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: AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop (Read 171462 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop

Reply #300 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
I think the point is that some people seem to be looking for no-brainer tests. No-brainer tests are for people with no brains, right? ;-)
No, the "no-brainer" test will, if passed, guarantee that something is transparent.

The RMAA stuff is a very good starting point.

Now, is anyone going to actually write the tests out properly?



You're asking for a lot of free consulting at a fairly high level of competence.

AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop

Reply #301 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
You frequently claim we can safely ignore anything that's more than 100dB down. Those graphs show junk that's a mere 50dB down.


The obvious flaw in the statement above is that saying that we can safely ignore anything that's more than 100dB does not necessarily preclude saying that in many or at least some cases we can safely ignore things that are as little as 50 dB down.


It's fairly obvious that this is precisely his point and has been from the beginning.

AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop

Reply #302 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
I think the point is that some people seem to be looking for no-brainer tests. No-brainer tests are for people with no brains, right? ;-)
No, the "no-brainer" test will, if passed, guarantee that something is transparent.

The RMAA stuff is a very good starting point.

Now, is anyone going to actually write the tests out properly?



You're asking for a lot of free consulting at a fairly high level of competence.


So what is the point of claiming A then, when asked to demonstrate it, state that you will not? Just to add noise to an already practically random "discussion"? (yes I know "define A", "show me where I claimed it" etc).

AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop

Reply #303 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
The key phrase is "in the way that you claim".  Ethan's claims were made in the context of a discussion of conventional audio production components - mic preamps, audio interfaces, etc. Taking claims outisde of their stated domain is the *first* on Schoepenhauers list of 38-odd ways to win arguments by deceptive means. 38 ways to  win arguments by cheating. This list is over 100 years old!

Looks like we've found the blueprints for this thread!

AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop

Reply #304 –
Quote from: aclo on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
You frequently claim we can safely ignore anything that's more than 100dB down. Those graphs show junk that's a mere 50dB down.


The obvious flaw in the statement above is that saying that we can safely ignore anything that's more than 100dB does not necessarily preclude saying that in many or at least some cases we can safely ignore things that are as little as 50 dB down.


It's fairly obvious that this is precisely his point and has been from the beginning.


Then he's been promoting erroenous thinking all that time.

Too bad. :-(

Waste of time, bandwidth.

AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop

Reply #305 –
Quote from: Notat on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
The key phrase is "in the way that you claim".  Ethan's claims were made in the context of a discussion of conventional audio production components - mic preamps, audio interfaces, etc. Taking claims outisde of their stated domain is the *first* on Schoepenhauers list of 38-odd ways to win arguments by deceptive means. 38 ways to  win arguments by cheating. This list is over 100 years old!

Looks like we've found the blueprints for this thread!


I guess that not everybody found out about  Schoepenhauers list of 38-odd ways to win arguments by deceptive means as many deacdes back. Some of us did.

Now this place is *really* going to go down hill?  ;-)

BTW the recent history of this for me was that maybe a decade ago, JA mentioned a dinner at which someone suggested that I was a robot that had been programmed with Schoepenhauer's list of 38 strategems.  The context was that many golden ears are surprised by how the Pro-ABX  people tend to argue the same points. They call it "programming", we call it orthodox technology.

I first learned of the 38 Strategems when I was an undergraduate engineering student, umm about 1966.  For the record, I try to avoid them.

Another good source of ways not to argue is any good book about rhetoric. In the first few chapters they usually talk about common fallacious arguments.

If people are intentionally using fallacious arguments then that means I already won, right? ;-)

AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop

Reply #307 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
I guess that not everybody found out about  Schoepenhauers list of 38-odd ways to win arguments by deceptive means as many deacdes back. Some of us did.


I think that list clearly demonstrates the advantages of modern technology: Schopenhauer worked out, by dint of hard work and thought, a 38-point list of stratagems so long ago. Nowadays, with internet connectivity, one need only peruse a mailing list or online forum for a few moments to directly observe all 38 constantly in action.

Imagine what Schopenhauer would have done with that ability...

AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop

Reply #309 –
@Arnold,

usernaim has written three vital words that I didn't think to, but they are the crux of it: black box testing. That's what we need. If you mistake this for Schoepenhauer's 38 strategems, I really think we're lost.

