IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

9 Pages V  « < 4 5 6 7 8 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Neil Young's new iPod killer!, Finally comes out.
includemeout
post Mar 23 2014, 00:10
Post #126





Group: Members
Posts: 282
Joined: 16-December 09
From: Maringá, Brazil
Member No.: 76067



QUOTE (andy o @ Mar 22 2014, 15:47) *
BTW, this topic made this week's Skeptic's Guide http://www.theskepticsguide.org/podcast/sgu/454 They mention (and base the segment) primarily on Monty's now page at xiph.org.

It would be nice to tell whoever is interested that the real action starts at ~28 minutes into the podcast.


--------------------
Listen to the music, not the media.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
includemeout
post Mar 23 2014, 00:17
Post #127





Group: Members
Posts: 282
Joined: 16-December 09
From: Maringá, Brazil
Member No.: 76067



Great, balanced coverage for a non-specialized podcast btw. Specially with the x-ray vision-vs.-golden-ear-hearing analogy.

In your face audiophools!

Edit: also, great analogy when they compare an audiophool's dodgy jargon when defying what they think they seem to listen to to that of an enologist, when describing what only they seem to be capable to taste in wine, whereas ordinary people cannot.

And yes, I've started writting these last two posts while still listening to it - hence the edit. blush.gif But I hope you find it as interesting and elucidating to the great public as I did.

Edit II: but andy o, I couldn't, for the life of me, hear where exactly they mentioned this very thread!

This post has been edited by includemeout: Mar 23 2014, 00:43


--------------------
Listen to the music, not the media.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
andy o
post Mar 23 2014, 03:15
Post #128





Group: Members
Posts: 1311
Joined: 14-April 09
Member No.: 68950



QUOTE (includemeout @ Mar 22 2014, 16:17) *
Great, balanced coverage for a non-specialized podcast btw. Specially with the x-ray vision-vs.-golden-ear-hearing analogy.

In your face audiophools!


Did they mention x-rays?

The SGU is a very good podcast, very entertaining also. Should appeal to most of us in this board though it's the first time I've heard them talk about "hi-res" audio. BTW, I think "audiophool" was coined by James Randi, who is a frequent guest there very close to the hosts. He even used to have a regular segment ranting about whatever was in his mind.

QUOTE
Edit II: but andy o, I couldn't, for the life of me, hear where exactly they mentioned this very thread!

I didn't say that, sorry for the confusion. I said the topic of this thread, which is N. Young's player and the attention it's getting. Although, I thought it might be a good idea to email them resources available on this board, like the Meyer/Moran thread where they actually showed up.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AliceWonder
post Mar 23 2014, 04:37
Post #129





Group: Members
Posts: 119
Joined: 13-July 12
From: California
Member No.: 101393



Unfortunately she's wrong about several things, she mixes up sample rate and audio frequency, for example. - one of the guys tactfully corrected it.

This post has been edited by AliceWonder: Mar 23 2014, 04:52
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
includemeout
post Mar 23 2014, 11:30
Post #130





Group: Members
Posts: 282
Joined: 16-December 09
From: Maringá, Brazil
Member No.: 76067



QUOTE (andy o @ Mar 22 2014, 23:15) *
QUOTE (includemeout @ Mar 22 2014, 16:17) *
Great, balanced coverage for a non-specialized podcast btw. Specially with the x-ray vision-vs.-golden-ear-hearing analogy.

In your face audiophools!


Did they mention x-rays?

Yes, and in their own way, in a manner that turns any audiophool's claims totally unfounded and child-like.

QUOTE (andy o @ Mar 22 2014, 23:15) *
QUOTE
Edit II: but andy o, I couldn't, for the life of me, hear where exactly they mentioned this very thread!

I didn't say that, sorry for the confusion. I said the topic of this thread, which is N. Young's player and the attention it's getting.

No you didn't, actually. My bad for having such high expectations and therefore reading too much. rolleyes.gif

QUOTE (andy o @ Mar 22 2014, 23:15) *
Although, I thought it might be a good idea to email them resources available on this board, like the Meyer/Moran thread where they actually showed up.

Did they? Under which usernames? Now that tells me why their claims (though as AliceWonder's mentioned, sometimes equivocated but usually corrected straight away by another member) are always voiced with warnings that they are not audio engineers or the like.


QUOTE (AliceWonder @ Mar 23 2014, 00:37) *
Unfortunately she's wrong about several things, she mixes up sample rate and audio frequency, for example. - one of the guys tactfully corrected it.


