HydrogenAudio

Hydrogenaudio Forum => General Audio => Topic started by: kraut on 2012-04-04 04:52:27

Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: kraut on 2012-04-04 04:52:27
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/nei...format-20120403 (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/neil-young-trademarks-new-audio-format-20120403)



Quote
"Young is also personally spearheading the development of Pono, a revolutionary new audio music system presenting the highest digital resolution possible, the studio quality sound that artists and producers heard when they created their original recordings. Young wants consumers to be able to take full advantage of Pono's cloud-based libraries of recordings by their favorite artists and, with Pono, enjoy a convenient music listening experience that is superior in sound quality to anything ever presented."


again another repeat of a another new revolutionary audio system...how many more times to try to get money from us connoisseurs of music?
I bet it will not be just for new music, oh no...another upgraded catalogue of redone shit coming down the pike...
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: FreaqyFrequency on 2012-04-04 05:29:01
Lambs to the slaughter, sheeple to the charlatan.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: soundping on 2012-04-04 06:02:29
Higher than Lossless Audio? 
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: hellokeith on 2012-04-04 06:47:54
Higher than Lossless Audio? 

Upsampled. 
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: frozenspeed on 2012-04-04 07:16:15
Quote
presenting the highest digital resolution possible



this is my favorite part of the press release 


What do Pono's cloud-libraries smell like and is from what Neil must be smoking?
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: kraut on 2012-04-04 08:37:35
Quote
What do Pono's cloud-libraries


kind of unfortunate naming, come to think of it
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Porcus on 2012-04-04 10:23:22
'revolutionary' is pretty bold. I can think up a lot of features I would have added to a wonder-do-it-all lossless format (assuming so much of a need for such that it would catch on), but hardly any that would justify the first 'r'. (Maybe a guitar effects array could qualify? An 'old black' button?  )
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Destroid on 2012-04-04 12:11:09
Hate to say it (since I'm a fan of Neil Young/Crazy Horse) but, "Yer gonna hafta prove it to me, 'earty, b'fores I buys into it!"
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-04-04 12:25:12
Quote
presenting the highest digital resolution possible
That's a nice moving target to aim for!

Cheers,
David.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: PeterJvM on 2012-04-04 14:22:46
Quote
What do Pono's cloud-libraries


kind of unfortunate naming, come to think of it



Well....  cloud based libraries  ....must be very easy to compress.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: JimH on 2012-04-04 14:45:55
Does anyone know if this is DSD (SACD format)?  There is a lot of activity with DSD right now, and it's a little controversial.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: db1989 on 2012-04-04 14:54:38
a revolutionary new audio music system presenting the highest digital resolution possible

Wow! This was such perfect nonsense that I just had to add a subtitle to this thread.

As well as the impossibility, cynical self-congratulation, and (as 2BDecided said) handy vagueness of the concept “the highest digital resolution possible”, it’s also amusing to hear what is presumably really just a format not only being described as “a revolutionary…system” but also being aimed towards those who like “audio music”. I thought we were such a minority amongst the unthinking masses who merely consume normal music!
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Rotareneg on 2012-04-04 15:21:44
Sounds good to me as I've grown tired of 24/192 audio, with which I can clearly hear each ear-rending click and pop as the DAC jerks the signal up and down bit by bit as each eons long sample staggers by.

Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: krabapple on 2012-04-04 17:03:01
I don't doubt for a second that Neil Young's 65-year old, rock star ears can discern the benefits of the 'highest digital resolution possible' for re-releasing his old analog recordings again.

Oh wait, actually I really do.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: FreaqyFrequency on 2012-04-04 17:30:03
Neil's own hearing aside, the ideas which he pushes here have traction with a much wider audience than even his own fans, and it is for that reason that the spread of this misinformation under the guise of marketing an audio codec is particularly heinous.  This discourages a desire to learn more about the underpinnings of mp3, AAC and Vorbis, why they honestly do work, and the fact that they really can be transparent (after one generation) in favor of binning everything doesn't carry the line "HD" in it.  It's a tad sickening.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Carledwards on 2012-04-04 17:58:31
Despite Neil's talent and long career of creating memorable songs, he's at best a crank and at worst a nut-job when it comes to audio.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Ethan Winer on 2012-04-04 18:27:28
Despite Neil's talent and long career of creating memorable songs, he's at best a crank and at worst a nut-job when it comes to audio.

LOL, and now it's all perfectly clear: After bashing CD audio quality, he now offers a product for sale that claims to solve the supposed problem.

--Ethan
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: frozenspeed on 2012-04-04 22:19:31
I understand why Neil is so concerned about sound quality- if you heard the SONG WRITING you'd know he's clearly not interested in that part.

Neil & Rick Rubin must be having Sunday brunches together discussing production technique.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: DigitalMan on 2012-04-04 23:11:25
Too bad we don't have any other lossless formats that can do higher than CD sample rates and bit depths.  Err, or do we?  FLAC, ALAC, Dolby, DTS...
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: JimH on 2012-04-05 00:06:27
Is this DSD?  Does anyone actually know what it is?
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Ron Jones on 2012-04-05 00:06:58
I'd suggest they borrow the term Apple coined for their new iPad to describe the new format: resolutionary.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Fandango on 2012-04-05 00:47:17
Miracle

(http://cdn.wg.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/miracles-icp1.jpg)
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: krabapple on 2012-04-05 02:15:17
Despite Neil's talent and long career of creating memorable songs, he's at best a crank and at worst a nut-job when it comes to audio.

LOL, and now it's all perfectly clear: After bashing CD audio quality, he now offers a product for sale that claims to solve the supposed problem.

--Ethan



..having already touted HDCD, then DVDA, and now this.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: db1989 on 2012-04-05 05:58:59
Is this DSD?  Does anyone actually know what it is?

I assume the reason no one answered your first post from earlier in the day asking the same question is that no one has somehow got hold of some inside knowledge that you haven’t.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: _if on 2012-04-05 21:01:48
Yeah, it's disappointing to see good people saying these kinds of things, and being quite relentless about it. T-Bone Burnett is another one always willing to slam sound quality nowadays, but he also made the genius suggestion that if you're an artist today, you should stay off the Internet, because everybody is on it and you won't stand out (as opposed to on the club circuit I guess, which is totally not oversaturated); proving he's really just a conservative old man, probably something he never imagined he'd ever be. He made some press releases a few years back about his also "revolutionary" Code "format," which was really just putting a DVD in with the CD that would have hi-res and lossy files. It did not produce much in the way of results.

Very odd they make the claim that what any of them are doing can in any way be construed as revolutionary. Apparently Neil Young hasn't heard of HDTracks, as just one example.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: db1989 on 2012-04-05 21:21:07
[…]
Very odd they make the claim that what any of them are doing can in any way be construed as revolutionary. Apparently Neil Young hasn't heard of HDTracks, as just one example.
The latter of whom make some contentious claims (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=93268&mode=threaded&pid=784923) of their own…

T-Bone Burnett is another one always willing to slam sound quality nowadays, but he also made the genius suggestion that if you're an artist today, you should stay off the Internet, because everybody is on it and you won't stand out
This is great logic!
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2012-04-06 16:49:06
Quote
presenting the highest digital resolution possible
That's a nice moving target to aim for!


I see it as an indefinite number, a conceptual amount that is only approached.

In fact there are only practical limits to digital resolution. We can make sample lengths and frequencies in the digital domain as large and as frequent as we have the numbers to express them with.  We can approach the highest digital resolution possible by establishing arbitrarily large numbers of arbitrarily large numbers, right?
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: PeterJvM on 2012-04-06 17:47:26
Quote
presenting the highest digital resolution possible
That's a nice moving target to aim for!


I see it as an indefinite number, a conceptual amount that is only approached.

In fact there are only practical limits to digital resolution. We can make sample lengths and frequencies in the digital domain as large and as frequent as we have the numbers to express them with.  We can approach the highest digital resolution possible by establishing arbitrarily large numbers of arbitrarily large numbers, right?



I think that the only people to benefit from this new amazing leap in audio quality are the ones that play one particular instrument: The Moronica
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Rotareneg on 2012-04-06 18:36:49
If you think about it, it only makes sense to move to a better format: The Red Book CD audio standard came out in 1980. The original IBC PC came out in '81 and had a 4.77 MHz 16 bit processor. It's now 2012 and 2 GHz (and greater) and 64 bit is common now. Thus, we should be listening to 64 bit audio sampled at 18.5 MHz.

The only possible answer to this lack of advancement is that the audio hardware companies are lazy and have been milking ancient technologies for every penny they're worth without spending any money at all on R&D.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: julf on 2012-04-06 19:17:40
If you think about it, it only makes sense to move to a better format: The Red Book CD audio standard came out in 1980. The original IBC PC came out in '81 and had a 4.77 MHz 16 bit processor. It's now 2012 and 2 GHz (and greater) and 64 bit is common now. Thus, we should be listening to 64 bit audio sampled at 18.5 MHz.


Absolutely! Likewise, I think it is a scandal that the mains voltage has been staying at 110 V in the US and 220/230/240 V in Europe since the 19th century! It's now 2012, so surely we should have moved to a couple of kilovolts by now!
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Batman321 on 2012-04-06 19:33:41
If you think about it, it only makes sense to move to a better format: The Red Book CD audio standard came out in 1980. The original IBC PC came out in '81 and had a 4.77 MHz 16 bit processor. It's now 2012 and 2 GHz (and greater) and 64 bit is common now. Thus, we should be listening to 64 bit audio sampled at 18.5 MHz.



That was a joke, right?

Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: soundping on 2012-04-06 20:25:08
I believe this is the audio format Neil Young and Steve Jobs may have been working together on.  If it is, Apple will change Neil's trademarks and any copyright.

Quote
Neil Young has claimed he was working with the late Apple boss Steve Jobs on a follow-up to the iPod. Young said he and Jobs were developing a new device for listening to "high-resolution audio", which would download content "while you're sleeping".
Code: [Select]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012/feb/01/neil-young-ipod-steve-jobs
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: JimH on 2012-04-06 21:06:51
For a forum that prides itself in adhering to the scientific method (ABX tests), this thread has a lot of lame jokes about something nobody apparently understands.

If your position is that Redbook audio is as good as it gets, this kind of reaction may make some sense.  But there are a lot of people who believe otherwise.  That doesn't make it true, but it would be nice if HA members showed a bit more curiosity about the details.

It must be DSD.  There is a lot of DSD activity behind the scenes right now, with a number of manufacturers working on devices that can play it.  There is also some skepticism about whether it's a good idea, but I think that ship has sailed.

Here's a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Stream_Digital (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Stream_Digital)
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: FreaqyFrequency on 2012-04-06 21:20:21
There is also some skepticism about whether it's a good idea, but I think that ship has sailed.


I fail to understand how the very real reasons why DSD is not ideal (certainly as a mastering-stage format, or as a final listening format for that matter) have suddenly become irrelevant because of a bit of dusted-off 13 year old marketing for the format, assuming that is what this actually is.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Wombat on 2012-04-06 21:27:34
Here's a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Stream_Digital (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Stream_Digital)



I think we all know what DSD is, thanks.
It became of more interest lately because there are finaly ways to extrcat it from SACDs. That gave a push and inspired some labels to sell their stuff once again. Combined with some listening reports about the natural sound of DSD together with some funny pics several audiophiles will adopt it.
I wonder if Neil Young has DSD in mind because 1-bit DSD hasn´t exactly more potential as high resolution PCM.
Since Neil Young sold all his stuff on vinyl, CD, some HDCD then DVD-A and high bitrate PCM at this the only format he left out is indeed DSD.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: kraut on 2012-04-06 22:39:39
For a forum that prides itself in adhering to the scientific method (ABX tests), this thread has a lot of lame jokes about something nobody apparently understands.

If your position is that Redbook audio is as good as it gets, this kind of reaction may make some sense.  But there are a lot of people who believe otherwise.  That doesn't make it true, but it would be nice if HA members showed a bit more curiosity about the details.

It must be DSD.  There is a lot of DSD activity behind the scenes right now, with a number of manufacturers working on devices that can play it.  There is also some skepticism about whether it's a good idea, but I think that ship has sailed.

Here's a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Stream_Digital (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Stream_Digital)

quite ancient but I don't think DSD has changed.

http://sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm (http://sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm)

and this:

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/...d-if-so-what-it (http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Does-DSD-have-role-high-end-audio-and-if-so-what-it)
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: JimH on 2012-04-07 00:14:09
I fail to understand how the very real reasons why DSD is not ideal (certainly as a mastering-stage format, or as a final listening format for that matter) have suddenly become irrelevant ...

I think the problems are real.  I only meant that the market has a mind of its own.  The DSD format has some momentum.

For mastering, what other choices are better?  I know next to nothing about that.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: FreaqyFrequency on 2012-04-07 00:23:45
Well, the quantization noise is a huge problem for DSD already as a straightforward playback format.  Processing 1-bit audio requires addition of even more quantization error, so anything you do in that realm will begin to present audibly injurious results very quickly.  Any mastering done for SACD, therefore, by necessity is done in PCM, usually around 24/(352.8/384), and then reconverted.

Mastering audio in a 64-bit floating point environment (as in, any respectable DAW out there today) presents absolutely no problems with audible quantization (in order to introduce audible quantization, you'd have to process the track trillions upon trillions of times), and is highly compatible with any desirable iteration of native PCM.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: kraut on 2012-04-07 00:30:45
Quote
But it does have one attribute that I haven't yet mentioned. It is much, much, much easier to hide anti-piracy code in a DSD datastream than it is in PCM.

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/...d-if-so-what-it (http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Does-DSD-have-role-high-end-audio-and-if-so-what-it)

The crux of DSD? if that is what NY is using.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Rotareneg on 2012-04-07 15:12:27
That was a joke, right?


Yep. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law)

Back on topic...

The only change I could see being reasonable for electronic distribution of PCM audio (losslessly compressed or otherwise) would be to switch to a more computer-friendly 48 kHz sampling rate, as maintaining some connection to NTSC or PAL video isn't really important any more.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: smok3 on 2012-04-07 15:28:07
There seems to be a lot of talk about this new "analog like" format as well, usually referred as ANUS (analog ultra sound), maybe that was the thing that Neil was talking about?
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Batman321 on 2012-04-07 16:33:17
Quote
What do Pono's cloud-libraries


kind of unfortunate naming, come to think of it



It sounds sexy 
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: FreaqyFrequency on 2012-04-07 18:53:33
While we're all busy speculating about the possibility of this "sooper-dooper eich-dee" format on its way to us under its shiny new Apple packaging, this seems relevant to the present realm of discussion.

http://positive-feedback.com/Issue60/dsd_usb.htm (http://positive-feedback.com/Issue60/dsd_usb.htm)
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: JimH on 2012-04-08 00:44:53
That's the group I was thinking of.  It has momentum, for better or worse.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: lvqcl on 2012-04-10 16:45:08
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/books/07garn.html?_r=1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/books/07garn.html?_r=1)

Quote
This is a story that begins in earnest in the early 1980s, when digital music first arrived in the form of the compact disc. At first, Mr. Knopper suggests, almost everyone was frightened of these small, shiny new toys.

The labels worried about digital piracy and about refitting the factories that made vinyl LPs. Record stores didn’t want to buy new sales racks. Producers worried about the effects on recording sessions, now that every footstep and door click would be audible. A group called MAD (Musicians Against Digital) quickly formed, and artists like Neil Young declared that CDs were soulless.

“The mind has been tricked,” Mr. Young said at the time, sounding a bit like Yoda, “but the heart is sad.”
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Ron Jones on 2012-04-10 22:10:54
Sometimes I think it'd be wonderful to be that crazy. Being afraid of plastic discs seems so much simpler than being afraid of not living up to one's potential and other genuinely meaningful things.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: jido on 2012-04-10 23:31:41
Well, the quantization noise is a huge problem for DSD already as a straightforward playback format.  Processing 1-bit audio requires addition of even more quantization error, so anything you do in that realm will begin to present audibly injurious results very quickly.  Any mastering done for SACD, therefore, by necessity is done in PCM, usually around 24/(352.8/384), and then reconverted.

Mastering audio in a 64-bit floating point environment (as in, any respectable DAW out there today) presents absolutely no problems with audible quantization (in order to introduce audible quantization, you'd have to process the track trillions upon trillions of times), and is highly compatible with any desirable iteration of native PCM.

The link suggests DSD is the equivalent of 16-bit PCM at 176kHz, so it is not that bad?

Although I always wondered why you would use a 1-bit linear encoding scheme instead of using 1-bit for the rate (dy = dy + b; y = y + dy).
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2012-04-16 13:06:05
Sometimes I think it'd be wonderful to be that crazy. Being afraid of plastic discs seems so much simpler than being afraid of not living up to one's potential and other genuinely meaningful things.
Many times, HA needs a "like" button!

Cheers,
David.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: FreaqyFrequency on 2012-04-16 15:26:23
The link suggests DSD is the equivalent of 16-bit PCM at 176kHz, so it is not that bad?


The data rate is equivalent, but certainly not the way in which the data is represented.  1-bit quantization with noise-shaping galore is still 1-bit quantization, and there are inevitable problems with such a system, such as what I mentioned.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: stephan_g on 2012-04-18 21:25:13
Actually you didn't really mention the problem... it's that 1-bit cannot be sufficiently dithered, as shown in the classic Lipshitz / Vanderkooy paper (http://sjeng.org/ftp/SACD.pdf). It may be "good enough" for a distribution format or a single conversion, but strictly speaking it's not transparent like properly-dithered multibit PCM.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: punkrockdude on 2012-09-29 10:16:30
http://www.punknews.org/article/49078/neil...-player-service (http://www.punknews.org/article/49078/neil-young-introduces-super-high-fidelity-music-player-service)
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Porcus on 2012-09-29 10:54:03
I read lots of news stories yesterday, but is there anything new by now than some journalist found his trademark applications?
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: skamp on 2012-09-29 14:54:10
Rolling Stone article (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/neil-young-expands-pono-digital-to-analog-music-service-20120927)
Neil Young presenting his Pono player prototype (http://www.cbs.com/shows/late_show/video/2284599063/david-letterman-neil-young)
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: lvqcl on 2012-09-29 15:11:47
Rolling Stone article (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/neil-young-expands-pono-digital-to-analog-music-service-20120927)


Quote
WMG – home to artists including Muse, the Black Keys, Common and Jill Scott – has converted its library of 8,000 album titles to high-resolution, 192kHz/24-bit sound.

I wonder what does the word "converted" mean.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Speedskater on 2012-09-29 16:52:05
Neil Young was on the Letterman show Thursday evening (Sept. 27).  He had his new device and talked about it in very vague terms.

http://www.cbs.com/shows/late_show/video/2...892/lupe-fiasco (http://www.cbs.com/shows/late_show/video/2284641892/lupe-fiasco)
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: andy o on 2012-09-29 16:55:07
It's a great design.

(http://allthingsd.com/files/2011/12/triangle_tablet.png)

Probably many have made that joke already, but it immediately came to my mind.

BTW, I saw that Letterman show, Jimmy Fallon was on before Young. Fallon doing Neil Young singing the Fresh Prince of Bel Air theme song made more sense than Real Neil Young.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: bandpass on 2013-09-04 21:02:00
Summer 2013 becomes early 2014:
Quote
To everyone who loves music –

I’m very happy to bring you some good news. All of us at Team PONO have been focused on getting everything right for our early 2014 launch of Pono.

The simplest way to describe what we’ve accomplished is that we’ve liberated the music of the artist from the digital file and restored it to its original artistic quality - as it was in the studio. So it has primal power.

