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: Neil Young’s new audio format (Read 137077 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Neil Young’s new audio format

Reply #250 –
lol, and just a few posts above, sorry! I should slow down with tablet browsing.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Neil Young’s new audio format

Reply #251 –
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/
Every night with my star friends / We eat caviar and drink champagne
Sniffing in the VIP area / We talk about Frank Sinatra
Do you know Frank Sinatra? / He's dead

Neil Young’s new audio format

Reply #252 –
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/
...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.

Neil Young’s new audio format

Reply #253 –
Quote from: greynol on
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.

Neil Young’s new audio format

Reply #254 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
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.

Neil Young’s new audio format

Reply #255 –
Quote from: yourlord on
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?

Neil Young’s new audio format

Reply #256 –
foobar2000 doesn't have capacitors to help minimize type ii errors. Oh wait, the caps aren't broken-in yet; never mind.

Neil Young’s new audio format

Reply #257 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: greynol on
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.




 

Neil Young’s new audio format

Reply #259 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: mzil on
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.

Neil Young’s new audio format

Reply #263 –
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.

Neil Young’s new audio format

Reply #264 –
Quote from: greynol on
Would you mind providing some examples of a professional grade loudness maximizers that are multiband?


One word: Orban.

Orban white paper

"
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.
"

Neil Young’s new audio format

Reply #265 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
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.

Neil Young’s new audio format

Reply #266 –
Quote from: mzil on
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: greynol on
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.

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
!!!

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

Cheers,
David.

Neil Young’s new audio format

Reply #267 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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.

Neil Young’s new audio format

Reply #268 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
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
!!!

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
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Neil Young’s new audio format

Reply #269 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
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
!!!

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?

Neil Young’s new audio format

Reply #270 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
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.


  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.

Neil Young’s new audio format

Reply #271 –
Quote from: Rich B on
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.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Neil Young’s new audio format

Reply #273 –
Quote from: greynol on
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?

Neil Young’s new audio format

Reply #274 –
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.