That teaches me that trying to listen for a specific HA mention (that never was) in a podcast, whilst writing two posts and transferring songs from my PC to my DAP at the same time, was way beyond my lame multitasking skills! crying.gif

This post has been edited by includemeout: Mar 23 2014, 11:43


--------------------
Listen to the music, not the media.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
andy o
post Mar 23 2014, 16:05
Post #131





Group: Members
Posts: 1311
Joined: 14-April 09
Member No.: 68950



I think only one of the authors showed up http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=57406

None of the SGU people are experts, or apparently were very well read regarding audio. I'd been listening to most of the shows since the beginning, and I always thought audio would be a good topic to cover but they never did till now. The main guy (Steve Novella, who added the bit about frequencies) is a neurologist at Yale, his analyses on medical stuff are great. The woman (Rebecca Watson) was assigned the news item, and she got most of her info from Monty's page. To me it speaks to their ability as nonexperts to actually wade through the BS and get to the real info even when you initially don't understand the topic very deeply.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kees de Visser
post Mar 27 2014, 09:50
Post #132





Group: Members
Posts: 662
Joined: 22-May 05
From: France
Member No.: 22220



QUOTE (includemeout @ Mar 23 2014, 00:10) *
QUOTE (andy o @ Mar 22 2014, 15:47) *
BTW, this topic made this week's Skeptic's Guide http://www.theskepticsguide.org/podcast/sgu/454 They mention (and base the segment) primarily on Monty's now page at xiph.org.
It would be nice to tell whoever is interested that the real action starts at ~28 minutes into the podcast.

There's another topic in that podcast that I found intriguing. It's about "deja-vu", from about 06:23-16:14. At 09:13 the (apparently knowledgeable) panelist explains that measured (fMRI) neural activity is identical when comparing real experiences and the memory of that experience. If that is true, wouldn't that imply that we don't need "perfect or lossless" stimuli to provoke identical sensations compared to those of the past (e.g. live concerts)?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post Mar 27 2014, 16:12
Post #133





Group: Members
Posts: 2230
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



QUOTE (Maurits @ Mar 21 2014, 06:18) *
This is a bit of an unfortunate quote:
QUOTE
"From a scientific point of view, there's no need to go beyond," said Bernhard Grill, leader of Fraunhofer Institute's audio and multimedia division and one of the creators of the MP3 and AAC audio compression formats. "It's always nice to have higher numbers on the box, and 24 bits sounds better than 16 bits. But practically, I think people should much more worry about speakers and room acoustics."




add under certain circumstances and it passes HA muster.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post Mar 27 2014, 16:24
Post #134





Group: Members
Posts: 2230
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



fromt hat CNET article

QUOTE
"Monty is wrong. Twenty-four bits does matter -- but for a very small sliver of the music business," said Mark Waldrep, an audio engineer who's founder and chief executive of AIX Records and iTrax.com and who focuses on high-resolution audio -- including efforts of his own to debunk some claims.


It's been awhile since I watched xiph's videos, but doesn't he note somewhere the utility of 24 bits in *recording and production*?



Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RonaldDumsfeld
post Mar 27 2014, 17:08
Post #135





Group: Members
Posts: 330
Joined: 12-June 09
Member No.: 70617



QUOTE
"It's always nice to have higher numbers on the box, and 24 bits sounds better than 16 bits.


I'm going to give the guy the benefit of the doubt and consider this a comprehension issue.

The number 24 looks better when printed on the box.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
allnoyz
post Mar 27 2014, 17:25
Post #136





Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 26-March 14
Member No.: 115170



QUOTE (RonaldDumsfeld @ Mar 27 2014, 10:08) *
QUOTE
"It's always nice to have higher numbers on the box, and 24 bits sounds better than 16 bits.


I'm going to give the guy the benefit of the doubt and consider this a comprehension issue.

The number 24 looks better when printed on the box.


It tends to make the price look a bit higher as well.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kode54
post Mar 28 2014, 02:04
Post #137





Group: Admin
Posts: 4608
Joined: 15-December 02
Member No.: 4082



QUOTE (Hotsoup @ Mar 13 2014, 06:13) *
I'll keep buying used CD's for $.01 + shipping and die with my archaic optical disc format. laugh.gif

I was about to ask where you were getting CDs so cheap, but then I noticed you said "used". Still, I have to wonder who's selling their CDs for only a penny plus shipping. Sounds better than bulk rate.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
probedb
post Mar 28 2014, 10:45
Post #138





Group: Members
Posts: 1214
Joined: 6-September 04
Member No.: 16817



QUOTE (kode54 @ Mar 28 2014, 01:04) *
I was about to ask where you were getting CDs so cheap, but then I noticed you said "used". Still, I have to wonder who's selling their CDs for only a penny plus shipping. Sounds better than bulk rate.


You can pick them up for that on amazon marketplace smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Arnold B. Kruege...
post Mar 28 2014, 12:38
Post #139





Group: Members
Posts: 3700
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (AliceWonder @ Mar 22 2014, 10:49) *
*speculative*

What I think happened, the audiophile vinyl vs CD debate had a lot of people in the vinyl camp, insisting that vinyl as a medium was inherently better. When it became clear that the sounds they actually loved so much was an artifact of the vinyl and not a superiority of analog vs digital, it was hard for them to save face, they had to continue to insist vinyl was superior, moving to digital wasn't something they could do and save face.