Hearing PONO for the first time is like that first blast of daylight when you leave a movie theater on a sun-filled day. It takes you a second to adjust. Then you enter a bright reality, of wonderfully rendered detail.

This music moves you. So you can feel. That’s why so many musicians are behind PonoMusic – this is important work that honors their art. This is the way they wanted you to hear their music.

PONO starts at the source: artist-approved studio masters we’ve been given special access to. Then we work with our brilliant partners at Meridian to unlock the richness of the artist’s music to you. There is nothing like hearing this music - and we are working hard to make that experience available to all music lovers, soon.

Our mission is also to make PONO just as accessible as any music you buy and listen to today. So we’ll be launching both the PONO portable player – an updated version of the one I showed on David Letterman’s program – and an online library, with all your favorite music available in PonoMusic quality. Everything you need to feel music anew.

Stay tuned for more updates. And be sure to follow us on Facebook and Twitter for the latest information. We hope you’ll try PONO when it comes your way, and that it brings you the soul of music.

Yours, for PonoMusic –
Neil Young
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Hotsoup on 2013-09-04 21:25:03
Quote
The simplest way to describe what we’ve accomplished is that we’ve liberated the music of the artist from the digital file and restored it to its original artistic quality - as it was in the studio. So it has primal power.
If it's not a digital file, what kind of device is this?    Jokes aside, I don't think the computer audiophiles will ever agree on what high resolution means, at what bit depth, sample rate, pcm or dsd, etc. Maybe Mr. Young will be the Moses to lead them out of Egypt.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: greynol on 2013-09-04 21:26:17
Quote
we’ve liberated the music of the artist from the digital file and restored it to its original artistic quality

...and offered to resell it to you as a digital file specially processed with exclusive Meridian Voodoo Technology.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: dhromed on 2013-09-04 22:30:48
...at a premium.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: ech3 on 2013-09-04 23:16:29
By "PONO" do they mean "PORNO"?

Otherwise I don't care.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: db1989 on 2013-09-04 23:26:36
What a load of emotionally exploitative, self-congratulatory tripe!

Quote
So it has primal power.

Hearing PONO for the first time is like that first blast of daylight when you leave a movie theater on a sun-filled day. It takes you a second to adjust. Then you enter a bright reality, of wonderfully rendered detail.

This music moves you. So you can feel.
Ah, yes. Clearly all this overwhelming apathy has really always been due to the fact that I listen almost exclusively to lossy audio. Well, turns out this is a lot simpler to solve than I thought it would be! Thanks, Neil. I’ll record you a video of the glorious moment when I finally rediscover genuine emotion.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: TomasPin on 2013-09-05 00:01:03
By "PONO" do they mean "PORNO"?

Was about to comment something along those lines...

Quote
Otherwise I don't care.

Oh, I do care. They're, as we say down here, "selling colored mirrors" (literal translation), meaning selling snake oil, and people will happily buy it. But, what can we do...
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Wombat on 2013-09-05 00:28:58
Summer 2013 becomes early 2014:
Quote
To everyone who loves music –...


Maybe something like Spotify for HDTrack users and Meridians magic Apodizing.

Edit: i guess Meridian will build the DAC Hardware, they did build some small units like the Explorer DAC lately
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: gib on 2013-09-05 00:59:44
I think the thing that bothers me most about this marketing-speak driven product of dubious value is that they used a Hawaiian word for it.  That is not pono at all, Neil.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: db1989 on 2013-09-05 01:18:18
Separated at birth: Neil Young and the CEA (http://hydrogenaudio.org/forums/?showtopic=102529#entry843930)
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2013-09-05 03:14:10
Actually you didn't really mention the problem... it's that 1-bit cannot be sufficiently dithered, as shown in the classic Lipshitz / Vanderkooy paper (http://sjeng.org/ftp/SACD.pdf). It may be "good enough" for a distribution format or a single conversion, but strictly speaking it's not transparent like properly-dithered multibit PCM.


Good point. The thing that bothers me is all these people who seem to believe that DSD has some kind of inherent sonic advantage over PCM, and that converting DSD to PCM (given that the DSD format and the PCM format have similar bandwidth and information capacities) somehow ruins the DSD in a readily audible way.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2013-09-05 09:42:29
marketing-speak driven product of dubious value
I think at least some of the people involved believe what they are saying. While there's some hyperbole, they're not intentionally out to fool anyone. Unless you count the fact that they've probably fooled themselves.

I don't know whether that makes it better or worse.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2013-09-05 13:49:46
marketing-speak driven product of dubious value
I think at least some of the people involved believe what they are saying. While there's some hyperbole, they're not intentionally out to fool anyone. Unless you count the fact that they've probably fooled themselves.


Where I live we call that "The John Atkinson question". ;-)

Quote
I don't know whether that makes it better or worse.


One could call this an educational problem, but if you approach them with education many start chanting nonsense words so that they can't hear what you say.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: zumacraig on 2013-09-05 14:11:05
i'm a fan of neil's music, but he is a self-centered idiot when it comes to everything else.  this PONO stuff is just unbelievable.  the fact that he has 'experts' telling him that he's going to make 'better' digital copies is so sad.  not to mention the obvious return to DRM and the absolute lack of any critical thinking of whey music sounds bad these days.  it's the mastering!!  if he was supporting an idea to create an industry wide dynamic range maximum, i'd be on board.  now he's just trying to sell hi-rez shitty masters. 

alas, this will never see the light of day.  if it does, his droves of mouth breathers will buy willingly.  he sold blue ray to them along with the promise of bd-live downloads.  that's now dead.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: probedb on 2013-09-05 14:58:28
he sold blue ray to them along with the promise of bd-live downloads.  that's now dead.


In what way is Blu-Ray dead?
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: zumacraig on 2013-09-05 15:06:19
he sold blue ray to them along with the promise of bd-live downloads.  that's now dead.


In what way is Blu-Ray dead?


Blue-Ray is not dead, it's the live monthly downloads Neil promised with the purchase of Archives I on Blue-Ray.  (Incidentally, at that point in 2009, Blue-Ray players were still new and expensive and lots of Neil fans went out to buy them in order to buy the Archives.)  That being said, Blue-Ray is definitely not the norm and is basically redundant and unnecessary.  Blue-Rays make all movies look like cartoons! 
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: probedb on 2013-09-05 16:37:51
Blue-Ray is not dead, it's the live monthly downloads Neil promised with the purchase of Archives I on Blue-Ray.  (Incidentally, at that point in 2009, Blue-Ray players were still new and expensive and lots of Neil fans went out to buy them in order to buy the Archives.)  That being said, Blue-Ray is definitely not the norm and is basically redundant and unnecessary.  Blue-Rays make all movies look like cartoons! 


Erm, OK then.

Anyways I'll not reply again as it's too off-topic
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: ech3 on 2013-09-06 00:15:27
> Hearing PONO for the first time is like that first blast of daylight when you leave a movie theater on a sun-filled day.

PONO will make me wince, give me temporary blindness and a pounding headache?
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: binaryhermit on 2013-09-06 01:15:39
The sanitized version of my thoughts is that it sounds like snake oil and manure.  And is probably insanely overpriced, especially for what it's likely to be.  And it wouldn't surprise me if it was technically inferior to CD.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: greynol on 2013-09-06 01:51:23
That remains to be seen.

What if they turn out to be nicely equalized or flat transfers from the best quality tapes with no DRC in a DRM-free lossless format that costs less than a CD?
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: binaryhermit on 2013-09-06 02:15:39
That'd be nice.  But I'm skeptical.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Kohlrabi on 2013-09-06 09:18:17
What if they turn out to be nicely equalized or flat transfers from the best quality tapes with no DRC in a DRM-free lossless format that costs less than a CD?
Yes, because with current technology that is completely impossible to achieve.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2013-09-06 09:37:25
What if they turn out to be nicely equalized or flat transfers from the best quality tapes with no DRC in a DRM-free lossless format that costs less than a CD?
Then for most people's tastes (even most people who call themselves audiophiles) they will need sweetening/EQ-ing/compressing/distorting in some way to make them sound acceptable. Hence they'll prefer the vinyl version

Cheers,
David.

Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: zumacraig on 2013-09-06 12:10:39
The sanitized version of my thoughts is that it sounds like snake oil and manure.  And is probably insanely overpriced, especially for what it's likely to be.  And it wouldn't surprise me if it was technically inferior to CD.


It probably will be worse than CD.  It'll probably have some sort of special PONO mastering, a la itunes mastering, that people will buy right up.  The mastering will still be bad.  Not to mention the player.  I'm just infuriated by the fools commenting on how great this will be.  So stupid!  This is late capitalism 101.  Market AIR and people will buy it.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: zumacraig on 2013-09-06 12:14:21
What if they turn out to be nicely equalized or flat transfers from the best quality tapes with no DRC in a DRM-free lossless format that costs less than a CD?
Yes, because with current technology that is completely impossible to achieve.


we don't even need any new technology.  go on amazon and buy a used initial pressing of a CD from the 80s for $5.  there you have it.

this stuff is happening everywhere, even the infamous Vapor Trails is being remixed and re-released this fall.  there is no doubt it will will still be brick-walled.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: gib on 2013-09-06 12:36:03
marketing-speak driven product of dubious value
I think at least some of the people involved believe what they are saying. While there's some hyperbole, they're not intentionally out to fool anyone. Unless you count the fact that they've probably fooled themselves.

Very true.  In fairness, the main thing I wanted to say in my original post is that the name of the product bothers me quite a bit.  My off the cuff description of what the product sounds like was just a stepping stone to get there.  I mean, this is an audio forum - I couldn't comment solely on the language, right?   
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Juha on 2013-09-06 12:38:59
Complete world ?

Juha
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2013-09-06 12:40:57
That remains to be seen.

What if they turn out to be nicely equalized or flat transfers from the best quality tapes with no DRC in a DRM-free lossless format that costs less than a CD?


What if the government actually cut taxes for everybody, without cutting back on services? ;-)

Since we already have sonically transparent formats, and the storage and transmission bandwidth to exploit them without straining, the fact that they have invented yet another incompatible format says it all. This is just a rerun of the SACD mistake,  only with a different format.  The rest of your wish list is just administrative changes.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: bandpass on 2013-09-06 12:55:56
The mastering will still be bad.  Not to mention the player.

The player will probably be decent; it'll have to be, 'cos people will test it and compare it the S4 and the iPhone5(S), which as I understand, are very good.  See here for example: http://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/iphone-5/audio-quality.htm (http://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/iphone-5/audio-quality.htm)

(Speaking w.r.t. dynamic range compression:) Uncompressed masters with optional, adjustable compression at playback time could be a compelling combination. Maybe a format that stores the specific compression parameters for the track along with the uncompressed audio; playback processor then generates clean and smashed, with a fader between the two, set dependent on the ambient noise level.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: zumacraig on 2013-09-06 14:00:10
The mastering will still be bad.  Not to mention the player.

The player will probably be decent; it'll have to be, 'cos people will test it and compare it the S4 and the iPhone5(S), which as I understand, are very good.  See here for example: http://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/iphone-5/audio-quality.htm (http://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/iphone-5/audio-quality.htm)

(Speaking w.r.t. dynamic range compression:) Uncompressed masters with optional, adjustable compression at playback time could be a compelling combination. Maybe a format that stores the specific compression parameters for the track along with the uncompressed audio; playback processor then generates clean and smashed, with a fader between the two, set dependent on the ambient noise level.



Right, but I don't think Pono is concerned with mastering.  They're focused on the buzz of hi-res, re-selling it to the masses, yet again.  For the industry to keep making profit, they will have to keep coming up with more ways to market the same thing over and over, whether it be the actual music or the player.  They will never just release good masters, like we want.  That would be the end of it.  They sure aren't making any money off new music.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: drewfx on 2013-09-06 17:05:23
Am I missing something? Hasn't the market already shown there's very limited interest in "better than CD quality" audio formats? Are we to expect Neil is going to attract a legion of new believers?

But what I am looking forward to is finding out how this compares to vinyl. 
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: zipr on 2013-09-06 17:06:01
According to the Facebook page, PONO...
"starts at the source: artist-approved studio masters we’ve been given special access to."

So I wonder if most of the supposed increase in quality will be due to working with different masters rather than a different digital format?

https://www.facebook.com/NeilYoungPono (https://www.facebook.com/NeilYoungPono)
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: greynol on 2013-09-06 17:58:38
Nah, we were already essentially told to ignore that part of his schtick.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: db1989 on 2013-09-06 18:33:41
Are we to expect Neil is going to attract a legion of new believers?
Hopefully not and he will only attract the attention of the usual core crowd of troobeleevers. But we run the risk of him suckering a new batch of people into all this nonsense.

Quote
But what I am looking forward to is finding out how this compares to vinyl. 
No doubt they will all omit to mention vinyl since, although this revolutionary, phenomenal, transcendent new digital technology is going to be the best digital ever, digital is inherently inferior to wonderful analogue and will remain so for all of eternity.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Hotsoup on 2013-09-06 18:46:46
But we run the risk of him suckering a new batch of people into all this nonsense.
This has kind of been my fear. Lots of posters at other sites seemed to have accepted or even enthusiastically embraced 24/192 and DSD. I think they'll jump on Pono likewise. They're the typical crowd but the amount of hype they're creating is what's concerning me.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Wombat on 2013-09-06 19:14:33
Yes, it is a tradegy. I remember having some discussion back a while with a member on Slimdevices forum that was impressed with the better dynamics and other audiophile benefits of the Love Supreme 24bit version! No argument could be made  to convince him otherwise, it must be the bits! He was descriping that with audiophile vocabular of the finest art.
Now to the funny part. This Love Supreme version was pulled from selling later because of having only 16bit content padded with zeroes to 24bit...
The same person now favours DSD against PCM of course and posts about the beauty of hires releases all the time. Such people are priceless for the business.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Lashiec on 2013-09-06 20:00:36
That remains to be seen.

What if they turn out to be nicely equalized or flat transfers from the best quality tapes with no DRC in a DRM-free lossless format that costs less than a CD?

Well, that would be nice, but... what exactly is Pono achieving that couldn't be done by the already established download services? Wasn't iTunes asking the labels to provide high-resolution masters for future proofing? Can't they poke Apple and Amazon so they start offering a goddamn lossless option already?

Me thinks this is a just an elaborate marketing scheme for the majors to cut out the middlemen of their business. If you have to endure Neil Young snake oil, so be it, I guess the new "remasters" are the just the same masters Amazon and Apple have, 50+ year old musicians can't tell the difference anyway. And with Universal involved, DRM is probably in as well, as they are the only label still insisting on using digital watermarks.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: greynol on 2013-09-06 20:04:52
what exactly is Pono achieving that couldn't be done by the already established download services?

Apparently you and a few others already know so why are you asking me?
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Lashiec on 2013-09-06 20:14:38
Apparently you and a few others already know so why are you asking me?

Rhetorical question before ranting a bit. Had to choose a target to ask it
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: greynol on 2013-09-06 20:21:25
I'm just cranky after having a private discussion with an idiot espousing how 16 bits was inadequate for a format that has the equivalent noise of 13 bits on the best day of its life (vinyl) as well as the benefits of SACD over CDDA using arguments from authority to make his case.

Never mind me.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: zumacraig on 2013-09-07 01:41:28
I'm just cranky after having a private discussion with an idiot espousing how 16 bits was inadequate for a format that has the equivalent noise of 13 bits on the best day of its life (vinyl) as well as the benefits of SACD over CDDA using arguments from authority to make his case.

Never mind me.


This whole thing is an argument from authority.  Good point.  The authority being a rock star.  Aren't they they opposite of authority? 
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: extrabigmehdi on 2013-09-07 02:25:51
Well there's an article related to pono in wikipedia, if you hadn't read it yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pono_%28audio_format%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pono_%28audio_format%29)

Where I  learn that pono is not just a file format but also a player (I guess foobar won't play pono).
Pono reportedly has backing from major record labels Warner, Sony, and Universal, and has signed a full agreement with Warner. In fact, the "Big Three" record labels, have reportedly all agreed to remaster their music catalogs for the device.


Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Mach-X on 2013-09-07 02:28:08
Poor Monty must be distraught...his well thought out, well dictated, layman's terms using videos have not convinced Neil Young...why does he have to be from Canada...
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: db1989 on 2013-09-07 02:35:32
Pono reportedly has backing from major record labels Warner, Sony, and Universal, and has signed a full agreement with Warner. In fact, the "Big Three" record labels, have reportedly all agreed to remaster their music catalogs for the device.
Wow! I just managed to attain even less respect for them.

Quote
However, Flea of the Red Hot Chili Peppers said "It's not like some vague thing that you need dogs' ears to hear. It's a drastic difference."
Yeah, I bet Californication is crying out for PONO so that we poor, ignorant listeners can finally appreciate its stunningly good production. And to think some people say RHCP get less relevant every day.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Mach-X on 2013-09-07 04:00:25
Ehrm...can't we already buy said studio masters in 192 form from hdtracks that DONT require specialized hardware to play? Being as most on board sound chips already support such a thing? What are we talking about, a portable player that can handle 2mbit sampling? Can somebody please point poor old senile Neil to xiph.org...forgot to mention the ridiculous DRM that will be involved...two steps forward with awesome services like Xbox music pass and band camps drm free flacs, giant step back with garbage like this...
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: extrabigmehdi on 2013-09-07 04:31:49
I think the pono solution is a pretext for DRM. They don't care that much about sound quality.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Mach-X on 2013-09-07 05:22:47
I just don't see what technological advantage is even possible here, we already have bandcamp and hdtracks, both offering the theoretical advantages, and I do mean theoretical, that he is implying. Thank god roadrunner records has the right idea...nice complete box sets of some of my favorite bands at decent prices...thats where my dollars are going...
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: zumacraig on 2013-09-07 21:38:23
I just don't see what technological advantage is even possible here, we already have bandcamp and hdtracks, both offering the theoretical advantages, and I do mean theoretical, that he is implying. Thank god roadrunner records has the right idea...nice complete box sets of some of my favorite bands at decent prices...thats where my dollars are going...


Roadrunner (like everyone else) compresses their music to death.  Even their hdtracks are compressed.  See the latest Rush album.  I know the dynamics are better for some albums on hdtracks, but not best.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Kohlrabi on 2013-09-08 07:28:12
Roadrunner (like everyone else) compresses their music to death.  Even their hdtracks are compressed.  See the latest Rush album.  I know the dynamics are better for some albums on hdtracks, but not best.
The mastering is so hot it leaves only Vapor Trails behind.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: krabapple on 2013-09-08 23:25:44
Ehrm...can't we already buy said studio masters in 192 form from hdtracks that DONT require specialized hardware to play?



The answer to the bolded part is No, not necessarily.  HDtracks acquires digital masters from record companies.  There is no guarantee that those are flat transfers of the original, 0th generation master tapes (in the cases where the recordings were originally analog) or the original digital masters (versus a remastered version). And what processing HDtracks actually does, or does not do, with the masters it acquires, is a black box.  As will probably be the case for Pono.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: krabapple on 2013-09-08 23:28:32
We don't even need any new technology.  go on amazon and buy a used initial pressing of a CD from the 80s for $5.  there you have it.



That will likely get you a CD version that has not suffered from the loudness wars.  But it won't guarantee that it was sourced from the best 'studio master'. And the EQ and noise reduction applied will be whatever the remastering engineer at the time felt was appropriate, as is always the case. 

Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Apesbrain on 2013-09-09 00:52:02
Just noticed these lyrics...

Dreaming about the way things sound now
Write about them in my book
Worry that you can't hear me now
And feel the time I took

When you hear my song now
You only get five percent
You used to get it all
You used to get it all.


