Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Mr. Lavry's 192kHz claims?

Tags:
  • Pro Audio
  • Marketing
  • Audio
Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
November 5, 2004 10:07:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hi guys,

How have Dan Lavry's claims about the shortcomings of 192 kHz data rates
been accepted amongst audio professionals in the US?

He released the "sampling theory" pdf on lavryengineering's website, were
there any fallacies in it that were clearly mistakes, or has he managed to
steer the "marketing ship" away from 192 kHz in any way?

More about : lavry 192khz claims

Anonymous
November 5, 2004 11:19:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Tommi M." <tomppaaREMOVE@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:cmf18l$q5v$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi

> How have Dan Lavry's claims about the shortcomings of 192 kHz data
> rates been accepted amongst audio professionals in the US?

Dan is hardly alone in his skeptical view of extremely high sample rates.

> He released the "sampling theory" pdf on lavryengineering's website,
> were there any fallacies in it that were clearly mistakes, or has he
> managed to steer the "marketing ship" away from 192 kHz in any way?

I was recently looking at the specs for a *Universal* DVD player selling for
$99.95. It featured 192 KHz sampling and 112 dB dynaiic range. Since it was
made by a fairly reputable manufacturer, there's some chance it, in some
sense actually meets this spec. The lesson is that extremely high numerical
performance no longer justifies premium prices. Therefore, we are free to
select digital equipment based on what actually meets our needs, not the
extreme depth of our pockets.

Just about anybody who wants to can own and use digital audio gear operating
at 96 and/or 192 KHz.

It turns out that many people who listen critically find no audible problems
with recordings made at apparently modest sample rates such as 44.1 KHz. In
this context, all higher sample rates do is waste storage space and
processing time. That seems to be the esssence of Lavry's arguments, and it
just makes sense.

It stands to reason that if 96 Khz sampling provides no audible benefits
over 44.1 KHz, then 192 Khz is not going to be advantageous.

If you have a PC or DAW capable of playback at 96 KHz you can evaluate the
issue of sample rates at 96 KHz and below with your own ears by downloading
and listening to files from
http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm .
Anonymous
November 5, 2004 12:24:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Tommi M. <tomppaaREMOVE@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>
>How have Dan Lavry's claims about the shortcomings of 192 kHz data rates
>been accepted amongst audio professionals in the US?

More or less. I don't think anybody out there is really sure about anything
yet, but after a lot of study nobody has yet had any real documentation
showing improvements from high sample rates, and a lot of people have some
documentation showing some converters perform much more poorly at high
sample rates.

There was another inconclusive paper from NHK again at the AES show this
year.

>He released the "sampling theory" pdf on lavryengineering's website, were
>there any fallacies in it that were clearly mistakes, or has he managed to
>steer the "marketing ship" away from 192 kHz in any way?

No, there's no mistake there at all. And all of this stuff was very well
defined by the 1960s, so it's not terribly innovative. But the marketing
for high sample rates and ultrasonic reproduction systems proceeds as rapidly
as ever.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
November 5, 2004 2:02:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Tommi M. wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> How have Dan Lavry's claims about the shortcomings of 192 kHz data rates
> been accepted amongst audio professionals in the US?
>
> He released the "sampling theory" pdf on lavryengineering's website, were
> there any fallacies in it that were clearly mistakes, or has he managed to
> steer the "marketing ship" away from 192 kHz in any way?

I've been following the discussions on the more technical PGM listerver
and have not seen any fallacies pointed out, even after much discussion.

I am hoping 192 KHz will die the death it deserves, because it is
without any value over 96 KHz, which already provides well more than
enough headroom in sampling rate for the most critical audio recording
and playback imaginable.

I speak as an engineer (EE), but the forces of marketing, advertising
hype, and anecdotal claims are powerful ones in today's market. And
there are development engineers (EEs) who are forced to comply because
corporate management compels them to and their salaries depend on it.
Anonymous
November 5, 2004 5:34:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <cmf18l$q5v$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi> tomppaaREMOVE@kolumbus.fi writes:

> How have Dan Lavry's claims about the shortcomings of 192 kHz data rates
> been accepted amongst audio professionals in the US?

In general, his claims have no arguments. Audio professionals (that
is, those who record stuff that sounds good) aren't real fast to jump
on to the latest trends because they tend to have the best they can
get of whatever level of technology they've accepted for their use.
They need more than availability to make a switch.

Marketing people need things to sell on an ongoing basis and doubling
the sample rate of a fair-to-middlin' converter without doing much
damage isn't difficult or expensive to do, but it provides a new sales
point. But to make a really great converter run at double speed and do
more than just add another octave of high frequency response is
difficult, expensive, and, as Dan argues in his paper, not quite
possible with currently available components.

Understand that Dan's arguments are only about A/D converters,
however. Nobody argues against up-sampling for processing at higher
rates and some have good reasons (sonic, even) for doing so, so "192"
still has some good press going for it. And as long as the number is
associated with something good, the marketing people will use that as
ammunition.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
November 5, 2004 6:03:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 07:07:11 +0200, "Tommi M."
<tomppaaREMOVE@kolumbus.fi> wrote:

>Hi guys,
>
>How have Dan Lavry's claims about the shortcomings of 192 kHz data rates
>been accepted amongst audio professionals in the US?
>
>He released the "sampling theory" pdf on lavryengineering's website, were
>there any fallacies in it that were clearly mistakes, or has he managed to
>steer the "marketing ship" away from 192 kHz in any way?


Tommi,

One of Dan's concerns simply restates the widely held position that
192kHz is unnecessary due to limitations of human hearing. He also has
some good arguments for those who claim that higher sampling rates
offer better impulse-related spatial localization.

As for design issues, I believe it's likely that DAC devices suffer an
inherent tradeoff between speed and accuracy. It's not as clear that
such a tradeoff exists in today's ADC devices. Hopefully, Dan can jump
in here to clarify, though the last time he showed up he was chased
away by a troll. Sad.

Personally, I'm going ahead with a 192kHz ADC design for it hasn't
shown any sonic limitations after decimation when compared with native
88.2/96kHz devices. That said, on a RADAR S-Nyquist into a Pyramix, I
usually prefer 44.1/24 over all other choices.

JL
Anonymous
November 5, 2004 7:34:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <418B5DDF.5010307@audiorail.com>,
"Garth D. Wiebe" <gwiebe@audiorail.com> wrote:

> Tommi M. wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > How have Dan Lavry's claims about the shortcomings of 192 kHz data rates
> > been accepted amongst audio professionals in the US?
> >
> > He released the "sampling theory" pdf on lavryengineering's website, were
> > there any fallacies in it that were clearly mistakes, or has he managed to
> > steer the "marketing ship" away from 192 kHz in any way?
>
> I've been following the discussions on the more technical PGM listerver
> and have not seen any fallacies pointed out, even after much discussion.
>
> I am hoping 192 KHz will die the death it deserves, because it is
> without any value over 96 KHz, which already provides well more than
> enough headroom in sampling rate for the most critical audio recording
> and playback imaginable.
>
> I speak as an engineer (EE), but the forces of marketing, advertising
> hype, and anecdotal claims are powerful ones in today's market. And
> there are development engineers (EEs) who are forced to comply because
> corporate management compels them to and their salaries depend on it.