As for "If I could just find a few good people who knew what a masking curve or an audibility curve was and how to apply it to a technical test report!" - I created an auditory model for the assessment of coded audio for my PhD - yet there are several people here I'm not worthy to wash the feet of  - so I don't think we're lacking in this respect.

"You're asking for a lot of free consulting at a fairly high level of competence." - which is strange, because I thought nailing transparency in audio components was your life's work - certainly the reason for posting so much on the net.

It's not going to benefit me. I don't work in audio any more. It's just an interest for me now.

I suspect (and I'm saying this out of sadness, rather than to bate you) that it falls into the category of "too hard", so you're not willing to attempt it.

Cheers,
David.

AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop

Reply #310 –
Quote from: Notat on
in my opinion, you're baiting people with this approach.

Probably, but it's the truth.

Quote
Surly you recognize that one way people may want to "assess fidelity" is by how it subjectively sounds to them.

But that's not what fidelity is!

--Ethan
I believe in Truth, Justice, and the Scientific Method

AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop

Reply #311 –
Quote from: dwoz on
Ethan, I am "glad of heart" to see you pulling back your statements into more tightly scoped contexts, where they belong.  Thank you! ... I think it is a great sign of humility and honesty that you have done this, and I applaud you! ... Thank you Ethan for moderating your position.

I don't see where I've changed either my position or how I present my position. Maybe you're reading now with a less cynical eye? Or just reading what I write more carefully?

--Ethan
I believe in Truth, Justice, and the Scientific Method

AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop

Reply #312 –
Quote from: John Eppstein on
Ethan, how can you say that a $25 converter card that only publishes specs at 1kHz (presumably because the response at other frequencies is all over the map) is better quality than my $100,000 Studer that has very tight published (and verified) specs from 20 Hz to 20kHz?

So you haven't watched my AES Audio Myths Workshop video either? At 41:28 it shows specs side by side for a typical consumer sound card versus a Studer A-810 recorder. Guess which wins in every single category? Now, you could argue that the sound card specs are not very complete, and you'd be right. But what part of 109 dB s/n versus 74 dB (best case for the Studer) is confusing? My recent simple test with sine waves also shows a lot of info all at once in just a few FFT graphs, repeated here below for your convenience. The top graph shows the noise for one record/play generation, and the lower series of graphs shows distortion and noise for the original test tones and two sound cards.

--Ethan



I believe in Truth, Justice, and the Scientific Method

AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop

Reply #313 –
Quote from: John Eppstein on
I'm not saying that the electronic measurement equipment isn't good enough - I'm sure it can measure the signal quite well. The problem is that we don't know how to interpret the measurements properly and in some cases we may not understand what needs measuring.

Who is this "we" that you speak of?

--Ethan
I believe in Truth, Justice, and the Scientific Method

AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop

Reply #314 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
For your measurements (and the associated pass/fail thresholds) to be believable and useful, they need to be able to raise a red flag which says "this is not transparent" if something isn't transparent. In this context, we should be able to measure anything - and always get that red flag if its appropriate. If that's not the case, your measurements don't define transparency in the way that you claim.

To be clear, I'm not expert with what is audible at what relative levels in the way JJ is an expert. I have a pretty good handle on it! And I think the various demos in my AES Myths video show clearly at what level artifacts are soft enough to not be considered a deal-breaker. But this is why I sometimes hedge when asked at what absolute level distortion and other artifacts are no longer audible. To me, unofficially, once stuff is 60 dB below the music it's not a big problem even if it can be heard. To me, once stuff is 80 dB down it can't be heard at all regardless of masking. So to be safe I often say 100 dB down is enough to be totally transparent. Again, JJ can state specific levels with far more authority than I can! (All of the preceding addresses noise and artifacts only, not frequency response which I "hedge" to 0.1 dB from 20 Hz through 20 KHz just to be safe).

Quote
If there's a class of audio component - and I mean anything - which your measurements say is "transparent", but can be ABX'd, then your measurement suit is incomplete and/or you've got the wrong measurements. IMO!

Sure. This is why I ask repeatedly from those who argue against me to show some examples of their own. Like any good scientist, I'm glad to change my opinion when presented compelling evidence.

