Mr. Lavry's 192kHz claims?

[Guest]

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

On 6 Nov 2004 12:11:52 -0500, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

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

I've heard that the painful brightness of the old Columbia's was
because George Szell auditioned test pressings with speakers
behind his couch. Is that true?

Chris Hornbeck

 

[Guest]

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

"John La Grou" <jl@jps.net> wrote in message
news:h64no0h8ve5e7rnraok2sgkitnd2df0gq6@4ax.com...
> 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.

Funny how everybody seems to focus on "you can't hear the difference" while
Dan and James A. Moorer have BOTH shown that increasing the sample rate
demands a significant increase in precision, i.e. processing bit depth, in
order to not significantly increase the level of artifacts. It suggests that
there's likely a very good and even very measurable reason for your 44.1/24
preference!

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http/www.hyperback.com

 

[Guest]

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

"Garth D. Wiebe" <gwiebe@audiorail.com> wrote in message
news:418D1FF1.3050608@audiorail.com...
> Ah-ha! Then use the 192 KHz part, but do not run it at 192 KHz. Do not
> enable it at that speed.

It's important to understand that Dan isn't arguing in favor of 96k chips.
He's doing a lot more than just implimenting somebody else's parts so he
sees this as a matter of putting a lot of resources into arguably inferior
product performance.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http/www.hyperback.com

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 19:22:18 GMT, "Bob Olhsson" <olh@hyperback.com>
wrote:

>"Garth D. Wiebe" <gwiebe@audiorail.com> wrote in message
>news:418D1FF1.3050608@audiorail.com...
>> Ah-ha! Then use the 192 KHz part, but do not run it at 192 KHz. Do not
>> enable it at that speed.
>
>It's important to understand that Dan isn't arguing in favor of 96k chips.
>He's doing a lot more than just implimenting somebody else's parts so he
>sees this as a matter of putting a lot of resources into arguably inferior
>product performance.

Besides, modern converters typically operate at much higher sampling
rates and lower bit depths, and are down-converted in use. These
discussions are mostly spurious.

Chris Hornbeck

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 19:03:14 GMT, in rec.audio.pro you wrote:

>Were they double-blind? What did the "subjective" listeners know going
>into the tests?


In essence:

http/www.mil-media.com/docs/articles/design.shtml

http/www.mil-media.com/docs/articles/preamps.shtml


>Ah-ha! Then use the 192 KHz part, but do not run it at 192 KHz.


We'll give users the choice of all available sample rates, and perhaps
document our personal preferences in the manual. Even if raw 192kHz
was generally inferior WRT subjective accuracy, it might offer a
signature that some producers find useful to achieve a certain color.

I suspect that any deficiencies of 192kHz probably have more to do
with DACs than ADCs. but coaxing the slicon designers to join these
discussions is difficult. It's a small niche of designers who value
their job security..

JL

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 13:23:06 -0800, Bob Cain
<arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:


>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,

While I understand your position, some of us actually enjoy seeking
out "marginal improvements" in audio quality. You might even call it a
passion.

JL

 

[Guest]

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

"John La Grou" <jl@jps.net> wrote in message
news:lqjqo0h321r9aei8ll135qvf7mn1jfqk89@4ax.com...
> While I understand your position, some of us actually enjoy seeking
> out "marginal improvements" in audio quality. You might even call it a
> passion.

Don't get me wrong - it's a passion for me too, as a designer. And
obviously we've gotten to the point where we are now because of a succession
of people driven to say "sure, what we've got now is good enough, but I can
make something even better." After all, people claimed that Edison
cylinders were lifelike and realistic; thank heavens we didn't stop there.

But from the perspective of a musician or producer trying to make a good
record, I wonder whether we engineers have lost touch with where the most
urgent needs are, and I wonder whether our customers are well served by the
particular improvements we've chosen to focus on. If the goal is to make it
easier to get compelling recordings of great music in a time- and
cost-efficient way, how can we best support that goal?

