Mr. Lavry's 192kHz claims?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
G

Guest

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

"Natalie Drest" <mccoeyHAT@netspaceCOAT.net.au> wrote in message
news:cmkutq$113b$1@otis.netspace.net.au
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:QoidnefLBLWNLBbcRVn-tw@comcast.com...
>> "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.

> Why the down/upsampling?

The purpose of the downsampling is to provide examples of what
low-sample-rate digital data formats do to high-sample-rate audio data.

The purpose of the subsequent upsampling is to provide samples that people
can compare using the same converters operating at the same sample rates.

>Why not just post the samples?

Because you can't isolate the sonic signatures of sample rates from the
sonic signature of hardware operating at different sample rates that way.

> I'm guessing editing...

No, its all about doing a comparison of just the sonic properties of digital
formats operating at different sample rates.

If you want to cut to the chase - I'll tell you what happens when you do
proper listening tests. You find out what has been shown many times - that
44/16 is actually sonic overkill. Audible artifacts of not enough data per
sample, and not enough samples per second sort of cut out when you go much
higher than about 14/38, presuming a good clean modern monitoring
environment. Ironically, substandard monitoring environments can be more
*sensitive* to high sample rate music, but that is due to artifacts that
they introduce due to their technical inadequacies.

The usual argument against tests with results like these, is that the
origional music was not pristene enough and/or that the monitoring
environment was not clean enough, or someones ears aren't good enough.
Therefore, it is helpful to get the person making the naive assertions to
provide the origional music for testing and perform the tests with their own
monitoring system, and of course use their own ears.

Here is an example of what happens when *name* people do their own tests
like these:

"George Massenburg" <gmlinc@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:dc15750e.0301091707.5e40d7ce@posting.google.com

> Speaking of 'differences'. I hope that I live long enough to craft and
> demonstrate what a scientific listening/evaluation test is and what it
> isn't.
> What it isn't is what you might call the [golden-ear pantload name
> here] demonstration where this guy sits you down and plays you a
> couple of things (could be anything: the levels aren't calibrated and
> could be anywhere). [G.E.P.L.] proceeds to switch sounds for you
> saying, "O.K., listen to this. RIght, NOW listen to THIS!" (maybe he
> actually turns the monitor gain up) "Wow, that's great, huh?" And this
> other? HEY, you couldn't possibly like THAT, could you??? I mean,
> c'mon, you'd be an IDIOT not to hear the difference...
> Any test where you know which piece of gear you're listening to...any
> test that's not perfectly blindfolded and well-controlled cannot
> possibly be called scientific. As much as I don't like the downsides
> of the A-B-C-Hidden Reference it's a very useful discipline to reveal
> modest differences.
> The best listening tests demand that you objectify what you hear.
> An example of a useful, forthright listening test is the high-octave
> test suggested and implemented by Bob Katz, where he takes a 96/24
> file (presumably rich in >20kHz content), and filters it at 20kHz or
> so. Then he listens (through exactly the same hardware, and under
> exactly the same circumstances, removing conversion, to name one
> factor, as a possible variant) to see if he can tell the difference
> between the two (filtered and unfiltered) files. Can I be brave here
> and tell you the truth? Neither of us have had significant successes
> with differentiating between the samples. (Incidentally, this is a
> test that I proposed several years ago at the AES Technical Committee
> on Studio Production and Practices, and have finally implemented on
> the EdNet web site. Stay tuned.)
 
G

Guest

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

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Natalie Drest" <mccoeyHAT@netspaceCOAT.net.au> wrote in message
>
>>Why the down/upsampling?
>
>
> The purpose of the downsampling is to provide examples of what
> low-sample-rate digital data formats do to high-sample-rate audio data.


Remember that Mr. Lavry maintained this was not a valid comparison
because the performance of the S/H was degraded at higher sample rates;
a convertor optimized for 192 could not perform as well as the same
convertor optimized for 96. That is, starting at 96 would necessarily
give better results than downsampling to 96.
 
