Hi All,
Since I like to know who I am communicating with, I did an analysis on
the visitors who clicked on the links that I posted here. This should
represent a large part of the people who actively read this mailing
list.
My tracker registered a total of 133 visitors: 75 from Europe, 47 from
Nor
On 11 February 2015 at 05:52, gwenhwyfaer wrote:
> On 10/02/2015, Didier Dambrin wrote:
>> Pretty easy to check the obvious difference between a pure low sawtooth, and
>>
>> the same sawtooth with all partials starting at random phases.
>
> Ah, this again? Good times. I remember playing. I made 7
Didier,
I can hear hiss down at -72 dBFS while a 0 dBFS 440 hz sine wave is
playing. There is no compressor in my signal chain anywhere, I use an
RME FireFace UCX and have all gains to 0 dBFS and only adjust the
headhpone out gain. The FX % cpu on the soundcard is at 0 %, and I
even double checked
Here's the guts of the Pono:
http://mikebeauchamp.com/2014/12/pono-player-teardown/
DAC is an ESS ES9018K2M
http://www.esstech.com/PDF/ES9018-2M%20PB%20Rev%200.8%20130619.pdf
"32-bit" - Wonder what the actual ENOB is...
Output driver is a discrete design.
Main MCU is apparently a TI OMAP sim
Maybe you missed the original kickstarter video (it’s still there)…snake oil
sales is when famous musicians, who have spent countless hours in the finest,
quietest studios, with the finest and costliest equipment available, step out
of a CAR, with a pocket-player system, and say it’s the best so
I've read that the Pono DAC is Sabre 9018.
E
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Zhiguang Zhang wrote:
> Actually scratch that 2nd thought. It would be good to know what DAC the
> Pono device contains.
>
> -EZ
>
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Zhiguang Zhang
> wrote:
>
> > Re:Pono, what about
Actually scratch that 2nd thought. It would be good to know what DAC the Pono
device contains.
-EZ
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Zhiguang Zhang
wrote:
> Re:Pono, what about the DAC in the device? That could make an audible and
> real difference. Also, there is undeniably more informatio
Re:Pono, what about the DAC in the device? That could make an audible and real
difference. Also, there is undeniably more information in high res downloads,
if the original master was recorded to tape or to hi-res in Pro Tools. So, has
anyone ever considered the sample-level ‘phase’ effect of
How do the crest factors of these different "sawtooth" waveforms compare?
I'd expect one with randomized phase to have a much lower crest factor.
Which is to say that I'd expect the in-phase sawtooth to activate a lot
more nonlinearity in the playback chain, which explains why that one is
easy to p
On 10/02/2015, Didier Dambrin wrote:
> Pretty easy to check the obvious difference between a pure low sawtooth, and
>
> the same sawtooth with all partials starting at random phases.
Ah, this again? Good times. I remember playing. I made 7 sawtooth
waves with random (static) phases and one straig
I like the trend of releasing remastered material, where there is scope for
improved quality. Which isn't always, but there's an entire generation of
albums that were victims of the loudness wars, and various early work by
artists that hadn't access to quality mastering at the time, and so on,
that
What I am interested in, regarding this discussion, is quite specific.
I make computer music using Csound, and usually using completely
synthesized sound, and so far only in stereo. Csound can run at any
sample rate, can output floating-point soundfiles, and can dither. My
sounds are not necessaril
So you like the bar being raised, but not the way that Neil Young has
attempted?
Whether the higher resolution actually degrades the quality is a
topic up for future debate.
From the ponomusic webpage:
"...and now, with the PonoPlayer, you can finally feel the master in all
its glory, in its na
I'm all for releasing stuff from improved masters. There's a trend in my
favorite genre (heavy metal) to rerelease a lot of classics in "full
dynamic range" editions lately. While I'm not sure that all of these
releases really sound much better (how much dynamic range was there in an
underground de
The only comment in that page that actually tells the story is buried:
--
Different media, different master
I've run across a few articles and blog posts that declare the virtues
of 24 bit or 96/192kHz by comparing a CD to an audio DVD (or SACD) of
the 'same' recording. This compar
>why does higher-than-needed sample rate hurt audio quality?
