Mr. Lavry's 192kHz claims?

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hi guys,

How have Dan Lavry's claims about the shortcomings of 192 kHz data rates
been accepted amongst audio professionals in the US?

He released the "sampling theory" pdf on lavryengineering's website, were
there any fallacies in it that were clearly mistakes, or has he managed to
steer the "marketing ship" away from 192 kHz in any way?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Tommi M." <tomppaaREMOVE@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:cmf18l$q5v$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi

> How have Dan Lavry's claims about the shortcomings of 192 kHz data
> rates been accepted amongst audio professionals in the US?

Dan is hardly alone in his skeptical view of extremely high sample rates.

> He released the "sampling theory" pdf on lavryengineering's website,
> were there any fallacies in it that were clearly mistakes, or has he
> managed to steer the "marketing ship" away from 192 kHz in any way?

I was recently looking at the specs for a *Universal* DVD player selling for
$99.95. It featured 192 KHz sampling and 112 dB dynaiic range. Since it was
made by a fairly reputable manufacturer, there's some chance it, in some
sense actually meets this spec. The lesson is that extremely high numerical
performance no longer justifies premium prices. Therefore, we are free to
select digital equipment based on what actually meets our needs, not the
extreme depth of our pockets.

Just about anybody who wants to can own and use digital audio gear operating
at 96 and/or 192 KHz.

It turns out that many people who listen critically find no audible problems
with recordings made at apparently modest sample rates such as 44.1 KHz. In
this context, all higher sample rates do is waste storage space and
processing time. That seems to be the esssence of Lavry's arguments, and it
just makes sense.

It stands to reason that if 96 Khz sampling provides no audible benefits
over 44.1 KHz, then 192 Khz is not going to be advantageous.

If you have a PC or DAW capable of playback at 96 KHz you can evaluate the
issue of sample rates at 96 KHz and below with your own ears by downloading
and listening to files from
http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm .
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Tommi M. <tomppaaREMOVE@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>
>How have Dan Lavry's claims about the shortcomings of 192 kHz data rates
>been accepted amongst audio professionals in the US?

More or less. I don't think anybody out there is really sure about anything
yet, but after a lot of study nobody has yet had any real documentation
showing improvements from high sample rates, and a lot of people have some
documentation showing some converters perform much more poorly at high
sample rates.

There was another inconclusive paper from NHK again at the AES show this
year.

>He released the "sampling theory" pdf on lavryengineering's website, were
>there any fallacies in it that were clearly mistakes, or has he managed to
>steer the "marketing ship" away from 192 kHz in any way?

No, there's no mistake there at all. And all of this stuff was very well
defined by the 1960s, so it's not terribly innovative. But the marketing
for high sample rates and ultrasonic reproduction systems proceeds as rapidly
as ever.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Tommi M. wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> How have Dan Lavry's claims about the shortcomings of 192 kHz data rates
> been accepted amongst audio professionals in the US?
>
> He released the "sampling theory" pdf on lavryengineering's website, were
> there any fallacies in it that were clearly mistakes, or has he managed to
> steer the "marketing ship" away from 192 kHz in any way?

I've been following the discussions on the more technical PGM listerver
and have not seen any fallacies pointed out, even after much discussion.

I am hoping 192 KHz will die the death it deserves, because it is
without any value over 96 KHz, which already provides well more than
enough headroom in sampling rate for the most critical audio recording
and playback imaginable.

I speak as an engineer (EE), but the forces of marketing, advertising
hype, and anecdotal claims are powerful ones in today's market. And
there are development engineers (EEs) who are forced to comply because
corporate management compels them to and their salaries depend on it.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <cmf18l$q5v$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi> tomppaaREMOVE@kolumbus.fi writes:

> How have Dan Lavry's claims about the shortcomings of 192 kHz data rates
> been accepted amongst audio professionals in the US?

In general, his claims have no arguments. Audio professionals (that
is, those who record stuff that sounds good) aren't real fast to jump
on to the latest trends because they tend to have the best they can
get of whatever level of technology they've accepted for their use.
They need more than availability to make a switch.