You know, I've followed Dan's claims and newsgroup threads and I must
admit that he presents a good case. But having done a fair amount of
192k recording (as well as recording the same program and 44.1, 48, 96
and 192k), I can tell you that everyone involved in these recordings are
always very partial to the 192, especially after hearing the same
program at a lower rate.

In fact, I had a long talk with the owner of a hi-tech LA rental company
at AES that told me that most of his classical and movie scoring clients
are now recording at 192 despite the scientific claims of the
engineering community. As he said, "When Yo Yo Ma and John Williams ask
for it, there must be something to it".

It still seems to me that most people who diss the format haven't had
much listening experience with it and go merely on the basis of what
they believe is academically correct (which it might not be because of
skewed or overlooked or even unknown data).

That being said, we've been recording all projects at 96k for about 5
years now (from before the time where it became convenient), and I now
personally feel that the difference over 48k is not nearly enough to
justify the extra disc space and hassle. There is a huge jump in
quality (mostly in the mids and air) at 192k though, in my opinion.

--
Bobby Owsinski
Surround Associates
http://www.surroundassociates.com
Anonymous
November 5, 2004 7:34:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Bobby Owsinski" <polymedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:p olymedia-1FFCCC.08334505112004@news1.west.earthlink.net

> You know, I've followed Dan's claims and newsgroup threads and I must
> admit that he presents a good case. But having done a fair amount of
> 192k recording (as well as recording the same program and 44.1, 48, 96
> and 192k), I can tell you that everyone involved in these recordings
> are always very partial to the 192, especially after hearing the same
> program at a lower rate.

Tell you what, Bobby. Send me as much of as any high sample rate file(s) as
you think you need to make your point. My *real* email address is arnyk at
comcast dot net .

Comcast has a 10 meg final file size, or about 7.6 meg file size limit for
email attachments according to
http://faq.comcast.net/faq/answer.jsp?name=17627&cat=Em... If
email won't handle the file size, I think I can provide you with some FTP
upload space and a userid and password.

I'll downsample your sample(s) down to various far lower sample rate and
then upsample them back to whatever high sample rates they started out at.
I'll then put up a web page at www.pcabx.com where people can download them
from, and listen for themselves.
Anonymous
November 5, 2004 7:34:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Seems to me that regardless of the possible negatives, when used at a lower
bit rate than 192 kHz, these converters should perform close to the stellar
range. In other words, how much has anyone looked at 192 kHz converters
running at 96/88.2?

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Bobby Owsinski" <polymedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:p olymedia-1FFCCC.08334505112004@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <418B5DDF.5010307@audiorail.com>,
> "Garth D. Wiebe" <gwiebe@audiorail.com> wrote:
>
> > Tommi M. wrote:
> > > Hi guys,
> > >
> > > How have Dan Lavry's claims about the shortcomings of 192 kHz data
rates
> > > been accepted amongst audio professionals in the US?
> > >
> > > He released the "sampling theory" pdf on lavryengineering's website,
were
> > > there any fallacies in it that were clearly mistakes, or has he
managed to
> > > steer the "marketing ship" away from 192 kHz in any way?
> >
> > I've been following the discussions on the more technical PGM listerver
> > and have not seen any fallacies pointed out, even after much discussion.
> >
> > I am hoping 192 KHz will die the death it deserves, because it is
> > without any value over 96 KHz, which already provides well more than
> > enough headroom in sampling rate for the most critical audio recording
> > and playback imaginable.
> >
> > I speak as an engineer (EE), but the forces of marketing, advertising
> > hype, and anecdotal claims are powerful ones in today's market. And
> > there are development engineers (EEs) who are forced to comply because
> > corporate management compels them to and their salaries depend on it.
>
>
>
> You know, I've followed Dan's claims and newsgroup threads and I must
> admit that he presents a good case. But having done a fair amount of
> 192k recording (as well as recording the same program and 44.1, 48, 96
> and 192k), I can tell you that everyone involved in these recordings are
> always very partial to the 192, especially after hearing the same
> program at a lower rate.
>
> In fact, I had a long talk with the owner of a hi-tech LA rental company
> at AES that told me that most of his classical and movie scoring clients
> are now recording at 192 despite the scientific claims of the
> engineering community. As he said, "When Yo Yo Ma and John Williams ask
> for it, there must be something to it".
>
> It still seems to me that most people who diss the format haven't had
> much listening experience with it and go merely on the basis of what
> they believe is academically correct (which it might not be because of
> skewed or overlooked or even unknown data).
>
> That being said, we've been recording all projects at 96k for about 5
> years now (from before the time where it became convenient), and I now
> personally feel that the difference over 48k is not nearly enough to
> justify the extra disc space and hassle. There is a huge jump in
> quality (mostly in the mids and air) at 192k though, in my opinion.
>
> --
> Bobby Owsinski
> Surround Associates
> http://www.surroundassociates.com
Anonymous
November 5, 2004 7:34:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bobby Owsinski <polymedia@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>You know, I've followed Dan's claims and newsgroup threads and I must
>admit that he presents a good case. But having done a fair amount of
>192k recording (as well as recording the same program and 44.1, 48, 96
>and 192k), I can tell you that everyone involved in these recordings are
>always very partial to the 192, especially after hearing the same
>program at a lower rate.

That's basically the important thing. The question is... if those recordings
at 192 are downsampled to 44.1 and then back up to 192, are they still just
as good? Or is something lost in that process.

>In fact, I had a long talk with the owner of a hi-tech LA rental company
>at AES that told me that most of his classical and movie scoring clients
>are now recording at 192 despite the scientific claims of the
>engineering community. As he said, "When Yo Yo Ma and John Williams ask
>for it, there must be something to it".

I remember a lot of earlier converters sounded better at 48 ksamp/sec than
at 44.1 ksamp/sec. This was basically tracked down to filtering issues,
and modern converters don't have anywhere near the differences. The question
is whether whatever benefits we get from higher sample rates can be tracked
down again to some sort of conversion artifact or not.

>It still seems to me that most people who diss the format haven't had
>much listening experience with it and go merely on the basis of what
>they believe is academically correct (which it might not be because of
>skewed or overlooked or even unknown data).
>
>That being said, we've been recording all projects at 96k for about 5
>years now (from before the time where it became convenient), and I now
>personally feel that the difference over 48k is not nearly enough to
>justify the extra disc space and hassle. There is a huge jump in
>quality (mostly in the mids and air) at 192k though, in my opinion.

