Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: People showing how great their turntables sound (Read 53172 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

People showing how great their turntables sound

Reply #75 –
Quote from: analog scott on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: analog scott on
Quote from: greynol on
Dither adds noise at the least significant bit.


Your assertion was "I find it odd that people so desperately want to believe that things can be made more pure and clean by introducing dirt and grime." Dither *is* noise. It is "dirt and grime" it does improve resolution which is "more pure and clean" in effect.



This is just another audiophile urban myth. Not that dither isn't noise, becauase it is. But, in the context Scott is confusing analog noise that is typically 66 dB down with digital noise that is typically more like 96 dB down.  30 dB is a *huge* difference.



How am I confusing dither with any other sort of noise when I make no mention of any other sort of noise?



Scott if you want to tell us you don't know what this thread's name is, I wish you all the luck in the world with your already burdensome credibility problem.

People showing how great their turntables sound

Reply #76 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: analog scott on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: analog scott on
Quote from: greynol on
Dither adds noise at the least significant bit.


Your assertion was "I find it odd that people so desperately want to believe that things can be made more pure and clean by introducing dirt and grime." Dither *is* noise. It is "dirt and grime" it does improve resolution which is "more pure and clean" in effect.



This is just another audiophile urban myth. Not that dither isn't noise, becauase it is. But, in the context Scott is confusing analog noise that is typically 66 dB down with digital noise that is typically more like 96 dB down.  30 dB is a *huge* difference.



How am I confusing dither with any other sort of noise when I make no mention of any other sort of noise?



Scott if you want to tell us you don't know what this thread's name is, I wish you all the luck in the world with your already burdensome credibility problem.


My comment was a direct response to the specific comment "I find it odd that people so desperately want to believe that things can be made more pure and clean by introducing dirt and grime."  That is all. The thread title does not affect that. "People showing how great their turntables sound, ...on YouTube!" ?????

People showing how great their turntables sound

Reply #77 –
Quote
Quote from: greynol on
We can sit here and may and might and possibly and seems as if all night long but at the end of it all no one can sit back and assure me that they have evidence that can rule out the conditioning resulting from having listened to vinyl for years if not decades prior to the digital age.



I have confidence that JJ's research on the subject actually does rule that out. As does the research of Richard Brice. If you have any reason to believe otherwise then please make the argument.


It's not 'ruled out'.  Nor is it unreasonable to posit that veteran vinylphiles' quality assessment of 'realism' is at least *influenced* by their emotional investment in the technology. A 'phantom switch' test could be telling.  For example, if I were to present the same audio to vinylphiles twice, but tell them that one presentation is the vinyl, the other is CD,  and ask them which sound more 'realistic', do you seriously think that every one of them would 1) recognize the ruse or 2) tend to find the 'CD' more realistic?

(FWIW, the same applies to 'digiphiles'..it's expectation bias and not one of us is immune.  And this, again, is why blinding is so important...and informative.)

People showing how great their turntables sound

Reply #78 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote
Quote from: greynol on
We can sit here and may and might and possibly and seems as if all night long but at the end of it all no one can sit back and assure me that they have evidence that can rule out the conditioning resulting from having listened to vinyl for years if not decades prior to the digital age.



I have confidence that JJ's research on the subject actually does rule that out. As does the research of Richard Brice. If you have any reason to believe otherwise then please make the argument.


It's not 'ruled out'.  Nor is it unreasonable to posit that veteran vinylphiles' quality assessment of 'realism' is at least *influenced* by their emotional investment in the technology. A 'phantom switch' test could be telling.  For example, if I were to present the same audio to vinylphiles twice, but tell them that one presentation is the vinyl, the other is CD,  and ask them which sound more 'realistic', do you seriously think they'd 1) unfailingly recognize the ruse or 2) tend to find the 'CD' more realistic?

(FWIW, the same applies to 'digiphiles'..it's expectation bias and none of us are immune.  And this, again, is why blinding is so important...and informative.)



It looks like I was not clear. Allow me to clarify. I have confidence that we can rule out bias effects affecting *the research that JJ has done on the subject.* In rereading my post I can see how it could look like I was saying JJ's research has ruled out bias effects among audiophiles when it comes to euphonic colorations. That was not what I was trying to say. Sorry about my lack of clarity there.

People showing how great their turntables sound

Reply #79 –
Quote from: analog scott on
Your assertion was "I find it odd that people so desperately want to believe that things can be made more pure and clean by introducing dirt and grime." Dither *is* noise. It is "dirt and grime" it does improve resolution which is "more pure and clean" in effect.