>might not be necessary, but how does it make it worse (excluding
>the increased computational burden)?
The danger is that you are now including a bunch of out-of-band content in
your output signal, which can be transformed into in-band
I'm talking about simple initial phase offsets, nothing dynamic. It's an old
subject, you will find it back as "ghost thone" in this mailing list, with
audio examples.
I'll redo an audio demo if you insist, but simply randomizing the *initial*
(yes, nothing dynamic) phases of all partials of a
On 2/10/15 1:51 PM, Ethan Duni wrote:
So to you, that Pono player isn't snake oil?
It's more the 192kHz sampling rate that renders the Pono player into snake
oil territory. The extra bits probably aren't getting you much, but the
ridiculous sampling rate can only *hurt* audio quality, while cons
On 2/10/15 1:30 PM, Didier Dambrin wrote:
Of course 24bit isn't a bad idea for intermediate files, but 32bit
float is a better idea, even just because you don't have to normalize
& store gain information that pretty much no app will read from the
file. And since the price of storage is negligib
>So to you, that Pono player isn't snake oil?
It's more the 192kHz sampling rate that renders the Pono player into snake
oil territory. The extra bits probably aren't getting you much, but the
ridiculous sampling rate can only *hurt* audio quality, while consuming
that much more battery and storag
On 2/10/15 1:22 PM, Didier Dambrin wrote:
Of course, a lot of visually different waveshapes sound the same, as
soon as the phase relationship between neighboring partials is shifted
by the same amount.
they can be shifted by *any* amount, as long as it's static.
in fact, what do you mean by "s
Of course 24bit isn't a bad idea for intermediate files, but 32bit float is
a better idea, even just because you don't have to normalize & store gain
information that pretty much no app will read from the file. And since the
price of storage is negligible these days..
-Message d'origine
Of course, a lot of visually different waveshapes sound the same, as soon as
the phase relationship between neighboring partials is shifted by the same
amount.
That doesn't mean it's always the case and I've once posted here examples of
how shifting the phase of 1 harmonic of a sawtooth sounde
On 2/10/15 8:49 AM, Didier Dambrin wrote:
What are you talking about - why would phase not matter? It's
extremely important (well, phase relationship between neighboring
partials).
well, it's unlikely you'll be able to hear the difference between this:
x(t) = cos(wt) - 1/3*cos(3wt) + 1
What are you talking about - why would phase not matter? It's extremely
important (well, phase relationship between neighboring partials).
16 bits is just barely enough for high-quality audio.
So to you, that Pono player isn't snake oil?
Besides, if it had mattered so much, non-linear (mu/
On 2/9/15 10:19 PM, Nigel Redmon wrote:
But it matters, because the whole point of dithering to 16bit depends on how
common that ability is.
Depends on how common? I’m not sure what qualifies for common, but if it’s 1 in
100, or 5 in 100, it’s still a no-brainer because it costs nothing, effec
Interestingly, I wasn't gonna suggest that a possible cause could have been
a compressor built-in the soundcard, because.. why would a soundcard even do
that..
However.. I've polled some people in our forum with this same test, and one
guy could hear it. But it turns out that he owns an X-Fi,
Andreas:
>The hearing threshold apparently is at around 10dbSPL
The generally accepted hearing threshold is in fact around 0 dB SPL.
Around 3 kHz it is around - 6 dB SPL.
--
Best regards,
Goran Finnberg
The Mastering Room AB
Goteborg
Sweden
E-mail: master...@telia.com
Learn from the mistake
Didier, afaik the pain threshold for humans is at 120dBSPL. And there
have been rock concerts that had an even louder level than that.
The hearing threshold apparently is at around 10dbSPL. Taking your
-72dBFS truncation noise levels, that gives 82dbSPL as the threshold of
being able to hear t
29 matches
Mail list logo