G

Guest

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

"John La Grou" <jl@jps.net> wrote in message
news:619qo092ncs07cpp4cmpc4lp1icphq7s4d@4ax.com
> 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 see nothing in these articles that should assure *anybody* that
time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled listening tests are being used
in any way, size, shape or form.

What am I missing?

BTW, the *standard* document for judging the adequacy of a listening test
would be ITU recommendation BS-1116. More information about proper
listening tests can be found at www.pcabx.com .
 
G

Guest

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

John La Grou wrote:

> 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.

I want to make sure to emphasize again that for my part, all my comments
are for the purpose of zeroing in on the 192K sampling rate issue. That
is not a topic for subjective listening. That is science and
engineering. It is an area for theory and for regimented experimental
testing that must be double blind. It is something that should never
have gone to market without that R&D rigor.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I do not recall your website indicating
even "single blind" testing. Now, there is a time and a place for
subjective listening. I do a humble amount of studio recording and live
SR myself on the side, plenty enough to know that just listening is
important in many circumstances, and especially just listening with
clients to find out what each individual likes and wants. Non-blind
listening. I've developed a good reputation within my humble realm of
clientele, who depend on me to get "good sound" and "good recordings".
Choice of microphones and speakers, placement of microphones and
speakers, effects, the mix, and so on. You can't "double-blind" most of
that sort of thing.

You seem to have a good balanced view of things. But a reputable
company like yours could, even inadvertently, mislead people to the
wrong idea. One person in this thread utters the chant "When Yo Yo Ma
and John Williams ask for it, there must be something to it." Another
in this thread says "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."

So the question I am asking is, will we end up with people saying "John
La Grou prefers 192K, so there must be something to it."? That is the
question. You could in principle feed this, or you could disclaim it.
I would urge that if you feel compelled to implement 192K and make that
an option to your customers, then your marketing, press releases,
website, and owner's manual would make it clear that you are using 192K
converters not because you think 192K sampling rate is fundamentally the
way to go, but for the other reasons you stated, which have nothing
fundamentally to do with any desire to sample at 192K.
 
G

Guest

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

In article <418F657B.8070300@audiorail.com> gwiebe@audiorail.com writes:

> So the question I am asking is, will we end up with people saying "John
> La Grou prefers 192K, so there must be something to it."? That is the
> question.

Substitute "may" for "must" and that's valid. John makes good
recordings, and if his recordings start sounding even better to him
(and presumably his customers) when he starts using 192 kHz
components, then so be it.

I think the issue is that we (as an industry of practicioners rather
than pure scientists) tend to talk in shortspeak. "192 kHz" doesn't
mean simply "generating 192,000 samples for each one second of audio"
but rather means "building new gear based on components capable of
generating . . ." As John said, his 192 kHz results may not be
isolated to just the higher sample rate, but a combination of that and
better design of the parts that he buys off the shelf as well as
better surrounding designs based on what he's learned and how what he
designs affects what he hears.

As Dan Lavry suggests, simply changing sample rate and leaving
everything else the same doesn't make for a good experiment.


--
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?)

"S O'Neill" <nopsam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:OJ6dnf-ItsrDChLcRVn-ow@omsoft.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Natalie Drest" <mccoeyHAT@netspaceCOAT.net.au> wrote in message
>>
>>> Why the down/upsampling?
>>
>>
>> The purpose of the downsampling is to provide examples of what
>> low-sample-rate digital data formats do to high-sample-rate audio
>> data.
>
>
> Remember that Mr. Lavry maintained this was not a valid comparison
> because the performance of the S/H was degraded at higher sample
> rates; a convertor optimized for 192 could not perform as well as the
> same convertor optimized for 96.

I think you've got me confused with someone who has a controversy with Mr.
Lavry. If you go back and look at the post I was responding to, it was by
Bobby Oswinsky, not Dan Levry.