I think you have this backards. Dither is applied when you reduce the bitdepth of the digitized signal. Reducing the bitdepth introduces quantization "noise". You add in dither in the process of reducing the bitdepth in order to make the added noise less audible.

i.e. adding dither makes the resultant audio sound closer to the original, but with or without dither what you have is less "pure and clean" than the original.

People showing how great their turntables sound

Reply #80 –
Quote from: pdq on
Quote from: analog scott on
Your assertion was "I find it odd that people so desperately want to believe that things can be made more pure and clean by introducing dirt and grime." Dither *is* noise. It is "dirt and grime" it does improve resolution which is "more pure and clean" in effect.

I think you have this backards. Dither is applied when you reduce the bitdepth of the digitized signal. Reducing the bitdepth introduces quantization "noise". You add in dither in the process of reducing the bitdepth in order to make the added noise less audible.


Quantizanation noise is present in any real world A/D conversion. One does not need reduce bit depth to "introduce" quantization noise. It's already there. Reduction in bit depth just makes it worse.

People showing how great their turntables sound

Reply #81 –
Quote from: analog scott on
My comment was a direct response to the specific comment "I find it odd that people so desperately want to believe that things can be made more pure and clean by introducing dirt and grime."


Scott, are you  trying to convince us that the comment about adding "dirt and grime" had *nothing at all* to do with what LP's do  to music?

If that was so, then it was complely off-topic and you should have dismissed it on the grounds of irrlevance.

Since you tried to reply to the comment. you obviously thought it was relevant.  Since you obviously thought it was relevant, you're admitting that it was related to the LP format. That birngs us back to where you were pretending that a 30 dB differente means nothing.

Executive summary Scott, you are guilty as charged.

Next!

People showing how great their turntables sound

Reply #82 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: analog scott on
My comment was a direct response to the specific comment "I find it odd that people so desperately want to believe that things can be made more pure and clean by introducing dirt and grime."


Scott, are you  trying to convince us that the comment about adding "dirt and grime" had *nothing at all* to do with what LP's do  to music?




I took the comment for what it literally meant as it was written. I do not pretend to know what Greynol was *thinking.* I'll leave that to you. If he meant something different than what he actually wrote he is free to correct it.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Since you tried to reply to the comment. you obviously thought it was relevant.


Oh, so you know what I was thinking despite my actual explinations as to what I was thinking.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Since you obviously thought it was relevant, you're admitting that it was related to the LP format.




OK let me be really really really clear here. It was a response to that one assertion and only that one assertion and I did not try to connect it to vinyl or youtube. Is that clear enough?

People showing how great their turntables sound

Reply #83 –
Quote from: analog scott on
Quote from: pdq on
Quote from: analog scott on
Your assertion was "I find it odd that people so desperately want to believe that things can be made more pure and clean by introducing dirt and grime." Dither *is* noise. It is "dirt and grime" it does improve resolution which is "more pure and clean" in effect.

I think you have this backards. Dither is applied when you reduce the bitdepth of the digitized signal. Reducing the bitdepth introduces quantization "noise". You add in dither in the process of reducing the bitdepth in order to make the added noise less audible.


Quantizanation noise is present in any real world A/D conversion. One does not need reduce bit depth to "introduce" quantization noise. It's already there. Reduction in bit depth just makes it worse.

Your non-answer tells me that you don't want to address the point that I was trying to make.

People showing how great their turntables sound

Reply #84 –
Quote from: analog scott on
Quantizanation noise is present in any real world A/D conversion. One does not need reduce bit depth to "introduce" quantization noise. It's already there. Reduction in bit depth just makes it worse.


When you add more bits, the quantization noise drops accordingly.

Ergo, at 24 bits, you can render signals from the noise level of the atmosphere at your ear drum to 150dB SPL.

AT 32 bits, you'll need military equipment marked with yellow danger signs in order to render the highest levels.

With 16 bits, you can only get to 102dB SPL, give or take, starting at the noise level of the atmosphere.

If we start at the noise level of an ITU spec room, then you get to 111dB SPL with 16 bits.

What's your point?
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

People showing how great their turntables sound

Reply #85 –
Quote from: analog scott on
One does not need reduce bit depth to "introduce" quantization noise. It's already there.

Oh, I do it all the time. I love quantization noise, have converted my whole library to 8 bit, undithered of course. I love the dirt & grime it adds to the music

People showing how great their turntables sound

Reply #86 –
Quote from: pdq on
Quote from: analog scott on
Quote from: pdq on
Quote from: analog scott on
Your assertion was "I find it odd that people so desperately want to believe that things can be made more pure and clean by introducing dirt and grime." Dither *is* noise. It is "dirt and grime" it does improve resolution which is "more pure and clean" in effect.