Quote
Even without the possible subjective preference for distortion, I think it's a harder problem to take two sets of measurements, and say definitely "X sounds better than Y"

If the response is flat within 0.1 dB and the sum of all noise and artifacts is -100 dB, I'm confident calling a device transparent regardless of the nature of the artifacts.

--Ethan
I believe in Truth, Justice, and the Scientific Method

AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop

Reply #315 –

So what's up with that delta 66?  some missing DC blocking caps or something?


Ethan, yes, you have just recently (in here, anyway) started making a new distinction between reproduction systems and production systems.  You were most assuredly implying no inherent difference, previous.  But in any case, I'm glad you ARE disclaiming that implied equivalence now.

So, your interpretation of these graphs, is that they show that a listener should NEVER be able to hear any difference between source and soundblaster?  That's what you're inferring here, by presenting these graphs.  If a user does hear a difference, then where does that leave us?  that the differences in these plots are significant, and/or that there's another measurement that isn't in this group, that would account for the difference?

yes, yes, abx..mumble mumble, abx.

AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop

Reply #316 –
Quote from: hellokeith on
Reading over David's posts, I just thought of something.  I have been in the small backroom of a music store testing out a speaker system where at 2 on the amp I could get hearing damage.  But when using that system outdoors as the PA for a band, 10 on the amp was no where near loud enough.. simply not enough amp + speaker power for outdoors.  However, would the distortions introduced in lossy codecs be more evident in this type of situation? Play a 128kbps mp3 file through that system turned up to 10 outdoors, would you hear the lossy distortions at a reasonable distance from the speakers?


As level goes up, you are less sensitive to the frequency domain (over 70dB, that is) and MAYBE more sensitive to the time domain. MAYBE more sensitive. More to the point, you're overloading the whole thing.
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop

Reply #317 –
Quote from: dwoz on
Ethan, yes, you have just recently (in here, anyway) started making a new distinction between reproduction systems and production systems.


This distinction was repeatedly made throughout the video.

Quote from: dwoz on
So, your interpretation of these graphs, is that they show that a listener should NEVER be able to hear any difference between source and soundblaster?  That's what you're inferring here, by presenting these graphs.


That is not inferable from anything posted. Do you even know what the words mean that you are using? It can be inferred that the Delta has a much higher noise floor. The difference is within audible range. We are talking about a recording device here, so why in hell do people insist to damage a track with noise and distortion already at recording time? Recording with a transparent system and adding noise later, where favored seems to be a much better practice. A recording device shouldn't have any "sound" of its own at all. Insisting that it should is ignorant.

AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop

Reply #318 –
Quote from: dwoz on
So what's up with that delta 66?  some missing DC blocking caps or something?

No idea, but it's 90+ dB down, and only below 2 Hz, so I'm not concerned.

Quote
Ethan, yes, you have just recently (in here, anyway) started making a new distinction between reproduction systems and production systems. You were most assuredly implying no inherent difference, previous.

Okay, then clearly the problem all along has been simple misreading on your part. I hope nobody minds if I link to the Womb to make a point. Back in January in Post #43 of the now-locked thread I distinguished between fidelity and euphonic qualities. Then later the same day in Post #46 I was as clear as humanly possible:

Quote
I'm not talking about getting a sound - I'm talking about not degrading the sound you like once you have it. My AES Audio Myths video lets you hear music after 20 passes through a $25 SoundBlaster card. I challenge anyone to do the same with a 1/2" Studer half-track and come out as good after 20 generations.

So dwoz, now that you see these links to what I said very early in the "Pathetic" thread, please tell me if you still think I have changed my stated position only recently.

Quote
So, your interpretation of these graphs, is that they show that a listener should NEVER be able to hear any difference between source and soundblaster?

I mostly avoid interpretation, preferring to present data as the basis for discussion. As I just wrote above, guys like JJ and other folks here are more expert than me at relating measured performance to what is audible. I will say that when my friend Grekim and I recorded his acoustic guitar through an Apogee 8000 and my $25 SB card at the same time, we both thought that the converters sounded basically the same.

Quote
If a user does hear a difference, then where does that leave us?  that the differences in these plots are significant, and/or that there's another measurement that isn't in this group, that would account for the difference?

Well, first we need a blind test to prove that "a user" can truly hear a difference after one SB generation. Then, if even one person can reliably pick out the copy, that means the threshold (for that person, anyway) is lower than the SB's degradation. I'm certain it doesn't mean there are more than four parameters!

