Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: More misinformation (Read 111685 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #100 –
It seems to me that discussion at HA is often dominated by the following pattern:
  • Someone new shows up who is somewhat misinformed.
  • Everybody piles on to try to correct them. It's like the bikeshedding effect - in more productive conversations few people will think they know what to say, but here everyone knows better so they all pile in. People's comments are usually somewhat impolite because everyone is tired of seeing the same misconceptions repeatedly. And one-off irritated answers to newbies aren't going to be the most accurate and intuitive and helpful ways of teaching basic ideas.
  • The newbie objects to some of the replies, and all the people trying to correct the newbie nitpick each others' corrections. Arguments ensue.
The newbie may or may not get any enlightenment out of the process, but neither the general state of knowledge nor HA's reputation as a friendly and welcoming place are advanced.

I also wonder whether occasionally the "newbie" has been someone who really knows better and has just created an account to try and see what kinds of silly irritated reactions they can get out of HA regulars.

I propose that we quit having these kinds of discussions.

Once and for all, come up with standard responses for these kinds of situations which are polite and helpful and discourage the continuation of pointless topics.

One way would be something like the following:

"Hello and welcome to HydrogenAudio! It appears that your post is heavily based on some common misunderstandings about digital audio, human auditory perception, blind testing and scientific method, etc. Here are some well-designed resources that teach our best scientific understanding of these concepts: (insert links to xiph videos, wiki pages, other things that people have spent real effort turning into good educational tools). Even if you think the science here is incomplete, it's vital that you understand it before critiquing it, and without that shared foundation, conversations often consist of people talking past each other. To help keep the quality of discussion here at HA high we have locked this thread until you pass this linked multiple-choice quiz about digital audio. PM me with the passcode you get when you pass the quiz and I'll unlock the topic. If you have questions about what you're learning from the above links, or if you are interested in discussing something else, feel free to start a new topic!"

BTW, I'm reminded of xkcd: lucky ten thousand.

(maybe this post should really be split into a new topic)

Re: More misinformation

Reply #101 –
Quote from: greynol on
I suggest you search the forum instead if rehashing dead arguments. There have been plenty of posts from people every bit as knowledgeable as Dan Lavry who don't have a pecuniary interest in peddling snake oil.

Lavry has been a pretty consistent champion of audio sense (versus audiophile nonsense)  in every forum I've seen him post and in all of his white papers.

His assertion that even proposed *technical*  problems with Redbook (regardless of the question of their audibility) go away at a SR of ~55 kHz is not contested by any authorities I'm aware of (except maybe now J Robert Stuart, if you consider him an authority).

Yes, he sells professional ADCs and DACs, and they do 'high rez'. 


Re: More misinformation

Reply #102 –
But he also denies 192 kHz and says that 96 kHz is suitable because there is no standard around 50-60 kHz. 192 kHz or 96kHz  also seems overkill to me based on the opinions  I have read.

It is kinda pity that on this forum a "protection" of 16/44.1 is strongly assured, and open mind for e.g. 24/48 (or 24/96 if 48 kHz does not prevail) standard of distributing audio . Finally, everybody could then make a CD/FLAC 16/44.1 for personal use by SoX and low noise dither like e-weighted or low-shibata, or event simple tpdf from the music he bought at 24/48.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #103 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
It is kinda pity that on this forum a "protection" of 16/44.1 is strongly assured, and open mind for e.g. 24/48 (or 24/96 if 48 kHz does not prevail) standard of distributing audio .

I would suggest that the proper way to test the degree to which people here have open minds is to show some objective data that 16/44.1 isn't a good enough delivery format in the real world (highly contrived scenarios don't count).

Re: More misinformation

Reply #104 –
Quote from: jensend on
I also wonder whether occasionally the "newbie" has been someone who really knows better and has just created an account to try and see what kinds of silly irritated reactions they can get out of HA regulars.
This. The OP may be another prime example.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Re: More misinformation

Reply #105 –
There is no "protection." The issue is demonstrating the inadequacy of a sample rate of 44.1kHz as a delivery format.