Marketing people need things to sell on an ongoing basis and doubling
the sample rate of a fair-to-middlin' converter without doing much
damage isn't difficult or expensive to do, but it provides a new sales
point. But to make a really great converter run at double speed and do
more than just add another octave of high frequency response is
difficult, expensive, and, as Dan argues in his paper, not quite
possible with currently available components.

Understand that Dan's arguments are only about A/D converters,
however. Nobody argues against up-sampling for processing at higher
rates and some have good reasons (sonic, even) for doing so, so "192"
still has some good press going for it. And as long as the number is
associated with something good, the marketing people will use that as
ammunition.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 07:07:11 +0200, "Tommi M."
<tomppaaREMOVE@kolumbus.fi> wrote:

>Hi guys,
>
>How have Dan Lavry's claims about the shortcomings of 192 kHz data rates
>been accepted amongst audio professionals in the US?
>
>He released the "sampling theory" pdf on lavryengineering's website, were
>there any fallacies in it that were clearly mistakes, or has he managed to
>steer the "marketing ship" away from 192 kHz in any way?


Tommi,

One of Dan's concerns simply restates the widely held position that
192kHz is unnecessary due to limitations of human hearing. He also has
some good arguments for those who claim that higher sampling rates
offer better impulse-related spatial localization.

As for design issues, I believe it's likely that DAC devices suffer an
inherent tradeoff between speed and accuracy. It's not as clear that
such a tradeoff exists in today's ADC devices. Hopefully, Dan can jump
in here to clarify, though the last time he showed up he was chased
away by a troll. Sad.

Personally, I'm going ahead with a 192kHz ADC design for it hasn't
shown any sonic limitations after decimation when compared with native
88.2/96kHz devices. That said, on a RADAR S-Nyquist into a Pyramix, I
usually prefer 44.1/24 over all other choices.

JL
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <418B5DDF.5010307@audiorail.com>,
"Garth D. Wiebe" <gwiebe@audiorail.com> wrote:

> Tommi M. wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > How have Dan Lavry's claims about the shortcomings of 192 kHz data rates
> > been accepted amongst audio professionals in the US?
> >
> > He released the "sampling theory" pdf on lavryengineering's website, were
> > there any fallacies in it that were clearly mistakes, or has he managed to
> > steer the "marketing ship" away from 192 kHz in any way?
>
> I've been following the discussions on the more technical PGM listerver
> and have not seen any fallacies pointed out, even after much discussion.
>
> I am hoping 192 KHz will die the death it deserves, because it is
> without any value over 96 KHz, which already provides well more than
> enough headroom in sampling rate for the most critical audio recording
> and playback imaginable.
>
> I speak as an engineer (EE), but the forces of marketing, advertising
> hype, and anecdotal claims are powerful ones in today's market. And
> there are development engineers (EEs) who are forced to comply because
> corporate management compels them to and their salaries depend on it.



You know, I've followed Dan's claims and newsgroup threads and I must
admit that he presents a good case. But having done a fair amount of
192k recording (as well as recording the same program and 44.1, 48, 96
and 192k), I can tell you that everyone involved in these recordings are
always very partial to the 192, especially after hearing the same
program at a lower rate.

In fact, I had a long talk with the owner of a hi-tech LA rental company
at AES that told me that most of his classical and movie scoring clients
are now recording at 192 despite the scientific claims of the
engineering community. As he said, "When Yo Yo Ma and John Williams ask
for it, there must be something to it".

It still seems to me that most people who diss the format haven't had
much listening experience with it and go merely on the basis of what
they believe is academically correct (which it might not be because of
skewed or overlooked or even unknown data).

That being said, we've been recording all projects at 96k for about 5
years now (from before the time where it became convenient), and I now
personally feel that the difference over 48k is not nearly enough to
justify the extra disc space and hassle. There is a huge jump in
quality (mostly in the mids and air) at 192k though, in my opinion.

