who cares. even if they are that doesn't make them infallibleA.M. Gold wrote:I don't want to be a party pooper but you may want to look at this thread:
Most of the people posting in the thread are recording industry professionals.
Audio Myths Workshop
-
- KVRian
- 505 posts since 13 Feb, 2009
Last edited by sinzero on Mon Feb 01, 2010 11:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRAF
- 1724 posts since 10 Feb, 2008 from Berlin, Germany
What they think to hear is totally worthless. What they're really able to hear is important ... and as long as they did no blindtests, they just don't know, what they hear.A.M. Gold wrote:These are just people who have worked in pro audio for decades and they hear what they hear, which diverges significantly from some of the claims Ethan makes (the primary one being that 16 bit 44.1 KHz digital audio is indistinguishable from a live feed from a good analog console).
-
- KVRAF
- 5524 posts since 5 May, 2007 from Mars Colony
How do you know "no one is immune to the placebo effect"?
Besides, the placebo effect only factors in when people absolutely believe something to be something that it isn't (i.e. because a doctor gives them a pill and they have no reason to doubt that it's not what he says it is).
Complaints about digital audio have come about much more generally and in a much less controlled environment than that. No "absolute authority" ever told people digital was bad, they mostly came to that conclusion themselves based on their dissatisfaction with what it sounded like to them.
Highly skilled audio professionals have not been collectively victimized by some campaign that has "brainwashed" them into hallucinating nonexistent problems with digital audio.
Now that's a myth.
Besides, the placebo effect only factors in when people absolutely believe something to be something that it isn't (i.e. because a doctor gives them a pill and they have no reason to doubt that it's not what he says it is).
Complaints about digital audio have come about much more generally and in a much less controlled environment than that. No "absolute authority" ever told people digital was bad, they mostly came to that conclusion themselves based on their dissatisfaction with what it sounded like to them.
Highly skilled audio professionals have not been collectively victimized by some campaign that has "brainwashed" them into hallucinating nonexistent problems with digital audio.
Now that's a myth.
"You don’t expect much beyond a gaping, misspelled void when you stare into the cold dark place that is Internet comments."
---Salon on internet trolls attacking Cleveland kidnapping victim Amanda Berry
---Salon on internet trolls attacking Cleveland kidnapping victim Amanda Berry
-
- KVRAF
- 5524 posts since 5 May, 2007 from Mars Colony
I didn't say it did. You'll have to go through that thread and look at the reasons they give for disagreeing. It's too long for me to summarize it here.sinzero wrote:who cares. even if they are that doesn't make them infallibleA.M. Gold wrote:I don't want to be a party pooper but you may want to look at this thread:
Most of the people posting in the thread are recording industry professionals.
Last edited by A.M. Gold on Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
"You don’t expect much beyond a gaping, misspelled void when you stare into the cold dark place that is Internet comments."
---Salon on internet trolls attacking Cleveland kidnapping victim Amanda Berry
---Salon on internet trolls attacking Cleveland kidnapping victim Amanda Berry
-
tony tony chopper tony tony chopper https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=3103
- KVRAF
- 3561 posts since 20 Jun, 2002
You'd have easier to convince us by providing audio files.It absolutely depends on the signal, if dithering makes an audible difference or not.
DOLPH WILL PWNZ0R J00r LAWZ!!!!
-
- KVRAF
- 1724 posts since 10 Feb, 2008 from Berlin, Germany
Yes, I'll probably do that in the next days.A.M. Gold wrote:You'll have to go through that thread and look at the reasons they give for disagreeing. It's too long for me to summarize it here.
It's just, that I know what I know, and I know that Ethan knows a lot more about audio-perception than most professional audio engineers.
About the placebo-thing:
If I remember right, it's explained why people hear differences where there are none even if they're not told to do so.
Last edited by Nokenoku on Mon Feb 01, 2010 11:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
tony tony chopper tony tony chopper https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=3103
- KVRAF
- 3561 posts since 20 Jun, 2002
yes most likely it will be the inaudible tail of a reverb & I'll have to raise my volume by 50dB to hear it
DOLPH WILL PWNZ0R J00r LAWZ!!!!
-
- KVRAF
- 5524 posts since 5 May, 2007 from Mars Colony
Just to be clear, I'm not commenting on the dither issue at all, just the claim that there is no perceptible difference between CD quality audio and a live analog feed.
"You don’t expect much beyond a gaping, misspelled void when you stare into the cold dark place that is Internet comments."
---Salon on internet trolls attacking Cleveland kidnapping victim Amanda Berry
---Salon on internet trolls attacking Cleveland kidnapping victim Amanda Berry
-
- KVRAF
- 1724 posts since 10 Feb, 2008 from Berlin, Germany
Yes, for example ...tony tony chopper wrote:yes most likely it will be the inaudible tail of a reverb & I'll have to raise my volume by 50dB to hear it
-
- KVRAF
- 1724 posts since 10 Feb, 2008 from Berlin, Germany
I haven't tested that by myself, but normally there should be no audible difference, if the converters are decent (since 16bit are transparent and most people can't even hear up to 22kHz).A.M. Gold wrote:Just to be clear, I'm not commenting on the dither issue at all, just the claim that there is no perceptible difference between CD quality audio and a live analog feed.
Well .. maybe in an analog signal could be frequencies included higher than 22kHz, which might lead to some kind of distortion in the audible range on some boxes.
But that's just a guess.
-
tony tony chopper tony tony chopper https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=3103
- KVRAF
- 3561 posts since 20 Jun, 2002
but where is it saying that there is no difference in the video? I would assume that there IS a difference: the analog one would be colored/saturated in the worst case (or wait, what are you calling live analog feed?)there is no perceptible difference between CD quality audio and a live analog feed.
DOLPH WILL PWNZ0R J00r LAWZ!!!!
-
- KVRAF
- 5524 posts since 5 May, 2007 from Mars Colony
What is explained? Are you talking about an actual study involving psychologists?Nokenoku wrote: About the placebo-thing:
If I remember right, it's explained why people hear differences where there are none even if they're not told to do so.
My position right now is that the level of "conditioning" that is floating around in the air about digital being inferior to analog is not enough to explain away years of listening experience by many people as being purely psychologically based. I would call that explanation a real stretch.
I'm not saying it's impossible to be conditioned like that, but I don't think that explanation fits the circumstances here. These people didn't grow up having their parents tell them day after day that digital was worse than analog to the point where it shaped their whole view of reality in their developmental years. Most of them are too old for that to have happened anyway.
They are saying that CD quality audio reproduction is deficient in some way. They aren't saying "blue is prettier than green" or "I like saxophones more than trumpets". They are talking about accuracy or reproduction, which is not an aesthetic judgment. They would have to literally be hallucinating if they were basing that entirely on hearing a problem that isn't there.
I disagree that there could have been deep enough anti-digital conditioning in their lives to account for that based entirely on psychological factors. That suggestion, to me, doesn't have a strong enough rational basis in this case.
"You don’t expect much beyond a gaping, misspelled void when you stare into the cold dark place that is Internet comments."
---Salon on internet trolls attacking Cleveland kidnapping victim Amanda Berry
---Salon on internet trolls attacking Cleveland kidnapping victim Amanda Berry
-
- KVRAF
- 5524 posts since 5 May, 2007 from Mars Colony
Ethan said in the Womb thread that there shouldn't be a perceptible difference in the raw source material and a recording made at 16/44.1, that they should, for all intents and purposes, be identical to anyone listening to both. The "live analog feed" is just the source coming from a microphone plugged into a mixer, which hasn't been recorded in any way.tony tony chopper wrote:but where is it saying that there is no difference in the video? I would assume that there IS a difference: the analog one would be colored/saturated in the worst case (or wait, what are you calling live analog feed?)there is no perceptible difference between CD quality audio and a live analog feed.
Ethan says they sound identical, and that nothing is lost or distorted in any way by digital recording.
Essentially that is saying that CD quality audio recording is "perfect", that it can't be any better (which nullifies any recording-based need for 96 KHz or even 24 bit audio---he thinks any sense of a need for those is based purely on propaganda and bias as well).
"You don’t expect much beyond a gaping, misspelled void when you stare into the cold dark place that is Internet comments."
---Salon on internet trolls attacking Cleveland kidnapping victim Amanda Berry
---Salon on internet trolls attacking Cleveland kidnapping victim Amanda Berry
-
tony tony chopper tony tony chopper https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=3103
- KVRAF
- 3561 posts since 20 Jun, 2002
You're right, it's not. It's a mathematical fact, so it can't be subjective, so what would audio engineers have to say about a mathematical fact?They are talking about accuracy or reproduction, which is not an aesthetic judgment.
(the fact being, "CD quality" perfectly stores freqs up to 22khz, at 16bit precision. The subjective part would be, do we hear what's beyond this? That can easily be answered through blind testing, and the audible range for humans is no news)
DOLPH WILL PWNZ0R J00r LAWZ!!!!