> That is, starting at 96 would necessarily give better results than
> downsampling to 96.

Agreed, but that was not the issue that I was addressing. I was addressing
what appeared to be a claim that recording at 192 has audible benefits.
 
G

Guest

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

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1099919189k@trad

> As Dan Lavry suggests, simply changing sample rate and leaving
> everything else the same doesn't make for a good experiment.

I'm not sure that's what Dan was trying to suggest, but my omniscience
module is not performing as desired lately.

Simply changing the sample rate and leaving everything else the same does
make for a good experiment, depending on the question you are trying to
answer. There seem to be a lot of different quesitons that various people
have in mind.

One question that many might find itneresting might be: Does changing the
sample rate and leaving everything else pretty much the same make a
difference? Looking at extant controversies, even narrower questions such
as: "Does increasing the sample rate above 44.1 KHz and leaving everything
else pretty much the same make a difference?" seem to be interesting to some
people.
 
G

Guest

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

Arny Krueger wrote:


> If you want to cut to the chase - I'll tell you what happens when you do
> proper listening tests. You find out what has been shown many times - that
> 44/16 is actually sonic overkill. Audible artifacts of not enough data per
> sample, and not enough samples per second sort of cut out when you go much
> higher than about 14/38, presuming a good clean modern monitoring
> environment. Ironically, substandard monitoring environments can be more
> *sensitive* to high sample rate music, but that is due to artifacts that
> they introduce due to their technical inadequacies.

Careful, Arny. People here are likely to shoot the
messenger. :)

For all the argument about faith vs fact as guiding
principles you'd think all golden ears were neocons.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein
 
G

Guest

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

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 14:25:05 +0100, Roger W. Norman wrote:
> Thanks, Arny. Minimal difference, but the figures do speak to better 96
> kHz response, even though it's obviously insignificant in audability.

There are also some theoretical benefits for signal processing (FFT) at a
higher sampling rate. Here too the question is if they are audible.
IMHO there are no real grounds to spend time and money on improvements if
you have a good performing 96/24 or even a 44.1/24 set.
Better spend your time and money on acoustics, microphones, microphone
position etc.

For a consumer playback environment I think 44.1/16 allmost never is the
limitting factor. Speakers, speaker placement and room acoustics normally
are by far the most limitting factors.

--
Chel van Gennip
Bezoek Serg van Gennip's site http://www.serg.vangennip.com
 
G

Guest

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

Chel van Gennip wrote:


> For a consumer playback environment I think 44.1/16 allmost never is the
> limitting factor. Speakers, speaker placement and room acoustics normally
> are by far the most limitting factors.

By at least an order of magnitude WRT all relevant
paramaters of accuracy.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein
 
G

Guest

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

Garth D. Wiebe wrote:


> So the question I am asking is, ...

A question I've asked often and never got a good answer to
is why when Lynn Fuston got all those golden ears and all
those preamps together for a blind shootout a few years ago
did he decide in the end to release nothing about the
statistics of what the golden ears said and only released
recordings for self evaluation instead. Why were all those
golden ears there anyway?

An insider, who _will_ remain unnamed, told me that it was
because, except for a few real outlyer dogs, the results
spread across what remained was rather uniform and random.
That could be wrong of course but it's what I was told.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein
 
G

Guest

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

Arny Krueger wrote:


> Looking at extant controversies, even narrower questions such
> as: "Does increasing the sample rate above 44.1 KHz and leaving everything
> else pretty much the same make a difference?" seem to be interesting to some
> people.

Of paramount interest to me and utterly astonishing that the
issue has not yet been put to bed.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein
 
G

Guest

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

Arny Krueger wrote:

> What am I missing?

That someone designing gear can do it any way they want to, can arrive
at their personal preference any way they coose to, and yet come up with
the likes of a Millennia mic preamp, a worthy candidate for anyone's
blind listening tests. When it comes to listening to music, John has
perhaps more practice than our average blinded listener and with his own
company name at stake is more than willing to stand behind his choices.