--
Bobby Owsinski
Surround Associates
http://www.surroundassociates.com
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Bobby Owsinski" <polymedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:polymedia-1FFCCC.08334505112004@news1.west.earthlink.net

> You know, I've followed Dan's claims and newsgroup threads and I must
> admit that he presents a good case. But having done a fair amount of
> 192k recording (as well as recording the same program and 44.1, 48, 96
> and 192k), I can tell you that everyone involved in these recordings
> are always very partial to the 192, especially after hearing the same
> program at a lower rate.

Tell you what, Bobby. Send me as much of as any high sample rate file(s) as
you think you need to make your point. My *real* email address is arnyk at
comcast dot net .

Comcast has a 10 meg final file size, or about 7.6 meg file size limit for
email attachments according to
http://faq.comcast.net/faq/answer.jsp?name=17627&cat=Email&subcategory=1 If
email won't handle the file size, I think I can provide you with some FTP
upload space and a userid and password.

I'll downsample your sample(s) down to various far lower sample rate and
then upsample them back to whatever high sample rates they started out at.
I'll then put up a web page at www.pcabx.com where people can download them
from, and listen for themselves.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Seems to me that regardless of the possible negatives, when used at a lower
bit rate than 192 kHz, these converters should perform close to the stellar
range. In other words, how much has anyone looked at 192 kHz converters
running at 96/88.2?

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Bobby Owsinski" <polymedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:polymedia-1FFCCC.08334505112004@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <418B5DDF.5010307@audiorail.com>,
> "Garth D. Wiebe" <gwiebe@audiorail.com> wrote:
>
> > Tommi M. wrote:
> > > Hi guys,
> > >
> > > How have Dan Lavry's claims about the shortcomings of 192 kHz data
rates
> > > been accepted amongst audio professionals in the US?
> > >
> > > He released the "sampling theory" pdf on lavryengineering's website,
were
> > > there any fallacies in it that were clearly mistakes, or has he
managed to
> > > steer the "marketing ship" away from 192 kHz in any way?
> >
> > I've been following the discussions on the more technical PGM listerver
> > and have not seen any fallacies pointed out, even after much discussion.
> >
> > I am hoping 192 KHz will die the death it deserves, because it is
> > without any value over 96 KHz, which already provides well more than
> > enough headroom in sampling rate for the most critical audio recording
> > and playback imaginable.
> >
> > I speak as an engineer (EE), but the forces of marketing, advertising
> > hype, and anecdotal claims are powerful ones in today's market. And
> > there are development engineers (EEs) who are forced to comply because
> > corporate management compels them to and their salaries depend on it.
>
>
>
> You know, I've followed Dan's claims and newsgroup threads and I must
> admit that he presents a good case. But having done a fair amount of
> 192k recording (as well as recording the same program and 44.1, 48, 96
> and 192k), I can tell you that everyone involved in these recordings are
> always very partial to the 192, especially after hearing the same
> program at a lower rate.
>
> In fact, I had a long talk with the owner of a hi-tech LA rental company
> at AES that told me that most of his classical and movie scoring clients
> are now recording at 192 despite the scientific claims of the
> engineering community. As he said, "When Yo Yo Ma and John Williams ask
> for it, there must be something to it".
>
> It still seems to me that most people who diss the format haven't had
> much listening experience with it and go merely on the basis of what
> they believe is academically correct (which it might not be because of
> skewed or overlooked or even unknown data).
>
> That being said, we've been recording all projects at 96k for about 5
> years now (from before the time where it became convenient), and I now
> personally feel that the difference over 48k is not nearly enough to
> justify the extra disc space and hassle. There is a huge jump in
> quality (mostly in the mids and air) at 192k though, in my opinion.
>
> --
> Bobby Owsinski
> Surround Associates
> http://www.surroundassociates.com
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bobby Owsinski <polymedia@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>You know, I've followed Dan's claims and newsgroup threads and I must
>admit that he presents a good case. But having done a fair amount of
>192k recording (as well as recording the same program and 44.1, 48, 96
>and 192k), I can tell you that everyone involved in these recordings are
>always very partial to the 192, especially after hearing the same
>program at a lower rate.