I think you have this backards. Dither is applied when you reduce the bitdepth of the digitized signal. Reducing the bitdepth introduces quantization "noise". You add in dither in the process of reducing the bitdepth in order to make the added noise less audible.


Quantizanation noise is present in any real world A/D conversion. One does not need reduce bit depth to "introduce" quantization noise. It's already there. Reduction in bit depth just makes it worse.

Your non-answer tells me that you don't want to address the point that I was trying to make.

My "non naswer?" I'm sorry was there a question that I missed?

People showing how great their turntables sound

Reply #87 –
Quote from: Woodinville on
Quote from: analog scott on
Quantizanation noise is present in any real world A/D conversion. One does not need reduce bit depth to "introduce" quantization noise. It's already there. Reduction in bit depth just makes it worse.


When you add more bits, the quantization noise drops accordingly.

Ergo, at 24 bits, you can render signals from the noise level of the atmosphere at your ear drum to 150dB SPL.

AT 32 bits, you'll need military equipment marked with yellow danger signs in order to render the highest levels.

With 16 bits, you can only get to 102dB SPL, give or take, starting at the noise level of the atmosphere.

If we start at the noise level of an ITU spec room, then you get to 111dB SPL with 16 bits.

What's your point?



My point is one does not need reduce bit depth to "introduce" quantization noise. It's already there. Reduction in bit depth just makes it worse. That was my point. Am I in error in that assertion? pdq said "Reducing the bitdepth introduces quantization 'noise'. " I am saying it does not "intruduce" it because it is already there but that it simply makes it worse.

People showing how great their turntables sound

Reply #88 –
@analog_scott: Nitpicking is ok, as long as you indicate clearly what you are nitpicking. In this case, it seems it is the meaning of introducing.

A DAC does not introduce quantization distortion, since it decodes a digital signal at its specific bit depth. If any, there is thermal noise which we all know it's a different topic.

An ADC may, or may not introduce quantization distortion, depending on the implementation. Of course, the same logic about reducing bit depth in digital signals apply to reducing the "bit depth" of an analog signal. Just like there should be a lowpass filter previous to the ADC, there's the need to apply some type of dithering when converting to a specific amount of bits.*
I guess that's just another reason why we are ok to use higher sampling rates/bit depths for digitizing/post-processing signals, while we are not so open to accept blindly that it is needed for playback.



* What has been said in other posts is that, in the majority of situations, the SNR of the signal being recorded is smaller than what the digital signal can record, and by definition, the noise floor of the analog signal being "noisier" than that of the digital signal, effectively hiding any noise below. (Readings about self-dithering signals could apply here).

[Edit: changed quantization noise by quantization distortion, since it's the preferred name]

People showing how great their turntables sound

Reply #89 –
Quote from: analog scott on
My point is one does not need reduce bit depth to "introduce" quantization noise. It's already there.


Scott, if by that you mean that whenever you quantize something, there is error and we commonly (and somewhat misleadingly) often call that error *quantization noise*, then I must agree.

Anything that is quantized is quantized in an imperfect way. We have this interesting convention of calling those imperfections "quantization noise".  In fact these particular imperfections are not strictly speaking *noise* since just about everything else we call noise is random, and this particular kind imperfection is completely deterministic.

IOW, *quantization noise*  should be called quantization distortion. Some authorities do exactly that.

People showing how great their turntables sound

Reply #90 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: analog scott on
My point is one does not need reduce bit depth to "introduce" quantization noise. It's already there.


Scott, if by that you mean that whenever you quantize something, there is error and we commonly (and somewhat misleadingly) often call that error *quantization noise*, then I must agree.

Anything that is quantized is quantized in an imperfect way. We have this interesting convention of calling those imperfections "quantization noise".  In fact these particular imperfections are not strictly speaking *noise* since just about everything else we call noise is random, and this particular kind imperfection is completely deterministic.

IOW, *quantization noise*  should be called quantization distortion. Some authorities do exactly that.



That is what I meant and thank you for the clarification on the terminology.


All apologies again to Steve Sullivan for my shameless attack on Arny in this post

People showing how great their turntables sound

Reply #91 –
Quote from: [JAZ] on

A DAC does not introduce quantization distortion, since it decodes a digital signal at its specific bit depth. If any, there is thermal noise which we all know it's a different topic.