I must admit that I have not tried 192ksamp/sec, but I have tried 96 ksamp/sec
and not been very pleased. My worry is that if I heard increased air at
the 192 ksamp/sec rate that possibly the improvement I heard might itself be
an artifact. But then, I am a natural skeptic.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
November 5, 2004 7:34:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:g8OdnUGAXs8lJxbcRVn-3Q@rcn.net
> Seems to me that regardless of the possible negatives, when used at a
> lower bit rate than 192 kHz, these converters should perform close to
> the stellar range. In other words, how much has anyone looked at 192
> kHz converters running at 96/88.2?

http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/LynxTWO/index.htm for one example.
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 7:10:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bobby Owsinski wrote:

> You know, I've followed Dan's claims and newsgroup threads and I must
> admit that he presents a good case. But having done a fair amount of
> 192k recording (as well as recording the same program and 44.1, 48, 96
> and 192k), I can tell you that everyone involved in these recordings are
> always very partial to the 192, especially after hearing the same
> program at a lower rate.
>
> In fact, I had a long talk with the owner of a hi-tech LA rental company
> at AES that told me that most of his classical and movie scoring clients
> are now recording at 192 despite the scientific claims of the
> engineering community. As he said, "When Yo Yo Ma and John Williams ask
> for it, there must be something to it".
>
> It still seems to me that most people who diss the format haven't had
> much listening experience with it and go merely on the basis of what
> they believe is academically correct (which it might not be because of
> skewed or overlooked or even unknown data).
>
> That being said, we've been recording all projects at 96k for about 5
> years now (from before the time where it became convenient), and I now
> personally feel that the difference over 48k is not nearly enough to
> justify the extra disc space and hassle. There is a huge jump in
> quality (mostly in the mids and air) at 192k though, in my opinion.

One point that Dan made was that he did not question that some people
were hearing "something" in some instances. It is just that that
"something" must be "something else" besides the sampling rate.

It cannot be the "192K". Humans cannot hear anything in the 48 KHz to
96 KHz audio range. Nor can most speakers reproduce it. There may be
differences in various filter designs (which have nothing fundamentally
to do with sample rate), contributing totally different things, or
something else between Brand X @96KHz and Brand Y @192KHz particular
choice of equipment, if there is a perceivable difference.

Another important point that he brought up that I don't think was
emphasized enough is that you cannot just take a 192K converter, then
operate that same converter at 96K and make a judgment. The filters in
that converter were designed to work at 192K, and may deliver a
substandard performance at 96K.

I myself challenged Dan to do some lab work. Take the best 96K
converter product and compare it with the best 192K converter product.
And I said he should go one step further: Take a 192K converter
product, literally rip out the chip, and shoehorn in a 96K chip, so that
nothing is different except the chip. Then do the lab work on that.

Regarding listening tests, if you are comparing 11 KHz sampling rate
with 44.1 KHz sampling rate, then you do not need a double blind test.
Anyone off the street can hear the obvious. But the more subtle the
difference becomes, the more you need double-blind testing before
jumping to a conclusion.

You cannot make judgments based on "Yo Yo Ma and John Williams". This
is just my point. If you do not do a double-blind test, then you will
read what you want into it. It is human nature. Even if you put Arny
Krueger in front of it in person, without a double blind test, he will
come to some unfair conclusion, because even he is human. So am I. How
many people here have caught yourselves tweaking the wrong EQ knob on
the mixer (the knob for an adjacent channel strip, which was not on),
and imagined that you were doing something, before you realized
something was not right? How many have (hopefully unintentionally)
reached for the wrong stage monitor knob in response to a request on
stage and asked if that was better, and heard back, "Yes, that's better.
Thanks."?

So it becomes more anecdotal hearsay that drives the vicious cycle.
Where did "Yo Yo Ma and John Williams" get the idea that it was better?
And now that they perceive it is the "192K" we accumulate market momentum.

That last point feeds into my next one (actually, another one of Dan's,
for I am parroting many of his points). Why is the industry having this
discussion now? Where was the science and engineering work to
demonstrate that it could even in theory make a difference, *before*
people started designing things, let alone building them and presenting
them to studio clients, so that now we have "Yo Yo Ma and John Williams"
expecting the studios that they go to to have this "technology"?

The professional audio industry needs to be grounded on solid science
and engineering first. Otherwise, we are going to end up having gold
plated power plugs and oxygen-free power cords as a requisite demanded
by clients who claim to have golden ears and have convinced themselves
that it makes a difference.

I can say that Ohm's Law dictates that current is directly proportional
to voltage and inversely proportional to resistance. You could come
back and say that you understand what I am saying but that your
experience dictates that there are subtle differences to the contrary.
My response would be that your experience is either imagined, or that
there are other factors involved. In any case, I will insist that Ohm's
Law holds.

I think I mentioned this example in one of the forums before, but my
sister's husband is a mechanical engineer. He designs jet aircraft
engines for GE, not electronics. One Christmas we were together and he
told me that he was checking the headlight of his automobile with an
Ohmmeter, and the resistance was almost zero. It basically showed as a
dead short. Yet the bulb worked, and did not quickly drain the battery
or blow a fuse. Why was this, he asked? I had the answer on the tip of
my tongue for him, of course. Ohm's Law was not invalid in this
scenario, and there was no reason to question the quality of the
Ohmmeter. It was something else. It was that the resistance of the
filament of an incandescent light bulb rises quickly and dramatically
with temperature as it lights up.

In the same way that I would assume Ohm's Law was valid and not quickly
jump to a conclusion otherwise, I will say that the Nyquist Theorem is
valid and 192K sample rate is just allowing us a frequency response to
96KHz, which is useless for audio A/D and D/A converters. Either the
difference in a listening test between 192K and 96K is imagined, or it
is due to something else, and we should zero in on that, rather than the
sample rate.

Let me close with this question: For those who are going to buy into
192K sample rate, are you also going to be consistent and demand
microphones and speakers that have a flat frequency response to 96 KHz?
If there is "something" about 192 KHz sample rate that makes a
difference, then where is the push for the microphones and speakers to
match? Why then do you trust the sound quality of the recordings that
are done with today's speakers and microphones, most of which only go up
to 20-something KHz?
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 7:10:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Garth D. Wiebe" <gwiebe@audiorail.com> wrote in message
news:418C4EBF.5040100@audiorail.com
>
> You cannot make judgments based on "Yo Yo Ma and John Williams". This
> is just my point. If you do not do a double-blind test, then you will
> read what you want into it. It is human nature. Even if you put Arny
> Krueger in front of it in person, without a double blind test, he will
> come to some unfair conclusion, because even he is human.


Especially if you put Arny Krueger in front of it in person! Why did I
invent the ABX Comparator if I didn't need it myself? ;-)
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 8:29:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:o v2dncXN_b1B4BbcRVn-uQ@comcast.com...

> Just about anybody who wants to can own and use digital audio gear
operating
> at 96 and/or 192 KHz.
>
> It turns out that many people who listen critically find no audible
problems
> with recordings made at apparently modest sample rates such as 44.1 KHz.
In
> this context, all higher sample rates do is waste storage space and
> processing time. That seems to be the esssence of Lavry's arguments, and
it
> just makes sense.