Technology has long evolved since 1985, to that point that for well over a decade issues from back then can be avoided with even commodity components.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #106 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
It is kinda pity that on this forum a "protection" of 16/44.1
While you were in that 17 yr coma, the market kinda aligned that way too.
Care to share your system and what type of music you are finding 16/44 "limitations" with?
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: More misinformation

Reply #107 –
Well, in accord to some posts above, I do not want to continue with discussion of this nature.

I am on a way to improve one of my pcs with better (newer) sound card than Audigy SE within my small budget, Audigy FX introduced in year 2013 seems to be suitable after long search as contains pretty good realtek ALC898 chip (www.hardwaresecrets.com/datasheets/ALC898_DataSheet_0.60.pdf) and does not have effects EAX processor that I do not need  (discussion took place in another thread and also on another forum where i gathered a lot of information to resampling, PLLs, 44.1 vs 48 support etc) and then I can do some test as requested, but I think still that I would not be able to ABX common music in 16/44.1 to e.g. 24/48 or 24/96 kHz on the different equipment, the aliasing test results I did is specific for the audigy SE which performs little bit strange at 44.1 here because e.g. on older Realtek ALC662 there is no significant distortion in 44.1 kHz playback (and they use the same method of 44.1 playback). But I was talking not only about ABXable audibility (although I belive it IS important criteria), but also about the convenience, the feelings after longer listening (some people report less listening fatigue when listening to higher quality, e.g. less noise containing music), technical quality, no need to utilize dithering (which some people report to hear under some conditions) and preserving bought digital music, including possible transparent conversion (personal backup) to CD or mobile use. I know now that those arguments do not apply on this forum so I will not try to put them here.

And to make people here happy, at least I know from the discussion that those CD I have obtained during years have almost perfect quality, since 16/44.1 is a highly suitable format for distribution and there is no need to crave for super HiRes, especially 24/192 kHz or such overkills .... ;-)

Happy listening!

Jan

Re: More misinformation

Reply #108 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
But I was talking not only about ABXable audibility (although I belive it IS important criteria), but also about the convenience, the feelings after longer listening (some people report less listening fatigue when listening to higher quality, e.g. less noise containing music)

I know Mark Waldrep (of AIX Records and iTrax) claims that this is the case for him, when working on CD-quality sound vs 24/96, that he feels less fatigue after working a whole day on 24/96. He also makes it quite clear that this is purely anecdotal, and that he has no concrete evidence at all.

While I do respect him for a lot of the points he likes to make, namely that fighting over distribution formats is pointless unless we do something about the quality of what we record and master into those formats, it is simply common sense to say that until some kind of evidence is shown for these claims of lessened listening fatigue, they are to be taken with an extremely large grain of salt, or maybe even disregarded outright.

It must be possible to test these claims, but no one seems to willing to pony up the (considerable) time and money for this to happen. And one should think that the proponents of hi-rez music distribution would be interested in such a test.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #109 –
Well, I am not an experienced debater nor audiologist here, but to what you wrote I can add that I think that also other forms of testing than ABX test must be conducted to possibly get more knowledge about such phenomenons. But I believe they, especially for some sensitive people, exist to some degree.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #110 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
some people report less listening fatigue when listening to higher quality, e.g. less noise containing music
Hurrah for unsubstantiated anecdotes!

Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
no need to utilize dithering (which some people report to hear under some conditions)
Hurrah for unsubstantiated anecdotes!

Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
I know now that those arguments do not apply on this forum so I will not try to put them here.
Yet you managed to do so anyway.  What's even more disconcerting is the way in which you cling to them despite any real evidence.  I'm seeing protection alright, just not for some format being deemed archaic. 

Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
And to make people here happy, at least I know from the discussion that those CD I have obtained during years have almost perfect quality, since 16/44.1 is a highly suitable format for distribution and there is no need to crave for super HiRes, especially 24/192 kHz or such overkills ....
Nice non-sequitur.  How a signal was captured is not the same thing about how it will be reproduced.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #111 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
But I believe they, especially for some sensitive people, exist to some degree.
People believe in all sorts of things.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #113 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Well, I am not an experienced debater nor audiologist here, but to what you wrote I can add that I think that also other forms of testing than ABX test must be conducted to possibly get more knowledge about such phenomenons. But I believe they, especially for some sensitive people, exist to some degree.

