

It was in the SOS magazine, May 2006 - real paper - but possibly available online to subscribers. I don't have a subscription (too poor or too cheap - or both Wink)



Logged

danlavry

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 997

Malcolm Boyce wrote on Wed, 07 June 2006 01:35

 http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may06/articles/rogernichols_ 0506.htm


Oh? That artical is for sale? Am I expected to pay for an artical containing such fundumental errors regardings the very basics?

Regards
Dan Lavry
www.lavryengineering.com  
Logged

blueintheface

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24

Attached is a (digital) quote from Sound On Sound magazine May 2006:

SOS Roger Nichols Part 1
Logged

blueintheface

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24

Attached is a digital quote of the rest of the article:

Logged

danlavry

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 997

blueintheface wrote on Wed, 07 June 2006 02:51

Attached is a digital quote of the rest of the article:




Thanks. It is very difficult to read on my machine, but I saw enough there that is way off. For example, He says that current DA's have less linearity issues because modern DA's are based on 1 bit at 256fs.
That is totally wrong. We did have a 1 bit at 64fs about 10 or so years ago, but the DA's went to multibit.

Sadly, one can say many interesting facts about the methods used to reduce integral linearity with multibit AD and DA's. But it requires knowledge of the technology.

I just do not get it. Some guys got to record or master some "stars" and some actually did a fine job. No one is going to take it away from them, they get full credit for what they know and what they did. But that does not make them into technology gurus. Why don't they realize that themselves?

And then there are some audio magazines. In a more ideal world, they would make it their business to know who is competent enough to "talk technology" to their readers. Don't they care enough? Are they so incompetent to the point of being unable to choose a heavy duty technology guy to talk about the technology?

Everyone accept the fact that being a good EE does not automatically make one into a recording engineer.
Is it not long overdue to understand that being a a good recording engineer does not short circuit the long process of becoming a knowledgeable and experienced EE?

Regards
Dan Lavry
www.lavryengineering.com
Logged

Graham Jordan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 63

Wow. If I'd have bought that article, I'd want my money back! The section 'The Bits' is just so wrong, in so many ways.

As Dan said, one of the big mistakes is showing error signal levels compared to the 'sample step' size. Totally wrong.

He is suggesting that a same size 'error' on a high frequency waveform isn't heard, but there's no difference between this and a low level signal, e.g. a bass waveform! But I'm sure you'd want to hear that.

Some of the problems with this section...

1. Error compared to step size is plain wrong. Error signal size compared to desired signal size is what we hear. We don't hear sample steps, we hear audio and frequencies.
2. Diagrams show straight lines between sample points. NO! This is not the waveform.
3. 16-bits sample 'step sizes' are integer multiples of 256 24-bit single steps. The high freq wave form shows 1280 'steps', = 5*256. But low freq is 112?? Shouldn't this be 256, so even more 'error' as he defines it.
4. The 'errors' in the 16-bit wave form are at the 16-bit noise floor level, so if has been dithered properly, then is just noise (unlike bad signal correllated noise from non-dithered).
5. Why is the 24-bit '16 steps' the 'right' answer? This is A/D level noise (even a good A/D). The 'right' answer could be 32 steps, 0 steps, or other similar numbers.
6. What are the 16-bit and 24-bit 'waveforms' showing? Is 16-bit a dithered version of 24-bit? A dithered+truncated?  Just truncated? Simulataneous recoding on 16-bit and 24-bit A/Ds?
7. The bass waveform has clear higher frequency compnents to it, but by his logic, as the lower frequency 'carrier' waveform increases in frequency, this high frequency component is going to 'dissapear' (as the stpe size becomes larger).

Ah, enough.

It makes me sick to see this in a respected magazine.
Logged

Barry Hufker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8228

OK, so does anyone tell Roger Nichols?  Or write a letter to the Editor?

Barry
Logged

danlavry

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 997

Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 07 June 2006 21:25

OK, so does anyone tell Roger Nichols?  Or write a letter to the Editor?