> It stands to reason that if 96 Khz sampling provides no audible benefits
> over 44.1 KHz, then 192 Khz is not going to be advantageous.

All true. But there are also many people who always use 192 because they
don't care about storage space or processing time; it's a non-issue. They
use 192 even when they hear no difference compared to 96 or 44.1, because
they think it should better. In order to get those people stop using or
buying 192 devices, they have to be convinced about the shortcomings of
192kHz sampling rates; it isn't enough if they're told that 192 adds nothing
but higher ultrasonic frequencies. For them, that's reason enough to use it,
because they think "at least it can't be worse".

> If you have a PC or DAW capable of playback at 96 KHz you can evaluate the
> issue of sample rates at 96 KHz and below with your own ears by
downloading
> and listening to files from
> http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm .

Unfortunately I'm currently stuck with a 001, so 48kHz is the limit. But
thanks, I'll listen to those when I get a chance.
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 12:54:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Tommi M." <tomppaaREMOVE@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:cmf18l$q5v$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
> Hi guys,
>
> How have Dan Lavry's claims about the shortcomings of 192 kHz data rates
> been accepted amongst audio professionals in the US?
>
> He released the "sampling theory" pdf on lavryengineering's website, were
> there any fallacies in it that were clearly mistakes, or has he managed to
> steer the "marketing ship" away from 192 kHz in any way?


Sheesh. I just read the many excellent discussions others have posted to
this thread, but I have to say I came away from AES overcome by dominant
thought: Does any music really *need* anything better than the fidelity of,
say, Kind Of Blue? Isn't 95% of this new gear just solutions to the wrong
problem?

My point being, I wonder if we obsess too much about the sonic fidelity of
our systems, and not enough about trying to support the music and the
musicians.

Seems to me that shaving seconds off the time it takes to get a good drum
sound is at least as valuable as adding hertz to the sampling rate. The
money being spent to engineer ever-tweakier converters should be being spent
elsewhere in the process, I think - say, on better mic stands, or on systems
to help musicians play together in the same room at the same time without
too many phase problems. You might be able to convince me that 192k is
better than 96k (though I doubt it), but you can't convince me that it's the
most important thing to be worrying about.
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 1:09:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 22:29:35 -0500, Tommi M. wrote
(in article <cmhfti$qjp$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>):

>
> Unfortunately I'm currently stuck with a 001, so 48kHz is the limit. But
> thanks, I'll listen to those when I get a chance.

Hey noting wrong with an 001 if you add a better A/D converter. The RMW ADI 8
DS made a difference in my 001. That and some HQ preamps and there's a world
of difference.


Regards,

Ty Ford





-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 1:19:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 23:10:39 -0500, Garth D. Wiebe wrote
(in article <418C4EBF.5040100@audiorail.com>):

> Let me close with this question: For those who are going to buy into 192K
> sample rate, are you also going to be consistent and demand microphones and
> speakers that have a flat frequency response to 96 KHz?
> If there is "something" about 192 KHz sample rate that makes a difference,
> then where is the push for the microphones and speakers to match? Why then
> do you trust the sound quality of the recordings that are done with today's
> speakers and microphones, most of which only go up to 20-something KHz?

Nice cohesive rant Garth! (That's a compliment, BTW) Especially your closer.
Perfect for my saturday morning. :) 

I'm not a 192 convert yet for most of the reasons you mentioned. I'm also not
really interested in hearing (or buying) yet another mix of Sgt Pepper.

There are big bucks to be had by the music and gear companies at the consumer
market level. I figure they think if they can fire us up about it, they can
turn around and sell our "enthusiasm" to the consumers, e.g. "Wow! All the
pros are using it .....don't be left behind... you will be less of a man or
woman if you don't buy in!"

Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty much a gear slut. I just don't know if
"because we can" is ALWAYS the right answer.

Regards,

Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 3:11:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Garth D. Wiebe" <gwiebe@audiorail.com> wrote in message
>news:418C4EBF.5040100@audiorail.com
>
> You cannot make judgments based on "Yo Yo Ma and John Williams". This
> is just my point. If you do not do a double-blind test, then you will
> read what you want into it. It is human nature. Even if you put Arny
> Krueger in front of it in person, without a double blind test, he will
> come to some unfair conclusion, because even he is human.

You wouldn't _believe_ some of the things Toscanini thought were sonic
improvements...
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 3:54:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

John La Grou wrote:

> Tommi,
>
> One of Dan's concerns simply restates the widely held position that
> 192kHz is unnecessary due to limitations of human hearing. He also has
> some good arguments for those who claim that higher sampling rates
> offer better impulse-related spatial localization.
>
> As for design issues, I believe it's likely that DAC devices suffer an
> inherent tradeoff between speed and accuracy. It's not as clear that
> such a tradeoff exists in today's ADC devices. Hopefully, Dan can jump
> in here to clarify, though the last time he showed up he was chased
> away by a troll. Sad.
>
> Personally, I'm going ahead with a 192kHz ADC design for it hasn't
> shown any sonic limitations after decimation when compared with native
> 88.2/96kHz devices. That said, on a RADAR S-Nyquist into a Pyramix, I
> usually prefer 44.1/24 over all other choices.

I want to target this last statement as well. If you are an R&D
engineer and saying that you are "going ahead with a 192 KHz ADC design
for it hasn't shown any sonic limitation," then what many of us are
saying is that this strategy and thinking is going to have a snowball
effect that is far from benign.

To begin with, you know that there is a substantial NRE that will be
spent by your company on cranking a new product, and especially if you
are talking about developing a semiconductor device.

Then, do you think your marketing department is going to present this to
the market as "we are offering this 192 KHz product because it was an
easy engineering design task and we are convinced it will not perform
worse than our other products"? That is not how they will present it.

As more momentum is added to the 192K market presence, the next step
will cost a lot of people a lot of hard earned money. People will be
compelled to replace all their 48K and 96K gear with 96K and 192K gear.
These converter end-products are not cheap. Converters and sound
cards, disk space, memory, and processor speed requirements are all
affected.

Then it gets to the potential clients looking into the potential studios
and they have this question on their minds: "Does your studio have
192K? Yes, or No?" If they don't, then they take their business
elsewhere. After all, by the time the story gets to many of these
people, in their minds the 48K equipment is only a one fourth as
accurate, gets called hobby grade, and etc., and if you were a "serious"
high class professional, you would be up with the technology. "The chip
manufacturers wouldn't have developed 192K chips, the converter
end-product manufacturers wouldn't have designed them into their
products, the retailers and distributors wouldn't be selling them, and
they wouldn't be significantly invested and employed in so many high
class, reputable studios if 192K did not make a big difference in sonic
quality."

Do you see where I am going with this?

So if you are a salaried engineer and 192K is being dictated to you by
management at your company, there may be nothing you can do besides
raise a big verbal stink about it in meetings and try to convince them
otherwise. Then, after all is said, you have to comply.