- from "Driftin' Back", Psychedelic Pill 2012

As a life-long fan, it embarrasses me to hear Neil say this stuff.  5% of the bitrate it takes to deliver Pono's "primal power" is just about equal to LAME -V0.  There is no way he -- or anyone else he knows -- can ABX -V0 vs. his own master tape.  I'd love to see him challenged to do this.

OTOH, take a moment to imagine 20x more Neil coming out of your headphones!
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2013-09-09 01:22:53
I think the pono solution is a pretext for DRM. They don't care that much about sound quality.


If that is the case, then the whole Pono promo is a rerun of SACD. SACD failed in the mainstream marketplace. Why rerun a failing plan?
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: db1989 on 2013-09-09 01:38:33
I honestly have doubts about this being (at least solely) a Trojan Horse for DRM. What official marketing we have so far for PONO seems way more True Believer than the equivalent stuff for SACD. Just look at all that emotion-laden nonsense written by Neil. He has been gifted the knowledge of how to save us all. He knows what he must do.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: extrabigmehdi on 2013-09-09 02:44:35
If that is the case, then the whole Pono promo is a rerun of SACD. SACD failed in the mainstream marketplace. Why rerun a failing plan?


Maybe Neil is  more interested to compete with itune store (but I don't think pono would play on the ipod).  Pono is according to wikipedia also a download-service.

Anyways this is my logic:
How to justify a new audio format with some DRM  in it ? (an umpteenth attempt to stop piracy). You have to claim that there's some improvements to get some attention.  What kind of audio improvements are possible today (i.e talking of the audio format only) ? I leave this question to other people, perhaps there are still hopes.

Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: zumacraig on 2013-09-09 17:29:33
If that is the case, then the whole Pono promo is a rerun of SACD. SACD failed in the mainstream marketplace. Why rerun a failing plan?


Maybe Neil is  more interested to compete with itune store (but I don't think pono would play on the ipod).  Pono is according to wikipedia also a download-service.

Anyways this is my logic:
How to justify a new audio format with some DRM  in it ? (an umpteenth attempt to stop piracy). You have to claim that there's some improvements to get some attention.  What kind of audio improvements are possible today (i.e talking of the audio format only) ? I leave this question to other people, perhaps there are still hopes.


Right, seems to me that the only improvements could be in production techniques and mastering.  Alas, these all come down to personal whims.  Ironically, even thought actual songs have been touch and go, his production, mixing and mastering over the last 15 years has been pretty good compared to the whims of corp rock, metal and progressive.  These genres could learn a thing or two from him on that front.  I love me some metal or new progressive rock, but the production is absolutely horrible.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: db1989 on 2013-09-09 17:50:35
Just noticed these lyrics...
[snipped due to cringe]
- from "Driftin' Back", Psychedelic Pill 2012

As a life-long fan, it embarrasses me to hear Neil say this stuff.  5% of the bitrate it takes to deliver Pono's "primal power" is just about equal to LAME -V0.  There is no way he -- or anyone else he knows -- can ABX -V0 vs. his own master tape.  I'd love to see him challenged to do this.
I cringed the whole way through. Wow.

How to justify a new audio format with some DRM  in it ? (an umpteenth attempt to stop piracy). You have to claim that there's some improvements to get some attention.  What kind of audio improvements are possible today (i.e talking of the audio format only) ?
Right, seems to me that the only improvements could be in production techniques and mastering.
But that’s a side issue. Young is pushing his new ‘system’ as if it’s a new spiritual paradigm, without offering any real-world basis for any of it, obviously because none is possible. Whether or not DRM is a concern, the core of their marketing seems to be appeals to sentimentality, emotion, and of course FUD. Who needs to invent stories about mastering, danceability, or any other barely plausible pretext when you can reel people in by the heartstrings? Sure, they might supplement their persuasion with the old trick of different masters or rave about sampling rates for a while, but those are nothing new. The point is the new depths of wooxploitation that are being reached, seemingly as the core of their strategy. The official marketing for SACD never sunk that low, AFAIR.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: greynol on 2013-09-09 18:08:27
The official marketing for SACD never sunk that low, AFAIR.

While I suppose releasing titles with a different master on each layer wasn't official marketing, it was still pretty low.

To reiterate my position, if this results in downloads that are nicely mastered which can't be had elsewhere and the price is right then I see it as a win, despite the fact that some idiots will undoubtedly owe it to the delivery format.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: RonaldDumsfeld on 2013-09-10 14:44:28
I cannot bring myself to believe that Neil Young is doing this in order to trouser more money.

He has had numerous opportunities during his career to fill his boots but has almost always chosen instead to move on to something new. Almost alone among this contemporaries he has retained a reputation for artistic integrity and remained relevant and vibrant.

So it's more probable that the person most at risk of getting ripped off here is Neil Young himself. 

He probably doesn't know and in the circles he mixes in it's in no one's interest to tell him.

Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2013-09-10 17:12:59
To reiterate my position, if this results in downloads that are nicely mastered which can't be had elsewhere and the price is right then I see it as a win, despite the fact that some idiots will undoubtedly owe it to the delivery format.
Yes, though what sometimes happens is that the only way to get a decent mastering of something is to pay £20+ for the DSD/192kHz/etc version of something.

One problem is the cost.

The second problem is it feels stupid. Pay £20 for a format I can't even play, downconvert it to CD quality, and then convert it to mp3? The result still sounds gorgeous, but it seems madness to go down this route.

Still, no one said the world was rational, and I guess if they were remastering it that well just for CD, it would be a gold CD or extra price CD or something. It wouldn't be the £5 that the normal CD probably is.

If you honestly believe the CD format isn't good enough, you can justify the extra SACD/whatever price in your head far more easily than if you know full well that CD is perfectly adequate, and it's "only" the mastering you're paying extra for. People like to pay for "things", not intangible "expertise" and "time spent". Hence workmen often inflate the cost of materials to hide the real cost of labour, because people are happier with the physical product they can see, rather than the invisible time they're really paying for.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: greynol on 2013-09-10 18:13:56
The second problem is it feels stupid. Pay £20 for a format I can't even play,

Ok the £20 was already listed as the first problem which may or may not be a reality, but hey we're all speculating so I suppose it's fair to gripe about it twice.

Quote
downconvert it to CD quality, and then convert it to mp3? The result still sounds gorgeous, but it seems madness to go down this route.

Meh, just one extra step which is trivial for a regular enthusiast on this forum such as yourself.  I imagine there aren't a whole lot of people incapable of doing this who actually care.  EDIT: I'm assuming conversion is somewhat trivial and not hampered by DRM (another big "if").

Quote
it's "only" the mastering you're paying extra for. People like to pay for "things", not intangible "expertise" and "time spent".

People pay for these kinds of things all the time.  Do you do your own plumbing service?

If the price is too high, people will do what they've been doing for the last dozen years, though I have a feeling those people will distribute it as 24/192 like they do for vinyl.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: zumacraig on 2013-09-11 01:16:54
To reiterate my position, if this results in downloads that are nicely mastered which can't be had elsewhere and the price is right then I see it as a win, despite the fact that some idiots will undoubtedly owe it to the delivery format.
Yes, though what sometimes happens is that the only way to get a decent mastering of something is to pay £20+ for the DSD/192kHz/etc version of something.

One problem is the cost.

The second problem is it feels stupid. Pay £20 for a format I can't even play, downconvert it to CD quality, and then convert it to mp3? The result still sounds gorgeous, but it seems madness to go down this route.

Still, no one said the world was rational, and I guess if they were remastering it that well just for CD, it would be a gold CD or extra price CD or something. It wouldn't be the £5 that the normal CD probably is.

If you honestly believe the CD format isn't good enough, you can justify the extra SACD/whatever price in your head far more easily than if you know full well that CD is perfectly adequate, and it's "only" the mastering you're paying extra for. People like to pay for "things", not intangible "expertise" and "time spent". Hence workmen often inflate the cost of materials to hide the real cost of labour, because people are happier with the physical product they can see, rather than the invisible time they're really paying for.

Cheers,
David.


What's interesting to me is that he's focused on classic albums: Dylan, Stones, etc.  Thing is, that stuff is good no matter if you're listening to it a cassette taped from an 8 track or a pristine CD.  I find that I only start getting uptight about mastering and sound quality only when the music is MOR.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2013-09-11 09:53:10
Meh, just one extra step which is trivial for a regular enthusiast on this forum such as yourself.  I imagine there aren't a whole lot of people incapable of doing this who actually care.
It's not the difficulty, it's the stupidity. The album will end up as ~60MB on my mp3 player. Currently it starts as ~600MB on CD, now it's going to start as ~3GB.

One rational worry is, if people don't appreciate the real reason for an audible improvement, and believe it's just down to higher numbers, then pretty soon higher numbers is all we'll get, and the real improvement (better mastering) will vanish again. It'll be CD all over again.

Quote
People pay for these kinds of things all the time.  Do you do your own plumbing service?
Plumbing (except boilers). Electrical (including two full re-wires). But I admit to not being normal.

Quote
If the price is too high, people will do what they've been doing for the last dozen years, though I have a feeling those people will distribute it as 24/192 like they do for vinyl.
I'm sure it'll be made available like that whatever the price - but I think a higher price will mean more people choose to take advantage of that availability.

I guess the higher the perceived value, the more people are willing to pay for it. 3GB must be worth more than 60MB

Cheers,
David.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2013-09-11 10:00:11
What's interesting to me is that he's focused on classic albums: Dylan, Stones, etc.  Thing is, that stuff is good no matter if you're listening to it a cassette taped from an 8 track or a pristine CD.  I find that I only start getting uptight about mastering and sound quality only when the music is MOR.
I think you hear the biggest improvement when all previous releases have been bad. If there's already been a decent release, it's harder to improve on it. I know that's stating the bleedin' obvious. Though maybe it's too obvious and rational - if I already own a CD I'm happy with, that's it. Other people seem to be on a perpetual sonic upgrade path. I'm only on that path for music that I love where the existing CDs sound poor.

Some "classic" albums probably sound better on cassette - it hides the inadequacies of the original master.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: pdq on 2013-09-11 12:43:09
NPR story (http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2013/09/11/219727031/what-does-a-song-that-costs-5-sound-like) on Hi-res audio / DSD / PONO
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: greynol on 2013-09-11 15:07:48
I encourage everyone to contact NPR about that fluff piece. Ask why there is no mention of Meyer and Moran and point to the Chris Montgomery videos.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: binaryhermit on 2013-09-11 16:00:01
Wow, $5 per song and $50 per album.  Plus, isn't DSD technically inferior to PCM given the same number of bits?
EDIT:  And isn't high res PCM and SACD-quality (and for that matter probably whatever high-res bitrate pono comes in) overkill anyway?
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: db1989 on 2013-09-11 16:21:01
Wow, $5 per song and $50 per album.
(http://0-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/vp/image/1368/28/1368289447873.jpg)
To be clear, though, and I suppose this is also, reluctantly, being fair to Young et al., what you cite was not in reference to PONO:
Quote
About three years ago, as most people got faster Internet connections and bigger hard drives, Marenco [as her label, Blue Coast Records] decided to make her DSD music files available for download. At the time, Marenco's customers could only play DSD on one device — a Sony PlayStation 3. Marenco charged $5 a song and $50 an album.


Plus, isn't DSD technically inferior to PCM given the same number of bits?
EDIT:  And isn't high res PCM and SACD-quality (and for that matter probably whatever high-res bitrate pono comes in) overkill anyway?
Yes and yes. But do you think people like that will let reality stop them squeezing people dry while crowing about how they’re offering the masses liberation?
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2013-09-11 17:09:09
Wow, $5 per song and $50 per album.
The lossless CD quality downloads are cheaper, though most cost far more than a CD. Most of the recordings are gorgeous - simple recordings of proper musicians often are. You can listen to full mp3s of everything on the site for free.

However, the one I happened to buy has clipping at 0:44...
http://bluecoastrecords.com/store/keith-gr...ake-it-rain-mqd (http://bluecoastrecords.com/store/keith-greeninger/make-it-rain-mqd)
(track 1).

You can get a free download here...
http://sony.bluecoastrecords.com/ (http://sony.bluecoastrecords.com/)
...but I don't find that track to be particularly wonderful.

On that page it says one disadvantage of 96kHz/24-bit FLAC is "compromise of quality for ease of use."

It's a different world - though I don't believe people like Cookie Marenco go into it to become rich.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: db1989 on 2013-09-11 17:19:06
It's a different world - though I don't believe people like Cookie Marenco go into it to become rich.
Yeah, I should stop assuming they all do. But what real justification can there be for charging such exorbitant prices? To fund the equally overpriced hardware they think they need for producing such recordings? Either way, money is wasted, and myths are propagated.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: greynol on 2013-09-11 17:46:17
Plus, isn't DSD technically inferior to PCM given the same number of bits?

Assuming you're talking about bit-depth, the answer is no.  DSD is only one bit.  It is about the sample rate.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: greynol on 2013-09-11 17:49:45
Cookie Marenco

NEWS FLASH:
Sound "Engineer" Is Clueless about Digital Sampling and Reconstruction
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: pdq on 2013-09-11 18:05:08
Plus, isn't DSD technically inferior to PCM given the same number of bits?

Assuming you're talking about bit-depth, the answer is no.  DSD is only one bit.  It is about the sample rate.

I think he was referring to bit rate, which is a combination of bit depth and sample rate (but then you already knew that).
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: binaryhermit on 2013-09-11 18:06:09
The answer is actually no.  DSD is only one bit.  It is about the sample rate.

I was actually talking about bitrate.  Sorry that I wasn't clear about that.  Wikipedia suggests that 2.8224 MHz DSD (2.8224 Mbps) is approximately equal with respects to sound fidelity to 20 bit/96 kHz PCM, which is 1.92 Mbps.  Is this true?
EDIT: Or what PDQ said while I took way too long to type this reply. (End edit)
And yes, I should have been more clear about what the $5/song, $50/album was referring to.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: extrabigmehdi on 2013-09-11 18:06:35
Cookie Marenco

NEWS FLASH:
Sound "Engineer" Is Clueless about Digital Sampling and Reconstruction


I would make a different conclusion from the article:
Quote
Marenco charged $5 a song and $50 [...] Thousands of people came to download.
[...]  This year she says she started making more money from her online music sales than she does from her work as a recording engineer.


Customers are clueless, and Morenco like money.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: greynol on 2013-09-11 18:14:05
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Facepalm.gif)
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: pdq on 2013-09-11 18:14:47
Wikipedia suggests that 2.8224 MHz DSD (2.8224 Mbps) is approximately equal with respects to sound fidelity to 20 bit/96 kHz PCM, which is 1.92 Mbps.  Is this true?

IIRC (and someone please correct me if I am wrong), 2.8224 Mbps, which is twice the normal bitrate for CD, encodes two channels of DSD. The reason for storing twice as many bits as standard CD is otherwise it would have been inferior in sound quality to the format it was trying to replace.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: binaryhermit on 2013-09-11 18:27:58
I just realized that my figures forgot to include the number of channels for each format.  So stereo SACD is actually 4x the bitrate of CDs*.

*SACD apparently uses lossless compression of the DSD stream to increase the amount of audio it can hold and therefore the bitrate wouldn't be 4x when actually on the disc.

EDIT: Upon further review, I wasn't quite correct.  Stereo can use this compression scheme, multichannel must use this compression scheme.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: TomasPin on 2013-09-11 23:03:47
You know, I would love to see or hear some artist telling the truth about this Hi-rez bull, being honest with their fanbase. Unfortunately, at most they say nothing about it, or are led to believe the whole thing like (we assume) poor Neil here.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: EricJ2190 on 2013-09-12 00:10:19
I encourage everyone to contact NPR about that fluff piece. Ask why there is no mention of Meyer and Moran and point to the Chris Montgomery videos.


You can let them know what you think here (https://www.fuzeqna.com/npr/includes/customer/npr/custforms/contactus.aspx). I did.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Ethan Winer on 2013-09-12 20:27:13
I would love to see or hear some artist telling the truth about this Hi-rez bull

Like the record companies, artists are glad to sell you their same titles all over again.

--Ethan
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Mach-X on 2013-09-13 00:28:29
You know, I would love to see or hear some artist telling the truth about this Hi-rez bull, being honest with their fanbase. Unfortunately, at most they say nothing about it, or are led to believe the whole thing like (we assume) poor Neil here.


There are electronic drum and bass artists who should know better because they are very familiar with creating digital music, but they still tout the 'lossy compression removes bass' flag to sell you more expensive flac files.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: uart on 2013-09-14 19:20:43
I know it's already been said, but we all know that the new format is not going to contribute in any meaningful way to better sound. So if anything it has to be down to different mastering. Whether or not Neil understands this we don't know, but you can bet that those surrounding him and working with the technical details certainly will.

The primary reasons for the new format are clear. One to help keep it propriety, two for marketing differentiation, and last but not least to increase the placebo potential.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: jkauff on 2013-09-15 11:18:02
The mastering quality of Neil's own releases isn't very consistent. I'm not sure I'd want him deciding what the "best possible mastering" would be.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: TomasPin on 2013-09-15 22:04:17
@Ethan & Mach-X: That's true, in the end business is business. Maybe I'm a bit naive... Thanks for your replies.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2014-05-01 11:12:25
Sorry for the thread resurrection, but an interview with Cookie Marenco of Blue Coast Records has shown up on the BBC website...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27161894 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27161894)
...given this is the BBC, the "Hear the difference for yourself here" link looks amazingly like advertising to me! Though I'm sure her description of mp3's "small sound" will annoy more people here  I suspect her description of music executives being deaf (she used more diplomatic language), and their secretaries having better ears, is spot on.

Interesting to see the microphone placement - it's not purist/minimalist.

If you grab the "for BBC vistors" free samples: http://edu.bluecoastrecords.com/bbc (http://edu.bluecoastrecords.com/bbc) and compare them to the previous free samples: http://edu.bluecoastrecords.com/ (http://edu.bluecoastrecords.com/) you will see that the new samples don't have a 5.6MHz DSD option, only a 2.8MHz DSD option, and the mp3 option has been reduced from 320kbps to 192kbps.

They're nice recordings.

(I have no connection with this - I just like people making nice recordings, even if they do make technical claims which I doubt)

Cheers,
David.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Juha on 2014-05-01 11:47:54
...

the mp3 option has been reduced from 320kbps to 192kbps.

...


Hmm... is that reduction meaningful at all when claims like this (http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/mp3-sound-quality-test-128-320/) exists?
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2014-05-01 12:52:54
...

the mp3 option has been reduced from 320kbps to 192kbps.

...


Hmm... is that reduction meaningful at all when claims like this (http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/mp3-sound-quality-test-128-320/) exists?
More meaningful than 5.6MHz vs 2.8MHz DSD!!!

At least 192kbps mp3 sometimes does sound audibly inferior.

btw, I picked the 320kbps one over the 128kbps one in that link pretty easily. In the minority though apparently.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Kees de Visser on 2014-05-01 14:01:39
Thanks for the link.
Pity to find amongst the FLAC 96 disadvantages: "compromise of quality for ease of use."
I've sent them an email 
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2014-05-01 15:39:02
Thanks for the link.
Pity to find amongst the FLAC 96 disadvantages: "compromise of quality for ease of use."
I've sent them an email 
I think that's a waste of electrons. I'm sure she's done plenty of sighted DSD vs 24/96 tests and believes what she says.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Kees de Visser on 2014-05-01 18:11:38
I think that's a waste of electrons.
You're kidding aren't you ? One email compared to DSD downloads ? Now who is wasting electrons ?