High definition audio gives them an opportunity to embrace digital and save face, because they continue to claim that vinyl was better than CD but that high definition captures the "warmth, air, richness" that they have long spouted CD lacks.

This is evidenced by statements such as "I haven't heard music this good since vinyl" (quoted earlier in this thread)

so-called HD audio gives them an opportunity to move to digital while still saving face and continue claiming their claims about vinyl > CD had merit.

HD audio is about feeding/preserving audiophile pride.


Pretty good analysis of a big part of the market for HD tracks.

A lot of it is based on ignorance, pure and simple.

The stories that are told to jusitify HD can sound scientific...

This post has been edited by Arnold B. Krueger: Mar 28 2014, 12:38
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hotsoup
post Mar 28 2014, 14:17
Post #140





Group: Members
Posts: 100
Joined: 16-March 12
From: Bellingham, WA
Member No.: 97852



QUOTE (probedb @ Mar 28 2014, 02:45) *
QUOTE (kode54 @ Mar 28 2014, 01:04) *
I was about to ask where you were getting CDs so cheap, but then I noticed you said "used". Still, I have to wonder who's selling their CDs for only a penny plus shipping. Sounds better than bulk rate.
You can pick them up for that on amazon marketplace smile.gif
Yes, even though I have Amazon Prime, I can't resist shopping for used. This is best case scenario pricing but I've probably bought around a hundred or more at around this price. Some would call it an addiction.

Back to PONO, I might consider it if there's a snarky interactive AI, like a virtual record store clerk/Hi-Fi salesman.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
_if
post Mar 28 2014, 23:03
Post #141





Group: Members
Posts: 55
Joined: 18-December 10
From: Ohio
Member No.: 86607



QUOTE (krabapple @ Mar 27 2014, 10:24) *
fromt hat CNET article

QUOTE
"Monty is wrong. Twenty-four bits does matter -- but for a very small sliver of the music business," said Mark Waldrep, an audio engineer who's founder and chief executive of AIX Records and iTrax.com and who focuses on high-resolution audio -- including efforts of his own to debunk some claims.


It's been awhile since I watched xiph's videos, but doesn't he note somewhere the utility of 24 bits in *recording and production*?

Yeah, I got a bit miffed at that statement because Monty does specifically state 24 bits is useful on the production end. Then I thought maybe the interviewer just told him an incomplete summary and the guy responded to that, but he owns a website that whose whole premise is the idea that "high resolution" is meaningful. Maybe he means that it's only suited for some genres which are comparatively a small segment of the business. I think I went to his site a long time ago and he stated plainly that he didn't think anything recorded analog should be called high-res (a respectable view, but then he doesn't consider 16/44.1 to be high-res either) which would further limit the segment of the music business for which 24 bits matter.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Arnold B. Kruege...
post Mar 29 2014, 13:48
Post #142





Group: Members
Posts: 3700
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (_if @ Mar 28 2014, 18:03) *
QUOTE (krabapple @ Mar 27 2014, 10:24) *
fromt hat CNET article

QUOTE
"Monty is wrong. Twenty-four bits does matter -- but for a very small sliver of the music business," said Mark Waldrep, an audio engineer who's founder and chief executive of AIX Records and iTrax.com and who focuses on high-resolution audio -- including efforts of his own to debunk some claims.


It's been awhile since I watched xiph's videos, but doesn't he note somewhere the utility of 24 bits in *recording and production*?

Yeah, I got a bit miffed at that statement because Monty does specifically state 24 bits is useful on the production end.


I do a fair amount of production and I opine that Monty gives the 24-bitters way too much slack.

I am of the opinion and experience that a well-trained recordist can probably preset levels for no clipping while recording with 10 dB or less headroom. Especially true if there is a rehearsal. If you have 16 bits properly noise shaped there will never be audible noise in a real world situation.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kees de Visser
post Mar 29 2014, 20:25
Post #143





Group: Members
Posts: 662
Joined: 22-May 05
From: France
Member No.: 22220



QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Mar 29 2014, 13:48) *
I do a fair amount of production and I opine that Monty gives the 24-bitters way too much slack.
The "problem" for 24-bitters is that there's nothing between 16 and 24. 16 can be a bit tight and 24 is mostly overkill. But there are no 20-bit recorders (anymore), so we use 24.
A few years ago I had to record airplanes and I was glad to have a 24-bit recorder. There's not always a soundcheck wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
_if
post Mar 29 2014, 22:42
Post #144





