[Phronesis]

Since you started posting here you keep making the same mistake. It's been explained to you several times but after debating it once or twice, you just ignore the explanation and then carry on repeating that same mistake. Then, when accused of repeating the same mistake, you respond by repeating the same mistake again???!

Again, the job of audio reproduction equipment is to reproduce the audio signal which has been produced. This is NOT a hard concept to grasp! Questions of how we perceive sound/music is relevant and part of sound science but is NOT relevant to audio reproduction equipment! It's ONLY relevant to what we put in that signal in the first place (the artists and engineers) and to what happens to the signal after reproduction. To measure the performance of audio equipment all we need is objective measurements, does the output signal match the input signal within the limits of audibility, that's it, no subjective aspects involved.

This has already been discussed at length. I don't think you're getting my points (which have also been noted by others), but that's ok, you don't have to. We need not keep going in circles ...

 

[analogsurviver]

Since you started posting here you keep making the same mistake. It's been explained to you several times but after debating it once or twice, you just ignore the explanation and then carry on repeating that same mistake. Then, when accused of repeating the same mistake, you respond by repeating the same mistake again???!

Again, the job of audio reproduction equipment is to reproduce the audio signal which has been produced. This is NOT a hard concept to grasp! Questions of how we perceive sound/music is relevant and part of sound science but is NOT relevant to audio reproduction equipment! It's ONLY relevant to what we put in that signal in the first place (the artists and engineers) and to what happens to the signal after reproduction. To measure the performance of audio equipment all we need is objective measurements, does the output signal match the input signal within the limits of audibility, that's it, no subjective aspects involved.



1, 2 & 3. You didn't answer my question, where do you get all this utter nonsense, do you just make it up yourself or do you use some audiophile nonsense database?

4. Fortunately, the facts do not depend on when, or even if, you ever agree with them. If you want to contradict the actual facts then no problem but you MUST back up your claims with something other than just your belief. Otherwise we have no option other than to treat your claims as pure ignorance based assumptions and complete nonsense/falsehoods and, if you keep doing it, as trolling!!

G

Since this a science forum and you guys insist on claims being backed by some proof, I have decided to stop you all even thinking of me as a troll.

For good.

It did take quite some time to obtain the required evidence, to learn how to present them, etc. They do not grow on trees, they can not be pulled off some reference from some AES paper - at least not easily. One has to make them by him/herself - using equipment one also, in most cases, can not obtain commercially, even if it does not mean building it entirely from scratch.

I will present evidence for each and every claim I ever made - along with the required explanations. Some of the claims are so far fetched in minds of many among you - due to the limited understaning and lack of thinking outside of the box - to have labeled me a troll; - repeatedly so.

An analogy - cars this time. Suppose I wanted to design a sport supercar, something in - broadly speaking - category a la Ferrari etc.

I would NEVER go and study - in the first place, other than not to "reinvent" or use any already patented solutions, etc - how did a particular problem got solved by Ferrari, Koenigsberg, Lamborghini, Zonda, etc - but would instead set myself the following goals :
- how much acceleration from nil to xy - and so on
- how much decceleration in a SAFE mode
- how much sustained acceleration in a curve
- how much ....
- autonomy radius required
- max speed attainable
etc ... - resulting most probably in different solutions to the known ones offering appreciably improved performance, simply because being driven by the best attainable performance - cost be damned.
Quite sure, some of the new solutions found this way could be trickled down to normal everyday cars, benefiting more people and making car transport better and safer in the forseeable future.

Remember - Ferrari got him/itself an arch nemeseis by dismissing and ridiculing the proposed modifications to Ferrari cars by Ferruccio Lamborghini ... Should he had accepted the well meant modifications and him as an employee and/or a partner, both companies should not have to use the very same roads for testing, encountering themselves on the road on a daily basis...

 

[gregorio]

You have, quite correctly, described just what havoc it creates with timing - and [1] what terrible, hopeless mess it ultimately coneys to the listener - [1a] instead of the real sound as would be heard by a person attending the real music event played live.
[2] With errors in milisecond - up to half ( - gulp ! ) second range, ANY difference/superiority of DSD vs PCM ( microsecond range ) would be lost - so, if you actually do record music in your studio as you have described above - then yes, DSD sounds just the same as PCM...
[3] There ARE recording techniques that do preserve time cues, down to infinitesimaly low amounts of time, intact.
[4] Now, you can decide to stick to what everybody has been doing for the last 50 years - wrongly so, IMO - or try to grasp an idea how it could possibly be made better.