Barry


I assume that the "posers" do the "posing" because they feel pretty secure and comfortable that they will not be "found".

But why single him out? The industry is full of people that did well in the recording business, and preceded to deceive themselves and or others to believe that they are as competent in technology as real technologists.

I wonder why do those ear guys do it. Is it ego? Is it because they decide to get into the hardware or software business thus trying to pause as knowledgeable?

I once saw a world renowned singer speak as a special guest for some audio tech award dinner. He decided to "explain" why he liked a certain process and not the other. He talked about analog having more bits then digital and all sorts of ridicules stuff. It was really "unbelievable". Needless to say, he received a standing ovation. No one said a thing. Of course most people did not know he was out to lunch technically. What about those that knew? No one wanted to confront a "guest speaker" that is a real "star".

It is bad for audio to let the unqualified lead the industry with their nonsense. Yet, it is a common day occurrence.

Regards
Dan Lavry
www.lavryengineering.com
Logged

Barry Hufker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8228

Dan,

I understand what you're saying.  There is the element of personal embarrassment for the speaker (writer) and there is the dissemination of misinformation.

I wouldn't have brought it up to the singer because he is not an expert on recording processes and is not therefore an "authority" people would rely on for correct information.

By being published regularly in a column in a well-regarded magazine, and by his position in the recording industry, and by having some technical background (nuclear physics isn't it?), I believe Roger should be set straight.  He is considered (by virtue of being published or is making himself out to be) an authority.  Correcting him doesn't have to be done publicly but it should be done.  Let him decide if he is gracious enough to rectify his mistake and publish a correction in a future piece.

But if someone doesn't take action, then the error perpetuates because "Roger said so and he oughta know."  I remember a time when first starting in audio that I would kill for accurate information and not have to settle for the "black magic bullshit" I was being told regularly by people who sort of knew because they were taught by people who sort of knew.

As someone who cares deeply about people learning properly, I encourage you, or someone with similar credentials, to break this cycle before it goes further.  I would do it but I don't have the credibility, or knowledge, in this area to do it.  I couldn't rebut all incorrect statements Roger might make.

Please don't let ignorance abound.

Barry
Logged

Daniel Asti

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 81

blueintheface wrote on Mon, 05 June 2006 07:28


Is it more accurate to say that the 24-bit sample is digitally described with greater resolution, but does that mean what you get post D/A is 256 times more accurate?



Think it like this. You have a photograph that you are scanning in to photoshop.

You have one scanner that scans at a higher bit depth and one lower.

You have the same printer.

Will the image scanned at a higher bit depth look more clear and be a more accurate representation?

Of course! Assuming the analog components are of equal quality and functioning correctly.

From a recording standpoint once you achieve the stongest possible sound of the unit and record it it's there forever. If it wasn't no one would use gear with higher dynamic range and pay through the nose for it. Why would a mastering engineer use a converter with -130dbu dynamic range when nobody without that same quality converter would have any benefit.

Have you ever noticed how the best mixes sound great on little speakers. The toms sound like cannons in an auditorium on little tv sets. Of course the system with the best freq response and dynamic range will be the only one that can showcase the full potential. Still, you use that dynamic range and accuracy to capture the sound(s).

Once it's recorded it is essentially the same as the scanned photograph.
Logged

UnderTow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 393

It is nice to see this thread here. When I read that article I nearly went ballistic. Actually I did go a bit ballistic on the SOS forum and started a thread with the topic "Nichols article on 24 bit recording WRONG!". This turned into a several page debate with lots of comments like "Who are you and where are your seven grammy awards"? In the end, Hugh Robjohns, Robjohns at SOS, agreed that the article was inaccurate at best.

(In light of that and the fact that Hugh Robjohns stated that they received many emails and letters about the Nichols article, I don't think there is any need for anyone here to contact Mr Nichols or SOS.)

Those comments about the grammies is what bothers me most. Many people will believe what Mr Nichols writes simply because of those grammies never realising that, even though he might be a great sound engineer, he might have no idea about the technical details of digital audio.