Group: Members
Posts: 55
Joined: 18-December 10
From: Ohio
Member No.: 86607



It's true that 16-bit can definitely yield great recordings, there are some from the '80s and '90s and I've heard home studio productions done entirely at 16-bit that sound great. Of course it would take a lot of processing or amplification to create noise levels similar to tape hiss and we still managed with that for several decades. Nonetheless, I don't begrudge using 24 bits in recording and production so I'm okay with Monty not either. Perhaps though it would be worthwhile as a means to dispelling some mysticism that might unintentionally be aided by his treatment of 24-bit if he would mention that there have been great recordings done with 16 bits and name some favorites like Brothers in Arms.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
includemeout
post Mar 30 2014, 00:08
Post #145





Group: Members
Posts: 282
Joined: 16-December 09
From: Maringá, Brazil
Member No.: 76067



QUOTE (_if @ Mar 29 2014, 18:42) *
(...) there have been great recordings done with 16 bits and name some favorites like Brothers in Arms.


An early album which BTW, is one of the dynamic range & clean-cut production kings of all time, IMHO.


--------------------
Listen to the music, not the media.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Apr 2 2014, 17:05
Post #146


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5103
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



Oh good grief...
http://www.t3.com/reviews/sony-walkman-nwz...Battery-Verdict

QUOTE
Sony Walkman NWZ-F886: Sound quality

It's only when you come to listen to music on the Sony NWZ-F886 that it becomes apparent why someone might buy this rather than simply listening to their smartphone. The sound quality is slightly better than an iPhone 5 in every respect.

Even MP3s are improved by Sony's Digital Sound Enhancement Engine (DSEE) HX, with more depth and scale to the soundstage, so your music seems to fill your headphones with an expansive sound. Certainly it is louder, but also clearer and punchier through Sony's ear buds. There's less hiss too thanks to the Digital Noise cancellation.

The Sony NWZ-F886 really comes into its own when you load up some lossless 192KHz/24bit files. You'll need to enter the esoteric and often expensive world of hi-res audio music to find them, but Sony's High Resolution Audio Hub [http://www.sony.co.uk/hub/high-resolution-audio ] will point you in the right direction.

Swapping the unremarkable Sony earbuds for reference-quality Sennheiser HD800 headphones you can really hear the lossless versions of the same songs soar. There's a wider dynamic range that delivers more detail in the treble and more impact and weight to the bass, while vocals and mid-range instruments stand out in a much more realistic way. Be warned, you might find it had to go back to compressed MP3 files after tasting the delights of such audiophile-grade encodes.


(that's page two - feel free to go back to page one, but it's page two where it gets silly.)

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post Apr 7 2014, 17:54
Post #147





Group: Members
Posts: 2230
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



I'm hesitant to even look at the comments -- someone please do it for me laugh.gif


Neil Young's Pono: 192kHz 24-bit music player produces sound quality that is wasted on human hearing. So why pay the extra for it?

This post has been edited by krabapple: Apr 7 2014, 17:54
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ktf
post Apr 7 2014, 18:17
Post #148





Group: Members
Posts: 359
Joined: 22-March 09
From: The Netherlands
Member No.: 68263



QUOTE (krabapple @ Apr 7 2014, 18:54) *
I'm hesitant to even look at the comments

Don't worry, apart from the occasional "I can hear a difference" and "Vinyl sounds better", most responses would pass the HA TOS


--------------------
Music: sounds arranged such that they construct feelings.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
eahm
post Apr 7 2014, 19:07
Post #149





Group: Members
Posts: 1058
Joined: 11-February 12
Member No.: 97076



QUOTE (krabapple @ Apr 7 2014, 09:54) *

Is Are this these enough?

QUOTE
Trust me you will hear the difference, I'm a music producer and I can hear a difference between 24 bit and 32 bit float so a jump from 16 bit to 24 bit should make the difference, 192khz May not be bearable but engineers will often use this to hear more and then bounce it down to 16 bit 44.1 khz ...Why would it be there as an option to producers and audio engineers if it did not make a difference ??? Go learn something


QUOTE
Еven the best reproducing audio device is very very far from what we hear naturally.


This post has been edited by eahm: Apr 7 2014, 19:14


--------------------
/lwAsIimz
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kohlrabi
post Apr 7 2014, 19:21
Post #150





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 1024
Joined: 12-March 05
From: Kiel, Germany
Member No.: 20561



I am amazed that all these artists and "engineers" never stop to wonder how soundtrack and classical music engineers manage to make proper use of 16bit/44.1kHz audio CDs. I'm perplexed that they fail to notice the difference. I mean, upon hearing such a CD, the first question should be "what am I doing wrong?", no? Especially if you call yourself an "engineer".

This post has been edited by Kohlrabi: Apr 7 2014, 19:25


--------------------
Ceterum censeo Masterdiskem esse delendam.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

9 Pages V  « < 4 5 6 7 8 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 27th August 2014 - 21:12