I got a quick, kind and long reply from Blue Coast Records, just in time to add it to this post:
Quote
Unfortunately, we have done numerous blindfold tests using FLAC and comparing to the original wav files.  The audio is very slightly compromised in the FLAC... not enough that most people will prefer FLAC over WAV for the metadata (which is the reason we have begun delivering FLAC files recently... most people want metadata over sound.)
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Wombat on 2014-05-01 19:36:05
High datarate craze!
Archimago just offers a simple listening test running 24/96 against 16/96 and uses samples from 2L for that. The recording was done at DXD rates and one listener when i read it correctly can't tell the 96kHz verions from each other because 96kHz is already way to bad sounding against the DXD version...
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: krabapple on 2014-05-02 04:24:23
I got a quick, kind and long reply from Blue Coast Records, just in time to add it to this post:
Quote
Unfortunately, we have done numerous blindfold tests using FLAC and comparing to the original wav files.  The audio is very slightly compromised in the FLAC... not enough that most people will prefer FLAC over WAV for the metadata (which is the reason we have begun delivering FLAC files recently... most people want metadata over sound.)




'blindfold tests'?  I call bullshit.  I'd bet they've never set up a single legitimate DBT.

Did you ask them to provide any more details?
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Maurits on 2014-05-02 10:32:19
I got a quick, kind and long reply from Blue Coast Records, just in time to add it to this post:
Quote
Unfortunately, we have done numerous blindfold tests using FLAC and comparing to the original wav files.  The audio is very slightly compromised in the FLAC... not enough that most people will prefer FLAC over WAV for the metadata (which is the reason we have begun delivering FLAC files recently... most people want metadata over sound.)


'blindfold tests'?  I call bullshit.  I'd bet they've never set up a single legitimate DBT.

Did you ask them to provide any more details?

"OK, first you need to put on this blindfold. Then we are going to play you a FLAC file, followed by a WAV file. Please tell us which one sounds better."
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Hotsoup on 2014-05-02 13:28:07
"OK, first you need to put on this blindfold. Then we are going to play you a FLAC file, followed by a WAV file. Please tell us which one sounds better."
Exactly. Or, "Now for this one, you're going to want to listen for subtle differences in decay, more clarity, and an overall richer sound. You heard that? Great, moving on.."
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: lithopsian on 2014-05-02 15:11:05
I hadn't really noticed these digital sound wars much until the last week or two, but now they seem to be everywhere on mainstream media.  Have I become sensitised from reading HA posts, or are these guys really going all out just recently?

Makes me sad to see the incredible scamming of consumers going on.  There's lots of things you can do to improve your listening experience.  Moving from legacy 128kbps CBR MP3 to a modern codec is one thing, but 99% of people have neither the ears or the hardware to make it worth worrying about stuff like the difference between 320kbps AAC and FLAC, let alone 16/44.1, 24/96, and DSD.  Are the $5 track merchants really aiming just at people with $10,000 audio systems who've run out of upgrade ideas, or trying to rip off people with an iPhone and some nice headphones?

DSD is a brilliant example of big number fever.  64 times the sampling rate so it is much better.  Right?  Right?  Morons
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2014-05-02 16:25:02
Are the $5 track merchants really aiming just at people with $10,000 audio systems who've run out of upgrade ideas, or trying to rip off people with an iPhone and some nice headphones?
On the Blue Coast Records site, you can listen to the mp3s of every recording on there for free on your iPhone (or anything else). You can get lossless CD quality downloads at $1.50-$2 per track. There are free downloads of a couple of tracks in all formats so you can compare for free.

Despite the claims, unless you want to be fooled/ripped-off/whatever-you-call-it, there's no reason to be. You can check out the claimed advantages for yourself at no cost. You can listen to all the music on there at no cost in good enough quality for 99% of the population.


It's when you have to pay the $5 per track just to get the music/mastering because no cheaper/"lesser" option is available that I get annoyed.

I know humans are irrational, and I know $5 per track will find its audience, but the vast majority of people won't pay more if they can't hear a difference. The world is still listening to mp3s.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: lithopsian on 2014-05-02 17:14:21
It's a nice theory but 9 out of 10 people want what they're told to want (if they're told often enough and by enough women in bikinis .  This latest craze is fighting over who has the best answer to the wrong question, and in the process (the actual reason for all the noise) convincing people that they need these better-than-CD encodings or their lives just won't be worth living.  The world is still listening to MP3s, but that is where an answer is really needed.  Telling people who are dissatisfied with a poor quality MP3 that the answer is a massive sample rate and a huge download is pretty low.  I wonder if these people in their heart of hearts really believe it?
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2014-05-02 18:47:55
I wonder if these people in their heart of hearts really believe it?
Yes.

But while people are always looking for something new and different, if someone tries to sell them something they're not interested in, they'll just ignore it. They've already ignored DSD for 15 years. They made very sure that 3D TV wasn't a success.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Porcus on 2014-05-03 11:24:43
I wonder if these people in their heart of hearts really believe it?


Why not? You observe, you believe. Hearing occurs in the brain. The brain does not completely isolate hearing from other input.

When a sighted A/B and a blinded produce different results, it need not have anything to do with fraud. If people had understood that this is simply part of human nature, they wouldn't have reacted to a "can you blind test this?" with a "you accuse me of lying?".
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: db1989 on 2014-05-03 12:24:23
I think the question was directed at the people selling such inflated files, not the buyers.

In which case the question is much more open, I think…
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: db1989 on 2014-05-03 17:16:50
Could you elaborate?
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: skamp on 2014-05-03 17:31:27
I think the question was directed at the people selling such inflated files, not the buyers.

In which case the question is much more open, I think…


Outright lying, i.e believing they're selling snake oil, would require HA-type knowledge that I suspect most (if not all) store founders don't have. At worst, maybe some of them don't hear a difference, but believe that some of their "golden ears" customers might.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2014-05-03 18:31:35
I think the question was directed at the people selling such inflated files, not the buyers.

In which case the question is much more open, I think…


I think that there is a widespread true and honest belief in the accuracy of sighted listening. That it is not the least bit accurate so many of the  places that it is relied on, is probably very counter-intuitive for very many people.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: db1989 on 2014-05-03 19:52:02
True, in most cases, the seller will genuinely believe the hype.

Quote
That it is not the least bit accurate so many of the places that it is relied on, is probably very counter-intuitive for very many people.
I guess it must be! I can’t remember my pre-objective days, thankfully.

Nor do I understand why some people are so resistant to testing their perceptions. Is it a mistaken belief that testing/quantifying something makes it soulless? (cf. digital vs analogue) Or insistence that they should not have to, and will not, prove themselves to others – which to me, indicates an underlying fear, whether denied or not, that what they think they hear doesn’t actually exist
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: skamp on 2014-05-03 20:09:19
Nor do I understand why some people are so resistant to testing their perceptions.


Acknowledging that your own perception may be terribly flawed, is a terrifying experience. It means acknowledging that you may not be perceiving the Truth, that your senses may be cheating you. It leaves you in an awful state of uncertainty that's very confusing and troubling. It makes you question other senses that you've always taken for granted. For a second there (or more), it makes you wonder if you're blind or deaf, or both.

I've experienced actual blindness for a while. It detaches you from reality while making you very vulnerable. No physically sane person wants to experience that; and certainly they refuse to acknowledge that they may be experiencing a purely psychological aspect of such blindness. Such experiences are unacceptable.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: db1989 on 2014-05-03 20:25:00
Oh, I can totally relate to the fear of losing a sense or any other familiar ability. But I was looking at all of this from a perspective of being willing to test one’s ideas and possibly learn new things. Psychologically, the factors you mentioned might factor into it in a lot of cases – as it can indeed be challenging to have long-held ideas challenged from a new perspective. So, I don’t want to seem like I was excluding/discrediting that element. My point was that I question/can’t relate to its relevance to things like audio. I mean I’d think folk would be happy to receive proof they needn’t spend £2000 on a cable, but then I’m not of a mystical mindset…

But this…
Quote
No physically sane person wants to experience that; and certainly they refuse to acknowledge that they may be experiencing a purely psychological aspect of such blindness.
…I have to disagree with, if we take it verbatim! However, assuming “physically sane person” is an odd term for someone who has normal senses and the value they place on them, of course none of us want to lose faculties. I guess the way your second clause implies no sane person would be open to the prospect of their perceptions being wrong, is not intended, just ambiguous wording  Plenty people here entertain and test that exact possibility every day, voluntarily.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: andy o on 2014-05-04 01:35:14
True, in most cases, the seller will genuinely believe the hype.
[...]

Nor do I understand why some people are so resistant to testing their perceptions. Is it a mistaken belief that testing/quantifying something makes it soulless? (cf. digital vs analogue) Or insistence that they should not have to, and will not, prove themselves to others – which to me, indicates an underlying fear, whether denied or not, that what they think they hear doesn’t actually exist

Cognitive dissonance, methinks. In the case of the seller, when you "see the light", either you become a willful scam artist, or you lose your product's "edge". If you're a consumer, you better get wise before you spend all that $$$, after which it becomes harder to accept it might have been in vain. Either case, ignorance is bliss.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: includemeout on 2014-05-04 02:49:44
Boy, I'm confused: after all the latest deliberations on whether lithopsian's rather ambiguous statement was voiced from a seller's or a buyer's POV, would his decision to come out and elaborate on it (assuming he's willing to do so) still count or not?

edit: Thinking it through though, maybe it was more a rethorical question!? Definitely not a statement, as I'd said earlier on.
I wonder if these people in their heart of hearts really believe it?
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Porcus on 2014-05-04 08:53:40
Nor do I understand why some people are so resistant to testing their perceptions.


Well this thread just had a discussion about do-they-honestly-believe. People do get somewhat abrasive when falsely accused of lying, and I suppose people are not very well aware that reporting bias is not about dishonesty, it is simply an artifact of how the brain works (and I guess many would take "it is human nature" as a euphemism for "you are cheating" too). 

(Just a hunch.)
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Thad E Ginathom on 2014-05-04 13:34:15
Within reason, I find reality challenges to be rather interesting. It baffles me that audiophiles and dealers of the sort under discussion here refuse to countenance them.

Whatever we do with equipment, cables, rooms, etc, isn't it whatever happens to sound after it enters our ears that is the most interesting part of the process?

Arguing this stuff once, I was caused to reflect that the one thing a lot of audiophiles are not actually very good at is ...listening!
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: includemeout on 2014-05-04 15:01:29
Arguing this stuff once, I was caused to reflect that the one thing a lot of audiophiles are not actually very good at is ...listening!

What they're actually good at is pretending (or fooling themselves) they see the emperor's new clothes.
We normal listeners who, like the child in the fairy tale, use our common sense are, in  their pitiful opinion, the ones unfit to see the garment whose weavers guarantee to be seen.

Whether these purveyors of audiophile gear, like the weavers in the fairy tale, do it deliberately or not, I guess we'll never know for sure.
But in this 'shut up and take my money' context audiophiles insist on putting themselves in, I guess that doesn't actually matter, does it?

I wonder if many a psychiatrist out there are seizing this golden opportunity to write excellent papers on this revamp of the old male conundrum of "mine is bigger than yours". 
Freud would've certainly had a blast, had he lived his prime well into the last three or four decades instead.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: hexradnor on 2014-05-19 09:54:35
It's been great to read this thread and see that a lot of my thoughts on this "new" format are shared with those better versed in audio quality than myself. What I realised the other days is we are entering a "lottery age".

Lotteries have often been called "idiot taxes" - although there is a theoretical chance of reward the likelihood is so low that you are almost certainly wasting your money buying a ticket. Now there theoretically is a chance of these recordings/formats providing a better audio experience but as so few of us are likely to have the technical and biological hardware to appreciate it you are almost certainly wasting your time investing in it.

So what is the advantage for the non-ticket buyers? In the lottery you save a small amount of money; In the audio world you get cheap CDs. eBay has become my music store. ABX has shown me I know no better than a 192 AAC rip. The CD is my backup. I am free.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: bandpass on 2014-11-19 12:04:09
PONO Hands-on Review

More objective than some (he even knows the difference between compression & compression):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4HJqaXN59k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4HJqaXN59k)
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: StephenPG on 2014-11-19 12:46:36
PONO Hands-on Review

More objective than some (he even knows the difference between compression & compression):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4HJqaXN59k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4HJqaXN59k)



It's still grossly inaccurate.

I've added a link to Monty's video in the comments.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Dynamic on 2014-11-19 16:06:26
Hmm, and there's now only one comment there admiring Leo Laporte's taste in music.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: StephenPG on 2014-11-19 16:51:05
It's still there, and now there are three 'dislikes' there was only one when I posted...
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: DonP on 2014-11-19 22:02:29
It's a nice theory but 9 out of 10 people want what they're told to want (if they're told often enough and by enough women in bikinis .


While reading this thread an article on NPR started off "Some things just sound better on vinyl"

Don't know if the (woman) reporter was wearing a bikini.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Satellite_6 on 2014-11-19 22:38:26
I think it is about time we abandoned lossy for lossless because of the same old argument that we have so much damn space. It is a shame we do not focus on this instead of HRA.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: RonaldDumsfeld on 2014-12-05 16:51:48
Apparently the PONOs need a long time to 'break in'. Something about dielectrics?

Quote
During the final manufacturing steps of almost all dielectrics, they are tested for possible defects in the insulation. This is done by applying an extremely high voltage to them (several thousands of volts). This applies a great internal stress to the dielectrics, such that the internal structure is altered.

It takes a great deal of time and playing of normal signal levels of semi-random signals (e.g., music) to have the dielectrics "relax" back to their normal state after being stressed by the high-voltage charges used to test the dielectrics.

electrons orbiting When the dielectrics have "relaxed" to their "normal" state, the atoms in the molecules can move more freely when an electrical signal is imposed on them. Depending on the material and the musical signal being played, it typically requires between several days and several months of playback to "break in" a dielectric fully. As this happens, the sound quality of the playback device will improve, becoming more "relaxed," "coherent," "musical" and "enjoyable."


emphasis mine. full page here PONO Only Gets Better (http://www.ponoworldtimes.com/ponoonlygetsbetter.html)

Is this in any way credible?
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Chu Gai on 2014-12-05 17:19:40
No. When you buy the PONO player, there's probably some fixed time when you can return it for your money back. Ad copy like that is written so that you're encouraged to not return the player in the hopes things will only get better should you be disappointed. Once you're past the time period, you're stuck with it and you'll never get your money back.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: includemeout on 2014-12-05 19:22:07
I think it is about time we abandoned lossy for lossless because of the same old argument that we have so much damn space. It is a shame we do not focus on this instead of HRA.

Since everyone is supposedly free to choose; and if for many people (many still!) lossy is all right, I honestly don't see the point of us suddenly jumping on the same bandwagon as if not doing it so were something totally illegal.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: lithopsian on 2014-12-05 20:55:46
Apparently the PONOs need a long time to 'break in'. Something about dielectrics?

Quote
During the final manufacturing steps of almost all dielectrics, they are tested for possible defects in the insulation. This is done by applying an extremely high voltage to them (several thousands of volts). This applies a great internal stress to the dielectrics, such that the internal structure is altered.

It takes a great deal of time and playing of normal signal levels of semi-random signals (e.g., music) to have the dielectrics "relax" back to their normal state after being stressed by the high-voltage charges used to test the dielectrics.

electrons orbiting When the dielectrics have "relaxed" to their "normal" state, the atoms in the molecules can move more freely when an electrical signal is imposed on them. Depending on the material and the musical signal being played, it typically requires between several days and several months of playback to "break in" a dielectric fully. As this happens, the sound quality of the playback device will improve, becoming more "relaxed," "coherent," "musical" and "enjoyable."


emphasis mine. full page here PONO Only Gets Better (http://www.ponoworldtimes.com/ponoonlygetsbetter.html)

Is this in any way credible?

If it was even remotely true then it would be trivial (at $400 a pop) to break in the capacitors in the factory before they sell you something that doesn't work properly.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: yourlord on 2014-12-05 22:21:27
The phenomenon of dielectric relaxation is real, but even in the worst cases they would have relaxed before the components even made it off the assembly line. Even IF the effects lasted that long the components would still operate within their specifications or else the whole system wouldn't work. This is pure BS.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: ajinfla on 2014-12-05 23:07:20
Is this in any way credible?

To the audiomoron who craves $cams like Hi-Re$ and Pono, etc., yes, absolutely. Nothing is too far fetched, dazzle with technical sounding BS like that about dielectrics, Class D amps "interleaving", DACs, etc., but show zero correlation to actual audibility. Follow the technical BS with a "listening" comparison where this is "heard", thus establishing causation in the mind of the audiomoron.
To rational, technically literate folks....incredible. 

cheers,

AJ
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: andy o on 2014-12-06 16:51:24
I like how they put "enjoyable" in quotes.

Also, what kind of website is this? I assume it has nothing to do with official Pono marketing, cause dat design (though you could say the same thing about the Pono itself).
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: dhromed on 2014-12-07 18:37:58
Quote
electrons orbiting When the dielectrics have "relaxed" to their "normal" state, the atoms in the molecules can move more freely when an electrical signal is imposed on them. Depending on the material and the musical signal being played, it typically requires between several days and several months of playback to "break in" a dielectric fully. As this happens, the sound quality of the playback device will improve, becoming more "relaxed," "coherent," "musical" and "enjoyable."

Is this in any way credible?


It made me scream internally.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: mzil on 2014-12-08 00:29:21
So if there was any tiny, little possibility that Pono hi-re$ had some actual legitimacy, that can now be instantly chucked out the window due to their nonsense that wires and other electronics within it need "break-in". Their company is clearly a BS, voodoo marketing scam.

I also hear that unlike M&M who were persecuted for using (some) older SACD material for their AES paper's test from analog studio tapes with limited high frequency range, Pono is apparently immune to any such short comings and tons of their material is taken from old analog recordings, including some Bob Dylan albums from the 60's.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Maurits on 2014-12-11 12:25:08
Was this Mike Beauchamp Pono player teardown (http://mikebeauchamp.com/2014/12/pono-player-teardown/) posted here already?

At least the final paragraph wasn't as bad as I feared
Quote
How does it sound?

It came pre-loaded with Neil Young’s “There’s a World” in 24/192 and I think it sounds great with headphones. The mix sounded more dynamic than I was used to, but that’s more about the mastering and not necessary about the high definition of the audio file. In the next few weeks I hope to be running a few tests on the sound quality though to see I feel a difference. I’ve been listening to FLAC files on my old iPod video running RockBox for years. I can tell the diference between badly encoded MP3’s and FLAC files no problem, but I’m not entirely convinced that “high resolution audio” is something I can distinguish compared to CD-quality FLAC files from the same source. But I’m open minded and I have a decent set of headphones, so I’m looking forward to posting more tests soon.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: krabapple on 2015-01-11 23:53:04
Haw!

Engineers at Neil Young’s company admit doubts on music player
http://nypost.com/2015/01/11/do-consumers-...igital-quality/ (http://nypost.com/2015/01/11/do-consumers-really-care-about-digital-quality/)
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Wombat on 2015-01-12 00:37:32
Engineers at Neil Young’s company admit doubts on music player
http://nypost.com/2015/01/11/do-consumers-...igital-quality/ (http://nypost.com/2015/01/11/do-consumers-really-care-about-digital-quality/)

This must have been before they became enlightened.
Pono to Play DSD (http://www.audiostream.com/content/pono-play-dsd)

I bet you can get RHCP Californication even one more time! Ok. the awaited 24/96 is as compressed as the cd and as bad sounding but soon the DSD format version will give you another buy.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: mzil on 2015-01-12 00:53:06
Haw!  Engineers at Neil Young's company admit doubts on music player http://nypost.com/2015/01/11/do-consumers-...igital-quality/ (http://nypost.com/2015/01/11/do-consumers-really-care-about-digital-quality/)


Thanks for that. I posted it to the AIX thread at AVSf.

Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: lithopsian on 2015-01-12 12:16:57
If you're selling a player that handles pointless audio formats, then DSD support seems inevitable
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: eahm on 2015-01-12 15:31:34
Can we change the title now? It's not a new format but a new hardware. Thanks.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: bp0 on 2015-01-12 16:06:02
This isn't some lock-in scheme like HDCD where you need special licensed hardware or software from Microsoft to play your music at "HD quality." There's no DRM, so it's also not locked into any store and is playable it on any device. The lossless audio does, in fact, provide the maximum quality possible for digital music, so you never have to worry about the encoder they used, or what will happen when you transcode it to your preferred format. The player they are selling is a rather good player, maybe expensive, but you don't have to buy it.

I don't really see how Pono is harming anything. There's no catch. There's nothing sinister behind it, and it seems like having another place to get FLAC is a good thing.

So there is some marketing nonsese, that is always the case for a new product. Everything new is "revolutionary." Overall, I think the existance of Pono Music is a positive.




Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Kohlrabi on 2015-01-12 16:18:02
There's nothing sinister behind it
Except that the whole premise is based on the lie that delivering (rock and pop) music as hi-res audio offers audible benefits over delivering them as redbook audio. And the lie that there is a benefit from delivering old recordings as hi-res files.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: bp0 on 2015-01-12 16:47:17
There's nothing sinister behind it
Except that the whole premise is based on the lie that delivering (rock and pop) music as hi-res audio offers audible benefits over delivering them as redbook audio. And the lie that there is a benefit from delivering old recordings as hi-res files.


I'm saying that if you take away Neil Young's extravagant claims, the thing that remains is great. There is no catch. It's exactly the thing everyone has wanted for 10 years. A DRM-free lossless audio store, with support of major publishers (and several smaller ones), not locked into any software, operating system or device. As a bonus, there is a simple and very good (but maybe not magical) music player you can buy, if you want, but you don't have to.

Yes, HDTracks exists and doesn't come with any religion, but another store doesn't hurt anything, and will likely make things better for poeple who want lossless audio.

Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: JabbaThePrawn on 2015-01-12 17:54:29
There's nothing sinister behind it
Except that the whole premise is based on the lie that delivering (rock and pop) music as hi-res audio offers audible benefits over delivering them as redbook audio. And the lie that there is a benefit from delivering old recordings as hi-res files.


I'm saying that if you take away Neil Young's extravagant claims, the thing that remains is great. There is no catch. It's exactly the thing everyone has wanted for 10 years. A DRM-free lossless audio store, with support of major publishers (and several smaller ones), not locked into any software, operating system or device. As a bonus, there is a simple and very good (but maybe not magical) music player you can buy, if you want, but you don't have to.

Yes, HDTracks exists and doesn't come with any religion, but another store doesn't hurt anything, and will likely make things better for poeple who want lossless audio.

I have qualms about the pricing, but there's one album I've found on there I can't get anywhere else I've looked, so I will be making one purchase at the very least from the Pono Store, once they expand beyond just selling to the US market.

As for the player, I don't listen on the move very much, so it's not for me.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2015-01-12 17:54:52
I don't really see how Pono is harming anything. There's no catch. There's nothing sinister behind it, and it seems like having another place to get FLAC is a good thing.


Except there is. It's based on telling lies about audio technology, lies that apparently even its employees can't live with:

http://nypost.com/2015/01/11/do-consumers-...igital-quality/ (http://nypost.com/2015/01/11/do-consumers-really-care-about-digital-quality/)

Quote
So there is some marketing nonsense, that is always the case for a new product. Everything new is "revolutionary." Overall, I think the existance of Pono Music is a positive.


Yup everybody lies, so I might as well tell the biggest one I can get away with! ;-)  That is essentially what the above paragraph says, so  pardon me while I ignore every other post you ever make! ;-)
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: DVDdoug on 2015-01-12 18:46:26
   And, I STILL want to see the results of Neil Young's hearing test! 

Most rock and roll musicians have worse than average hearing (from frequent exposure to loud sound), and most 69 year old's have worse than average hearing....
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: mzil on 2015-01-12 19:16:07
^I vaguely remember reading that he wears hearing aids. I can no longer find documetion to that, but he once freely admitted to having hearing loss, including tinnitus, back before any of this Pono stuff was on his radar:

http://www.connecthearing.ca/blog/neil-you...to-his-hearing/ (http://www.connecthearing.ca/blog/neil-young-knows-when-the-damage-was-done-to-his-hearing/)

NIHL, noise induced hearing loss, doesn't "cure itself". The cilia in your cochlea snap off or are damaged due to the excessive sound vibration and no, they don't "grow back". It is a permanent condition.

As was mentioned, on top of NIHL, just being the age that he is one would expect some high frequency loss:
(http://www.neuroreille.com/promenade/english/audiometry/e_audiogramme.gif)

This chart represents the average hearing of these ages for people living in western civilization. There is some controversy as to whether people living in say aboriginal tribes, with zero exposure to amplified music, subways, motor noise, electricity, etc., their entire lives, have somewhat lesser loss as they age. The data is mixed.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Hotsoup on 2015-01-12 19:44:13
More comment from Gizmodo:
http://gizmodo.com/dont-buy-what-neil-youn...ling-1678446860 (http://gizmodo.com/dont-buy-what-neil-young-is-selling-1678446860)
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Porcus on 2015-01-12 21:38:18
More comment from Gizmodo:
http://gizmodo.com/dont-buy-what-neil-youn...ling-1678446860 (http://gizmodo.com/dont-buy-what-neil-young-is-selling-1678446860)


errr ... if only they could refrain from writing nonsense like this:

[blockquote]To the human ear, audio sampled above 44.1 kHz/16-bit is inaudibly different.

Still, this demonstrated mathematical truth[/blockquote] Aha. So where the f(x) is this mathematical proof?

There is none. This isn't a "mathematical truth". At best it is an empirically established fact. In fact it is not even that - well it might depend a bit on what you mean by "the human ear".
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: ajinfla on 2015-01-12 22:32:40
http://nypost.com/2015/01/11/do-consumers-...igital-quality/ (http://nypost.com/2015/01/11/do-consumers-really-care-about-digital-quality/)

Quote
“Of course hi-res files are better,” says David Chesky, a New York-based composer and digital recording pioneer who is also CEO of HDTracks, an online distributor of hi-res music.
“You run into problems when you downsample (a hi-res file to CD-quality) … it gets grungier and closed in. It sounds like your 14-foot ceiling came down to 8 feet."


Say NO to drugs
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: includemeout on 2015-01-13 00:46:36
The truckload of BS on their website seems so ludicrous, it looks to me like of something belonging to a 'That Mitchell and Webb Look' sketch.
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/B_m17HK97M8/hqdefault.jpg)
Whether they're going to claim the damn thing as being capable of telling cheese from 'petril', only time will tell.

OTOH, it's beyond me how someone, calling themselves a HA member (or other science-driven audio community that takes itself seriously), can still believe a fraction of all that snake oil peddling.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: krabapple on 2015-01-26 21:15:48
a new entry in then ridiculous Pono comments sweepstakes.  From none other than Mikey Fremer

http://www.analogplanet.com/content/gizmod...sting-them-here (http://www.analogplanet.com/content/gizmodo-wont-post-my-comment-so-im-posting-them-here)

and oh, the fail  in the comments, it burns
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: StephenPG on 2015-01-26 21:35:11
Ouch!

The videos reviews begin...

Pono review (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VQUFCCcQ4A)
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: yourlord on 2015-01-26 21:52:20
The videos reviews begin...

Pono review (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VQUFCCcQ4A)


I just read some of the comments on that video.. I'm now off to commit Seppuku.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: KozmoNaut on 2015-01-26 22:09:37
a new entry in then ridiculous Pono comments sweepstakes.  From none other than Mikey Fremer

http://www.analogplanet.com/content/gizmod...sting-them-here (http://www.analogplanet.com/content/gizmodo-wont-post-my-comment-so-im-posting-them-here)

and oh, the fail  in the comments, it burns


Oh no, E. Brad Meyer listens to music using an older model non-fancy CD player and older mid-price speakers connected to *GASP* an inexpensive amplfier. The horror! Surely his complete lack of refined audiophile taste renders him completely unable to pass any kind of judgement on what is audible and what is not 

The whole article sounds like the rantings of a petulant child who just got told that Santa isn't real, and vehemently refuses to believe the truth.

Edit: Oh wow, this comment comes so close to a moment of clarity, and then throws it all away:

Quote
What they don't tell ya these ABexers (and it is because they don't know) is that everyone will fail a blind test. It's a stacked deck. The only way to pass a blind test is to practice blind testing. Who the hell is going to do that? Blind teating has nothing to do with listening to audio... Zilch. It is like everything else the more you practice it the better you get. Hell you can even practice going to people houses sitting down and drinking their scotch and blind testing away.
Another thing that seems to evade the logic of blind testing. Everyone has biases, but what is never mentioned people can over-come these pyscholigical barriers. They think you sit in front of your same system for years and never get better at hearing it. They truly are ignorant at audio.


So... To get better at distinguishing minor differences in blind testing, you have to practice listening for those differences and develop 'an ear' for the kinds of differences that can pop up? Isn't that exactly the same thing as when they claim to be "trained listeners"?

The mind boggles!
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: apastuszak on 2015-01-27 05:05:04
So he claims he spotted the differenc on 3 out of 4 tracks, but doesn't identify the tracks or show any concrete data from an ABX test.  All he does is name drop some digital engineer.

Then he goes on to talk about Phillips and how he has FACTS about the compromises made that make CDs inferior to hi-res music, but he doesn't back his "facts" up with any kind of references.  He does not provide the names of any Phillips enigneers he spoke with, nor does he provide quotes from any publications or even his own emails.

As for the reason why music is background noise is because most of today's music sucks.  The lyrics are shallow.  The musical arrangements are simple.  It's very easy to put it in the background, because it doesn't make you think.  How many people today even bother to read the lyrics that come with their music?  Most of them hum the refrain and ignore the rest.

And all his drivel about some yet to be publshed Japanese study...  Does he even understand any human anatomy?  If your ears can't hear it, it's not getting to your brain.  End of story.

Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: bandpass on 2015-01-27 07:51:51
Quote
My conclusion is: If you get a STUPID result from a double blind, the double blind is STUPID.

There is another possibility, Michael.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Kohlrabi on 2015-01-27 08:47:09
From the comments section:
Quote
But here's a quote from one Robert Ludwig, you may have heard of him... from the current issue of Tape Op magazine, and apologies if I'm infringing:

" I think the higher resolution sounds reveal themselves not in A/B testing, but in long periods of time. Play an entire album in a relaxed atmosphere at 96 kHz/24-bit, then, at the end, listen to it at 44.1 kHz/16-bit, and you'll get it right away. A/B testing, while the only scientific method we have, does not reveal too much with short-term back-and-forth comparisons due to the anxiety the brain is under doing such a test. The brain becomes very left-brain-technical, rather than right-brain creative and musical. "
*sigh*
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: includemeout on 2015-01-27 10:36:49
Having read that as far as my stomach could take, it was for me a torture session long enough to lament it not being written before; as we would've scrutinized with gusto in the academic study group I used to belong to till last year; which, based on studies by, among others, John Swales (http://www.lsa.umich.edu/eli/aboutus/facultyandstaff/ci.swalesjohn_ci.detail), dealt with argumentative fallacies, among other topics inherent to discourse analysis; as shitty argumentative texts such as his provide researchers of the kind with a helluva rich field in terms of half-truths, pseudoscience, name-dropping, ad hominem arguments and other similar fallacies.

Something like this (rather simplified) list of fallacious arguments (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html) is an almost-perfect match to all the rubbish he's written!

If anything, his "article" helps clarifying our vision of the sad state of affairs an audiophile everyday life must be: spending the rest of their sad lives fighting windmills (usually branches of science  they don't have the slightest idea about), in order to justify their stark-raving mad theories and presumptions, plus exacerbated expenditure on make-believe gear and finally, why they consider themselves a superior race above the non-golden-eared heathens that is all the rest of the world's population.

Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Wombat on 2015-01-27 11:20:48
Quote
What they don't tell ya these ABexers (and it is because they don't know) is that everyone will fail a blind test. It's a stacked deck. The only way to pass a blind test is to practice blind testing. Who the hell is going to do that? Blind teating has nothing to do with listening to audio... Zilch. It is like everything else the more you practice it the better you get. Hell you can even practice going to people houses sitting down and drinking their scotch and blind testing away.
Another thing that seems to evade the logic of blind testing. Everyone has biases, but what is never mentioned people can over-come these pyscholigical barriers. They think you sit in front of your same system for years and never get better at hearing it. They truly are ignorant at audio.


So... To get better at distinguishing minor differences in blind testing, you have to practice listening for those differences and develop 'an ear' for the kinds of differences that can pop up? Isn't that exactly the same thing as when they claim to be "trained listeners"?

The mind boggles!

Holy cow! This isn't nonsense anymore. It's a plain stupid excuse.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2015-01-27 13:15:51
So he claims he spotted the differenc on 3 out of 4 tracks, but doesn't identify the tracks or show any concrete data from an ABX test.  All he does is name drop some digital engineer.


If memory serves there was a set of Mark Waldrep tracks that had easily avoidable audible imperfections that were not inherent in the test itself.  Lots of people heard the difference in ABX tests and some of them even figured out what the exact technical error was.  The details are on AVS.

Quote
Then he goes on to talk about Phillips and how he has FACTS about the compromises made that make CDs inferior to hi-res music, but he doesn't back his "facts" up with any kind of references.  He does not provide the names of any Phillips engineers he spoke with, nor does he provide quotes from any publications or even his own emails.


Both the Audio CD and ABX were developed by very different groups of people in about the same time frame, so they were developed independently. That means that the standards for the CD were developed in the world of sighted evaluations and vague, inherently flawed and piecemeal information about audibility.  Zwicker and Fastle's book about perceptual models was not out, and the work that went into it was not well-known.  I think that Fremer's comments on the state of mind of the Philips engeineers are probably representative of the facts, but that does not mean that their state of mind was infallible or the be-all or end-all related to the topic.

Quote
As for the reason why music is background noise is because most of today's music sucks.  The lyrics are shallow.  The musical arrangements are simple.  It's very easy to put it in the background, because it doesn't make you think.  How many people today even bother to read the lyrics that come with their music?  Most of them hum the refrain and ignore the rest.


Fremer is an older dude with attitudes about modern music that are pretty stereotypical for older dudes.

Quote
And all his drivel about some yet to be publshed Japanese study...  Does he even understand any human anatomy?  If your ears can't hear it, it's not getting to your brain.  End of story.


There's this giant world of relevant and correct knowledge about human perception that Fremer is obviously either in denial about or living in total ignorance of.  Many valid points made above in criticism of his fecent and past writings are good evidence of that. On top of that, Fremer has apparently made what he thinks is a pretty good business based on that denial and ignorance, so he's unlikely to change at this late date. He's not going to change any more than than his cohorts Atkinson or Harley. 

Next!
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2015-01-27 13:18:40
Quote
My conclusion is: If you get a STUPID result from a double blind, the double blind is STUPID.

There is another possibility, Michael.



Fremer is thus  criticizing himself and the folks over at Meridian, because they both claim to have *passed* DBTs related to high resolution audio.

it's always nice when your opponent destroys his own arguments. ;-)
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: apastuszak on 2015-01-27 14:45:29
So he claims he spotted the differenc on 3 out of 4 tracks, but doesn't identify the tracks or show any concrete data from an ABX test.  All he does is name drop some digital engineer.


If memory serves there was a set of Mark Waldrep tracks that had easily avoidable audible imperfections that were not inherent in the test itself.  Lots of people heard the difference in ABX tests and some of them even figured out what the exact technical error was.  The details are on AVS.

Quote
Then he goes on to talk about Phillips and how he has FACTS about the compromises made that make CDs inferior to hi-res music, but he doesn't back his "facts" up with any kind of references.  He does not provide the names of any Phillips engineers he spoke with, nor does he provide quotes from any publications or even his own emails.


Both the Audio CD and ABX were developed by very different groups of people in about the same time frame, so they were developed independently. That means that the standards for the CD were developed in the world of sighted evaluations and vague, inherently flawed and piecemeal information about audibility.  Zwicker and Fastle's book about perceptual models was not out, and the work that went into it was not well-known.  I think that Fremer's comments on the state of mind of the Philips engeineers are probably representative of the facts, but that does not mean that their state of mind was infallible or the be-all or end-all related to the topic.

Quote
As for the reason why music is background noise is because most of today's music sucks.  The lyrics are shallow.  The musical arrangements are simple.  It's very easy to put it in the background, because it doesn't make you think.  How many people today even bother to read the lyrics that come with their music?  Most of them hum the refrain and ignore the rest.


Fremer is an older dude with attitudes about modern music that are pretty stereotypical for older dudes.

Quote
And all his drivel about some yet to be publshed Japanese study...  Does he even understand any human anatomy?  If your ears can't hear it, it's not getting to your brain.  End of story.


There's this giant world of relevant and correct knowledge about human perception that Fremer is obviously either in denial about or living in total ignorance of.  Many valid points made above in criticism of his fecent and past writings are good evidence of that. On top of that, Fremer has apparently made what he thinks is a pretty good business based on that denial and ignorance, so he's unlikely to change at this late date. He's not going to change any more than than his cohorts Atkinson or Harley. 

Next!


I'm waiting for the dog ear transplant for "audiophiles," so they can all walk around with their arrogant attitude saying "If you could only hear what I hear.  Then you'd know true quality music!"
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: julf on 2015-01-27 16:04:40
I'm waiting for the dog ear transplant for "audiophiles," so they can all walk around with their arrogant attitude saying "If you could only hear what I hear.  Then you'd know true quality music!"


It will happen...
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: drewfx on 2015-01-27 16:46:28
I'm not sure, but my understanding was that dogs (and other animals) had hearing "resolution" similar to humans but just weighted differently (in terms of frequency, directionality, etc.).
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Thad E Ginathom on 2015-01-27 17:06:49
It's not the content that amazed me, but that I read it on an audio manufacturer's site. Not the usual places that I expect to find audio myth busting...

Quote
So if the sampling rate doesn't determine the "resolution", just what exactly does it do? Before explaining, let me point out that there is no such specification as "resolution" in audio engineering.  This is another audiophile myth.  Therefore the sampling rate does not define resolution, it defines the highest audio frequency that the system can capture, store, and reproduce.

Hats off to Mr Sanders of Sanders Sound Systems.

Neil needs to read the whole paper (http://www.sanderssoundsystems.com/technical-white-papers/265-digital-recording-white-paper) which is yet another easily-readable summary of the facts and myths of digital audio.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2015-01-27 18:02:56
It's not the content that amazed me, but that I read it on an audio manufacturer's site. Not the usual places that I expect to find audio myth busting...

Quote
So if the sampling rate doesn't determine the "resolution", just what exactly does it do? Before explaining, let me point out that there is no such specification as "resolution" in audio engineering.  This is another audiophile myth.  Therefore the sampling rate does not define resolution, it defines the highest audio frequency that the system can capture, store, and reproduce.

Hats off to Mr Sanders of Sanders Sound Systems.

Neil needs to read the whole paper (http://www.sanderssoundsystems.com/technical-white-papers/265-digital-recording-white-paper) which is yet another easily-readable summary of the facts and myths of digital audio.