In the next SOS magazine he tried to answer some questions emailed to him but in at least two responses either completely missunderstood the questions or went off on a tangent that didn't address the actual question. I have also talked about this new "article" on the SOS forum...

I find it very worrying that someone like Mr Nichols is writting so called technical articles in a magazine that is quite well respected thus spreading more myths, disinformation and confusion in the world of audio. I tend to have a nearly physiological reaction to things that I know are wrong but are presented as truth without even the least disclaimer or caveat about the expertise of the author and will address such things when possible.

On the positive side, after reading the article I did recheck alot of stuff and reread many articles and books (well parts of books) to support my arguments in the ensuing debate. Such a refresher course is always a good thing. If only the author of the article would have had the common decency to check his so called facts ...

Alistair
Logged

blueintheface

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24

I trawled through that thread you mentioned - in its gargantuan entirety - and left a message at the end.

I have to say I commend you for your stance and keeping your cool amidst such hostility . . . I could learn a lot form that.

People seemed less interested in understanding any scientific argument than maintaining their beliefs - chiefly that anything that appeared in SOS was The Truth.

Maybe we're concerned because we do value the integrity of SOS? Sad to say, I have just about every issue . . .

Anyway, you pointed me to a follow up article. i'll check that out now . . .
Logged

Reuben Ghose

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53

Undertow,

I also read through the thread on SOS and was appalled by some of the things that were directed at you.  Kudos for sticking to your guns!  

It's amazing what people will blindly believe just because someone has a shiny trophy on their mantle.  I can't wait until I have grammy . . . then people will believe anything I say too! Smile

Cheers!
Reuben
Logged

UnderTow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 393


Thanks for the positive comments!

blueintheface, it isn't a follow-up article. The subtitle of the "article" is "This month, Roger tackles some questions from his bulging virtual postbag". One of the questions I mention is about 64 bit audio in Cakewalk Sonar. Mr Nichols goes into an explanation about 64 bit operating systems but he failed to check the Cakewalk site or he would have known that Sonar supports 64 bit OS's but also has a full 64 bit floating point audio engine.

The other question is about digital vs analogue summing. Mr Nichols writes about gain structures and the advantages of ProTools now having a 48 bit audio engine. He never says anything about summing nor does he take into account the fact that many DAWs use floating point maths and thus do not clip internaly at 0 dB FS.

Anyway, I digress. I am guessing that this month's "article" was written and submited before the previous article got published and thus also before the ensuing responses. I am hoping Mr Nichols will respond to comments in the next issue of SOS.

I think you are right about why we are concerned about the reliability of SOS articles. I don't have every issue but I do have quite a few stacks of them. It is a bit strange really. When I started reading the magazine, I knew nearly nothing and learned alot from SOS. At the time I was only a hobbyist with a nice but non-commercial home studio.

Since about two years I am a sound engineer after re-schooling and a drastic change of career. These days, I find SOS less and less interesting as often I find my knowledge, which I personaly still find very limited, surpasses that of the authors of the articles.

So this brings me to a question: Are there any good magazines out there worth reading? The more technical and in depth the better. (Subjective comments about the sound of gear is just that, subjective).

Thanks for any suggestions,

Alistair







Logged

Barry Hufker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8228

Alistair,

While I haven't trekked through the thread to which you refer, I too congratulate you for taking a stand for correct information.  As you know, it can be an unpopular place to be.  It takes courage to do something like that.  Thank you.

Barry
Logged

crm0922

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 272

They should print a retraction.  The article is dead wrong in numerous areas.

Dan, if you are using a Internet Explorer on a PC you can enlarge the picture in the web browser by floating the mouse over the picture and clicking the small orangish square w/ 4 arrows that appears in the bottom left-hand corner of the scanned photo.

It is quite readable when expanded on any machine.