Have you used a Millennia preamp?

--
ha
 
G

Guest

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

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 09:00:00 -0500, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>"John La Grou" <jl@jps.net> wrote in message
>news:619qo092ncs07cpp4cmpc4lp1icphq7s4d@4ax.com
>> 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 see nothing in these articles that should assure *anybody* that
>time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled listening tests are being used
>in any way, size, shape or form.
>
>What am I missing?



Hi Arny,

Let' make sure we're on the same page. I respect your test
methodology. And I'm quite aware of many different subjective testing
standards available within out industry. I've used some of them (see
articles I've written in MIX and Recording magazines on speaker
evaluation using standard AES 20-1996).

Last weekend, we (me, Bob Moog, Rupert Neve) in fact awarded the first
prize in the AES Student Design Competition to a guy from Poland who
designed an innovative program to evaluate codec intelligibility. It
was based on a number of these same evaluation standards.

1.) Do I match levels? Of course.

2.) Time sync? I do instantaneous A/B switching. Some people have an
ability to "remember" audio events after some delay. I am not blessed
with such ability. Even a small delay between candidate circuits makes
it nearly impossible for me to discern subtle differences. Fast A/B is
the only way I can work.

3.) Are there bias controls? Enough to satisfy me that I'm making
consistent, repeatable decisions. That said, it IS my bias, after all.
For better or worse, it's what differentiates this company's products
from others.

There's another element to all this that can't be easily addressed by
the "scientific method." It's a lot like wine making. Give two fine
winemakers the same crush and the resulting wines could be wildly
different.

Would you ask Aldo Conterno, Elio Altare, or Luciano Sandrone to make
wine by a standards committee? Similarly, two sets of ears listening
to the same A/B circuit tests may have strongly different opinions. I
chose to be the final arbiter of circuits that are ultimately employed
into a product. Some might consider this the "art" of audio.

Yes, I share a passion to achieve "incremental improvements" in audio
quality. The methods I've developed to test circuits work for me. I'm
not claiming anything beyond the fact that my tests provide the
subjective data I need to discern the qualities I'm looking for in an
audio circuit. Nor does my testing end in the listening lab. Candidate
circuits are taken into Northern California concert halls on a regular
basis for real world evaluation.

Thanks for your concern.

JL
 
G

Guest

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

"John La Grou" <jl@jps.net> wrote in message
news:eek:5avo09pofjcgd8bojj9oge7eut30ln1iu@4ax.com
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 09:00:00 -0500, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "John La Grou" <jl@jps.net> wrote in message
>> news:619qo092ncs07cpp4cmpc4lp1icphq7s4d@4ax.com
>>> 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 see nothing in these articles that should assure *anybody* that
>> time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled listening tests are
>> being used in any way, size, shape or form.
>>
>> What am I missing?

> Let' make sure we're on the same page. I respect your test
> methodology.

Perhaps in some abstract way, but let's cut to the chase. Here's something
you stuck into your answer to my question:

> Would you ask Aldo Conterno, Elio Altare, or Luciano Sandrone to make
> wine by a standards committee?

Do I need to explain why I find this question to be highly unfair to the
issue of the effectiveness and relevant of reliable listening tests?

If so I will, just say the word.
 