Points of order:

Information Theory Summary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory)

Shannon- Hartley Theorum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E2%80%93Hartley_theorem)

are both considered to be highly relevant to both Science and Engineering.

Put them together and the amount of information that can be conveyed on a channel is limited by what we today call the sample rate and the resolution of a channel.

The author, at least by implication makes the correct point that resolution and bandwidth are orthogonal or mutually exclusive and independent properties of a channel. However they are both relevant engineering specifications for audio systems.

Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2015-01-27 18:05:13
I'm waiting for the dog ear transplant for "audiophiles," so they can all walk around with their arrogant attitude saying "If you could only hear what I hear.  Then you'd know true quality music!"


IME they have done a very conspicuous  job of that for decades, no new medical procedures required.  All that was needed was a liberal dose of chutzpah.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: includemeout on 2015-01-27 20:51:23
Oh God, I took the plunge and resume reading all of Mikey Fremmer's exercise in bullshitting and found another gem:

Quote
The point I wish to make is [...] wouldn't you also appreciate a finely crafted piece of audio gear and appreciate it even if just for how it looked and felt—even if you didn't believe it might provide a sonic improvement?


I so wish I could fit this into my HA's avatar's signature!
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: apastuszak on 2015-01-28 00:53:07
I'm not sure, but my understanding was that dogs (and other animals) had hearing "resolution" similar to humans but just weighted differently (in terms of frequency, directionality, etc.).


Do you think that would stop audiophiles from claiming that they have a superior listening experience because they had dog ears.

Of course, you need new dog amps, and dog DACs, and of course $1000 dog Headphone and speakers to truly appreciate your new ears.

Someone with Photoshop skills needs to mock up a Stereophile cover for us!  :-)
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: ajinfla on 2015-01-28 01:19:44
http://www.analogplanet.com/content/gizmod...sting-them-here (http://www.analogplanet.com/content/gizmodo-wont-post-my-comment-so-im-posting-them-here)


Channeling Howard Beale...

cheers,

AJ
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: RonaldDumsfeld on 2015-01-28 02:05:30
Wow. This is pretty breathtaking.

Pedram Abrari, EVP of Technology, Pono  explains the cause of the 'loudness' wars.

Quote
Since much of the nuance and detail of the the artist's creation is lost and never heard in a compressed format, this resulted in an apathy up the music creation and delivery chain, all the way back to the recoding studios. ...{snip}..... Music was further damaged due to the unnatural manipulation of its dynamic range to compensate for lack of audio quality. It was recognized long ago that people perceive loudness as quality and to make up for the poor audio quality due to lossy compression, the entire dynamic range of music tracks were made loud and this was the beginning of the "loudness wars".


taken from a response to a pono review .

Here (http://www.audiostream.com/content/manufacturers-response)

The sheer gall of the man!
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2015-01-28 14:04:33
I'm not sure, but my understanding was that dogs (and other animals) had hearing "resolution" similar to humans but just weighted differently (in terms of frequency, directionality, etc.).


Do you think that would stop audiophiles from claiming that they have a superior listening experience because they had dog ears.

Of course, you need new dog amps, and dog DACs, and of course $1000 dog Headphone and speakers to truly appreciate your new ears.

Someone with Photoshop skills needs to mock up a Stereophile cover for us!  :-)


Full size attachment here:

Stereophile Cover Story (http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=107570&view=findpost&p=888513)


(http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/uploads/monthly_01_2015/post-61311-1422453629_thumb.png)
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: KozmoNaut on 2015-01-28 14:23:22
I thought this quote from the comments on a Slashdot article about the new $1200 Sony Walkman was very interesting, though I can't decide whether it's hilarious or actually kind of sad:

Quote
I have [a Pono], and its technology sucks balls.

It's got a great DAC - an ESS SABRE 9016 - that powers many modern A/V receivers. Point there.

The problem is the amplifiers suck.

Ayre amps supposedly have no feedback, and that makes it "good". I suppose it is given they sell amps for $20,000 that are handmade in Colorado. However, just because you can hand make something doesn't translate into a mass-manufactured product. First off, the amp in the Pono is fully discrete (transistors, no op-amps). This is fine, if you manage to match all the transistors in each stage properly. Also fine in a $20,000 handmade product where you can go through and characterize every transistor and find matching pairs so they behave identically. But in a mass manufactured product, they probably are grabbing transistors off a reel, which means instant mismatches since they're within their specs, but will deviate due to manufacturing issues.

So a discrete amp already is at a disadvantage because without taking time to characterize every part, you're going to get an amp that behaves differently between channels and between units.

Yes, integrated units are better - best are dual units because matching within a die is far better (under 1% difference) that matching between dice (over 10-20%). IC designers know this, and they know that manufacturing can trim the differences down to practically nil within a die (in IC manufacturing, everything is based on ratios - you cannot say you want a 1K resistor because you'll get 1K +/- 30% tolerance. But you can design two transistors that will be well within 1% of each other, even if you need a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio or more - so designers work on ratios rather than absolute values). It's why you have dual DAC and dual op-amp or even more (6 channel DACs are common too) in a single package - the matching between the parts will be remarkably close, brought in closer because they can be laser trimmed during fab.

The next problem is lack of feedback causing a REALLY HIGH output impedance - about 5 ohms. If you don't know, this causes EQ because headphones with 8 ohm impedance can really vary between 1-12+ ohms over the audio range. This causes EQ (equalization) which means the amplifier actually produces different gains at different frequencies, a la a graphic equalizer. You can use an EQ to reverse this trend (that's what they're actually for - to equalize the response), but that's a bunch of processing. I've seen comments that say you should go for 8 times the output impedance at a minimum - so 40 ohm headphones or higher to minimize the EQ (at 8 times, the variance is around 0.5db).

Again, Ayre amps may do this because you're going to pair it up with good speakers that already will have higher impedances so you won't notice. But Joe Average will be using jellybean 8/16/32 ohm headphones (most common impedances).

The problem with Pono is that it hits EVERY audiophile rumor out there. Discrete good, op-amp bad (true back in the 70s with early opamps, but since the 80s we've had great audio op-amps that have excellent transfer characteristics). Feedback is bad (because feeding back a "time delayed" signal just ruins the audio purity - never mind that we're talking nanoseconds here) - even though using it lets you have lower output impedances. And that high output impedance means EQ up the hell.

And let's not say about the claim from Ayre themselves saying it's 80-90% as good as their $20,000 amp. That's just wrong on so many levels - are you saying that the amp is overpriced? Or to go the extra mile costs an extra $19,600?

Hell, I'm surprised they stuck with 3.5mm jacks given all the design work - 3.5mm jacks while convenient, do have limitations w.r.t. cross talk and other parameters.

And the hardware's kinda crappy - underpowered SoC running Android AOSP 2.2. yes, 2.2. it's sluggish all around.

I've actually never wanted to back out of a kickstarter as much as I have with Pono.


It's just so ridiculously inept.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: includemeout on 2015-01-28 22:08:23
Pedram Abrari, EVP of Technology, Pono  explains the cause of the 'loudness' wars.

Quote
Since much of the nuance and detail of the the artist's creation is lost and never heard in a compressed format, this resulted in an apathy up the music creation and delivery chain, all the way back to the recoding studios. ...{snip}..... Music was further damaged due to the unnatural manipulation of its dynamic range to compensate for lack of audio quality. It was recognized long ago that people perceive loudness as quality and to make up for the poor audio quality due to lossy compression, the entire dynamic range of music tracks were made loud and this was the beginning of the "loudness wars".


His "theory" is so flawed, I wonder what lame explanation he'd come up with if challenged, to fit it in with the fact that an album like Californication, with its notoriously crappy dynamics, came out exactly at a time when MP3's popularity was still taking off.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: greynol on 2015-01-29 02:27:22
While many take issue with the amount of DRC on Californication, I suspect the true issue at hand is audible clipping.  There have been subsequent casualties of the loudness war, but all we hear about are the same tired examples. There are plenty of titles with lower RG and DR measurements people don't complain about. I suspect it is because the audible clipping isn't as pronounced.

A recent AES study quoted on this forum suggests this phobia may be overblown.

I think it's time we have an honest discussion about the advancement of DRC over the last 15 years rather than this shallow, knee-jerk vitriol I keep reading.  This isn't the proper topic for such a discussion, however.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Kohlrabi on 2015-01-29 07:11:17
While many take issue with the amount of DRC on Californication, I suspect the true issue at hand is audible clipping.  There have been subsequent casualties of the loudness war, but all we hear about are the same tired examples. There are plenty of titles with lower RG and DR measurements people don't complain about. I suspect it is because the audible clipping isn't as pronounced.
It has the full package, lots of DRC, lots of clipping, and on top of that it's basically a mono record. I can't remember noticing any stereo separation.

A recent AES study quoted on this forum suggests this phobia may be overblown.
The last time I saw AES studies quoted was in the amir-thread, and those were not worth the paper or PDFs they were printed on. Let's say I'm wary, AES seems to be the sock-puppet of music hardware companies. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: greynol on 2015-01-29 09:13:50
It seems you may agree that the post I followed didn't adequately characterize the album.  The DR may be bad, but today titles have half as much but with less clipping.

Regarding AES, someone is doing something to study the audibility of the phenomenon which is a lot more than what is going on around here. Ironic (http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=3974&view=findpost&p=149481).
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2015-01-29 12:35:56
Then he goes on to talk about Phillips and how he has FACTS about the compromises made that make CDs inferior to hi-res music, but he doesn't back his "facts" up with any kind of references.  He does not provide the names of any Phillips enigneers he spoke with, nor does he provide quotes from any publications or even his own emails.
It's historical fact that the pioneers of digital recording chose 48kHz or above.
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread....-Audio-Recorder (http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?8386-The-Decca-Digital-Audio-Recorder)

It's historical fact that 44.1kHz was chosen to fit onto (betamax) video tape.
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs/audio/44.1.html (http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs/audio/44.1.html)
Though the notes with that calculation are misleading. Those numbers aren't the number of "active" video lines, and VCRs record inactive lines anyway. VCRs do however trash some of the lines just before the VBI (at the bottom of the picture), so obviously you can't store data there. There is also an eight line section within the VBI that you can't mess with. Leaving a sensible amount of space, and keeping the bandwidth requirements easy for Betamax and VHS, gives you those numbers. You need a better video format, with higher bandwidth, to get much higher (e.g. 48kHz, 50kHz etc).

The concerns at the time were over analogue filters. I read these as engineering concerns, with the possibility of audibility - rather than a sense that it would sound awful. Many of the critics seemed to prefer the sound of analogue tape over the sound of a live microphone feed, so they were never going to like digital.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2015-01-29 13:00:14
Pedram Abrari, EVP of Technology, Pono  explains the cause of the 'loudness' wars.

Quote
Since much of the nuance and detail of the the artist's creation is lost and never heard in a compressed format, this resulted in an apathy up the music creation and delivery chain, all the way back to the recoding studios. ...{snip}..... Music was further damaged due to the unnatural manipulation of its dynamic range to compensate for lack of audio quality. It was recognized long ago that people perceive loudness as quality and to make up for the poor audio quality due to lossy compression, the entire dynamic range of music tracks were made loud and this was the beginning of the "loudness wars".


His "theory" is so flawed, I wonder what lame explanation he'd come up with if challenged, to fit it in with the fact that an album like Californication, with its notoriously crappy dynamics, came out exactly at a time when MP3's popularity was still taking off.



These poor souls are just casting about trying to come up with a plausable justification for a solution that is looking for a problem.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Wombat on 2015-01-29 14:46:31
While many take issue with the amount of DRC on Californication, I suspect the true issue at hand is audible clipping.  There have been subsequent casualties of the loudness war, but all we hear about are the same tired examples. There are plenty of titles with lower RG and DR measurements people don't complain about. I suspect it is because the audible clipping isn't as pronounced.

A recent AES study quoted on this forum suggests this phobia may be overblown.

I think it's time we have an honest discussion about the advancement of DRC over the last 15 years rather than this shallow, knee-jerk vitriol I keep reading.  This isn't the proper topic for such a discussion, however.

I lately linked to that hard clipped album Sean Rowe Studio Master clipping (http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?102921-Audiophile-download-of-the-day)
Besides it clips hard and measures low dynamics it still sounds surprisingly well. Not because it is 24bit but there are good captures of his voice and the rest.
Also i wonder when people dig out the DR hammer when comparing new masters to the old cd. Many sound clearly better even when the DR number lowered. Some early Tom Waits for example sound loud but beautiful as remaster.
On the other hand there i checked Tom Waits "Raindogs"  2009 SHM cd that sounds worse. IMHO there was no real effort made but the old data just bass-maximized and compressed.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: includemeout on 2015-01-29 16:28:55
It seems you may agree that the post I followed didn't adequately characterize the album.  The DR may be bad, but today titles have half as much but with less clipping.

Regarding AES, someone is doing something to study the audibility of the phenomenon which is a lot more than what is going on around here. Ironic (http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=3974&view=findpost&p=149481).

Well aware of DR only being the tip of the iceberg regarding the issues found on that particular album, the reason of my bringing it up was simply to point out its release date clearly discredits Abrari's theory that the loudness war is a by-product of engineers having to adapt to the limitations of compressed formats.
That is, how could it be if Californication came out before MP3 became really popular?

These poor souls are just casting about trying to come up with a plausable justification for a solution that is looking for a problem.

You got me and hit the nail on the head, Arnold.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: greynol on 2015-01-29 16:41:02
You could have mentioned Dirt by Alice In Chains: same DR value (FWIW), released seven years earlier. Loudness achieved by more primitive means. I raise it for a few reasons, not least of which it being the first time I became aware that something bad was going on with a perfectly good format.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Kohlrabi on 2015-01-29 18:08:49
Well aware of DR only being the tip of the iceberg regarding the issues found on that particular album, the reason of my bringing it up was simply to point out its release date clearly discredits Abrari's theory that the loudness war is a by-product of engineers having to adapt to the limitations of compressed formats.
That is, how could it be if Californication came out before MP3 became really popular?
Some people at AES and engineers in question try to divert the attention from the fact that people's production decisions are the reason of the decline in audio quality. They rather put out studies about "hi-res" audio and other red-herrings.

Why some people still argue that there even might be technical or technological reasons behind the loudness war is beyond me.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: includemeout on 2015-01-30 09:51:01
"Neil Young's PonoPlayer: The Emperor Has No Clothes"

In the wake of recent fairly-well written articles by the non-specialized press, this one by David Pogue (https://www.yahoo.com/tech/it-was-one-of-kickstarters-most-successful-109496883039.html) IMO, clearly stands out. Even more so when you realize he's gone as far as conducting a double-blind test with (apparently) third parties that are real laymen, not self-promoted specialists and/or audiophools.

Ok, it couldn't come without the odd faux pas such as:
Quote
[AAC is] much better than the radically compressed MP3 files of 1998.

and
Quote
Clearly, if Pono’s testing involved a remastered, high-resolution audio file going head-to-head with an original, crummy MP3 of the same song, you’d hear a difference.


Anyhow, let us expect these last real eye-openers of articles for the general public we've seen lately, to become, if not the de facto standard, at least more and more frequent; as for every Mikey Fremer's strongly-biased hodge-podge of lies, we surely need more Chris-Kornelis and David Pogue-like sober studies (properly backed up by genuine sources and empirical facts, not just name-throwing) coming out from the generic press.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Thad E Ginathom on 2015-01-30 11:23:40
Quote
So I wrote to Pono — and heard back from Neil Young himself.

“Of approximately 100 top-seed artists who compared Pono to low resolution MP3s,” he wrote, “all of them heard and felt the Pono difference, rewarding to the human senses, and is what Pono thinks you deserve to hear.”

Aha — there’s a key phrase in there: low-resolution MP3s.


So the reality of Neil's test was more like " ... all of them found first-class rail travel to be more comfortable than a bicycle?"
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2015-01-30 13:29:16
"Neil Young's PonoPlayer: The Emperor Has No Clothes"

In the wake of recent fairly-well written articles by the non-specialized press, this one by David Pogue (https://www.yahoo.com/tech/it-was-one-of-kickstarters-most-successful-109496883039.html) IMO, clearly stands out. Even more so when you realize he's gone as far as conducting a double-blind test with (apparently) third parties that are real laymen, not self-promoted specialists and/or audiophools.


Did I miss something? Were the blind tests level-matched?
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: includemeout on 2015-01-30 13:59:40
Were the blind tests level-matched?

I wouldn't bet an arm or a leg on it.

But, thinking of the public it's directed at, I think there are some other more important merits to it, such as making some of its quite-possibly uninformed readers more DBT-aware when it comes to subjective quality and maybe even more aware of the truth behind the miraculous claims regarding HiRes audio.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: antz on 2015-01-30 15:01:36
Quote
So I wrote to Pono — and heard back from Neil Young himself.

“Of approximately 100 top-seed artists who compared Pono to low resolution MP3s,” he wrote, “all of them heard and felt the Pono difference, rewarding to the human senses, and is what Pono thinks you deserve to hear.”

Aha — there’s a key phrase in there: low-resolution MP3s.


So the reality of Neil's test was more like " ... all of them found first-class rail travel to be more comfortable than a bicycle?"

To be fair, it's possible to interpret the original quote as meaning the "obviously inferior" MP3. When you've taken the stance that your format is superior, that wouldn't be an unreasonable logic. Not that I'm suggesting much credence be placed on it, since without specifying exactly what was compared and how, the statement remains useless.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: mzil on 2015-01-30 17:04:03
Did I miss something? Were the blind tests level-matched?


Without introducing extra devices in the signal paths the crude volume steps of an iphone and a Pono wouldn't allow for the precision necessary, even if external instrumentation was introduced to measure the two levels, as it should. This is even true with modern day AVRs, for that matter.

I also don't think the test was DOUBLE blind, song time synch was by hand, and in the still image of the Radio Shack switcher the two incoming RCA cords are visually distinguishable, although he may have done the swapping at the other end.




 

Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: _if on 2015-01-30 22:51:40
To be fair, it's possible to interpret the original quote as meaning the "obviously inferior" MP3. When you've taken the stance that your format is superior, that wouldn't be an unreasonable logic. Not that I'm suggesting much credence be placed on it, since without specifying exactly what was compared and how, the statement remains useless.

I agree with your logic, definitely. But one thing that makes me think it's plausible they used low quality MP3s is that, I think every time I've encountered them, when the vendors of "hi-res" music make their comparisons of formats and their data rates, they consistently list 128-320 kbps as the common bitrate of MP3s you can buy. PonoMusic does this as well. But is there anywhere actually selling 128 kbps MP3s these days or in the past several years?  I know it's used for previews on websites like Bandcamp and used to be the standard rate before hard drives got big, but I don't think anyone is paying for 128 kbps MP3s anymore. I know iTunes originally did 128 kbps AAC, but they switched to double that awhile ago. I wouldn't be surprised if they used 128 kbps CBR MP3s, encoded with iTunes or Windows Media Player, in their presentations to artists out of the mistaken belief that that's actually something common. The number of audiophiles who think you can buy MP3s on iTunes may be a good indication of their knowledge on this topic.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: yourlord on 2015-01-30 23:18:55
Or they dug up a copy of Bladeenc and used it to encode at 128kbps. I'm pretty sure a dead deaf man with feces in his ears could ABX those 100%. That encoder at 128kbps was an exercise in auditory pain. If I was an unscrupulous guy wanting to pawn my audio snake oil, that's how I'd make the mp3 I used to demo how much better my stuff is.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: krabapple on 2015-01-31 06:46:41
It seems you may agree that the post I followed didn't adequately characterize the album.  The DR may be bad, but today titles have half as much but with less clipping.