Chris
Logged

Reuben Ghose

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53

Alistair,

Resolution is awesome IMO.  It's geared more towards experienced readers and has a lot of very useful information.

http://www.resolutionmag.com/

Cheers!
Reuben
Logged

danlavry

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 997

UnderTow wrote on Fri, 09 June 2006 01:13

It is nice to see this thread here.

"Who are you and where are your seven grammy awards"?

Many people will believe what Mr Nichols writes simply because of those grammies never realising that, even though he might be a great sound engineer, he might have no idea about the technical details of digital audio.

I find it very worrying that someone like Mr Nichols is writting so called technical articles in a magazine that is quite well respected thus spreading more myths, disinformation and confusion in the world of audio.

Alistair


Hi,

Your comments above a priceless! Many people are "star nuts". I do not have a thing against stars, and I am all for respecting those that deserve it for their accomplishments. I will buy a ticket to a good movie with a world class actor staring in it, but I am certainly not going to listen to a world famous actor give me medical advice, or perform hart surgery...

Unfortunately, there are many that would be influenced by an well known actor advice in areas that have nothing to do with acting. The advertisement industry uses that fact routinely. Some actor will sell you pills, another sells tires, food items... name it.

It is not much different in the audio industry. For some reason, many "stars" (many grammys qualify one as a star) go outside their "proper boundaries". It is bad enough when some that has no clue about tires is selling tires by talking them up. It is much worse when an ear guy writes an article, posing  as a technical guru. I saw a lot of that "stuff" when taking a stand against 192KHz. The sales and marketing magazines were full of "stars" saying 192KHz praise, and their "technical arguments" were total garbage.

One thing to wonder about is: what is the motivation of the non technical star to pause as a technical guru. Is it a puffed up ego? Is it based on commercial interests? Is it a combination of both?

How else can you explain articles such as the Roger Nichole's article? Why would someone write stuff that shows such unbelievable level of ignorance of the very fundamentals? Those guys probably convinced themselves that they know what they are saying. It is pathetic.

The other thing to wonder about is why so many audio magazines
support non technical people posing as technical. Don't they have a responsibility to the readers? We all know that much is driven by advertisement money, but should they not guard the "technical sections" from occurrence such as we saw here?
Let's see what SOS does. Will they change anything? Will they invite a "real technical guru" to replace the non real one? Will they insist that writer talk about what he know (recording) and stay away from the technical? Or will they do nothing.  

I too command you for standing your ground.

Regards
Dan Lavry
http://www.lavryengineering.com
Logged

Barry Hufker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8228

Although this is history, Studio Sound was the best (bar-none) audio magazine ever.  They wrote about equipment, they wrote about technique.  They wrote about audio history.  They wrote condensed (actual) anecdotes about studio life and published them in the margins.  And the fellow who did their equipment reviews not only knew his stuff but was absolutely merciless in evaluating equipment.  The advertisers and manufacturers hated him but you knew if he said something good or bad it was true.

I truly miss that in an audio magazine.  And I truly miss Studio Sound.

Barry
Logged

kraster

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 199

It is curious to think that someone as undoubtedly talented as Roger Nichols would blow it by not researching his points more thoroughly. Not to mention the slack technical editorial line of the editors of SOS.

There is definitely a movement towards seeking the truth about what we're paying for when we invest in audio technology. This is definitely a good thing. There was a time that inaccuracies or inconsistencies in articles by audio "gurus" were ignored because of the kind of "Who do you think you are?" reaction that Alistair received on the SOS forums. And their points would remain unchallenged.

Hopefully the reaction to this article will force a tighter technical proof reading of articles submitted by the "stars".
Logged

Reuben Ghose

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53

I could be wrong but I believe Resolution is the new incarnation of Studio Sound.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong . . .



Barry Hufker wrote on Fri, 09 June 2006 17:44

Although this is history, Studio Sound was the best (bar-none) audio magazine ever.  They wrote about equipment, they wrote about technique.  They wrote about audio history.  They wrote condensed (actual) anecdotes about studio life and published them in the margins.  And the fellow who did their equipment reviews not only knew his stuff but was absolutely merciless in evaluating equipment.  The advertisers and manufacturers hated him but you knew if he said something good or bad it was true.