--Ethan
I believe in Truth, Justice, and the Scientific Method

AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop

Reply #319 –


and Ethan, I am MOST ASSUREDLY ALSO not talking about intentional distortion and effects introduced into the system.  I'm talking about the fidelity of the system.  I'm talking about how well sound was captured.

I'm simply NOT talking about intentional distortion, I never was, and you just keep saying it.

I'm pointing to the big gaping hole in the wall where the meteor came through, and you keep talking about whether or not the window is open.

As far as your invocation of the "generations" argument vis a vis the soundblaster verses the studer...I think it is a false strawman.  First off, anyone who has ever used tape knows that cascading generations is to be avoided at all cost.  Otherwise, we'd have been doing non-linear editing and mixing a LONG time ago.  But the "soundblaster" problem is a two-fold problem.  The data storage and retrieval aspects are great, but it's the conversion process itself that's damaging.  The analogy is like a train with a tall smokestack entering a tunnel.  The smokestack is sheared off and damaged the first time through, but all subsequent passes, the train fits in the tunnel just fine.

AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop

Reply #320 –
Quote from: Ethan Winer on
Quote from: Notat on
in my opinion, you're baiting people with this approach.

Probably, but it's the truth.
Quote
Surly you recognize that one way people may want to "assess fidelity" is by how it subjectively sounds to them.

But that's not what fidelity is!

I think what I'll do is read this to indicate that you are not interested in adjusting your presentation style. I think your style limits your effectiveness but I think it is also fun for you.

AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop

Reply #321 –
Quote from: dwoz on
The data storage and retrieval aspects are great, but it's the conversion process itself that's damaging.


It is much less damaging than an analog Studer's conversion to a magnetic representation on a tape. The measurements are a clear proof. So what's your point?
 

AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop

Reply #322 –
Quote from: dwoz on
it's the conversion process itself that's damaging.  The analogy is like a train with a tall smokestack entering a tunnel.  The smokestack is sheared off and damaged the first time through, but all subsequent passes, the train fits in the tunnel just fine.

And you plan on demonstrating that removal of this smoke is audible, how?

I do see a smokestack around here, and it's not from a train.

AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop

Reply #323 –
Quote from: dwoz on
and Ethan, I am MOST ASSUREDLY ALSO not talking about intentional distortion and effects introduced into the system.  I'm talking about the fidelity of the system.  I'm talking about how well sound was captured.

Okay, just to be perfectly clear, you still refuse to acknowledge that I distinguished between "what some people think sounds better" and "what is most accurate" even after showing you links to my posts from 3 months ago? And it's still your position that I have only recently "started making a new distinction between reproduction systems and production systems?" And MM says that I'm the one who needs to post a retraction!

Quote
As far as your invocation of the "generations" argument vis a vis the soundblaster verses the studer...I think it is a false strawman.

Really? Why? If a medium sounds fairly clean after one generation, but you need to assess the degradation anyway using only ears, why is a multi-generation test not suitable for both the goose and for the gander?

Quote
But the "soundblaster" problem is a two-fold problem.  The data storage and retrieval aspects are great, but it's the conversion process itself that's damaging.

You have said that countless times. Yet now, three months later, Ethan is the only person who has ever shown data. And lots of data at that! Where is the data from dwoz showing the "damage" done by one generation through a SoundBlaster card? Where are dwoz's audio example files proving "The smokestack is sheared off and damaged the first time through?" If you'd spent 1/100th as much time doing some tests as you've spent posting about my AES video in all the forums, you'd be a lot more credible.

--Ethan
I believe in Truth, Justice, and the Scientific Method

AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop

Reply #324 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: dwoz on
it's the conversion process itself that's damaging.  The analogy is like a train with a tall smokestack entering a tunnel.  The smokestack is sheared off and damaged the first time through, but all subsequent passes, the train fits in the tunnel just fine.

And you plan on demonstrating that removal of this smoke is audible, how?

I do see a smokestack around here, and it's not from a train.

LOL!

I also see the chances of getting anywhere with these "guaranteeing it's transparent" measurement thresholds disappearing down the tunnel too!

Though thank you Ethan for making a start.

Cheers,
David.