But if you are like Dan Lavry, and are an engineer with decision making
power, you could take a stand and say "our company is not going to go
this route."
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 4:23:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Walter Harley wrote:


> Sheesh. I just read the many excellent discussions others have posted to
> this thread, but I have to say I came away from AES overcome by dominant
> thought: Does any music really *need* anything better than the fidelity of,
> say, Kind Of Blue? Isn't 95% of this new gear just solutions to the wrong
> problem?

When you consider the horrible things even a good
loudspeaker (or a room) does to a signal it defies
imagination that all these incredibly marginal effects could
be of any real consequence. It's about marketing and gear
churning as Dan implies if not directly states.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 8:44:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 6 Nov 2004 12:11:52 -0500, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>You wouldn't _believe_ some of the things Toscanini thought were sonic
>improvements...

I've heard that the painful brightness of the old Columbia's was
because George Szell auditioned test pressings with speakers
behind his couch. Is that true?

Chris Hornbeck
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 9:59:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"John La Grou" <jl@jps.net> wrote in message
news:h64no0h8ve5e7rnraok2sgkitnd2df0gq6@4ax.com...
> Personally, I'm going ahead with a 192kHz ADC design for it hasn't
> shown any sonic limitations after decimation when compared with native
> 88.2/96kHz devices. That said, on a RADAR S-Nyquist into a Pyramix, I
> usually prefer 44.1/24 over all other choices.

Funny how everybody seems to focus on "you can't hear the difference" while
Dan and James A. Moorer have BOTH shown that increasing the sample rate
demands a significant increase in precision, i.e. processing bit depth, in
order to not significantly increase the level of artifacts. It suggests that
there's likely a very good and even very measurable reason for your 44.1/24
preference!

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 10:22:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Garth D. Wiebe" <gwiebe@audiorail.com> wrote in message
news:418D1FF1.3050608@audiorail.com...
> Ah-ha! Then use the 192 KHz part, but do not run it at 192 KHz. Do not
> enable it at that speed.

It's important to understand that Dan isn't arguing in favor of 96k chips.
He's doing a lot more than just implimenting somebody else's parts so he
sees this as a matter of putting a lot of resources into arguably inferior
product performance.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 10:28:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 19:22:18 GMT, "Bob Olhsson" <olh@hyperback.com>
wrote:

>"Garth D. Wiebe" <gwiebe@audiorail.com> wrote in message
>news:418D1FF1.3050608@audiorail.com...
>> Ah-ha! Then use the 192 KHz part, but do not run it at 192 KHz. Do not
>> enable it at that speed.
>
>It's important to understand that Dan isn't arguing in favor of 96k chips.
>He's doing a lot more than just implimenting somebody else's parts so he
>sees this as a matter of putting a lot of resources into arguably inferior
>product performance.

Besides, modern converters typically operate at much higher sampling
rates and lower bit depths, and are down-converted in use. These
discussions are mostly spurious.

Chris Hornbeck
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 10:32:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 19:03:14 GMT, in rec.audio.pro you wrote:

>Were they double-blind? What did the "subjective" listeners know going
>into the tests?


In essence:

http://www.mil-media.com/docs/articles/design.shtml

http://www.mil-media.com/docs/articles/preamps.shtml


>Ah-ha! Then use the 192 KHz part, but do not run it at 192 KHz.


We'll give users the choice of all available sample rates, and perhaps
document our personal preferences in the manual. Even if raw 192kHz
was generally inferior WRT subjective accuracy, it might offer a
signature that some producers find useful to achieve a certain color.

I suspect that any deficiencies of 192kHz probably have more to do
with DACs than ADCs. but coaxing the slicon designers to join these
discussions is difficult. It's a small niche of designers who value
their job security..

JL
Anonymous
November 7, 2004 1:29:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 13:23:06 -0800, Bob Cain
<arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:


>When you consider the horrible things even a good
>loudspeaker (or a room) does to a signal it defies
>imagination that all these incredibly marginal effects could
>be of any real consequence. It's about marketing and gear
>churning as Dan implies if not directly states.


Bob,

While I understand your position, some of us actually enjoy seeking
out "marginal improvements" in audio quality. You might even call it a
passion.

JL
Anonymous
November 7, 2004 1:29:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"John La Grou" <jl@jps.net> wrote in message
news:lqjqo0h321r9aei8ll135qvf7mn1jfqk89@4ax.com...
> While I understand your position, some of us actually enjoy seeking
> out "marginal improvements" in audio quality. You might even call it a
> passion.

Don't get me wrong - it's a passion for me too, as a designer. And
obviously we've gotten to the point where we are now because of a succession
of people driven to say "sure, what we've got now is good enough, but I can
make something even better." After all, people claimed that Edison
cylinders were lifelike and realistic; thank heavens we didn't stop there.

But from the perspective of a musician or producer trying to make a good
record, I wonder whether we engineers have lost touch with where the most
urgent needs are, and I wonder whether our customers are well served by the
particular improvements we've chosen to focus on. If the goal is to make it
easier to get compelling recordings of great music in a time- and
cost-efficient way, how can we best support that goal?
Anonymous
November 7, 2004 1:29:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

John La Grou wrote:

> On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 13:23:06 -0800, Bob Cain
> <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>When you consider the horrible things even a good
>>loudspeaker (or a room) does to a signal it defies
>>imagination that all these incredibly marginal effects could
>>be of any real consequence. It's about marketing and gear
>>churning as Dan implies if not directly states.
>
>
>
> Bob,
>
> While I understand your position, some of us actually enjoy seeking
> out "marginal improvements" in audio quality. You might even call it a
> passion.
>
> JL

But only if they can be discriminated and I fail to see how
some of the extreme subtlety that is argued about could
possibly make it through the relatively large linear and
non-linear distortions imposed by speakers and rooms and
still be audible as improvements.

The effects are swamped by the variance just in the unit to
unit tolerances of speakers. They remain remarkably crude
elements of the system compared to the other components.
It's the old weakest link thing.

I well understand the passion for improvement, but with an
engineering background involving systems error analysis I am
extremely dubious that the marginal differences, and _so_
many are claimed in the audio world, are anywhere near as
signifigant as many who have a vested interest want to believe.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
November 7, 2004 2:26:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

John La Grou wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 19:03:14 GMT, in rec.audio.pro you wrote:
>
>
>>Were they double-blind? What did the "subjective" listeners know going
>>into the tests?
>
>
>
> In essence:
>
> http://www.mil-media.com/docs/articles/design.shtml
>
> http://www.mil-media.com/docs/articles/preamps.shtml

I think these two pointers answered my question. I have to say that I
found them completely dissatisfying, even if they were convincing that
you strive for excellence in your company's pursuits.

>>Ah-ha! Then use the 192 KHz part, but do not run it at 192 KHz.
>
>
>
> We'll give users the choice of all available sample rates, and perhaps
> document our personal preferences in the manual. Even if raw 192kHz
> was generally inferior WRT subjective accuracy, it might offer a
> signature that some producers find useful to achieve a certain color.