I truly miss that in an audio magazine.  And I truly miss Studio Sound.

Barry

Logged

UnderTow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 393

danlavry wrote on Fri, 09 June 2006 19:56



Hi,

Your comments above a priceless! Many people are "star nuts". I do not have a thing against stars, and I am all for respecting those that deserve it for their accomplishments. I will buy a ticket to a good movie with a world class actor staring in it, but I am certainly not going to listen to a world famous actor give me medical advice, or perform hart surgery...



Someone using the name GJordan made a very nice and succinct analogy in that SOS thread: "I have a lot of respect for fighter pilots, but I'm not going to give much weight to their explanations of the nuts and bolts of aerodynamics."

Quote:


Unfortunately, there are many that would be influenced by an well known actor advice in areas that have nothing to do with acting. The advertisement industry uses that fact routinely. Some actor will sell you pills, another sells tires, food items... name it.

It is not much different in the audio industry. For some reason, many "stars" (many grammys qualify one as a star) go outside their "proper boundaries". It is bad enough when some that has no clue about tires is selling tires by talking them up. It is much worse when an ear guy writes an article, posing  as a technical guru. I saw a lot of that "stuff" when taking a stand against 192KHz. The sales and marketing magazines were full of "stars" saying 192KHz praise, and their "technical arguments" were total garbage.



Indeed. I have been following your fight against 192Khz. I join the battle whenever I can. I am gratefull for you making a stand or I might be one of the people fooled by the marketing types.
Actually, reading some of your comments a while back made me research the topic and, amongst other things, read your sampling theory paper. I learned and am still learning alot because of that. Thanks.

Quote:


One thing to wonder about is: what is the motivation of the non technical star to pause as a technical guru. Is it a puffed up ego? Is it based on commercial interests? Is it a combination of both?

How else can you explain articles such as the Roger Nichole's article? Why would someone write stuff that shows such unbelievable level of ignorance of the very fundamentals? Those guys probably convinced themselves that they know what they are saying. It is pathetic.



That is an interesting question. I have noticed two things. First, Mr Nichols doesn't seem to bother doing much research as has been demonstrated by the article in question but also by other things he has written. Lazyness? Ego? I don't know.

The other interesting thing is that he has bought the rights to all the plugins from Elemental Audio, changed the names of the products to silly juvenile names, change the GUIs to much less nice ones with his name plastered all over and, this is the worst part, increased the price by 400%. (Causing a huge uproar on many many forums). Maybe he is writing articles to increase his name recognition to sell these things? I don't know ...

Quote:


The other thing to wonder about is why so many audio magazines
support non technical people posing as technical. Don't they have a responsibility to the readers? We all know that much is driven by advertisement money, but should they not guard the "technical sections" from occurrence such as we saw here?
Let's see what SOS does. Will they change anything? Will they invite a "real technical guru" to replace the non real one? Will they insist that writer talk about what he know (recording) and stay away from the technical? Or will they do nothing.  



Well, judging by the very long debate on the forum, including the technical editor, I have a feeling that maybe no one at SOS quite understands the topic. That is how this article got through. Hugh Robjohns, the technical editor, did mention that they had a long internal discussion before printing the article. So they did have their doubts but obviously not enough to stop the article.

I won't claim to fully know all the ins and outs of digital audio  myself but I am not writting any technical articles in a widely published magazine. I think that is a crucial distinction.

There are some things that I do know and understand. That article was in total contradiction with those things, hence my reaction.

Quote:


I too command you for standing your ground.

Regards
Dan Lavry
http://www.lavryengineering.com



Thanks. Smile

Alistair
Logged

UnderTow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 393

Reuben Ghose wrote on Fri, 09 June 2006 17:35

Alistair,

Resolution is awesome IMO.  It's geared more towards experienced readers and has a lot of very useful information.

http://www.resolutionmag.com/

Cheers!
Reuben



Excellent! I'll check it out. Thanks for the tip.