If we add what you mention later on about the SNR of the signal being far worse (10 dB or more worse) than that of the DAC, and do the math, the noise that is added by the DAC is on the order of 0.4 dB or less. IOW, it is practically meaningless.


Quote
An ADC may, or may not introduce quantization distortion, depending on the implementation.


I don't know how to quantize a signal wihout introducing at least microscopic amounts of quantization error.

Quote
Of course, the same logic about reducing bit depth in digital signals apply to reducing the "bit depth" of an analog signal.


To be pedantic, there is no way to reduce the bit depth of an analog signal, since it doesn't have any bits to start with! ;-)

Quote
Just like there should be a lowpass filter previous to the ADC, there's the need to apply some type of dithering when converting to a specific amount of bits.*


The purpose of dithering is to randomize the quantication error. As I said in another recent post, quantization error is completely predictable. It correlates with both the input signal and the clock. In practice this opens the door for some ugly sounds that the ear is more likely to detect because they are cohenrent. By randomizing the quantixation error, we change it into broadband noise which is much more likely to escape audiblity. Or if audible (e.g. an 8 bit system) randomizing the quantization error makes it less irritating. We can also spectrally shape the quantization error signal to some degree, and put most of  its energy where the ear iis far less sensitive.

Quote
I guess that's just another reason why we are ok to use higher sampling rates/bit depths for digitizing/post-processing signals, while we are not so open to accept blindly that it is needed for playback.


Higher than what?  Sample rates above 32 KHz and word lengths above 12-13 bits can  provide bandwidth limits and noise floors that are far from obvioius.




People showing how great their turntables sound

Reply #92 –
@Arnold: Come on! Can we stop nitpicking?

It is not the same quantization error than quantization distortion:
Quantization error is the deviation from the expected value to the value that gets stored.
Quantization distortion is when the quantization error is exactly the one obtained by truncating the value, causing a correlated error, which, as you say, the ear is more likely to detect because they are cohenrent.
I said that quantization distortion is not necessarily happening on ADCs. Quantization error is unavoidable, as you wrote.

About the last quote, I believe I was clear: We (at Hydrogenaudio) have not found a clear evidence that higher-than-CD-Quality signals are required for playback.
But for recording and post-processing a signal previous to create the finished piece, a higher sampling rate and bitdepth is helpful to hide the errors further away from our listening abilities.
Translation: Using an ADC at 24bits should allow us to completely forget about any quantization distortion caused by sampling a signal with it.

Do we agree, at last?


Edit: btw... the bigger quotes enclosing "bit depth" when talking about analog signals really meant that it was not to be taken literally. It may not have a bit depth, but definitely it has a resolution, and digitizing it reduces that resolution to discrete values.

People showing how great their turntables sound

Reply #93 –
Quote from: analog scott on
Quote from: Woodinville on
Quote from: analog scott on
Quantizanation noise is present in any real world A/D conversion. One does not need reduce bit depth to "introduce" quantization noise. It's already there. Reduction in bit depth just makes it worse.


When you add more bits, the quantization noise drops accordingly.

Ergo, at 24 bits, you can render signals from the noise level of the atmosphere at your ear drum to 150dB SPL.

AT 32 bits, you'll need military equipment marked with yellow danger signs in order to render the highest levels.

With 16 bits, you can only get to 102dB SPL, give or take, starting at the noise level of the atmosphere.

If we start at the noise level of an ITU spec room, then you get to 111dB SPL with 16 bits.

What's your point?



My point is one does not need reduce bit depth to "introduce" quantization noise. It's already there. Reduction in bit depth just makes it worse. That was my point. Am I in error in that assertion? pdq said "Reducing the bitdepth introduces quantization 'noise'. " I am saying it does not "intruduce" it because it is already there but that it simply makes it worse.


Noise is already there in analog, too, and in recording media, more of it. So what's your point?
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

People showing how great their turntables sound

Reply #94 –
Quote from: [JAZ] on
[Edit: changed quantization noise by quantization distortion, since it's the preferred name]



I'm sorry, but unless you're not dithering, in which case you are not sampling properly, the term is correctly termed "quantization noise". Only if you do it WRONG do you get distortion rather than independent noise.  Just go back to the original work on dithering, either in the AES or in the SP IEEE society, and find out, please. I'm at home and I don't have cites handy, but this is old news.  "Distortion" is not a proper term for properly quantized signals, audio or otherwise.

It's this kind of "preferred name" that is utterly wrong that keeps myth going.

