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 20715 times)

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
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All   Go Up
 

Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.119 seconds with 19 queries.