Alistair
Logged

danlavry

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 997

Kraster said:
"It is curious to think that someone as undoubtedly talented as Roger Nichols would blow it by not researching his points more thoroughly. Not to mention the slack technical editorial line of the editors of SOS."

Undertow said:
"First, Mr. Nichols doesn't seem to bother doing much research as has been demonstrated by the article in question but also by other things he has written."

I say:
I would make those statements 1000000 stronger!

Phrases such as “did not research” or “did not bother to do research”  almost sound like what the article lacked was taking a few days to find some information on the Internet, or scan through a book or two.

I am of the opinion that a magazine inviting someone to write a technical article should invite a technical authority on the subject(s). One does not get there by doing a little research. Being an authority is a serious life time commitment. In electronics, it usually takes years of formal schooling, then years of hand on practice followed by much continued practice and learning. Being an authority takes much more an "average dedication" to the schooling and practice. It takes a relentless on going intense interest and focus, far beyond “getting by”.  

Again the word “do research” can be interpreted to mean “study a little”. I do not think it meets the appropriate standard.
A "guru of technical information" invited to write abut thir area in a magazine should know the fundumentals "like the back of his/her hand". That notion of "having to research" the fundumentals is really out of place.  

I designed electronics gear for medical equipment and the gear was to be used by neurologists. Does it qualify me to write an article about neurology or any medical issues? The answer is clearly “no”. Not even if I agree to research the subject. The magazine should find a world class doctor of that specialty for such article. You can be sure that a worth while medical magazine would do just that. Many audio magazines technical feature writing is done by the "highly un qualified"!

My statements are not specific to one magazine or another. Non of them were helpful in the argument against 192KHz. One would hope that the introduction of a new sample rate at X4 would call for a lot of interesting discussion, including the technical reasons for doing so, or not doing so. Most magazines did not want me to come near them within 1000 miles. I was told they did not want to piss off their advertisers at the time when 192KHz pushers were actively trying to paddle their stuff
(advertisement money). Who loss? The readership. That is until they wise up.

Regards
Dan Lavry
www.lavryengineering.com
Logged

Graham Jordan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 63

UnderTow wrote on Sat, 10 June 2006 11:19


Someone using the name GJordan made a very nice and succinct analogy in that SOS thread: "I have a lot of respect for fighter pilots, but I'm not going to give much weight to their explanations of the nuts and bolts of aerodynamics."



In the interests of full disclosure to those here, GJordan on SOS is me, Graham Jordan. I'm not a regular at SOS at all, and only popped up there following this discussion.

Just in case any one had any problems with what 'GJordan' said over there, let me know too Smile

Graham
Logged

John Ivan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3028

This kind of thing is why I don't read any of those rag's anymore. Tape-OP is great because they tend to focus on the user end of the gear a lot and the Human experience of recording audio.The music, the relationships and the "EAR" stuff as Dan say's.

If I want to understand something that is truly technical, I read things written by real Tech people and understand that no matter how much I read, I will only have a limited understanding thanks to my lack of theory chops.

I can't imagine writing a tech article!! I would gladly write about how I approach getting sounds or moving people to play a great performance or,, you get the idea.

I find what he's done to be offensive and unfair. If he wants to help people, why does he not focus on what he's good at??

It's pretty sad.
Logged
"Transformation is no easy trick: It's what art promises and usually doesn't deliver." Garrison Keillor

 

soundmind

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24

I'm sad to find this.

Roger is a great audio engineer and has paid his dues.
I remember an article he wrote about all the stuff in his garage.
Cutting edge audio systems and computers that are now junk.
Spending tons of money and time to be state of the art.

He has made excellent recordings and has gracefully surfed the transition from analogue to digital.

I'd rather hear him talk about his recording philosophy.

If he doesn't have the technical expertise to do the EE thing, he should stop.

He does have tons of real world recording experience.

I would like to hear more from him about this.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]   Go Up
 

Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.037 seconds with 19 queries.