 

[Guest]

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

John La Grou wrote:

> On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 13:23:06 -0800, Bob Cain
> <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>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,
>
> While I understand your position, some of us actually enjoy seeking
> out "marginal improvements" in audio quality. You might even call it a
> passion.
>
> JL

But only if they can be discriminated and I fail to see how
some of the extreme subtlety that is argued about could
possibly make it through the relatively large linear and
non-linear distortions imposed by speakers and rooms and
still be audible as improvements.

The effects are swamped by the variance just in the unit to
unit tolerances of speakers. They remain remarkably crude
elements of the system compared to the other components.
It's the old weakest link thing.

I well understand the passion for improvement, but with an
engineering background involving systems error analysis I am
extremely dubious that the marginal differences, and _so_
many are claimed in the audio world, are anywhere near as
signifigant as many who have a vested interest want to believe.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

 

[Guest]

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

John La Grou wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 19:03:14 GMT, in rec.audio.pro you wrote:
>
>
>>Were they double-blind? What did the "subjective" listeners know going
>>into the tests?
>
>
>
> In essence:
>
> http/www.mil-media.com/docs/articles/design.shtml
>
> http/www.mil-media.com/docs/articles/preamps.shtml

I think these two pointers answered my question. I have to say that I
found them completely dissatisfying, even if they were convincing that
you strive for excellence in your company's pursuits.

>>Ah-ha! Then use the 192 KHz part, but do not run it at 192 KHz.
>
>
>
> We'll give users the choice of all available sample rates, and perhaps
> document our personal preferences in the manual. Even if raw 192kHz
> was generally inferior WRT subjective accuracy, it might offer a
> signature that some producers find useful to achieve a certain color.

I think that stating up front in your documentation to customers and
potential customers all the things you have said and disclaimed in this
thread would be of great value.

If you have a reputable position in the industry, people will look to
you for guidance. So this carries a great responsibility.

> I suspect that any deficiencies of 192kHz probably have more to do
> with DACs than ADCs. but coaxing the slicon designers to join these
> discussions is difficult. It's a small niche of designers who value
> their job security..

These are the salaried ones that must answer to the corporate powers
that be. Having spent many years in R&D myself in a large corporate
environment, I know well what is at stake.

They may be reading these discussions even, but they will say nothing.

 

[Agent86]

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

Garth D. Wiebe wrote:

> John La Grou wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 19:03:14 GMT, in rec.audio.pro you wrote:
>>
>>>Were they double-blind? What did the "subjective" listeners know going
>>>into the tests?
>>
>> In essence:
>>
>> http/www.mil-media.com/docs/articles/design.shtml
>>
>> http/www.mil-media.com/docs/articles/preamps.shtml
>
> I think these two pointers answered my question. I have to say that I
> found them completely dissatisfying, even if they were convincing that
> you strive for excellence in your company's pursuits.

Strive??? I'd say he succeeds.... in spades. Just in case you weren't
aware, Mr. La Grou may very well make the most transparent microphone
preamplifier on the planet. What Dan Lavry is to A/D conversion, John La
Grou certainly is to preamplification.

 

[Guest]

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

Bob Olhsson wrote:
> "Garth D. Wiebe" <gwiebe@audiorail.com> wrote in message
> news:418D1FF1.3050608@audiorail.com...
>
>>Ah-ha! Then use the 192 KHz part, but do not run it at 192 KHz. Do not
>>enable it at that speed.
>
>
> It's important to understand that Dan isn't arguing in favor of 96k chips.
> He's doing a lot more than just implimenting somebody else's parts so he
> sees this as a matter of putting a lot of resources into arguably inferior
> product performance.

In context, John La Grou argued that he was compelled to use the 192 KHz
parts because of other features that they had which the 96 KHz parts did
not. He did not say what specific features they were, but I used that
as the basis for my if-then clause.

I do agree with Dan's arguments that you refer to.