Please do not repeat this myth.
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

People showing how great their turntables sound

Reply #95 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
IOW, *quantization noise*  should be called quantization distortion. Some authorities do exactly that.



No, Arnold, it should not be called "distortion" unless it's been done improperly.  Calling quantization noise "distortion" (meaning there's no dithering) is kind of like running a magtape with no bias and calling the result "signal".

Dithering is a mathematically and physically essential part of the process of quantization. When a signal is dithered, the added changes to the signal are in fact pure noise. It can be shaped noise in some cases, but it's noise, not distortion.
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

People showing how great their turntables sound

Reply #96 –
Quote from: Woodinville on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
IOW, *quantization noise*  should be called quantization distortion. Some authorities do exactly that.



No, Arnold, it should not be called "distortion" unless it's been done improperly.


Your agurment would be then seem to be that properly done quanitzation always produces a signal that is random, and therefore its noise.

Hard to argue with. However, in this case its out of context, The context of what I said was in the context of a system with no randomization of the quanitization error. I said that the quantization error was deterministic, didn't I?.

Quote
Dithering is a mathematically and physically essential part of the process of quantization. When a signal is dithered, the added changes to the signal are in fact pure noise. It can be shaped noise in some cases, but it's noise, not distortion.


No argument there - its motherhead and apple pie.

People showing how great their turntables sound

Reply #97 –
Quote from: Woodinville on
Quote from: analog scott on
Quote from: Woodinville on
Quote from: analog scott on
Quantizanation noise is present in any real world A/D conversion. One does not need reduce bit depth to "introduce" quantization noise. It's already there. Reduction in bit depth just makes it worse.


When you add more bits, the quantization noise drops accordingly.

Ergo, at 24 bits, you can render signals from the noise level of the atmosphere at your ear drum to 150dB SPL.

AT 32 bits, you'll need military equipment marked with yellow danger signs in order to render the highest levels.

With 16 bits, you can only get to 102dB SPL, give or take, starting at the noise level of the atmosphere.

If we start at the noise level of an ITU spec room, then you get to 111dB SPL with 16 bits.

What's your point?





My point is one does not need reduce bit depth to "introduce" quantization noise. It's already there. Reduction in bit depth just makes it worse. That was my point. Am I in error in that assertion? pdq said "Reducing the bitdepth introduces quantization 'noise'. " I am saying it does not "intruduce" it because it is already there but that it simply makes it worse.


Noise is already there in analog, too, and in recording media, more of it. So what's your point?


My point is what I said nothing more nothing less. I made no mention of analog so what is your point?

People showing how great their turntables sound

Reply #98 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: Woodinville on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
IOW, *quantization noise*  should be called quantization distortion. Some authorities do exactly that.


No, Arnold, it should not be called "distortion" unless it's been done improperly.


Your agurment would be then seem to be that properly done quanitzation always produces a signal that is random, and therefore its noise.

Hard to argue with.
No it's not. Lipshitz and vanderkooy already showed that the error isn't really random or really uncorrelated, even with what most people (including them) would call "correct" dither. I think it's the second moment of the error signal that is still correlated with the original signal. They're really clear about this in their 1984 paper, but I don't have it in front of me either!

But this is nit picking. "Correct" dither is fine. The number of bits we have available is fine. Digital audio can be fine.

As for "quantization noise" vs "quantization distortion" - if you want a term that works with and without dither, how about "quantisation error"?



Anyway, I go away for three days, and you're still arguing about pointless things?  No samples of tracks which have been improved by euphonic and/or vinyl "distortion"?

Quite predictably, I liked post 58.

Cheers,
David.
 

People showing how great their turntables sound

Reply #99 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: Woodinville on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
IOW, *quantization noise*  should be called quantization distortion. Some authorities do exactly that.


No, Arnold, it should not be called "distortion" unless it's been done improperly.


Your agurment would be then seem to be that properly done quanitzation always produces a signal that is random, and therefore its noise.

Hard to argue with.


No it's not. Lipshitz and vanderkooy already showed that the error isn't really random or really uncorrelated, even with what most people (including them) would call "correct" dither.


If the quantization isn't really random and uncorrelated, then the dithering isn't breally eing done properly. That's a truism.

Quote
I think it's the second moment of the error signal that is still correlated with the original signal. They're really clear about this in their 1984 paper, but I don't have it in front of me either!


TPDF dither when applied with sufficient ampltude is supposted to decorrelate the second moment.



The wikipedia article on dither has some interesting historical comments. Dither was apparently first applied to analog systems that had a lot of stiction and/or backlash.