1. No I did not describe this, the listener does not hear that mess because the mess occurs under circumstances which makes it inaudible!
1a. And this is obviously complete nonsense because multi-miking is used at live rock/pop gigs too!! How is it even possible that you don't know this, have you never been to a live gig?

2. So, you're saying that the timing errors of say 16/44.1 are audible because they're tens of millions of times smaller than the millisecond range where they'd "be lost"? And that somehow sounds reasonable/rational to you does it?

3. No there are no stereo/multi-mic techniques which preserve timing down to infinitesimally low amounts, you just completely made that up! The closest would be a near coincident pair but they can only ever be NEAR coincident and therefore never perfectly accurate, there will be phase issues in the very high freqs.

4. Absolutely I'll stick to what everybody has been doing for 50 years, because what everybody has been doing for 50 years is experimenting, evolving and refining the recording and production techniques. Now maybe some audiophile will come along who knows nothing about those techniques (or the evolution/history of them) and figure out something that tens of thousands of music engineers over 50 years have failed to notice but I'm not holding my breath!!

Again, it's all a bunch of complete and utter nonsense which, as you haven't answered, I assume you've just made up. Back your claims up with something other than just your belief/assumption or stop trolling!!

G

 

[bigshot]

Well, regardless of how silly this end of the thread has gotten, the first post is still great.

 

[gregorio]

[1] This has already been discussed at length.
[2] We need not keep going in circles ...

1. So why are you still ignoring it?

2. Which is what I keep telling you. If, like I dearly wish, you don't want to go around in circles, then stop going around in circles! Apply psychoacoustics and the perception of music where they belong, to either the creation of the audio signal (the composition, recording, production of music recordings) or to what happens after the signal is reproduced, not to the reproduction equipment!!!

G

 

[Phronesis]

1. So why are you still ignoring it?

2. Which is what I keep telling you. If, like I dearly wish, you don't want to go around in circles, then stop going around in circles! Apply psychoacoustics and the perception of music where they belong, to either the creation of the audio signal (the composition, recording, production of music recordings) or to what happens after the signal is reproduced, not to the reproduction equipment!!!

G

Please consider the additional possibilities that (a) I don't agree with some things you say, (b) you may not be sufficiently understanding what I'm saying, and (c) you could be wrong about some things. I recently worked on a high-profile project with engineers recognized as being among the best in the world in their specialities; they were all open-minded and humble about their knowledge, which is quite the opposite of some of the regulars in this forum.

 

[gregorio]

An analogy - cars this time. Suppose I wanted to design a sport supercar, something in - broadly speaking - category a la Ferrari etc.

OK then, let's use a supercar analogy shall we: You'd contradict or invert every fact about engine design, aerodynamics, safety, handling, etc., that Ferrari, Lamborghini, McLaren and all the other supercar makers have discovered and invent something which applied none of those principles would you? That's nonsense, please do NOT attempt to make a supercar!!

G

 

[Phronesis]

OK then, let's use a supercar analogy shall we: You'd contradict or invert every fact about engine design, aerodynamics, safety, handling, etc., that Ferrari, Lamborghini, McLaren and all the other supercar makers have discovered and invent something which applied none of those principles would you? That's nonsense, please do NOT attempt to make a supercar!!

G

The analogy isn't useful because it's already a proven fact that Porsche makes the best sports cars.

 

[gregorio]

Please consider the additional possibilities that (a) I don't agree with some things you say, (b) you may not be sufficiently understanding what I'm saying, and (c) you could be wrong about some things.
[2] I recently worked on a high-profile project with engineers recognized as being among the best in the world in their specialities; they were all open-minded and humble about their knowledge, which is quite the opposite of some of the regulars in this forum.

A. The facts do not require your agreement but if you want to disagree with them, here in this forum, then you've got to provide something to back it up beyond just a belief/hunch based on what you know of fields other than audio.
B. If you're not talking about audio reproduction equipment but about music production or the perception of music (for example) then you need to make that clear but if you are talking about audio reproduction equipment then whether I've sufficiently understood what your saying or not, is irrelevant! The basic principle I've stated applies to audio reproduction equipment period, regardless of what you are trying to say about it.
C. Then ask for clarification of what I've stated, in case you've misunderstood what I've said or misunderstood it's context, or go and check what I've said for yourself.