I think that stating up front in your documentation to customers and
potential customers all the things you have said and disclaimed in this
thread would be of great value.

If you have a reputable position in the industry, people will look to
you for guidance. So this carries a great responsibility.

> I suspect that any deficiencies of 192kHz probably have more to do
> with DACs than ADCs. but coaxing the slicon designers to join these
> discussions is difficult. It's a small niche of designers who value
> their job security..

These are the salaried ones that must answer to the corporate powers
that be. Having spent many years in R&D myself in a large corporate
environment, I know well what is at stake.

They may be reading these discussions even, but they will say nothing.
November 7, 2004 2:26:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Garth D. Wiebe wrote:

> John La Grou wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 19:03:14 GMT, in rec.audio.pro you wrote:
>>
>>>Were they double-blind? What did the "subjective" listeners know going
>>>into the tests?
>>
>> In essence:
>>
>> http://www.mil-media.com/docs/articles/design.shtml
>>
>> http://www.mil-media.com/docs/articles/preamps.shtml
>
> I think these two pointers answered my question. I have to say that I
> found them completely dissatisfying, even if they were convincing that
> you strive for excellence in your company's pursuits.

Strive??? I'd say he succeeds.... in spades. Just in case you weren't
aware, Mr. La Grou may very well make the most transparent microphone
preamplifier on the planet. What Dan Lavry is to A/D conversion, John La
Grou certainly is to preamplification.
Anonymous
November 7, 2004 2:27:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bob Olhsson wrote:
> "Garth D. Wiebe" <gwiebe@audiorail.com> wrote in message
> news:418D1FF1.3050608@audiorail.com...
>
>>Ah-ha! Then use the 192 KHz part, but do not run it at 192 KHz. Do not
>>enable it at that speed.
>
>
> It's important to understand that Dan isn't arguing in favor of 96k chips.
> He's doing a lot more than just implimenting somebody else's parts so he
> sees this as a matter of putting a lot of resources into arguably inferior
> product performance.

In context, John La Grou argued that he was compelled to use the 192 KHz
parts because of other features that they had which the 96 KHz parts did
not. He did not say what specific features they were, but I used that
as the basis for my if-then clause.

I do agree with Dan's arguments that you refer to.
Anonymous
November 7, 2004 4:44:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

agent86 wrote:
> Garth D. Wiebe wrote:
>
>
>>John La Grou wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 19:03:14 GMT, in rec.audio.pro you wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Were they double-blind? What did the "subjective" listeners know going
>>>>into the tests?
>>>
>>>In essence:
>>>
>>>http://www.mil-media.com/docs/articles/design.shtml
>>>
>>>http://www.mil-media.com/docs/articles/preamps.shtml
>>
>>I think these two pointers answered my question. I have to say that I
>>found them completely dissatisfying, even if they were convincing that
>>you strive for excellence in your company's pursuits.
>
>
> Strive??? I'd say he succeeds.... in spades. Just in case you weren't
> aware, Mr. La Grou may very well make the most transparent microphone
> preamplifier on the planet. What Dan Lavry is to A/D conversion, John La
> Grou certainly is to preamplification.

I am certainly not questioning the ultimate quality of his products and
work. Only whether a 192KHz converter was "better".
Anonymous
November 7, 2004 4:56:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

agent86 wrote:

> Mr. La Grou may very well make the most transparent microphone
> preamplifier on the planet.

I have an HV-3D here, and I do enjoy it very much. But I take it from
your comment that you have not auditioned a Gordon Instruments preamp.
That preamp, for me, completely recalibrates "transparent". No, I cannot
afford one.

--
ha
November 7, 2004 4:56:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

hank alrich wrote:

> agent86 wrote:
>
>> Mr. La Grou may very well make the most transparent microphone
>> preamplifier on the planet.
>
> I have an HV-3D here, and I do enjoy it very much. But I take it from
> your comment that you have not auditioned a Gordon Instruments preamp.
> That preamp, for me, completely recalibrates "transparent". No, I cannot
> afford one.

Nope, I haven't tried the Gordon. I'm usually careful to use phrases like
"may very well" for that very reason.

I can't even afford the Millenia. But it's one fine unit, no matter who it
belongs to.
Anonymous
November 7, 2004 6:41:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 18:50:50 -0800, Bob Cain
<arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:


>I well understand the passion for improvement, but with an
>engineering background involving systems error analysis I am
>extremely dubious that the marginal differences, and _so_
>many are claimed in the audio world, are anywhere near as
>signifigant as many who have a vested interest want to believe.


Bob,

This may sound callous, but I'm not concerned about what others think
about the marginal improvements I perceive. Nor am I concerned that
some may scoff at single-blind testing. It works for me, and I'll keep
striving for perceptible improvements in everything we do, regardless
of how insignificant others may judge those increments to be.

That said, I do understand and respect your position.

JL
Anonymous
November 7, 2004 3:34:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:cmjfbp012n5@enews3.newsguy.com...
>
>
> Walter Harley wrote:
>
>
>> Sheesh. I just read the many excellent discussions others have posted to
>> this thread, but I have to say I came away from AES overcome by dominant
>> thought: Does any music really *need* anything better than the fidelity
>> of, say, Kind Of Blue? Isn't 95% of this new gear just solutions to the
>> wrong problem?
>
> When you consider the horrible things even a good loudspeaker (or a room)
> does to a signal it defies imagination that all these incredibly marginal
> effects could be of any real consequence. It's about marketing and gear
> churning as Dan implies if not directly states.

Also comparisons of gear are unreliable with other as yet unaddressed
factors being variables such as in head position, auditory changes after
exposure to one set of music and a small period ofd time, etc.

What is more relevant (other than obvious real differences) is long term
imperssions of the qualities of a piece of gear, over a range of music and
time. But then it is hard to control the other necessary controls for
objective results.

geoff
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 12:55:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:QoidnefLBLWNLBbcRVn-tw@comcast.com...
> "Bobby Owsinski" <polymedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:p olymedia-1FFCCC.08334505112004@news1.west.earthlink.net
>
> > You know, I've followed Dan's claims and newsgroup threads and I must
> > admit that he presents a good case. But having done a fair amount of
> > 192k recording (as well as recording the same program and 44.1, 48, 96
> > and 192k), I can tell you that everyone involved in these recordings
> > are always very partial to the 192, especially after hearing the same
> > program at a lower rate.
>
> Tell you what, Bobby. Send me as much of as any high sample rate file(s)
as
> you think you need to make your point. My *real* email address is arnyk at
> comcast dot net .
>
> Comcast has a 10 meg final file size, or about 7.6 meg file size limit
for
> email attachments according to
> http://faq.comcast.net/faq/answer.jsp?name=17627&cat=Em...
If
> email won't handle the file size, I think I can provide you with some FTP
> upload space and a userid and password.
>
> I'll downsample your sample(s) down to various far lower sample rate and
> then upsample them back to whatever high sample rates they started out at.
> I'll then put up a web page at www.pcabx.com where people can download
them
> from, and listen for themselves.
>
>

Why the down/upsampling? Why not just post the samples?
I'm guessing editing...
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 2:27:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Walter Harley" <walterh@cafewalterNOSPAM.com> wrote in
news:qLadndci0fGf9xDcRVn-uw@speakeasy.net:

<snip>

> I wonder whether our customers are well
> served by the particular improvements we've chosen to focus on. If
> the goal is to make it easier to get compelling recordings of great
> music in a time- and cost-efficient way, how can we best support that
> goal?

