Reynolds531
Active Member
your brick wall was a great point--in 1982. The brick wall audble ringing myth for modern CD players has been refuted in detail on this forum. oversampling is one approach.
Last edited:
Interesting PONO Article
- Thread starter shacky
- Start date
your brick wall was a great point--in 1982. The brick wall audble ringing myth for modern CD players has been refuted in detail on this forum. oversampling is one approach.
Sorry, the problem still exists. Ask someone who actually designs digital gear like Charles Hansen. Refuted? Do tell.
There's a good reason why you don't find 90 db/octave filters anywhere else.
Get it?
Why is any audio experience threatening to those who are experience-free?
Right, but they've read the math book, right?
Okie-J
Hmm....
Ultrasonic content can produce intermodulation distortion. Wouldn't you want a good anti aliasing filter in place?
You can test your system using xiphs files here: http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html#toc_1ch
Naptown and Reynolds, get a roooom
Great link!
Enjoyed it and learned a great deal. :thmbsp:
Reynolds531
Active Member
isn't a major purpose of this forum to critique and debate design concepts for audio products? How is it negative to state facts and debate concepts? It's all a fun relaxing past time for me. I find that supporting an argument leads to learning.
Dennis Gardner
Jazz Nut
The fact is that an iPhone doesn't support hi rez files......
I'm here to help other people enjoy listening to music.
Why "critique and debate design concepts"? Are you an audio engineer? Are you going to build something useful?
Reynolds531
Active Member
thank goodness for the rationality of that fact.
Reynolds531
Active Member
i also hope to help people enjoy music and avoid spending money on flawed concepts sold by hype.
There are no bona fides on internet forums, but I am an engineer with data analysis expertise who has worked in technology prospecting. I have a good nose for BS in dog and pony shows. Audio products have way more than their share of BS, a true detriment to the industry. BS has become the basis of far too many "audiophile" products.
but mostly I learn by debating and enjoy the exchange. you certainly have the option of ignoring it.
Fact: I own a Pono.
Fact: Based on my observations of people listening to the Pono (myself included), it sounds really good. All my musician and audio geek friends were impressed. Nobody I know of who has heard it has said it doesn't sound really good.
Have you heard it?
By the way -- I completely agree about hype in audio. I'm as suspicious as anyone (note the gear in my sig -- to my ears, it's great stuff. To some audiophools, it's old consumer grade junk. Whatever.)
I also understand -- regrettably -- that some people won't hear the difference between a stellar DAC and some regular mass market crap. But you can't tell me that I can't hear it. Because I can. Fact.
Last edited:
Reynolds531
Active Member
Haven't lost any frequencies anybody can hear ( especially an adult ) or that an instrument or human voice can produce with Red book 16/44.1 .
At ~21- 22 kHz you are getting into dog whistle territory :yes:
By all means feel free to believe what you will and ignore decades of science and empirical knowledge.
Last edited:
Ultrasonic content can produce intermodulation distortion. Wouldn't you want a good anti aliasing filter in place?
You can test your system using xiphs files here: http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html#toc_1ch
Naptown and Reynolds, get a roooom
Another +1 Very good article I've read it before it should be required reading for anybody in the hobby ... or the business ...we've had long discussions....for weeks on end and very spirited debate as well as ABX testing and measurements of files at AVS on this popular subject and the disinformation in hires marketing claims ,empirical knowledge notwithstanding there are still plenty of the hires faithful ☺
I'm all for Hires .... if the source is from a better quality mostly uncompressed and well mastered recording not otherwise available on a CD or 16.44.1 download that's about the only added value I can see there just like it was on SACD .☺☺
I learned long ago on SADC vs CD playback what the real deal was .
Last edited:
I'm sure the Pono sounds (very good) playing 16/44.1 and just as well as it does playing hires with all things being equal the BOM on the parts inside would indicate that it should sound good no?
Last edited:
It's really sad when the experience-free parrot what they've read and have no understanding of the value of high resolution audio.
Truly sad when the experience-free parrot simplistic math and really have no idea why high resolution audio sounds better.
Hint: it's not all about not shearing off the harmonics of many instruments or additional dynamic range.
ev13wt
Super Member
The question I have is: How did you arrive at this fact? Without data that supports what you heard, it is only your "fact".
So I will have to assume it is your personal subjective fact.
Same as above holds true for you as well.
Did you both come to this conclusion just by sighted comparisons of gear? If yes, then please accept the "fact" that I cannot deem it credible.
I have in fact tried level matched blind ABs with DACS. On audiophile systems. All 5 of us got 51% percent correct.
While I agree to a point that ABX is not the full answer in anything audible, it still has more supportive weight than random sighted, non level matched objective analysis.
Can you both possibly entertain the notion that MAYBE, you are hearing things your brains are making you believe? Instead of vehemently opposing the objective discussions conclusion, could you go do an ABX yourself with some friends?
I can admit that ABX is not the answer and that there can be audio that is recorded and played back "better" than Redbook. Why can't you admit that possibly, you are only "hearing things"?
Prove what is wrong? Decades of math? I've yet to hear any *proof* that the entire recording industry who uses high resolution formats for recording is somehow clueless. The real issue is filter design. Ask any designer of digital equipment what makes the difference.
Do find that content-free posturing is beneficial? And that is better than actual experience and exposure?
Last edited:
See proof to the contrary in the 24/192 resolution thread. One is using the ABX comparator in Foobar while the other is a Canadian study using a series of five recordings sampled at both 44.1 and 88.2 . I can provide a link if you have difficulty finding them.
Not when what you hear is also confirmed with positive results. I don't believe the entire recording industry is clueless. I don't believe Dr. Stockham was clueless when he designed the Soundstream recorder without the storage media limitation of the CD-ROM format.