Audio Myths Workshop

[herodotus]

BTW, the AE's at the Womb aren't guys at Guitar Center, and their opionons on how things sound is far from worthless. Bob Olhsson helped Lucas set up the system at Skywalker Ranch. These are really not people speaking off the cuff with no valid basis for their observations. You're out of your element if you're making accusations like that.

Bob Olhsson also worked on a great number of MoTown classic recordings with Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye and other famous pop stars.

I don't really see what difference that makes, though.


Seriously, why is it that if someone has made hit records, then their opinion is somehow more factual? It's identical to saying that if some guy gets elected to public office, then his views of current events are more likely to be correct.

What would you say if you were told that someone you voted against 'must know what he is talking about, because after all, he did get to be President'.

I mean, would you really reconsider your opinion based on that?

[A.M. Gold]

It makes a difference because Bob has been at the cutting edge of digital audio technology for many, many years. He knows what he's talking about. He knows what great converters can sound like, and he has known from years of testing and comparisons where they can fall short. He also knows what live audio sounds like coming through high quality consoles. Although he has been a recording and mixing AE in the past, he's a mastering engineer at this point which means he is very concerned with getting high quality sound onto a digital format.

Why would years of experience with both high-end analog and high-end digital audio "not make a difference" in someone's ability to judge the capabilities of both types of system? I'm not following your reasoning.

And for those who think I was downplaying the need for a serious blind test, I never was. I supported it in several posts throughout that thread. I just wanted it to be configured so that it is thorough and no sweeping conclusions (either for or against Ethan's claims) could be made from a test that was inherently too narrow or poorly administered in some way.

Since the thread has been locked, though, I doubt it's going to happen unless several Womb members are PMing each other about it. It would be complicated by the fact that they are spread out across the US, Canada, Australia/NZ, and Europe, though.

[sinzero]

ok. that's enough. Time for meffy to let go his hair trigger and blow this thread away

[Meffy]

Ick. Rather not.

[A.M. Gold]

Well, it's run its course anyway.

I'm not in a position to make technical arguments supporting what I'm saying but I'm not changing my attitude because people roll their eyes and make some kind of dismissal of my personal experience because they have some kind of machine-based or theoretical "proof" that it's imaginary. Science has been wrong so many times in the past that I'm really not swayed by the confidence of scientists very much.

For one thing, it's so common for them to disagree with each other that I never take it at face value that they are right about something because they claim to be. It's also true that science gets revised on an ongoing basis. If the confidence of all scientists meant they must be right, then that would never be the case. Do you think scientists weren't highly confident about what they believed a hundred years ago, and do you think they could produce no evidence to back up their claims?

Scientists ultimately draw conclusions like anyone else---based on what they think is true after they observe a situation. It's an absolute fallacy that science always has hard proof to back itself up. More often than not it's based on personal conclusions drawn from interpreting data or experimental results a certain way, when someone else could look at the same results and draw a completely different conclusion. I saw this happen on an incredibly frequent basis in eleven years of working for a biotechnology company. It was amazing how little faith the various scientists there showed in each other's interpretations and predictions.

[Nokenoku]

Ok, I give up.

Just one last link regarding the DA/AD-quality of certain audio-cards:
http://www.learjeff.net/RMAA/results.html
This is for example the result of a consumer soundcard:
http://www.learjeff.net/RMAA/Creative%2 ... 016_44.htm

Everyone should try to find a valid argument for why such a converter should sound not transparent. If someone finds one, we could finally start a discussion.

[A.M. Gold]

I think the blind testing idea is best but I'm not of the opinion that it could be a quick and easy test. Too many variables. You could test things in a limited fashion, but then you'd have to draw limited conclusions. The complaints about digital audio are based on listening, though, so any test of those complaints could only be based on listening as well.

I can't even do it at home right now anyway because I mix ITB now and no longer have any kind of analog mixer to test with (though I've had them in the past). Consequently I can't even challenge my own assumptions for the time being, but I'm willing to try it in the future.