I think that we have reached a satisfying level in any single channel.

I still have not yet heard a believable full surround sound.

And I still believe that the next generation will combine sound with video
for portable entertainment.
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 2:31:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

John La Grou <jl@jps.net> wrote in news:rj5ro0psfhcq8d2ub4dgi3i8n6jn9ssos1@
4ax.com:

> I'll keep
> striving for perceptible improvements in everything we do, regardless
> of how insignificant others may judge those increments to be.

Both are correct. Striving for perfection in each component aids us in
achieving perfection for the whole system. Let others work on the enormous
variation in reproduction formats.
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 11:25:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Thanks, Arny. Minimal difference, but the figures do speak to better 96 kHz
response, even though it's obviously insignificant in audability.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:evSdnVQteqjOWBbcRVn-qQ@comcast.com...
> "Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
> news:g8OdnUGAXs8lJxbcRVn-3Q@rcn.net
> > Seems to me that regardless of the possible negatives, when used at a
> > lower bit rate than 192 kHz, these converters should perform close to
> > the stellar range. In other words, how much has anyone looked at 192
> > kHz converters running at 96/88.2?
>
> http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/LynxTWO/index.htm for one example.
>
>
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 11:53:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Natalie Drest" <mccoeyHAT@netspaceCOAT.net.au> wrote in message
news:cmkutq$113b$1@otis.netspace.net.au
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:QoidnefLBLWNLBbcRVn-tw@comcast.com...
>> "Bobby Owsinski" <polymedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:p olymedia-1FFCCC.08334505112004@news1.west.earthlink.net
>>
>>> You know, I've followed Dan's claims and newsgroup threads and I
>>> must admit that he presents a good case. But having done a fair
>>> amount of 192k recording (as well as recording the same program and
>>> 44.1, 48, 96 and 192k), I can tell you that everyone involved in
>>> these recordings are always very partial to the 192, especially
>>> after hearing the same program at a lower rate.
>>
>> Tell you what, Bobby. Send me as much of as any high sample rate
>> file(s) as you think you need to make your point. My *real* email
>> address is arnyk at comcast dot net .
>>
>> Comcast has a 10 meg final file size, or about 7.6 meg file size
>> limit for email attachments according to
>> http://faq.comcast.net/faq/answer.jsp?name=17627&cat=Em...
>> If
>> email won't handle the file size, I think I can provide you with
>> some FTP upload space and a userid and password.
>>
>> I'll downsample your sample(s) down to various far lower sample rate
>> and then upsample them back to whatever high sample rates they
>> started out at. I'll then put up a web page at www.pcabx.com where
>> people can download them from, and listen for themselves.

> Why the down/upsampling?

The purpose of the downsampling is to provide examples of what
low-sample-rate digital data formats do to high-sample-rate audio data.

The purpose of the subsequent upsampling is to provide samples that people
can compare using the same converters operating at the same sample rates.

>Why not just post the samples?

Because you can't isolate the sonic signatures of sample rates from the
sonic signature of hardware operating at different sample rates that way.

> I'm guessing editing...

No, its all about doing a comparison of just the sonic properties of digital
formats operating at different sample rates.

If you want to cut to the chase - I'll tell you what happens when you do
proper listening tests. You find out what has been shown many times - that
44/16 is actually sonic overkill. Audible artifacts of not enough data per
sample, and not enough samples per second sort of cut out when you go much
higher than about 14/38, presuming a good clean modern monitoring
environment. Ironically, substandard monitoring environments can be more
*sensitive* to high sample rate music, but that is due to artifacts that
they introduce due to their technical inadequacies.

The usual argument against tests with results like these, is that the
origional music was not pristene enough and/or that the monitoring
environment was not clean enough, or someones ears aren't good enough.
Therefore, it is helpful to get the person making the naive assertions to
provide the origional music for testing and perform the tests with their own
monitoring system, and of course use their own ears.

Here is an example of what happens when *name* people do their own tests
like these:

"George Massenburg" <gmlinc@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:D c15750e.0301091707.5e40d7ce@posting.google.com

> Speaking of 'differences'. I hope that I live long enough to craft and
> demonstrate what a scientific listening/evaluation test is and what it
> isn't.
> What it isn't is what you might call the [golden-ear pantload name
> here] demonstration where this guy sits you down and plays you a
> couple of things (could be anything: the levels aren't calibrated and
> could be anywhere). [G.E.P.L.] proceeds to switch sounds for you
> saying, "O.K., listen to this. RIght, NOW listen to THIS!" (maybe he
> actually turns the monitor gain up) "Wow, that's great, huh?" And this
> other? HEY, you couldn't possibly like THAT, could you??? I mean,
> c'mon, you'd be an IDIOT not to hear the difference...
> Any test where you know which piece of gear you're listening to...any
> test that's not perfectly blindfolded and well-controlled cannot
> possibly be called scientific. As much as I don't like the downsides
> of the A-B-C-Hidden Reference it's a very useful discipline to reveal
> modest differences.
> The best listening tests demand that you objectify what you hear.
> An example of a useful, forthright listening test is the high-octave
> test suggested and implemented by Bob Katz, where he takes a 96/24
> file (presumably rich in >20kHz content), and filters it at 20kHz or
> so. Then he listens (through exactly the same hardware, and under
> exactly the same circumstances, removing conversion, to name one
> factor, as a possible variant) to see if he can tell the difference
> between the two (filtered and unfiltered) files. Can I be brave here
> and tell you the truth? Neither of us have had significant successes
> with differentiating between the samples. (Incidentally, this is a
> test that I proposed several years ago at the AES Technical Committee
> on Studio Production and Practices, and have finally implemented on
> the EdNet web site. Stay tuned.)
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 11:53:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Natalie Drest" <mccoeyHAT@netspaceCOAT.net.au> wrote in message
>
>>Why the down/upsampling?
>
>
> The purpose of the downsampling is to provide examples of what
> low-sample-rate digital data formats do to high-sample-rate audio data.


Remember that Mr. Lavry maintained this was not a valid comparison
because the performance of the S/H was degraded at higher sample rates;
a convertor optimized for 192 could not perform as well as the same
convertor optimized for 96. That is, starting at 96 would necessarily
give better results than downsampling to 96.
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 12:00:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"John La Grou" <jl@jps.net> wrote in message
news:619qo092ncs07cpp4cmpc4lp1icphq7s4d@4ax.com
> On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 19:03:14 GMT, in rec.audio.pro you wrote:
>
>> Were they double-blind? What did the "subjective" listeners know
>> going into the tests?

