KVR Audio

Hink · Post by **Hink** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:04 pm

yes but we bring egos into play and there are plenty who think their ears super sonic (not the hedgehog) and superior...should be fun to watch

jens · Post by **jens** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:06 pm

Meffy wrote:
jens wrote:

No-one ever said you could hear the differences - not even Robert Henke himself.
Audio concerns that which is audible. If the differences are not audible, I have a hard time seeing how they could be construed as differences in audio quality.

good point - I like it - if we'd manage to establish that definition and set a threshold (-120db?) then we could get rid off a lot of this nonsense much easier.

nuffink · Post by **nuffink** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:08 pm

I find that for critical listening below the noise floor a tin foil helmet...

... helps filter out the hum from the Cosmic Background Radiation

headquest · Post by **headquest** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:09 pm

What is and isn't audible is obviously open to some debate, and I don't think that in the discussion (read the thread as a whole...) Robert was being too dogmatic about that

Surely it's a bit like the MP3 argument. Some would argue scientifically that the frequencies affected by the compression process are outside the audible range... yes most of us would I think agree that the results are audible. And there have been some recently suggesting that the results are really more damaging.

If there are small (?scientifically inaudible) improvements to Live's audio quality, it may just be that the combined affect of those small improvements will be an audible improvement.

On the other hand, I am perfectly happy with Live's audio quality (without warping, of course, which in any software would make some difference). Some claim not to be so happy ... including the famous MTM review that was debated at length. But it seems to me that the main point of Robert's posts is that there is essentially nothing wrong with Live's audio quality as is. Something already good may become even better.

ezza · Post by **ezza** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:15 pm

headquest wrote:Surely it's a bit like the MP3 argument. Some would argue scientifically that the frequencies affected by the compression process are outside the audible range...

I don't think there is an mp3 argument. Compression removes audible frequencies that you don't notice. Side by side with the original wav file you would hear it.

jens · Post by **jens** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:17 pm

headquest wrote:What is and isn't audible is obviously open to some debate

then we need more tests to proof that the gold on some ears is just pyrit...

Hink · Post by **Hink** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:17 pm

nuffink wrote:I find that for critical listening below the noise floor a tin foil helmet...

... helps filter out the hum from the Cosmic Background Radiation

isn't that the helmet they give you when you're leaving the mothership after an abduction?

umd · Post by **umd** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:17 pm

I like these treads...

Meffy · Post by **Meffy** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:30 pm

johnny1982 wrote:I like these treads... :hihi:

Tanks a lot.

egbert · Post by **egbert** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:31 pm

I think what he is trying to say is that Brownian motion sounds like shit and therefore Live 7 will have a more constipated sort of sound. There will be no movement at Brownsville Station (not even any smokin' in the boysroom)and henceforth your tarnce toons mixed in Live will sound like way better, dude.

kuniklo · Post by **kuniklo** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:40 pm

headquest wrote: Surely it's a bit like the MP3 argument. Some would argue scientifically that the frequencies affected by the compression process are outside the audible range... yes most of us would I think agree that the results are audible. And there have been some recently suggesting that the results are really more damaging.

It is similar in that people make similar unsubstantiated claims about what they can and can't hear. The fact of the matter is that most people can *very* rarely distinguish an mp3 from the original at a bitrate of 192kbits and very often as low as 130kbits.

So, "most of us agree" but "most of us" are also wrong.

Reverend Rhythm · Post by **Reverend Rhythm** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:44 pm

DevonB wrote:Ableton - We've improved what you can't hear!

This is very funny, but I can see it being used in an ad:

Ableton - We've improved what you can't hear!

shogger · Post by **shogger** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 4:10 pm

jens wrote:As long as the Ableton-guys haven't done their tests this way (and I doubt they have) they aren't scientific and we can savely disregard the results, audible or not.

Yeah,

if their tests aren't "scientific" we can safely disregard those test results, audible or not.

Shogger

shogger · Post by **shogger** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 4:14 pm

headquest wrote:But it seems to me that the main point of Robert's posts is that there is essentially nothing wrong with Live's audio quality as is. Something already good may become even better.

And I think that's the serious point: They will polish their image with that. Nothing wrong with that. But most people will not really understand what they really did, as usual. But as long as Live9 will sound REALLY good then it's fine with me.

Shogger

jens · Post by **jens** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 4:17 pm

shogger wrote:
jens wrote:As long as the Ableton-guys haven't done their tests this way (and I doubt they have) they aren't scientific and we can savely disregard the results, audible or not.
Yeah,

if their tests aren't "scientific" we can safely disregard those test results, audible or not.

Shogger

I bet you aren't aware of how stupid this post makes you look...

DAW Audio Quality does vary... and Live 7 sneak peak!