That's basically the important thing. The question is... if those recordings
at 192 are downsampled to 44.1 and then back up to 192, are they still just
as good? Or is something lost in that process.

>In fact, I had a long talk with the owner of a hi-tech LA rental company
>at AES that told me that most of his classical and movie scoring clients
>are now recording at 192 despite the scientific claims of the
>engineering community. As he said, "When Yo Yo Ma and John Williams ask
>for it, there must be something to it".

I remember a lot of earlier converters sounded better at 48 ksamp/sec than
at 44.1 ksamp/sec. This was basically tracked down to filtering issues,
and modern converters don't have anywhere near the differences. The question
is whether whatever benefits we get from higher sample rates can be tracked
down again to some sort of conversion artifact or not.

>It still seems to me that most people who diss the format haven't had
>much listening experience with it and go merely on the basis of what
>they believe is academically correct (which it might not be because of
>skewed or overlooked or even unknown data).
>
>That being said, we've been recording all projects at 96k for about 5
>years now (from before the time where it became convenient), and I now
>personally feel that the difference over 48k is not nearly enough to
>justify the extra disc space and hassle. There is a huge jump in
>quality (mostly in the mids and air) at 192k though, in my opinion.

I must admit that I have not tried 192ksamp/sec, but I have tried 96 ksamp/sec
and not been very pleased. My worry is that if I heard increased air at
the 192 ksamp/sec rate that possibly the improvement I heard might itself be
an artifact. But then, I am a natural skeptic.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:g8OdnUGAXs8lJxbcRVn-3Q@rcn.net
> Seems to me that regardless of the possible negatives, when used at a
> lower bit rate than 192 kHz, these converters should perform close to
> the stellar range. In other words, how much has anyone looked at 192
> kHz converters running at 96/88.2?

http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/LynxTWO/index.htm for one example.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bobby Owsinski wrote:

> You know, I've followed Dan's claims and newsgroup threads and I must
> admit that he presents a good case. But having done a fair amount of
> 192k recording (as well as recording the same program and 44.1, 48, 96
> and 192k), I can tell you that everyone involved in these recordings are
> always very partial to the 192, especially after hearing the same
> program at a lower rate.
>
> In fact, I had a long talk with the owner of a hi-tech LA rental company
> at AES that told me that most of his classical and movie scoring clients
> are now recording at 192 despite the scientific claims of the
> engineering community. As he said, "When Yo Yo Ma and John Williams ask
> for it, there must be something to it".
>
> It still seems to me that most people who diss the format haven't had
> much listening experience with it and go merely on the basis of what
> they believe is academically correct (which it might not be because of
> skewed or overlooked or even unknown data).
>
> That being said, we've been recording all projects at 96k for about 5
> years now (from before the time where it became convenient), and I now
> personally feel that the difference over 48k is not nearly enough to
> justify the extra disc space and hassle. There is a huge jump in
> quality (mostly in the mids and air) at 192k though, in my opinion.

One point that Dan made was that he did not question that some people
were hearing "something" in some instances. It is just that that
"something" must be "something else" besides the sampling rate.

It cannot be the "192K". Humans cannot hear anything in the 48 KHz to
96 KHz audio range. Nor can most speakers reproduce it. There may be
differences in various filter designs (which have nothing fundamentally
to do with sample rate), contributing totally different things, or
something else between Brand X @96KHz and Brand Y @192KHz particular
choice of equipment, if there is a perceivable difference.

Another important point that he brought up that I don't think was
emphasized enough is that you cannot just take a 192K converter, then
operate that same converter at 96K and make a judgment. The filters in
that converter were designed to work at 192K, and may deliver a
substandard performance at 96K.

I myself challenged Dan to do some lab work. Take the best 96K
converter product and compare it with the best 192K converter product.
And I said he should go one step further: Take a 192K converter
product, literally rip out the chip, and shoehorn in a 96K chip, so that
nothing is different except the chip. Then do the lab work on that.