G

Guest

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

"John La Grou" <jl@jps.net> wrote in message
news:eek:5avo09pofjcgd8bojj9oge7eut30ln1iu@4ax.com
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 09:00:00 -0500, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "John La Grou" <jl@jps.net> wrote in message
>> news:619qo092ncs07cpp4cmpc4lp1icphq7s4d@4ax.com
>>> 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 see nothing in these articles that should assure *anybody* that
>> time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled listening tests are
>> being used in any way, size, shape or form.
>>
>> What am I missing?
>
>
>
> Hi Arny,
>
> Let' make sure we're on the same page. I respect your test
> methodology. And I'm quite aware of many different subjective testing
> standards available within out industry. I've used some of them (see
> articles I've written in MIX and Recording magazines on speaker
> evaluation using standard AES 20-1996).
>
> Last weekend, we (me, Bob Moog, Rupert Neve) in fact awarded the first
> prize in the AES Student Design Competition to a guy from Poland who
> designed an innovative program to evaluate codec intelligibility. It
> was based on a number of these same evaluation standards.
>
> 1.) Do I match levels? Of course.
>
> 2.) Time sync? I do instantaneous A/B switching. Some people have an
> ability to "remember" audio events after some delay. I am not blessed
> with such ability. Even a small delay between candidate circuits makes
> it nearly impossible for me to discern subtle differences. Fast A/B is
> the only way I can work.
>
> 3.) Are there bias controls? Enough to satisfy me that I'm making
> consistent, repeatable decisions. That said, it IS my bias, after all.
> For better or worse, it's what differentiates this company's products
> from others.
>
> There's another element to all this that can't be easily addressed by
> the "scientific method." It's a lot like wine making. Give two fine
> winemakers the same crush and the resulting wines could be wildly
> different.
>
> Would you ask Aldo Conterno, Elio Altare, or Luciano Sandrone to make
> wine by a standards committee? Similarly, two sets of ears listening
> to the same A/B circuit tests may have strongly different opinions. I
> chose to be the final arbiter of circuits that are ultimately employed
> into a product. Some might consider this the "art" of audio.
>
> Yes, I share a passion to achieve "incremental improvements" in audio
> quality. The methods I've developed to test circuits work for me. I'm
> not claiming anything beyond the fact that my tests provide the
> subjective data I need to discern the qualities I'm looking for in an
> audio circuit. Nor does my testing end in the listening lab. Candidate
> circuits are taken into Northern California concert halls on a regular
> basis for real world evaluation.
>
> Thanks for your concern.
>
> JL
 
G

Guest

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

In article <1gmxflm.kdi7wg1vlprqsN%walkinay@thegrid.net> walkinay@thegrid.net writes:

> That someone designing gear can do it any way they want to, can arrive
> at their personal preference any way they coose to, and yet come up with
> the likes of a Millennia mic preamp, a worthy candidate for anyone's
> blind listening tests.

I suppose the question to be resolved by a blind test is whether an
SA-CD produced from a recording using a Millenia Media preamp through
Millenia 192 kHz converters sounds compared to exactly the same setup
and source using Lavry 96 kHz converters.

Then try it converting both to CD resolution.

--
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 Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:06:47 -0500, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:


>>I respect your test methodology.
>
>Perhaps in some abstract way,


Nothing "abstract" here. I fully respect good test methodology for the
science it represents. However, what I'm trying to express is that
there is often more to audio product design than pure science. There's
the human element of taste and preference, the art of audio (and
winemaking, etc).



>> Would you ask Aldo Conterno, Elio Altare, or Luciano Sandrone to make
>> wine by a standards committee?
>
>Do I need to explain why I find this question to be highly unfair to the
>issue of the effectiveness and relevant of reliable listening tests?



I believe this conversation is addressing two related but different
topics. I understand and respect standard testing methodology (both in
audio and winemaking). I employ many of these methods in my own work.
I have never questioned the "effectiveness and relevancy of reliable
listening tests" and have tried to show how I have employed such
testing where applicable.

However, my statement about winemaking is simply addressing the fact
that audio circuit design is not always pure science. Are you denying
that there is an artistic aspect to audio product design? If so, then
I guess we'll simply agree to disagree.

JL
 
G

Guest

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

"John La Grou" <jl@jps.net> wrote in message
news:8givo01cj2j1rq5gueid1cvslns67muj82@4ax.com
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:06:47 -0500, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>> I respect your test methodology.

>> Perhaps in some abstract way,

> Nothing "abstract" here.

To me, respect for a technology includes applying it when it fits.