 

[Guest]

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

agent86 wrote:
> Garth D. Wiebe wrote:
>
>
>>John La Grou wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 19:03:14 GMT, in rec.audio.pro you wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Were they double-blind? What did the "subjective" listeners know going
>>>>into the tests?
>>>
>>>In essence:
>>>
>>>http/www.mil-media.com/docs/articles/design.shtml
>>>
>>>http/www.mil-media.com/docs/articles/preamps.shtml
>>
>>I think these two pointers answered my question. I have to say that I
>>found them completely dissatisfying, even if they were convincing that
>>you strive for excellence in your company's pursuits.
>
>
> Strive??? I'd say he succeeds.... in spades. Just in case you weren't
> aware, Mr. La Grou may very well make the most transparent microphone
> preamplifier on the planet. What Dan Lavry is to A/D conversion, John La
> Grou certainly is to preamplification.

I am certainly not questioning the ultimate quality of his products and
work. Only whether a 192KHz converter was "better".

 

[Guest]

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

agent86 wrote:

> Mr. La Grou may very well make the most transparent microphone
> preamplifier on the planet.

I have an HV-3D here, and I do enjoy it very much. But I take it from
your comment that you have not auditioned a Gordon Instruments preamp.
That preamp, for me, completely recalibrates "transparent". No, I cannot
afford one.

--
ha

 

[Agent86]

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

hank alrich wrote:

> agent86 wrote:
>
>> Mr. La Grou may very well make the most transparent microphone
>> preamplifier on the planet.
>
> I have an HV-3D here, and I do enjoy it very much. But I take it from
> your comment that you have not auditioned a Gordon Instruments preamp.
> That preamp, for me, completely recalibrates "transparent". No, I cannot
> afford one.

Nope, I haven't tried the Gordon. I'm usually careful to use phrases like
"may very well" for that very reason.

I can't even afford the Millenia. But it's one fine unit, no matter who it
belongs to.

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 18:50:50 -0800, Bob Cain
<arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:


>I well understand the passion for improvement, but with an
>engineering background involving systems error analysis I am
>extremely dubious that the marginal differences, and _so_
>many are claimed in the audio world, are anywhere near as
>signifigant as many who have a vested interest want to believe.


Bob,

This may sound callous, but I'm not concerned about what others think
about the marginal improvements I perceive. Nor am I concerned that
some may scoff at single-blind testing. It works for me, and I'll keep
striving for perceptible improvements in everything we do, regardless
of how insignificant others may judge those increments to be.

That said, I do understand and respect your position.

JL

 

[Guest]

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

"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:cmjfbp012n5@enews3.newsguy.com...
>
>
> 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.

Also comparisons of gear are unreliable with other as yet unaddressed
factors being variables such as in head position, auditory changes after
exposure to one set of music and a small period ofd time, etc.

What is more relevant (other than obvious real differences) is long term
imperssions of the qualities of a piece of gear, over a range of music and
time. But then it is hard to control the other necessary controls for
objective results.

geoff

 

[Guest]

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

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:QoidnefLBLWNLBbcRVn-tw@comcast.com...
> "Bobby Owsinski" <polymedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> newsolymedia-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.
>
>

Why the down/upsampling? Why not just post the samples?
I'm guessing editing...

 

[Guest]

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

"Walter Harley" <walterh@cafewalterNOSPAM.com> wrote in
news:qLadndci0fGf9xDcRVn-uw@speakeasy.net:

<snip>

> I wonder whether our customers are well
> served by the particular improvements we've chosen to focus on. If
> the goal is to make it easier to get compelling recordings of great
> music in a time- and cost-efficient way, how can we best support that
> goal?

I think that we have reached a satisfying level in any single channel.

I still have not yet heard a believable full surround sound.

And I still believe that the next generation will combine sound with video
for portable entertainment.

 

[Guest]

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

John La Grou <jl@jps.net> wrote in news:rj5ro0psfhcq8d2ub4dgi3i8n6jn9ssos1@
4ax.com:

> I'll keep
> striving for perceptible improvements in everything we do, regardless
> of how insignificant others may judge those increments to be.

Both are correct. Striving for perfection in each component aids us in
achieving perfection for the whole system. Let others work on the enormous
variation in reproduction formats.

 

[Guest]

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

Thanks, Arny. Minimal difference, but the figures do speak to better 96 kHz
response, even though it's obviously insignificant in audability.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

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