Regarding listening tests, if you are comparing 11 KHz sampling rate
with 44.1 KHz sampling rate, then you do not need a double blind test.
Anyone off the street can hear the obvious. But the more subtle the
difference becomes, the more you need double-blind testing before
jumping to a conclusion.

You cannot make judgments based on "Yo Yo Ma and John Williams". This
is just my point. If you do not do a double-blind test, then you will
read what you want into it. It is human nature. Even if you put Arny
Krueger in front of it in person, without a double blind test, he will
come to some unfair conclusion, because even he is human. So am I. How
many people here have caught yourselves tweaking the wrong EQ knob on
the mixer (the knob for an adjacent channel strip, which was not on),
and imagined that you were doing something, before you realized
something was not right? How many have (hopefully unintentionally)
reached for the wrong stage monitor knob in response to a request on
stage and asked if that was better, and heard back, "Yes, that's better.
Thanks."?

So it becomes more anecdotal hearsay that drives the vicious cycle.
Where did "Yo Yo Ma and John Williams" get the idea that it was better?
And now that they perceive it is the "192K" we accumulate market momentum.

That last point feeds into my next one (actually, another one of Dan's,
for I am parroting many of his points). Why is the industry having this
discussion now? Where was the science and engineering work to
demonstrate that it could even in theory make a difference, *before*
people started designing things, let alone building them and presenting
them to studio clients, so that now we have "Yo Yo Ma and John Williams"
expecting the studios that they go to to have this "technology"?

The professional audio industry needs to be grounded on solid science
and engineering first. Otherwise, we are going to end up having gold
plated power plugs and oxygen-free power cords as a requisite demanded
by clients who claim to have golden ears and have convinced themselves
that it makes a difference.

I can say that Ohm's Law dictates that current is directly proportional
to voltage and inversely proportional to resistance. You could come
back and say that you understand what I am saying but that your
experience dictates that there are subtle differences to the contrary.
My response would be that your experience is either imagined, or that
there are other factors involved. In any case, I will insist that Ohm's
Law holds.

I think I mentioned this example in one of the forums before, but my
sister's husband is a mechanical engineer. He designs jet aircraft
engines for GE, not electronics. One Christmas we were together and he
told me that he was checking the headlight of his automobile with an
Ohmmeter, and the resistance was almost zero. It basically showed as a
dead short. Yet the bulb worked, and did not quickly drain the battery
or blow a fuse. Why was this, he asked? I had the answer on the tip of
my tongue for him, of course. Ohm's Law was not invalid in this
scenario, and there was no reason to question the quality of the
Ohmmeter. It was something else. It was that the resistance of the
filament of an incandescent light bulb rises quickly and dramatically
with temperature as it lights up.

In the same way that I would assume Ohm's Law was valid and not quickly
jump to a conclusion otherwise, I will say that the Nyquist Theorem is
valid and 192K sample rate is just allowing us a frequency response to
96KHz, which is useless for audio A/D and D/A converters. Either the
difference in a listening test between 192K and 96K is imagined, or it
is due to something else, and we should zero in on that, rather than the
sample rate.

Let me close with this question: For those who are going to buy into
192K sample rate, are you also going to be consistent and demand
microphones and speakers that have a flat frequency response to 96 KHz?
If there is "something" about 192 KHz sample rate that makes a
difference, then where is the push for the microphones and speakers to
match? Why then do you trust the sound quality of the recordings that
are done with today's speakers and microphones, most of which only go up
to 20-something KHz?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Garth D. Wiebe" <gwiebe@audiorail.com> wrote in message
news:418C4EBF.5040100@audiorail.com
>
> You cannot make judgments based on "Yo Yo Ma and John Williams". This
> is just my point. If you do not do a double-blind test, then you will
> read what you want into it. It is human nature. Even if you put Arny
> Krueger in front of it in person, without a double blind test, he will
> come to some unfair conclusion, because even he is human.