2. That's a different matter entirely. I'm humble and appear open-minded about my knowledge with clients and those with whom I work as well, it's more conducive to client relations and the smooth running of a project. That's the main reason I don't post under my real name here. I can state the actual facts and contradict nonsense bluntly, without having to figure out sneaky, long term ways of getting clients to arrive at the actual facts and thinking it's their own idea!

G

 

[analogsurviver]

OK then, let's use a supercar analogy shall we: You'd contradict or invert every fact about engine design, aerodynamics, safety, handling, etc., that Ferrari, Lamborghini, McLaren and all the other supercar makers have discovered and invent something which applied none of those principles would you? That's nonsense, please do NOT attempt to make a supercar!!

G

No, I am not going to contradict anything any of the supercar makers did get right - there are solutions you just have to accept as being the best ( and pay royalties, etc, if you want to use them incorporated in your own design - if they are available at all ). But I would not try to copy anything that can be improved upon. I have no intention of making a supercar, it was just an analogy.

Regarding multimiking : yes, I have been to a live amplified gig - once or twice - hundred or thousand times. It is, unfortunately, inavoidable as far as the public adress system ( or how is the correct term in English ) goes - but complete and utterly total carnage of the recording can be at least ameliorated trough NOT using multimiking for the recording itself. Unfortunately, it usually IS subject to total carnage trough multimiking - on the request of the performers themselves. They usually want their voice or their guitar or whatever to be the top dog, with most or all of the rest reduced to an afterthought. Because of this ( and later compression due to radio station requirements and loudness wars ), recordings of amplified music rarely sound anything like the sensibly amplified live concerts as heard by the listener at approx the best spot in given venue; with amplified music, that is usually close to the mixing desk position.

Acoustic music recordings do not necessitate ANY multimiking as default - which came into being simply because "artist man hour" costs can be appreciably reduced by using the usual "minefield" of many microphones/channels, with all the mastering and editing possible to be done at a later date, without necessitating the presence of the artists and attendant costs.

 

[analogsurviver]

The analogy isn't useful because it's already a proven fact that Porsche makes the best sports cars.

Haha - try to tell that to Ferrari - or any of the other makers of supercars.

The same goes for piano makers - it is a fact that Steinway got Rachmaninov to be their artist - and that they will give him money, the best piano possible, etc.
He, after quite some consideration, accepted in the end

Next day, in his living room stood a spanking new Steinway. Rachmaninow tried to find his trusted Beckstein, which he brought with him from Europe, tucked into some corner of his very large living room. No Beckstein in sight... That got him quite excited, to say the very least !

He phoned to Steinway HQ, asking as to whereabouts of his beloved Beckstein :

"We burnt it ..."

 

[bigshot]

I pick D!

 

[skwoodwiva]

The analogy isn't useful because it's already a proven fact that Porsche makes the best sports cars.

Lol
Does the 917(the latest hybrid ) still hold the German track record?

My opinion,
Yet the analogy to cars is poor.
Food might be better. ..

 

[Phronesis]

Lol
Does the 917(the latest hybrid ) still hold the German track record?

That record belongs to the latest GT2 RS, and the latest GT3 RS also just beat the 918 at the Nurburgring. But part of the steady lap time decreases is better tires.

 

[castleofargh]

Fully agreed that if there's no difference in the signal transmitted by the auditory nerves, there can be no audible difference in perception (aside from effects on perception through other senses, like LF vibration).

I don't know if high-res produces any audible difference, and have no opinion on it. If it does, I'm open to the possibility there could be other factors involved besides frequency content.

Going to back to some of the recent discussion, I think it's important to make the distinction that the question we're really asking is whether listeners can have a different musical experience due to potential auditory differences between physical systems A and B during normal listening; and if so, what is the nature and extent of those differences? That's not quite the same as asking whether a listener's ear can consistently detect differences in a test protocol, nor whether the listener's brain can consistently perceive and report on such differences in the test protocol. There can be differences in perception, especially at the subconscious level, which the listener has limited conscious awareness of, and limited ability to reliably report. Maybe such differences would be too subtle to matter, but for me that's an open question also. There's a ton of cognitive processing going on at the subconscious level which shapes how we experience music. Researchers have made some progress in understanding it, but the field is still in an early stage.

but if the experience isn't controlled, how are we supposed to know that it's not placebo? not that I'm against placebo or whatever other variable coming into play, but statements are being made about sound, so they better be about sound.
how do we know somebody's impressions are about sound in a non controlled situation? do we ask the guy "hey did you experience placebo?"? ^_^