> I fully respect good test methodology for the science it represents.

....but not necessarily applying it fully when it fits, it seems

> However, what I'm trying to express is that
> there is often more to audio product design than pure science.

What does that mean in a discussion of the audible benefits of 192 KHz
sampling?

> There's the human element of taste and preference, the art of audio (and
> winemaking, etc).

The problem here is that there's no controversy over the idea that different
wines taste different. There is a controversy over whether or not 192 KHz
sampling sound different, all other things being equal.

>>> Would you ask Aldo Conterno, Elio Altare, or Luciano Sandrone to
>>> make wine by a standards committee?

>> Do I need to explain why I find this question to be highly unfair to
>> the issue of the effectiveness and relevant of reliable listening
>> tests?

> I believe this conversation is addressing two related but different
> topics.

I think that one of those topics was gratuitously added to make the
discussion more confusing and harder to follow.

>I understand and respect standard testing methodology (both in
> audio and winemaking).

Again, the relevance of winemaking to audio is not really strong enough to
be helpful discussions of either.

> I employ many of these methods in my own work.

Which methods that are generally accepted in winemaking do you find
applicable to audio?

> I have never questioned the "effectiveness and relevancy of reliable
> listening tests" and have tried to show how I have employed such
> testing where applicable.

The inclusion of a omnibus hedge phrase "where applicable" is noted. Going
back a post, I find the following:

"John La Grou" <jl@jps.net> wrote in message
news:eek:5avo09pofjcgd8bojj9oge7eut30ln1iu@4ax.com

>1.) Do I match levels? Of course.

So far, so good. What sort of dB tolerance is used? Over what frequency
range?

2.) Time sync? I do instantaneous A/B switching. Some people have an
ability to "remember" audio events after some delay. I am not blessed
with such ability. Even a small delay between candidate circuits makes
it nearly impossible for me to discern subtle differences. Fast A/B is
the only way I can work.

Again, so far, so good.

3.) Are there bias controls? Enough to satisfy me that I'm making
consistent, repeatable decisions. That said, it IS my bias, after all.
For better or worse, it's what differentiates this company's products
from others.

What does this mean? Does this statement mean that the evaluations are
essentially sighted? Then this does not show respect for the best science
for subjective evaluation. Does this statement mean that it is assumed
without proof that every circuit change produces an audible difference?
Again, there seems to be a question of respect.

> However, my statement about winemaking is simply addressing the fact
> that audio circuit design is not always pure science.

It appears that the topic is being changed every time it is mentioned. First
it was said:

"However, what I'm trying to express is that there is often more to audio
product design than pure science."

The topic was product design

Now it is said

"...audio circuit design is not always pure science."

Now the topic is circuit design. There has been a big change in scope from
design of a whole product to a tiny aspect of a produce being a single
circuit, without any stated reason or justification.

When one says

"...audio circuit design is not always pure science."

does this mean that audio circuits can work in ways that science can't
possibly explain? Are there resistors, capacitors and solid state devices
or combinations thereof that take audio signals into some unknown,
not-understood dimension and then bring it back for us to listen to?

> Are you denying that there is an artistic aspect to audio product design?

In some ways yes, in some ways no. Finally and ultimately every audio
circuit has to perform in accordance with the laws of physics.

>If so, then I guess we'll simply agree to disagree.

It's not clear to me about what we might be disagreeing or agreeing about.
 
G

Guest

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

"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:cmov1011m6h@enews1.newsguy.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
>> Looking at extant controversies, even narrower questions such
>> as: "Does increasing the sample rate above 44.1 KHz and leaving
>> everything else pretty much the same make a difference?" seem to be
>> interesting to some people.
>
> Of paramount interest to me and utterly astonishing that the
> issue has not yet been put to bed.

The possible fact that the issue is not fully bedded in some people's minds,
IMO says more about the minds than the issue. Hopefully, this will not be a
rerun of the Doppler Distortion controversy.
 

Similar threads