Regarding AES, someone is doing something to study the audibility of the phenomenon


link please
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: greynol on 2015-01-31 07:44:18
https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?ID=350 (https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?ID=350)
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: KozmoNaut on 2015-01-31 09:45:58
There's an ongoing video series on Youtube by Ian Shepherd regarding loudness and compression, which I found interesting:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLimW...glXBuK0xeH3RJzj (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLimWHcn2lzqKA0y49AglXBuK0xeH3RJzj)

He has a bunch of other videos on the loudness war on his channel, too.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2015-01-31 12:16:21
https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?ID=350 (https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?ID=350)


"
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

We failed to find any evidence of the effects of dynamic
range compression on subjective preference or on
perceived depth cues. Our perceptual data suggest that
listeners are less sensitive to even high levels of compression
than commonly claimed. This indicates that the
much-debated perceptual effects of compression used in
mastering are related to more than lower peak-to-average
ratios per se.

Future perceptual research is needed to examine
more complex interactions with other remastering
techniques typically combined with compression (equalization,
mid/side-processing, etc.) and with the particular
design of compressors. For instance, spatial treatment to
enhance the depth field may counteract potential effects
of lower peak-to-average ratios on spatial cues.

It also remains to be investigated whether specific distortion from
+0 dBFS peaks affects spatial cues and preference, and
whether dynamic range compression may have different
impacts in different playback situations (for example, other
playback equipment, playback environments or listening
positions).
"
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Thad E Ginathom on 2015-01-31 16:18:32
To be fair, it's possible to interpret the original quote as meaning the "obviously inferior" MP3. When you've taken the stance that your format is superior, that wouldn't be an unreasonable logic. Not that I'm suggesting much credence be placed on it, since without specifying exactly what was compared and how, the statement remains useless.


Perhaps, but in the language of the industry, these days, hasn't "resolution" become synonymous with sample rate and bit depth? Isn't the sales pitch that it is sample rate and bit depth with determine resolution?
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2015-01-31 19:35:31
To be fair, it's possible to interpret the original quote as meaning the "obviously inferior" MP3. When you've taken the stance that your format is superior, that wouldn't be an unreasonable logic. Not that I'm suggesting much credence be placed on it, since without specifying exactly what was compared and how, the statement remains useless.


Perhaps, but in the language of the industry, these days, hasn't "resolution" become synonymous with sample rate and bit depth? Isn't the sales pitch that it is sample rate and bit depth with determine resolution?


The language that some use differs from the science.  Resolution relates to bit depth, and sample rate relates to high frequency bandwidth.  This was all pretty well worked out, published, reviewed and agreed upon by the end of WWII. Some people are a tad late getting the memo.  Nothing new! ;-)
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Wombat on 2015-02-01 19:32:24
Sorry if that was posted already but i lost oversight. This review even tried some abx of pono against iphone and has reasonable reasoning.
The emperor has new clothes / Yahoo (https://www.yahoo.com/tech/it-was-one-of-kickstarters-most-successful-109496883039.html?src=rss&utm_content=buffer60e10&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkedin.com&utm_campaign=buffer)
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: greynol on 2015-02-01 20:58:45
Yes and it was already discussed.  You could call it an ABX test if you like, but it was horribly flawed to the point of uselessness.

http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=888729 (http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=94355&view=findpost&p=888729)
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Wombat on 2015-02-01 21:05:03
lol, and just a few posts above, sorry! I should slow down with tablet browsing.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Maurits on 2015-02-02 07:48:49
Here is the Ars Technica review.

Quote
Pono Player review: A tall, refreshing drink of snake oil

One of my Ars colleagues hadn't yet touched the Pono Player—the Neil Young-championed portable music player, nearly one year out of its successful Kickstarter and finally ready to make a mainstream hullabaloo about higher-resolution audio. However, he already "wrote" the review.

"You know how every once in a while you buy the $40 bottle of wine instead of the $8 one, thinking you're gonna have a special dinner or something?" Senior Reviews Editor Lee Hutchinson wrote over instant message. "And you get home, and you make the salmon or the pasta or whatever and you light the candles? And you pour the wine, swirl it like they do in Sideways so that it looks like you know what you're doing... you bring it to your lips and after smelling it—it smells like wine—you have a sip? And it's like… yeah, I guess this tastes good or something, but really it just tastes like wine?

"The Pono Player is kinda like that, but for music."

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/02/pon...of-snake-oil/1/ (http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/02/pono-player-review-a-tall-refreshing-drink-of-snake-oil/1/)
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2015-02-02 10:54:39
They kind of liked it in the end. It also begs a question: what kind of stand-alone "mp3" player is there a market for in 2015 and beyond? I was thinking that I must be the only person on the planet who chooses to carry a perfectly capable smart phone and a separate mp3 player, but I'm guessing almost everyone who buys one of these will be doing the same. They must have very big pockets.

btw, Ars links to this...
http://www.trustmeimascientist.com/2013/02...d-when-it-isnt/ (http://www.trustmeimascientist.com/2013/02/04/the-science-of-sample-rates-when-higher-is-better-and-when-it-isnt/)
...and that bit about very high sample rates being a bad thing still seems wrong to me. Most converters use a very high sample rate internally. That data is not inferior to the 44.1kHz or 96kHz or whatever that comes out. It can't be. It's the source for it. It might not be usefully better, and ultrasonic IMD could be a concern, but it's not worse.

The rest of that article is very good.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2015-02-02 11:26:19
https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?ID=350 (https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?ID=350)
I've read that before. Bob Katz makes the point that DRC vs macrodynamics can't be blind-tested. I think I agree with him. I wouldn't say it's properly totally definitively impossible, but I'm happy to place it into the "too hard" pile, and admit I can't figure out a way to do it.

For microdynamics, I think blind testing is perfectly reasonable. There are 3 problems:
1. Taste vs pre-conditioning vs preference (as he discusses)
2. When comparing commercial original vs commercial remaster, and the changes are more than DRC, you're not analysing whether people like or dislike DRC. Plenty of remasters are better in lots of ways, but worse in the amount of DRC. Fair enough, as long as you don't say "this proves people don't mind DRC" when DRC wasn't the only thing under test.
3. Level matching. The results are almost entirely at the mercy of the loudness matching algorithm. There's a fairly simple partial solution available: Run them "matched", but then try adding a 0.5dB, 1dB, ... boost to one or the other, and see how much of a loudness boost is needed to reverse (or create) the preference.

I would say overall listening level also plays a part, as does listening environment, and equipment. These can be included in a blind test easily enough. Also the length of time I listen plays a part. That's harder to work into a blind test.

I have certain assumptions about all of those things wrt DRC. This being HA, I wonder how many would stand up to proper blind testing?

What we rarely have are equivalent masters where the only change is DRC. In the instances where I think that's the only change, I've never heard pop music released with "too much" dynamic range for my tastes, so the versions with more DRC sound subjectively worse to me if I can hear the difference. I'm sure small (easily measured) changes are inaudible. FWIW unmastered (i.e. full dynamic range as picked up by the microphones) pop music sounds wrong to me, but no one ever releases that. Where it leaks out, and some people say "doesn't this sound great?" I tend to think "no".

Can anyone suggest some commercial releases with different amounts of DRC and few/no other changes? There are several comparison videos on YouTube. I wouldn't use the YouTube audio, but they hint at a good place to start. the Michael Jackson one maybe?

Cheers,
David.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: bandpass on 2015-02-02 11:38:30
They kind of liked it in the end.

I suspect they'd  have liked the $100 Fiio X1 a lot better, but they only mentioned the $1200 Sony Walkman in comparison which, as they say, is bonkers.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2015-02-02 13:11:30
Or they dug up a copy of Bladeenc and used it to encode at 128kbps. I'm pretty sure a dead deaf man with feces in his ears could ABX those 100%.


Begging the question of why you didn't download FOOBAR2000 and its ABX plug in and do a real test?
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: greynol on 2015-02-02 15:16:45
foobar2000 doesn't have capacitors to help minimize type ii errors. Oh wait, the caps aren't broken-in yet; never mind.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: mzil on 2015-02-02 17:41:39
https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?ID=350 (https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?ID=350)
. ...Can anyone suggest some commercial releases with different amounts of DRC and few/no other changes? 


The solution to ensure you are comparing two otherwise identical songs without other differences such as EQ, etc. is to do what Meyer and Moran did, i.e. roll your own. Take some song you like, version A, and then rerecord it yourself with some added compression dialed in, which is of course then your version B.




Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: greynol on 2015-02-02 17:53:37
roll your own

With a professional-grade multi-band compressor that was competently adjusted?  Good luck with that.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: mzil on 2015-02-02 18:06:18
roll your own
With a professional-grade multi-band compressor that was competently adjusted?  Good luck with that.
What's your point? Any compressor which would be affordable couldn't possibly be of high enough quality to be deemed otherwise transparent, at least when not compressing?

Also my point was that M&M *made* their own version B, rather than buying it and having to keep their fingers crossed there were no other alterations such as EQ, etc., however for my proposed copression test I don't see it needing to be done in real time, on the fly with hardware, and the compression applied to make version B could be done in software to create a version B *file*, which then of course could be ABX'd in Foobar against the original version A.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: greynol on 2015-02-02 18:23:26
What's your point?

That there is a direct parallel with the way the Pono folks are comparing mp3 with hi-res.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: drewfx on 2015-02-02 18:25:55
roll your own

With a professional-grade multi-band compressor that was competently adjusted?  Good luck with that.


What do you consider "competently adjusted"?

And many professional-grade lookahead limiters/loudness maximizers have quite simple controls anyway.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: greynol on 2015-02-02 18:30:19
Would you mind providing some examples of a professional grade loudness maximizers that are multiband?
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Rich B on 2015-02-03 08:04:44
So people preferred the Iphone to the Pono player in a blind test. But correct me if I'm wrong, but a blind test doesn't help if people don't know what to listen for. Many people have heard an iPhone play music before, so subconsciously people would prefer something that sounds familiar to them.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2015-02-03 09:04:18
Would you mind providing some examples of a professional grade loudness maximizers that are multiband?


One word: Orban.

Orban white paper (http://www.orban.com/pdf/Maintaining_Audio_Quality_in_the_Broadcast_Facility_2014.pdf)

"
Further, broadcast program material typically comes from a rapidly changing variety
of sources, most of which were produced with no regard for the spectral balances of
others. Multiband limiting, when used properly, can automatically make the segues
between sources much more consistent. Multiband limiting and consistency are vital
to the station that wants to develop a characteristic audio signature and strong
positive personality, just as feature films are produced to maintain a consistent look.
Ultimately, it is all about the listener experience.
"
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2015-02-03 09:08:27
They kind of liked it in the end. It also begs a question: what kind of stand-alone "mp3" player is there a market for in 2015 and beyond? I was thinking that I must be the only person on the planet who chooses to carry a perfectly capable smart phone and a separate mp3 player, but I'm guessing almost everyone who buys one of these will be doing the same. They must have very big pockets.


Your comments seem to make the point that the stand-alone music player is either a niche product or a dead product, similar to other products like digital cameras that are in most people's mind subsumed by the smart phone.

For the record I routinely use both a stand-alone digital camera and a dedicated music player and have no smart phone. But among my family, friends, and associates I'm atypical and not by a little.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2015-02-03 11:18:43
https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?ID=350 (https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?ID=350)
. ...Can anyone suggest some commercial releases with different amounts of DRC and few/no other changes? 


The solution to ensure you are comparing two otherwise identical songs without other differences such as EQ, etc. is to do what Meyer and Moran did, i.e. roll your own. Take some song you like, version A, and then rerecord it yourself with some added compression dialed in, which is of course then your version B.
I agree with greynol. We're talking about tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment, driven by people who do this for a living. While I might not like the result, I am honest enough to admit that I can't do the job nearly as well (http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=99166).

We don't want to test a straw man. It's kind of pointless to prove that the compression applied by a bunch of amateurs on HA using cheap/free tools doesn't sound very good. The question is: does the amount of compression used in modern commercial "pop" mastering sound better, worse, different, or the same as the amount of compression used, say, 30 years ago?

If we could get a pro mastering engineer to provide samples, that would be great. Even then, I'm tempted to think that any one who would co-operate is probably on "our" side of the fence, which again could bias the test.


I guess for commercial releases where there are DRC and EQ differences, it would be possible to (attempt to) reverse the EQ change, just leaving the compression? That leaves the test open to obvious criticism though.

Hence the search for samples from commercial releases that are "right" for this test without manipulation (other that level matching). i.e. not ones like these...
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=105489 (http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=105489)
!!!

EDIT: huge EQ differences here, but still quite interesting...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBJdfkXV5_s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBJdfkXV5_s)
courtesy of ...
http://www.abbajustlikethat.comyr.com/1_4_...ile-Corner.html (http://www.abbajustlikethat.comyr.com/1_4_Audiophile-Corner.html)

Cheers,
David.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2015-02-03 11:22:37
For the record I routinely use both a stand-alone digital camera and a dedicated music player and have no smart phone. But among my family, friends, and associates I'm atypical and not by a little.
Ditto  Though I do have a smart phone. Ironically for this discussion, in terms of being a video camera, still camera, and mp3 player, it's least lacking as an mp3 player.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Wombat on 2015-02-03 14:50:58
We don't want to test a straw man. It's kind of pointless to prove that the compression applied by a bunch of amateurs on HA using cheap/free tools doesn't sound very good. The question is: does the amount of compression used in modern commercial "pop" mastering sound better, worse, different, or the same as the amount of compression used, say, 30 years ago?

If we could get a pro mastering engineer to provide samples, that would be great. Even then, I'm tempted to think that any one who would co-operate is probably on "our" side of the fence, which again could bias the test.


I guess for commercial releases where there are DRC and EQ differences, it would be possible to (attempt to) reverse the EQ change, just leaving the compression? That leaves the test open to obvious criticism though.

Hence the search for samples from commercial releases that are "right" for this test without manipulation (other that level matching). i.e. not ones like these...
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=105489 (http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=105489)
!!!

Cheers,
David.

I once had a sample that at least shows that even 3dB more compression done by a professional can audibly degrade. I don't have the samples anymore because no one asked for.
It is Norah Jones - Little Broken Heart that to my ears was not EQ'd or otherwise changed in sound but compression. 3dB between 16/44.1 (cd) and a 24/44.1 caused audible distortion. It may simply be done to push the HiBit myth in that case but who knows.
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=810635 (http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=96812&view=findpost&p=810635)
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: krabapple on 2015-02-03 15:36:06
We don't want to test a straw man. It's kind of pointless to prove that the compression applied by a bunch of amateurs on HA using cheap/free tools doesn't sound very good. The question is: does the amount of compression used in modern commercial "pop" mastering sound better, worse, different, or the same as the amount of compression used, say, 30 years ago?

If we could get a pro mastering engineer to provide samples, that would be great. Even then, I'm tempted to think that any one who would co-operate is probably on "our" side of the fence, which again could bias the test.


I guess for commercial releases where there are DRC and EQ differences, it would be possible to (attempt to) reverse the EQ change, just leaving the compression? That leaves the test open to obvious criticism though.

Hence the search for samples from commercial releases that are "right" for this test without manipulation (other that level matching). i.e. not ones like these...
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=105489 (http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=105489)
!!!

Cheers,
David.


It doesn't compare 30 yrs ago to today,  but there's at least one reported case where the same release was offered in 'compressed' and noncompressed form -- SACD of Dark Site of the Moon  (CD layer compressed, SACD layer not).

Would that serve?
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: mzil on 2015-02-03 16:07:30
I agree with greynol. We're talking about tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment, driven by people who do this for a living. While I might not like the result, I am honest enough to admit that I can't do the job nearly as well (http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=99166).


  Well again, my point wasn't that it needs to be done in real time but rather that the only way to ensure that you aren't also hearing some "sweetening" via EQ, etc. is to be the one making the alteration. That's the only way to ensure the only change is DRC.

Quote
User selectable, variable dynamic range compression is something I've used and enjoyed (judiciously) since the late 1970's, originally via a dbx 117, along with its complimentary expansion capability (in some applications).


My father actually knew David Blackmer and had a pre-production 117 before almost anyone in the world, so perhaps my perspective of using these devices outside of a studio environment differs from most, but if one is of the mind nobody working outside of a studio can possibly use these devices properly, OK fine, then you hire one of these guys to do the adjustments for you or instruct you exactly what to do from start to finish.

As for the realtime hardware pricing, not that I was suggesting that's how I'd recommend conducting the test  [I'd do it in software], I wouldn't be surprised if a current 2015 compressor costing just a few hundred dollars wouldn't be technologically just as good as a multi-thousand dollar, studio grade one from a decade or two ago that many recordings we listen to to this day actually used.

I personally think the quest of finding two existing commercial releases that one "knows" differ only in regards to compression and nothing else, to be next to impossible.  I would need nothing less than the original engineers' actual assurance, first hand, that that was the ONLY manipulation in order to be convinced.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Wombat on 2015-02-03 16:19:14
So people preferred the Iphone to the Pono player in a blind test. But correct me if I'm wrong, but a blind test doesn't help if people don't know what to listen for. Many people have heard an iPhone play music before, so subconsciously people would prefer something that sounds familiar to them.

Doesn't this neutralize the whole point of the pono delusion? It was created to bring back the good sound while there obviously seems to be even better perceived sound already here with a wide spread telephone.
If anything has "own sound" i bet it is the pono with its magic non-linear, minimum phase audiophile approved behaviour. The iPhone may simply be more accurate.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: greynol on 2015-02-03 16:31:52
There is no point in addressing conclusions based on worthless results. RichB's post amounted to nothing more than noise.

@mzil:
READ(!): multi-band compressor.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: mzil on 2015-02-03 16:54:05
There is no point in addressing conclusions based on worthless results. RichB's post amounted to nothing more than noise.  @mzil: READ(!): multi-band compressor.
Why? I know what they are and I know what makes them better. Did I say the compressor used must be single band?

Although Altec Lansing had multiband compression [for sound reinforcement applications] as early as the 1950's, it wasn't a typical studio tool used standardly in recording studios until the 70's or so, and also an example which pre-dates *that* use include use in radio broadcast, even before that, so? What's your point?
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: greynol on 2015-02-03 16:56:59
Sigh. Go back and read David's post again. He has his finger on the pulse underscoring the point behind the off-topic conversation that I regret initiating. You do not, but I don't expect you to understand where my problem lies; so that's ok.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: greynol on 2015-02-03 17:33:26
I think we need to get back to the topic at hand, especially since it's still active.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: drewfx on 2015-02-03 18:02:29
We don't want to test a straw man. It's kind of pointless to prove that the compression applied by a bunch of amateurs on HA using cheap/free tools doesn't sound very good.


So you're saying the cheap/free tools don't sound very good? And this is based on what?

And some of us think the compression applied by professionals on their high end gear often doesn't sound very good either.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: greynol on 2015-02-03 18:34:54
Sorry, Drew, this portion of the discussion is now over.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: bandpass on 2015-02-03 19:43:13
So people preferred the Iphone to the Pono player in a blind test. But correct me if I'm wrong, but a blind test doesn't help if people don't know what to listen for. Many people have heard an iPhone play music before, so subconsciously people would prefer something that sounds familiar to them.

Yes, the small difference and slight preference may not be significant, but the main purpose of the test was to see if the extreme claims (compared to Pono, iTunes is like listening underwater) or the extreme reactions of the rock stars in the promotional video could be demonstrated/reproduced---they couldn't, not easily anyway.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: greynol on 2015-02-03 20:17:06
the main purpose of the test was to see if the extreme claims (compared to Pono, iTunes is like listening underwater) or the extreme reactions of the rock stars in the promotional video could be demonstrated/reproduced

This was my take as well.

they couldn't, not easily anyway.