Why should anyone care what you think though? You don't have any knowledge, insight or experience. Your opinions are uninteresting.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #114 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
But he also denies 192 kHz and says that 96 kHz is suitable because there is no standard around 50-60 kHz.

Yes, he does, and I don't see why this merits a 'but'.  I didn't imply otherwise.

My point was, if there are 'black hats' (woo cheerleaders) and 'white hats' (HA types) in the hardware business, then Lavry is pretty solidly a white hat, regardless of whether he caters to a market.

This argument seems to be about the difference between formatting that is indisputably adequate for consumer 2-channel delivery, versus one that is *bullet proof* from an engineering standpoint for all stages of audio production starting from AD conversion. 

Unlike, say, Bob Stuart, Dan Lavry hasn't been relentlessly pushing for decades the idea that there is a 'need' for bulletproof engineering at the *home consumer level*, nor has he promoted dubious 'solutions' to fix that 'problem'.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #115 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
But he also denies 192 kHz and says that 96 kHz is suitable because there is no standard around 50-60 kHz.

Yes, he does, and I don't see why this merits a 'but'.  I didn't imply otherwise.

My point was, if there are 'black hats' (woo cheerleaders) and 'white hats' (HA types) in the hardware business, then Lavry is pretty solidly a white hat, regardless of whether he caters to a market.

This argument seems to be about the difference between formatting that is indisputably adequate for consumer 2-channel delivery, versus one that is *bullet proof* from an engineering standpoint for all stages of audio production starting from AD conversion. 

Unlike, say, Bob Stuart, Dan Lavry hasn't been relentlessly pushing for decades the idea that there is a 'need' for bulletproof engineering at the *home consumer level*, nor has he promoted dubious 'solutions' to fix that 'problem'.


OK, no problem with this point of view.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #116 –
Quote from: saratoga on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Well, I am not an experienced debater nor audiologist here, but to what you wrote I can add that I think that also other forms of testing than ABX test must be conducted to possibly get more knowledge about such phenomenons. But I believe they, especially for some sensitive people, exist to some degree.

Why should anyone care what you think though? You don't have any knowledge, insight or experience. Your opinions are uninteresting.

Seems you know me very well :/

Re: More misinformation

Reply #117 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
But he also denies 192 kHz and says that 96 kHz is suitable because there is no standard around 50-60 kHz.

Yes, he does, and I don't see why this merits a 'but'.  I didn't imply otherwise.

My point was, if there are 'black hats' (woo cheerleaders) and 'white hats' (HA types) in the hardware business, then Lavry is pretty solidly a white hat, regardless of whether he caters to a market.

This argument seems to be about the difference between formatting that is indisputably adequate for consumer 2-channel delivery, versus one that is *bullet proof* from an engineering standpoint for all stages of audio production starting from AD conversion. 

Unlike, say, Bob Stuart, Dan Lavry hasn't been relentlessly pushing for decades the idea that there is a 'need' for bulletproof engineering at the *home consumer level*, nor has he promoted dubious 'solutions' to fix that 'problem'.


OK, no problem with this point of view.


And BTW here is the post from Dan Lavry  that seems as reasonable approach to sample rates, not a style of talk and offendings what is going on here.

http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?95771-Dan-Lavry-design-guru-new-white-paper-on-the-Optimal-Sampling-Rate-for-Audio!

Sorry Greynol, I had to post this.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #118 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
But I believe they, especially for some sensitive people, exist to some degree.
Oh sure. Heck, there are folks who can hear people speak from the other side. Audiophile disorder has many symptoms, 16/44 "fretting" and "fatigue" being only one subset. The "analog" guys exhibit symptoms regardless of bit/sample rate, yes even with Hi-Re$.
Other than the undeniable entertainment factor, folks in normal mental health have bigger fish to fry, than increasing "resolution" of 2ch constructs.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: More misinformation

Reply #119 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Sorry Greynol, I had to post this.
That's fine, I'll temper my comment about his peddling snake-oil and acknowledge that Lavry sees benefit in over-engineering.