> In essence:

> http://www.mil-media.com/docs/articles/design.shtml

> http://www.mil-media.com/docs/articles/preamps.shtml

I see nothing in these articles that should assure *anybody* that
time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled listening tests are being used
in any way, size, shape or form.

What am I missing?

BTW, the *standard* document for judging the adequacy of a listening test
would be ITU recommendation BS-1116. More information about proper
listening tests can be found at www.pcabx.com .
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 3:24:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

John La Grou wrote:

> Bob,
>
> This may sound callous, but I'm not concerned about what others think
> about the marginal improvements I perceive. Nor am I concerned that
> some may scoff at single-blind testing. It works for me, and I'll keep
> striving for perceptible improvements in everything we do, regardless
> of how insignificant others may judge those increments to be.

I want to make sure to emphasize again that for my part, all my comments
are for the purpose of zeroing in on the 192K sampling rate issue. That
is not a topic for subjective listening. That is science and
engineering. It is an area for theory and for regimented experimental
testing that must be double blind. It is something that should never
have gone to market without that R&D rigor.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I do not recall your website indicating
even "single blind" testing. Now, there is a time and a place for
subjective listening. I do a humble amount of studio recording and live
SR myself on the side, plenty enough to know that just listening is
important in many circumstances, and especially just listening with
clients to find out what each individual likes and wants. Non-blind
listening. I've developed a good reputation within my humble realm of
clientele, who depend on me to get "good sound" and "good recordings".
Choice of microphones and speakers, placement of microphones and
speakers, effects, the mix, and so on. You can't "double-blind" most of
that sort of thing.

You seem to have a good balanced view of things. But a reputable
company like yours could, even inadvertently, mislead people to the
wrong idea. One person in this thread utters the chant "When Yo Yo Ma
and John Williams ask for it, there must be something to it." Another
in this thread says "Just in case you weren't aware, Mr. La Grou may
very well make the most transparent microphone preamplifier on the
planet. What Dan Lavry is to A/D conversion, John La Grou certainly is
to preamplification."

So the question I am asking is, will we end up with people saying "John
La Grou prefers 192K, so there must be something to it."? That is the
question. You could in principle feed this, or you could disclaim it.
I would urge that if you feel compelled to implement 192K and make that
an option to your customers, then your marketing, press releases,
website, and owner's manual would make it clear that you are using 192K
converters not because you think 192K sampling rate is fundamentally the
way to go, but for the other reasons you stated, which have nothing
fundamentally to do with any desire to sample at 192K.
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 3:24:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <418F657B.8070300@audiorail.com> gwiebe@audiorail.com writes:

> So the question I am asking is, will we end up with people saying "John
> La Grou prefers 192K, so there must be something to it."? That is the
> question.

Substitute "may" for "must" and that's valid. John makes good
recordings, and if his recordings start sounding even better to him
(and presumably his customers) when he starts using 192 kHz
components, then so be it.

I think the issue is that we (as an industry of practicioners rather
than pure scientists) tend to talk in shortspeak. "192 kHz" doesn't
mean simply "generating 192,000 samples for each one second of audio"
but rather means "building new gear based on components capable of
generating . . ." As John said, his 192 kHz results may not be
isolated to just the higher sample rate, but a combination of that and
better design of the parts that he buys off the shelf as well as
better surrounding designs based on what he's learned and how what he
designs affects what he hears.

As Dan Lavry suggests, simply changing sample rate and leaving
everything else the same doesn't make for a good experiment.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 5:03:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"S O'Neill" <nopsam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:o J6dnf-ItsrDChLcRVn-ow@omsoft.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Natalie Drest" <mccoeyHAT@netspaceCOAT.net.au> wrote in message
>>
>>> Why the down/upsampling?
>>
>>
>> The purpose of the downsampling is to provide examples of what
>> low-sample-rate digital data formats do to high-sample-rate audio
>> data.
>
>
> Remember that Mr. Lavry maintained this was not a valid comparison
> because the performance of the S/H was degraded at higher sample
> rates; a convertor optimized for 192 could not perform as well as the
> same convertor optimized for 96.

I think you've got me confused with someone who has a controversy with Mr.
Lavry. If you go back and look at the post I was responding to, it was by
Bobby Oswinsky, not Dan Levry.

> That is, starting at 96 would necessarily give better results than
> downsampling to 96.

Agreed, but that was not the issue that I was addressing. I was addressing
what appeared to be a claim that recording at 192 has audible benefits.
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 5:26:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1099919189k@trad

> As Dan Lavry suggests, simply changing sample rate and leaving
> everything else the same doesn't make for a good experiment.

I'm not sure that's what Dan was trying to suggest, but my omniscience
module is not performing as desired lately.

Simply changing the sample rate and leaving everything else the same does
make for a good experiment, depending on the question you are trying to
answer. There seem to be a lot of different quesitons that various people
have in mind.

One question that many might find itneresting might be: Does changing the
sample rate and leaving everything else pretty much the same make a
difference? Looking at extant controversies, even narrower questions such
as: "Does increasing the sample rate above 44.1 KHz and leaving everything
else pretty much the same make a difference?" seem to be interesting to some
people.
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 6:05:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:


> If you want to cut to the chase - I'll tell you what happens when you do
> proper listening tests. You find out what has been shown many times - that
> 44/16 is actually sonic overkill. Audible artifacts of not enough data per
> sample, and not enough samples per second sort of cut out when you go much
> higher than about 14/38, presuming a good clean modern monitoring
> environment. Ironically, substandard monitoring environments can be more
> *sensitive* to high sample rate music, but that is due to artifacts that
> they introduce due to their technical inadequacies.

Careful, Arny. People here are likely to shoot the
messenger. :-)

For all the argument about faith vs fact as guiding
principles you'd think all golden ears were neocons.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 6:06:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 14:25:05 +0100, Roger W. Norman wrote:
> Thanks, Arny. Minimal difference, but the figures do speak to better 96
> kHz response, even though it's obviously insignificant in audability.

There are also some theoretical benefits for signal processing (FFT) at a
higher sampling rate. Here too the question is if they are audible.
IMHO there are no real grounds to spend time and money on improvements if
you have a good performing 96/24 or even a 44.1/24 set.
Better spend your time and money on acoustics, microphones, microphone
position etc.

For a consumer playback environment I think 44.1/16 allmost never is the
limitting factor. Speakers, speaker placement and room acoustics normally
are by far the most limitting factors.

--
Chel van Gennip
Bezoek Serg van Gennip's site http://www.serg.vangennip.com
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 6:07:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Chel van Gennip wrote:


> For a consumer playback environment I think 44.1/16 allmost never is the
> limitting factor. Speakers, speaker placement and room acoustics normally
> are by far the most limitting factors.

By at least an order of magnitude WRT all relevant
paramaters of accuracy.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!