Not, "not easily," but rather not at all.  This isn't even because of the alleged outcome of the test, but because the test was so poorly designed that it couldn't possibly demonstrate the claims even if they were true.

Yes, the  small difference and slight preference may not be significant

No, the test failed to adequately demonstrate any difference or preference, at least not so far as the players are concerned.

GIGO
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2015-02-03 21:14:04
So people preferred the Iphone to the Pono player in a blind test.


Please remember the claims being tested.

What Neil young claimed was an advantage for Pono from Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/neil-young-recruits-bruce-springsteen-dave-grohl-for-pono-kickstarter-20140311)

"
"Pono is about the music," Young said in the video below. "It’s about the people who make the music and the way it sounds to us when we’re in the studio making it. It’s about you hearing what we hear. And that hasn’t happened in a long time. I want to bring back real music. That’s why we’re on Kickstarter. So that everyone who loves music can share in the release of Pono and the launch of the real music experience in the 21st century."
"

I could be reading what I want to read, but I see a claim that there's nothing subtle about the sound quality improvements that it is alleged to deliver.


Quote
But correct me if I'm wrong, but a blind test doesn't help if people don't know what to listen for. Many people have heard an iPhone play music before, so subconsciously people would prefer something that sounds familiar to them.


If there's nothing subtle about the improved sound quality, how much training should the average person need in order to reliably detect it?

I think: None!
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Thad E Ginathom on 2015-02-03 22:11:08
... ... ...

If there's nothing subtle about the improved sound quality, how much training should the average person need in order to reliably detect it?

I think: None!


As a music-lover-on-the-street guy, with only a small-marginally greater-than-most interest in music technology, equipment and gadgetry --- I think "None!" too
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2015-02-03 23:00:45
... ... ...

If there's nothing subtle about the improved sound quality, how much training should the average person need in order to reliably detect it?

I think: None!


As a music-lover-on-the-street guy, with only a small-marginally greater-than-most interest in music technology, equipment and gadgetry --- I think "None!" too



For me it is deja vu all over again. Back in the days when we first did ABX tests of power amps it was widely believed that there were and I quote "Mind Blowing Differences" between certain power amps.

Now critics look at the documentation of those tests (say the Stereo Review Amp test or the Hi Fi News Amp test) and criticize the tests on the grounds of the exact associated gear, statistical analysis, optimal listening room acoustics  or extensive listener training. Back in the day the advocates of these allegedly better sounding power amps said nothing about the exact associated gear, optimal listening room acoustics, statistical analysis, or extensive listener training except that it wasn't needed because the audible differences were so clear.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: apastuszak on 2015-02-03 23:02:15
So people preferred the Iphone to the Pono player in a blind test.


Please remember the claims being tested.

What Neil young claimed was an advantage for Pono from Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/neil-young-recruits-bruce-springsteen-dave-grohl-for-pono-kickstarter-20140311)

"
"Pono is about the music," Young said in the video below. "It’s about the people who make the music and the way it sounds to us when we’re in the studio making it. It’s about you hearing what we hear. And that hasn’t happened in a long time. I want to bring back real music. That’s why we’re on Kickstarter. So that everyone who loves music can share in the release of Pono and the launch of the real music experience in the 21st century."
"

I could be reading what I want to read, but I see a claim that there's nothing subtle about the sound quality improvements that it is alleged to deliver.


Quote
But correct me if I'm wrong, but a blind test doesn't help if people don't know what to listen for. Many people have heard an iPhone play music before, so subconsciously people would prefer something that sounds familiar to them.


If there's nothing subtle about the improved sound quality, how much training should the average person need in order to reliably detect it?

I think: None!


Then, Mr. Young, stop compressing your music and cranking up the volume.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: greynol on 2015-02-03 23:20:30
Now critics [...] criticize the tests on the grounds of the exact associated gear, statistical analysis, optimal listening room acoustics  or extensive listener training. Back in the day the advocates of these allegedly better sounding power amps said [...] it wasn't needed because the audible differences were so clear.

It's called moving the goal posts and it's not atypical of the logical fallacies used by placebophiles.

We bring it up regularly (http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=108127&view=findpost&p=889021), but it's typically ignored out of convenience.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Rich B on 2015-02-04 05:15:08
Why was the test poorly designed, greynol? What am I missing here? There are a number of sources claiming Neil Young is peddling junk science in this product. David Pogue did a double blind test using multiple people and multiple trials.

Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: greynol on 2015-02-04 06:01:36
Begin by reading the article in its entirety, if you haven't already. Then follow the discussion that ensued after the link was first presented:
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=888749 (http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=94355&view=findpost&p=888749)
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2015-02-04 14:21:39
Why was the test poorly designed, greynol? What am I missing here? There are a number of sources claiming Neil Young is peddling junk science in this product. David Pogue did a double blind test using multiple people and multiple trials.


I don't necessarily see a useful DBT in  David Pogue's Pono Critique (https://www.yahoo.com/tech/it-was-one-of-kickstarters-most-successful-109496883039.html)

Three relevant questions:

(1) Was there adequate level matching?  I don't see any evidence of that.

(2) Was everybody who knew the identity of the players fully concealed from the listeners? I don't see any evidence of that.

(3) Were the recordings time synched within a few milliseconds? I don't see any evidence of that.

I guess his listeners were poorly trained because a well-trained listener could ace this test even if it was comparing two identical players.

More questions, maybe a bit more nit-picky:

(4) Were there enough trials to develop statistical significance? I don't see any evidence of that.

(5) Were the listeners screened and trained? I don't see any evidence of that.

As Greynol says, this was all covered once in the the HA thread he linked.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2015-02-04 14:34:21
Now critics [...] criticize the tests on the grounds of the exact associated gear, statistical analysis, optimal listening room acoustics  or extensive listener training. Back in the day the advocates of these allegedly better sounding power amps said [...] it wasn't needed because the audible differences were so clear.

It's called moving the goal posts and it's not atypical of the logical fallacies used by placebophiles.

We bring it up regularly (http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=108127&view=findpost&p=889021), but it's typically ignored out of convenience.



Good point. We've seen some pretty spectacular goalpost re-positioning schemes in play around here lately.  Our buddy from WBF has an interesting take on people skills - insult them and call them liars and incompetents until they do what you want, which is by the way Mission Impossible. 

Begs the question: If we are such liars and incompetents, why does it matter to him what we do? And if we are so incompetent, why can't he just run right out and just do what we routinely do?  That store room of overpriced DACs is his, which makes him the best person in the world to prove that they actually do sound better, or at least different. He didn't even offer me one to test it (sniff, sniff). ;-)
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: ech3 on 2015-02-04 14:39:32
(Sorry if this has been posted earlier in this thread.)

Here's Ars Technica review of the Pono player.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/02/pon...k-of-snake-oil/ (http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/02/pono-player-review-a-tall-refreshing-drink-of-snake-oil/)
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2015-02-04 14:51:41
(Sorry if this has been posted earlier in this thread.)

Here's Ars Technica review of the Pono player.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/02/pon...k-of-snake-oil/ (http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/02/pono-player-review-a-tall-refreshing-drink-of-snake-oil/)



It is is kinda interesting seeing this public beat down on a new product.  Not that it is undeserved!
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Wombat on 2015-02-04 15:01:28
There is also the other aspect that new and breathtaking masters will be offered. Archimago did summerize some:
'Last' Words on PONO - Mastering Analysis & General Comments (http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2015/01/last-words-on-pono-mastering-analysis.html)
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Kohlrabi on 2015-02-04 16:22:53
There is also the other aspect that new and breathtaking masters will be offered. Archimago did summerize some:
'Last' Words on PONO - Mastering Analysis & General Comments (http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2015/01/last-words-on-pono-mastering-analysis.html)
Not a huge surprise. As I said a million times before, if you don't know, acknowledge and understand the problem you cannot solve it.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2015-02-04 17:53:06
There is also the other aspect that new and breathtaking masters will be offered. Archimago did summerize some:
'Last' Words on PONO - Mastering Analysis & General Comments (http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2015/01/last-words-on-pono-mastering-analysis.html)
Not a huge surprise. As I said a million times before, if you don't know, acknowledge and understand the problem you cannot solve it.

That shows cynicism about hi-res is fully justified. At least it's a single link rebuttal to the "maybe hi-res itself isn't justified, but support it and you'll get better masters that will benefit everyone" argument.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: rick.hughes on 2015-02-04 19:08:00
(Sorry if this has been posted earlier in this thread.)

Here's Ars Technica review of the Pono player.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/02/pon...k-of-snake-oil/ (http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/02/pono-player-review-a-tall-refreshing-drink-of-snake-oil/)

The authors seem to think DAC is an acronym for digital audio converter.
Quote
Mostly, we preferred on the Pono where the bass sat in the mix, which we noticed was less of a bitrate issue and more of the Pono Player's on-board mix of pre-amp and digital audio converter (DAC).
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: krabapple on 2015-02-04 20:38:45
Now critics [...] criticize the tests on the grounds of the exact associated gear, statistical analysis, optimal listening room acoustics  or extensive listener training. Back in the day the advocates of these allegedly better sounding power amps said [...] it wasn't needed because the audible differences were so clear.

It's called moving the goal posts and it's not atypical of the logical fallacies used by placebophiles.

We bring it up regularly (http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=108127&view=findpost&p=889021), but it's typically ignored out of convenience.



Yes, we bring it up regularly,  and the crickets chirp just as regularly in response.

It's quite telling, really.  The jkenys and Amirs of the 'our' world don't really want to face the reality that the typical audio consumer -- as well as the 'audiophile' --  faces. 

At best, they  imagine that a new reality is already here. 

At worst, they just want to sell stuff.

(insert ten-ton gorilla / forest for trees / emperor's clothes metaphor here )
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Wombat on 2015-02-06 20:43:09
That shows cynicism about hi-res is fully justified. At least it's a single link rebuttal to the "maybe hi-res itself isn't justified, but support it and you'll get better masters that will benefit everyone" argument.

Another one making fun out of us customers.
Bob Dylan's "Shadows In The Night" - when 24-bit HRA isn't! (http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2015/02/measurements-bob-dylans-shadows-in.html)
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: includemeout on 2015-02-20 09:53:32
Another technical writer reveals his disappointmen (http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2015/02/ponoplayer_review_neil_young_s_new_streaming_device_sounds_no_better_than.html)t at Young's "revolutionary " promise not being after all, revolutionary at all.

IMO,  what makes this one in particular stand out from other articles, is that the writer even mentions the truly-religious platitudes audiophiles are willing to desperately throw in  whenever their blind faith is challenged by plain two-plus-two-equals-four results - be it his own simplitic A-B test or the now-legendary Moran-Meyer paper.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2015-02-20 10:20:06
Another technical writer reveals his disappointmen (http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2015/02/ponoplayer_review_neil_young_s_new_streaming_device_sounds_no_better_than.html)t at Young's "revolutionary " promise not being after all, revolutionary at all.

IMO,  what makes this one in particular stand out from other articles, is that the writer even mentions the truly-religious platitudes audiophiles are willing to desperately throw in  whenever their blind faith is challenged by plain two-plus-two-equals-four results - be it his own simplitic A-B test or the now-legendary Moran-Meyer paper.


The unprecidented beat down of the Pono player continues.

Research stimulated by an HA article about the Altman Tara digital player indicates that the recommended headphones are Koss Porta Pro headphones with a floobydust mod.  A $1099 player and $40 headphones????
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: includemeout on 2015-02-20 10:29:01
The unprecidented beat down of the Pono player continues.the

Honestly hoping we all stick to the verbal side of it; they practically asked for it, didn't they? 
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2015-02-20 12:40:27
Another technical writer reveals his disappointmen (http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2015/02/ponoplayer_review_neil_young_s_new_streaming_device_sounds_no_better_than.html)t at Young's "revolutionary " promise not being after all, revolutionary at all.
I was going to question this part...
Quote
“In order to hear a difference between FLAC and AAC, you’d need to generate a special test tone. For any sounds you’d ever actually want to listen to, you’ll hear no difference.”
...but since he's talking about 256kbps AAC in a non-scientific article, I think it's fine.

Are there many 256kbps AAC problem samples?

Cheers,
David.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: greynol on 2015-02-20 12:46:47
16-bit ones?
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2015-02-20 14:48:49
Another technical writer reveals his disappointmen (http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2015/02/ponoplayer_review_neil_young_s_new_streaming_device_sounds_no_better_than.html)t at Young's "revolutionary " promise not being after all, revolutionary at all.
I was going to question this part...
Quote
“In order to hear a difference between FLAC and AAC, you’d need to generate a special test tone. For any sounds you’d ever actually want to listen to, you’ll hear no difference.”
...but since he's talking about 256kbps AAC in a non-scientific article, I think it's fine.

Are there many 256kbps AAC problem samples?



Possibly more to the point, are there any samples that are a problem when supplied to the coder in a hi rez format, but not a problem when supplied in a standard (16/44, 16/48) format, or vice versa.

I'm under the impression that even the best coders decode audio with that fits perfectly into a 16/44 linear PCM format. Is that really true?
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: greynol on 2015-02-20 14:54:56
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2015-02-23 11:13:55
You can encode (HE)AAC at 96kHz and get some ultrasonic content back out (google it - it's not common, but it's been done). However, I don't think that's the point at all.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2015-02-23 14:29:24
You can encode (HE)AAC at 96kHz and get some ultrasonic content back out (google it - it's not common, but it's been done). However, I don't think that's the point at all.


When dealing with many of the people we deal with, it is IME good to know the exceptions to the rule, no matter how questionable their relevance.

Thanks.

BTW in the heretofore unknown (to me) Pono (and HiRez)  supporting bafflegab department, let me offer this:

Yet another hi rez advocate speaks (https://varietyofsound.wordpress.com/2012/11/02/working-itb-at-higher-sampling-rates/)

"
Working in the digital audio domain, there are quite a number of reasons to increase the underlying sampling rate of the system. First of all, most feedback based algorithms are taking advantage of a higher SR resulting in a better perceived audio quality. Most prominently, all types of IIR filters are affected especially but not limited to the case where very steep slopes are computed. As an added sugar, the curve warping gets moved outside the hearing spectrum at higher SR.

Whenever modulation at audio rate occurs, there will be serious distortion. This can be minimized to some extend at higher SR and so a wide range of digital audio applications is capitalizing from it: FM oscillators, ring modulation, compression and limiting – just to name a few. The so-called IMD (inter modulation distortion) is even worse in the digital domain since also aliasing gets introduced. This occurs when the additionally created distortion content exceeds the Nyquist frequency and gets folded back into the spectrum below. Increasing the SR, immediately relieves this effect. In general, this applies to all kind of non-linear processing and therefore all types of saturation and distortion algorithms are benefiting from higher SR.
"
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2015-02-23 14:43:15
...but that's about production. If people want to use higher sample rates in production, so be it. It's not the panacea that writer claims. If it's the only trick you use to avoid aliasing when doing the kind of processing mentioned, you need to MHz sampling rate for audio. Quite obviously, there are other, better tricks that good DSP designers know only too well. However, a higher sample rate helps a bit as well.

That is irrelevant to home delivery formats.


It gets like Groundhog day, doesn't it? We must have had these discussions 10 or 20 times, and still the same misleading stuff gets written. Anyone would think there was money to be made from misleading people...

Cheers,
David.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2015-02-23 15:04:33
...but that's about production.


I think that may be an overly-generous opinion.

For example:

"
First of all, most feedback based algorithms are taking advantage of a higher SR resulting in a better perceived audio quality. Most prominently, all types of IIR filters are affected especially but not limited to the case where very steep slopes are computed. As an added sugar, the curve warping gets moved outside the hearing spectrum at higher SR.
"

From the second sentence we can discern that by "feedback based algorithms" the author is describing IIR filters.  The first sentence thus seems to claim that  "Most (IIR filters) are taking advantage of a higher SR resulting in a better perceived audio quality. 

After looking at a ton real world of IIR filter designs and design guides I see that there is no such general rule.  Have I missing something?

It is true that a lot of filters that are used alonq with oversampling are IIR filters, but that seems to be putting the cart before the horse.  AFAIK the oversampling was done for a different purpose than facilitating the use of IIR filters.  This seems to have been true for a long time. For example the  DAC used in the first generation Philips CD 100 was over sampled, but history shows that was done  to improve resolution.

Another example:

"Whenever modulation at audio rate occurs, there will be serious distortion. This can be minimized to some extend at higher SR and so a wide range of digital audio applications is capitalizing from it: FM oscillators, ring modulation, compression and limiting – just to name a few."

Again this is AFAIK just not a general rule of digital audio.  IME, in general modulation of audio frequencies by audio frequencies in the digital domain yields near-ideal results without upsampling.  There are some exceptional conditions where it might be true, but this guy seems to want to represent that this problem happens every time. It doesn't!

BTW, both of these situations relate to reproduction at least as much as they relate to production.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: 2Bdecided on 2015-02-23 15:40:44
...but that's about production.


I think that may be an overly-generous opinion.
I thought the clue was in the first line of the article, not to mention the blog's subtitle.

Quote
Again this is AFAIK just not a general rule of digital audio.  IME, in general modulation of audio frequencies by audio frequencies in the digital domain yields near-ideal results without upsampling.  There are some exceptional conditions where it might be true, but this guy seems to want to represent that this problem happens every time. It doesn't!
As you have written it (modulation of one frequency by another), you get sum+difference products. For "audio" signals, doesn't that get you to 20kHz+20kHz=40kHz signal i.e. double sampling rate required to avoid aliasing?

IIRC simply kinking the transfer function a little in the digital domain (e.g. passive soft clipping, or passive low level grunge, or ...) gives horrible aliasing if you do it in a straightforward manner at the base sample rate.

I'm not going to embarrass myself by trying to remember the details of frequency warping and accuracy near Nyquist wrt IIR filters. I've not addressed that topic properly for 15 years. Maybe someone who still does it knows whether there's any truth to what's written in that blog.

Cheers,
David.
Title: Neil Young’s new audio format
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2015-02-23 15:57:02
...but that's about production.


I think that may be an overly-generous opinion.
I thought the clue was in the first line of the article, not to mention the blog's subtitle.

Quote
Again this is AFAIK just not a general rule of digital audio. 

IME, in general modulation of audio frequencies by audio frequencies in the digital domain yields near-ideal results without upsampling.  There are some exceptional conditions where it might be true, but this guy seems to want to represent that this problem happens every time. It doesn't!
As you have written it (modulation of one frequency by another), you get sum+difference products. For "audio" signals, doesn't that get you to 20kHz+20kHz=40kHz signal i.e. double sampling rate required to avoid aliasing?

IIRC simply kinking the transfer function a little in the digital domain (e.g. passive soft clipping, or passive low level grunge, or ...) gives horrible aliasing if you do it in a straightforward manner at the base sample rate.


I don't think you don't recall correctly.

If you want "Horrible aliasing"  you need source material with exceptional amounts of high frequency content and a large  nonlinearity.  "A little"  e.g. less than 0.1% won't do it with typical music.

For example, if the clipping is serious, the unaliased artifacts due to the clipping itself are generally far more audible.

One of the more instructional facts of life is how good 44 KHz DACs whose brick wall filters have minimal attenuation (as little as - 3 dB) at Nyquist actually sound.  Heck 44 Khz DACs with no brick wall filters at all generally don't sound all that bad.  For one thing, any signal in the music that might be present at those frequencies > 20 KHz is usually 40 dB or more below FS.