[herodotus]

Why would years of experience with both high-end analog and high-end digital audio "not make a difference" in someone's ability to judge the capabilities of both types of system? I'm not following your reasoning.

It doesn't make a difference because no one is infallible.

Take the French scientist named Blondlot. He was a physicist of no mean reputation who did important work in the study of radio waves and other electromagnetic phenomena. He was a member of the Academy of Sciences. He was a highly trained and respected professional with years of experience working with state of the art equipment.

Unfortunately what most people remember him for was the scandal surrounding his 'demonstrations' of a supposedly new form of radiation that he called N Rays. Many scientists (who were also highly trained and respected professionals with years of experience working with state of the art equipment) fell for these demonstrations. Others were unable to reproduce the results. The story became a matter of international interest and diplomatic importance, which is why the American physicist Robert Wood was sent by 'Nature' magazine to prove conclusively that these N rays were completely imaginary.

Now if first rate academic scientists can be this wrong, why can't audio engineers?

[ZeroNeuro]

Just remember that audio quality is not all you have to think about when you are shopping for audio interfaces. Latency, buffering, and performance in general is also a huge part of the equation.

I have a fairly cheap M-Audio Firewire 410 that sounds really good. But it's not going to get me under 3 msec at 96khz like my Apogee can.

A lot of the higher end plugins, EQ's for instance, actually change the phase of the source material. Smooths out the high end, levels the midrange. Linear phase EQ's really do this. It could very well be best to just mix with the built in EQ or a zero latency one.

I think this is the argument that these guys are making. Scientifically, there are far fewer differences when you analyze between plugins and gear. But sonically, the character of the individual items might 'sound' better to you. Just don't toss away a plugin because it is inexpensive or even free. Use it first and see if that is the sound you are looking for.

-ZN

[P.T.]

Bottom line, however, how many people choose to work analog and deal with tape editing and all the rest that has to be given up by leaving digital behind?

[redshift factor]

What would be the point in giving up digital?
Not only is analog inconvenient, it's also not cost effective.
And in the end, its just going to end up in a digital medium anyways.
When was the last time anyone actually listened to something analog?
You have to laugh over people marveling at the "analog warmth" of a track they're listening to... on CD, if not mp3!
I think 'analog' has at this point become a buzzword for some mythical sound that is always just out of reach. It's just chasing the dragon. Any true frame of reference has just about been completely lost. Analog just wasn't that great back when that's all there was.

[tony tony chopper]

A lot of the higher end plugins, EQ's for instance, actually change the phase of the source material. Smooths out the high end, levels the midrange. Linear phase EQ's really do this. It could very well be best to just mix with the built in EQ or a zero latency one.

sounds like meaningless gibberish

[Nokenoku]

Sounds like he doesn't know, how EQs work.

[ZeroNeuro]

Ok, let me see if I can explain it better.

If you have a plugin EQ that has both a zero latency mode and a linear phase mode this is easy enough to demonstrate. Simply load up a track, say a guitar. Without making any changes in the EQ, switch it through the various modes. The source, through the EQ, has a noticeable change in audio when you switch from zero latency to linear phase. Or just bypass the linear phase plugin. The high end gets smoothed out, and the ... fizziness and sizzle of the track is altered. At least it does with all of the linear phase EQ's I have.

I never said how an EQ works and fail to understand what that has to do with what I said in the first place.

-ZN

[Nokenoku]

Without making any changes in the EQ, switch it through the various modes. The source, through the EQ, has a noticeable change in audio when you switch from zero latency to linear phase. Or just bypass the linear phase plugin. The high end gets smoothed out, and the ... fizziness and sizzle of the track is altered. At least it does with all of the linear phase EQ's I have.

Then your linear-phase EQs are all broken.
Anyways, I highly doubt your EQs would do something like that. It's much more likely, that you're hearing things, which are not there.