My mistake does nothing to change the landscape regarding 44.1k being an adequate delivery format nor does it change the notion that placebophiles such as yourself would cease whining if a higher rate were standardized, however.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #120 –
Believe me or not, I also agree (and my agreement has gained here some evidence and supportive arguments, aside of some not-so -nice posts) that 44.1 kHz uncompressed is an adequate delivery format for common playback.  I admit that in the past (2-3 years ago etc) I had been kind of prone to the "more is better" approach because I did not care much about how digital audio works, just had been searching for good enough solutions for good listening experience, in my case under a small budget but still enthusiasm for good music! In recent year or so I have learned something more about sound cards digitalizations etc, not only on this forum where very rigorous approach prevails but also on other forums including some in my mother tongue (maybe that is also why some my posts have been criticised - English is not my native language). So now I like my CD collection a little more since I know that I don't have to replace it in the future neccessarily with "better" recordings :) Still, when there is a record available at e.g. 24/48 or 24/96 (not more!), especially at my favourite records, I would be interested to have it in this format because of the reasons I (unsuccessfully) discussed here. And while I agree that ABX tests are very important and scientifically correct method of  sound testing, I think that there should be also other scientifically relevant methods employed (and I am not audiologist so I  am not sure which ones) to analyze the effects of the other variants, e.g. 24/48 or 24/96. Still, from what D. Lavry and others write it is clear to me now that there is some optimal sampling rate/bit rate value (range) , and "more is better" approach generally does not apply in digital audio, actually at e.g 24/192 kHz the quality could be even worse in some aspects.

Hope that this thread was not as bad as some people here tried to make it :(

Re: More misinformation

Reply #121 –
Lavry's paper says that 40 kHz of linear bandwidth is needed in a digital recording and playback system because (he implies) that some humans can hear up to 30 kHz, and because he feels it's a good idea to plan for a 10 kHz "safety margin" beyond that. He concludes that a 96 kHz sample rate is ideal because converters at that rate have filters whose effects kick in just above 40 kHz.

This general approach is not flawed, IMHO, but the numbers are dubious, and he does not support them at all, nor does he refer to any proof that sample rates he advocates affect the audibility of recordings of actual music. He is basing his argument on speculation about golden ears. It has an air of credibility because it's buried in the middle of an otherwise reasonable document devoted to debunking audiophile myths about the effects of increasing sample rates, but as greynol said, he's over-engineering.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #122 –
Quote from: mjb2006 on
Lavry's paper says that 40 kHz of linear bandwidth is needed in a digital recording and playback system because (he implies) that some humans can hear up to 30 kHz, and because he feels it's a good idea to plan for a 10 kHz "safety margin" beyond that. He concludes that a 96 kHz sample rate is ideal because converters at that rate have filters whose effects kick in just above 40 kHz.


This is a simplification of what he says in his papers. There he mentions that 50-60 kHz would be ideal but no such standard exists.
By the way, although it seems to me kind of "very artifical condition and methods in extreme conditions", and it is clear that even high quality hifi chains (loudspeakers etc) do not playback  sounds over 20 kHz which is a very good practical approach according to the commonly accepted characteristics of human hearing (20-20000 Hz), what is the opinion here on the articles below ?

http://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/journal/jasa/122/3/10.1121/1.2761883
http://jn.physiology.org/content/83/6/3548
http://recordinghacks.com/articles/the-world-beyond-20khz/

P.S. I really do not crave for super high samples rates ....

Re: More misinformation

Reply #123 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
I agree that ABX tests are very important and scientifically correct method of  sound testing
If by "sound" we don't wax philosophical about trees falling in woods, but are instead interested in only sensations that are heard with the organs humans use to hear (check my signature for an example of one organ that actually interferes with an individual's ability to hear), then the only correct method must include controls to ensure this.  Properly administered and controlled double-blind tests (DBT) accomplish this, with ABX being just one type of DBT.