Especially if you put Arny Krueger in front of it in person! Why did I
invent the ABX Comparator if I didn't need it myself? ;-)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:Ov2dncXN_b1B4BbcRVn-uQ@comcast.com...

> Just about anybody who wants to can own and use digital audio gear
operating
> at 96 and/or 192 KHz.
>
> It turns out that many people who listen critically find no audible
problems
> with recordings made at apparently modest sample rates such as 44.1 KHz.
In
> this context, all higher sample rates do is waste storage space and
> processing time. That seems to be the esssence of Lavry's arguments, and
it
> just makes sense.

> It stands to reason that if 96 Khz sampling provides no audible benefits
> over 44.1 KHz, then 192 Khz is not going to be advantageous.

All true. But there are also many people who always use 192 because they
don't care about storage space or processing time; it's a non-issue. They
use 192 even when they hear no difference compared to 96 or 44.1, because
they think it should better. In order to get those people stop using or
buying 192 devices, they have to be convinced about the shortcomings of
192kHz sampling rates; it isn't enough if they're told that 192 adds nothing
but higher ultrasonic frequencies. For them, that's reason enough to use it,
because they think "at least it can't be worse".

> If you have a PC or DAW capable of playback at 96 KHz you can evaluate the
> issue of sample rates at 96 KHz and below with your own ears by
downloading
> and listening to files from
> http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm .

Unfortunately I'm currently stuck with a 001, so 48kHz is the limit. But
thanks, I'll listen to those when I get a chance.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Tommi M." <tomppaaREMOVE@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:cmf18l$q5v$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
> Hi guys,
>
> How have Dan Lavry's claims about the shortcomings of 192 kHz data rates
> been accepted amongst audio professionals in the US?
>
> He released the "sampling theory" pdf on lavryengineering's website, were
> there any fallacies in it that were clearly mistakes, or has he managed to
> steer the "marketing ship" away from 192 kHz in any way?


Sheesh. I just read the many excellent discussions others have posted to
this thread, but I have to say I came away from AES overcome by dominant
thought: Does any music really *need* anything better than the fidelity of,
say, Kind Of Blue? Isn't 95% of this new gear just solutions to the wrong
problem?

My point being, I wonder if we obsess too much about the sonic fidelity of
our systems, and not enough about trying to support the music and the
musicians.

Seems to me that shaving seconds off the time it takes to get a good drum
sound is at least as valuable as adding hertz to the sampling rate. The
money being spent to engineer ever-tweakier converters should be being spent
elsewhere in the process, I think - say, on better mic stands, or on systems
to help musicians play together in the same room at the same time without
too many phase problems. You might be able to convince me that 192k is
better than 96k (though I doubt it), but you can't convince me that it's the
most important thing to be worrying about.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 22:29:35 -0500, Tommi M. wrote
(in article <cmhfti$qjp$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>):

>
> Unfortunately I'm currently stuck with a 001, so 48kHz is the limit. But
> thanks, I'll listen to those when I get a chance.

Hey noting wrong with an 001 if you add a better A/D converter. The RMW ADI 8
DS made a difference in my 001. That and some HQ preamps and there's a world
of difference.


Regards,

Ty Ford





-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 23:10:39 -0500, Garth D. Wiebe wrote
(in article <418C4EBF.5040100@audiorail.com>):

> Let me close with this question: For those who are going to buy into 192K
> sample rate, are you also going to be consistent and demand microphones and
> speakers that have a flat frequency response to 96 KHz?
> If there is "something" about 192 KHz sample rate that makes a difference,
> then where is the push for the microphones and speakers to match? Why then
> do you trust the sound quality of the recordings that are done with today's
> speakers and microphones, most of which only go up to 20-something KHz?

Nice cohesive rant Garth! (That's a compliment, BTW) Especially your closer.
Perfect for my saturday morning. :)

I'm not a 192 convert yet for most of the reasons you mentioned. I'm also not
really interested in hearing (or buying) yet another mix of Sgt Pepper.

