Audio Myths Workshop

[Nokenoku]

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.

There has to be a missunderstanding .. we're probably talking about totally different things here.

There surely are differences between an SSL console and a digital mixer without any own sound for example, but that's not what I am talking about.

I was talking about bullshit claims about DAWs having different sound while summing; or those guys, who have 10 different digital EQs, which all do the same (just having different GUIs and handling) and tell everyone, that "this EQ has super smooth highs, while that one sounds tight in the mid frequencies"; or people swearing on nearly transparent (the effect is so small, that it vanishes while mastering) analog summing devices for about 3000€; or people who think they'd hear, that linear phase EQs sound smoother in the highs with wideband-boosts; ...

What were you talking about?

[tony tony chopper]

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).

I wouldn't know if the hardware used to record could still improve, but the only question you should ask yourself if you wanna store a signal in a 96khz file should be: do I need freqs above 22khz? You may have reasons to want them, maybe you wanna resample the result & make the inaudible audible for whatever reason. But if you wanna use the result as it is, and you claim you need 96khz audio files, then you're claiming that you can hear above 22khz, while in reality it's more likely up to 16-18khz, depending on your age.

[Nokenoku]

They are saying that CD quality audio reproduction is deficient in some way.

And where should that come from?
From the 16bit limitation or the 44,1kHz limitation?
Both were proven to be enough in several blind-tests.

Did the guys, who claim that, actually do blindtest themselfs? If not, their opinion is totally worthless.

[A.M. Gold]

I was talking about bullshit claims about DAWs having different sound while summing; or those guys, who have 10 different digital EQs, which all do the same (just having different GUIs and handling) and tell everyone, that "this EQ has super smooth highs, while that one sounds tight in the mid frequencies"; or people swearing on nearly transparent (the effect is so small, that it vanishes while mastering) analog summing devices for about 3000€; or people who think they'd hear, that linear phase EQs sound smoother in the highs with wideband-boosts; ...

What were you talking about?

I didn't watch Ethan's video so I don't know what all he covers. I've only been following the Womb thread and I've read most of his posts and seen his explanations about some claims he made in the video.

I'm just saying I don't buy it that the people who can hear a difference between the raw sound of a good mic plugged into a good mixer vs. the sound of that same signal after it has gone through A/D/A conversion are most likely not hallucinating due to some sort of psychological bias. I don't think that's a rational explanation. What the explanation is, I don't know. It may be an issue in the converter stage and have nothing to do with the digital processing itself.

As far as all that Gearslutz drivel you were complaining about, I don't get involved in any of that.

[tony tony chopper]

There would be ways to do flawed blind tests, using the wrong tools, that would make someone think there is a difference, though. That's probably the case.

I could attach a 96khz wav file that would make most people think that it matters, because they would be playing it in a media player with a shit interpolator, exhibiting the loud noise I'd have hidden above 20khz in my 96khz file.

[A.M. Gold]

They are saying that CD quality audio reproduction is deficient in some way.

And where should that come from?
From the 16bit limitation or the 44,1kHz limitation?
Both were proven to be enough in several blind-tests.

Did the guys, who claim that, actually do blindtest themselfs? If not, their opinion is totally worthless.

They're talking about setting up a test with some of the Womb members but they live fairly spread out so it wouldn't be convenient. It may happen eventually, though.

I don't know how many of them have done blind tests already.

And I don't agree with you that their opinions are "worthless" without blind testing.

Again, psychologically based hallucination is an irrational explanation for the difference they perceive as far as I'm concerned, so there must be another explanation. That's my opinion at this point.

[tony tony chopper]

I didn't watch Ethan's video so I don't know what all he covers.

You shouldn't rely on what others are claiming that video says.

I remember several times I was arguing with someone who popped up a video saying "see, Bob Katz says you're wrong", while he was explaining exactly the same thing but the guy was misinterpreting him.

[Nokenoku]

I didn't watch Ethan's video so I don't know what all he covers.

Well, I can only recommend to do so.

I'm just saying I don't buy it that the people who can hear a difference between the raw sound of a good mic plugged into a good mixer vs. the sound of that same signal after it has gone through A/D/A conversion are most likely not hallucinating due to some sort of psychological bias.

There are enough possible "errors" to make them sound different ... but it's not the resolution of the digital audio-stream.

Good night.

[aka_bip]

They are saying that CD quality audio reproduction is deficient in some way.

And where should that come from?
From the 16bit limitation or the 44,1kHz limitation?
Both were proven to be enough in several blind-tests.

Did the guys, who claim that, actually do blindtest themselfs? If not, their opinion is totally worthless.

They're talking about setting up a test with some of the Womb members but they live fairly spread out so it wouldn't be convenient. It may happen eventually, though.

I don't know how many of them have done blind tests already.

And I don't agree with you that their opinions are "worthless" without blind testing.

Again, psychologically based hallucination is an irrational explanation for the difference they perceive as far as I'm concerned, so there must be another explanation. That's my opinion at this point.

Who said anything about hallucination? Its well known that expectations can have an effect on perception.

[Rock Hardbuns]

Note on the Placebo thing:

It's really not placebo. It is simply the fact that we do not hear sound waves as they are in them selves, but a mental reconstruction of them. And your brain will be informed by all available hints to create the resulting impression.

So the important thing to realize is that those effects are not imaginary. The blue EQ actually really does sound different than the red one even if it is the same code, as long as the GUI is a part of the equation.

[A.M. Gold]

There would be ways to do flawed blind tests, using the wrong tools, that would make someone think there is a difference, though. That's probably the case.

I could attach a 96khz wav file that would make most people think that it matters, because they would be playing it in a media player with a shit interpolator, exhibiting the loud noise I'd have hidden above 20khz in my 96khz file.

I think there are a lot of factors that could come into play. I'm not even sure I could tell the difference in all cases between live analog and digital. And I'm not arguing about 96 KHz being noticeably better.

Perhaps high end converters would be good enough that I couldn't distinguish, live analog from digital but I'm not of the opinion that any converter or CD player is going to put out audio that hasn't been perceptibly compromised. I also think the quality of reproduction varies depending on the type of source material.

Another factor, strictly speaking from my own judgment about this, is that I'm not taking the position that there is such an obvious difference that it would be immediately recognizable. My experience is that digital doesn't sound as smooth as analog in the high frequencies mostly, and that kind of difference can be subtle. It can be, however, the kind of thing that can become fatiguing to listen to over time. If thats true, then it can certainly diminish the listening pleasure of a recording, which makes it very relevant in music.

I've never made the claim that there is a huge or dramatic difference, just the claim that I don't think it's true that there is no perceptible difference at all.

[DWb]

(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)

There was a really solid looking study done a couple of years ago using whatever those super-high-quality audiophile digital disks are with and without a 44/16 downsampler stuck in the signal path before the final D/A convertor that showed pretty solidly that a group of professional recording engineers and self-proclaimed audiophiles couldn't tell the difference.

The trouble is, there's a lot less money in checking whether people actually can hear a difference than there is in convincing them that your magic pixie dust is better than anyone else's.

I don't have a link to hand, but I'm pretty sure it was posted up here...

[A.M. Gold]

I didn't watch Ethan's video so I don't know what all he covers.

Well, I can only recommend to do so.

Wouldn't be necessary, I've already heard his positon on this and read his explanations. I've also read a number of technically based arguments against those explanations.

I'm just saying I don't buy it that the people who can hear a difference between the raw sound of a good mic plugged into a good mixer vs. the sound of that same signal after it has gone through A/D/A conversion are most likely not hallucinating due to some sort of psychological bias.

There are enough possible "errors" to make them sound different ... but it's not the resolution of the digital audio-stream.

I don't agree that the latter statement has been proven, but I do agree that it isn't necessarily the reason. As I said, the analog aspects of digital conversion could really be the culprit. But that's very different than saying there is no problem at all anywhere along the line.

[tony tony chopper]

example of a flawed test, this file contains only noise above 22khz, yet playing it in some media players or even most samplers out there will make it audible, convincing the listener that he can hear above 22khz.

http://forum.image-line.com//files/nois ... 2k_139.wav

[A.M. Gold]

I didn't watch Ethan's video so I don't know what all he covers.

You shouldn't rely on what others are claiming that video says.

I remember several times I was arguing with someone who popped up a video saying "see, Bob Katz says you're wrong", while he was explaining exactly the same thing but the guy was misinterpreting him.

I'm basing all of my reactions to things Ethan posted at the Womb.