There are big bucks to be had by the music and gear companies at the consumer
market level. I figure they think if they can fire us up about it, they can
turn around and sell our "enthusiasm" to the consumers, e.g. "Wow! All the
pros are using it .....don't be left behind... you will be less of a man or
woman if you don't buy in!"

Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty much a gear slut. I just don't know if
"because we can" is ALWAYS the right answer.

Regards,

Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Garth D. Wiebe" <gwiebe@audiorail.com> wrote in message
>news:418C4EBF.5040100@audiorail.com
>
> You cannot make judgments based on "Yo Yo Ma and John Williams". This
> is just my point. If you do not do a double-blind test, then you will
> read what you want into it. It is human nature. Even if you put Arny
> Krueger in front of it in person, without a double blind test, he will
> come to some unfair conclusion, because even he is human.

You wouldn't _believe_ some of the things Toscanini thought were sonic
improvements...
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

John La Grou wrote:

> Tommi,
>
> One of Dan's concerns simply restates the widely held position that
> 192kHz is unnecessary due to limitations of human hearing. He also has
> some good arguments for those who claim that higher sampling rates
> offer better impulse-related spatial localization.
>
> As for design issues, I believe it's likely that DAC devices suffer an
> inherent tradeoff between speed and accuracy. It's not as clear that
> such a tradeoff exists in today's ADC devices. Hopefully, Dan can jump
> in here to clarify, though the last time he showed up he was chased
> away by a troll. Sad.
>
> Personally, I'm going ahead with a 192kHz ADC design for it hasn't
> shown any sonic limitations after decimation when compared with native
> 88.2/96kHz devices. That said, on a RADAR S-Nyquist into a Pyramix, I
> usually prefer 44.1/24 over all other choices.

I want to target this last statement as well. If you are an R&D
engineer and saying that you are "going ahead with a 192 KHz ADC design
for it hasn't shown any sonic limitation," then what many of us are
saying is that this strategy and thinking is going to have a snowball
effect that is far from benign.

To begin with, you know that there is a substantial NRE that will be
spent by your company on cranking a new product, and especially if you
are talking about developing a semiconductor device.

Then, do you think your marketing department is going to present this to
the market as "we are offering this 192 KHz product because it was an
easy engineering design task and we are convinced it will not perform
worse than our other products"? That is not how they will present it.

As more momentum is added to the 192K market presence, the next step
will cost a lot of people a lot of hard earned money. People will be
compelled to replace all their 48K and 96K gear with 96K and 192K gear.
These converter end-products are not cheap. Converters and sound
cards, disk space, memory, and processor speed requirements are all
affected.

Then it gets to the potential clients looking into the potential studios
and they have this question on their minds: "Does your studio have
192K? Yes, or No?" If they don't, then they take their business
elsewhere. After all, by the time the story gets to many of these
people, in their minds the 48K equipment is only a one fourth as
accurate, gets called hobby grade, and etc., and if you were a "serious"
high class professional, you would be up with the technology. "The chip
manufacturers wouldn't have developed 192K chips, the converter
end-product manufacturers wouldn't have designed them into their
products, the retailers and distributors wouldn't be selling them, and
they wouldn't be significantly invested and employed in so many high
class, reputable studios if 192K did not make a big difference in sonic
quality."

Do you see where I am going with this?

So if you are a salaried engineer and 192K is being dictated to you by
management at your company, there may be nothing you can do besides
raise a big verbal stink about it in meetings and try to convince them
otherwise. Then, after all is said, you have to comply.

But if you are like Dan Lavry, and are an engineer with decision making
power, you could take a stand and say "our company is not going to go
this route."
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Walter Harley wrote:


> Sheesh. I just read the many excellent discussions others have posted to
> this thread, but I have to say I came away from AES overcome by dominant
> thought: Does any music really *need* anything better than the fidelity of,
> say, Kind Of Blue? Isn't 95% of this new gear just solutions to the wrong
> problem?

When you consider the horrible things even a good
loudspeaker (or a room) does to a signal it defies
imagination that all these incredibly marginal effects could
be of any real consequence. It's about marketing and gear
churning as Dan implies if not directly states.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY