Mr. Lavry's 192kHz claims?

[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

 

[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

 

[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

 

[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

 

[Guest]

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

"John La Grou" <jl@jps.net> wrote in message
news5avo09pofjcgd8bojj9oge7eut30ln1iu@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

 

[Guest]

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

"John La Grou" <jl@jps.net> wrote in message
news5avo09pofjcgd8bojj9oge7eut30ln1iu@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.

 

[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

 

[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

 

[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
news5avo09pofjcgd8bojj9oge7eut30ln1iu@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.

 

[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.

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:42:08 -0500, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:


>> I fully respect good test methodology for the science it represents.
>
>...but not necessarily applying it fully when it fits, it seems


I do appreciate your concern about the methods we use to develop
products. But at the risk of saying it too many times, our circuit
evaluation techniques serve our goals and objectives (not yours). If
you feel that they are inadequate, I'll respect your opinions, but it
doesn't mean I'm going to embrace further rigor where I perceive no
further need. Is this not a satisfying explanation for you?

In the case of ADC testing, the differences among devices were
relatively easy to perceive. Differences between analog circuits are
often much more subtle and difficult to detect and/or characterize.



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


Actually, I find the analogies to be remarkably similar. Winemakers
and circuit designers both use a healthy combination of science and
art in their creations. And in both industries, there are endless
critics.



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


1.) The maker's use of scientific method (bio-chemistry / math) to
achieve parametric control of the end product

2.) The crucial role of the maker's personal tastes in subtlety and
nuance.

Science is not the only ingredient in our efforts. There is no "ideal"
audio circuit. Subtle differences in sonic performance may be
perceived as better, worse, or just different, depending on who is
listening.

Rather than open the final determination of subtlety to a broader
panel of "experts" I prefer to trust my own judgment in qualifying a
design for production.

Anti-scientific? No. Just a personal preference, with a clear
understanding of the alternative methods available to me, the level of
scientific rigor associated with each alternative, and the
consequences and tradeoffs therein.



>"...audio circuit design is not always pure science."
>
>does this mean that audio circuits can work in ways that science can't
>possibly explain?


Today's audio sciences cannot always adequately correlate measured
performance vs. subjective performance. In these cases, human
listening takes precedent over measured performance. Not surprisingly,
the best sounding ADC in our trials had the worst overall measured
specifications.


>> Are you denying that there is an artistic aspect to audio product design?
>
>In some ways yes, in some ways no.


Then we agree, a little bit.



>Finally and ultimately every audio
>circuit has to perform in accordance with the laws of physics.


Well, this isn't exactly an audio circuit, but if you can adequately
explain the "laws of physics" here, call Professor Chiao at Berkeley's
Dept of Physics. He has a position open for you.

http://www.physics.berkeley.edu/research/chiao/morgan/supcir.pdf

JL

 

[Guest]

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

John La Grou wrote:

> Well, this isn't exactly an audio circuit, but if you can adequately
> explain the "laws of physics" here, call Professor Chiao at Berkeley's
> Dept of Physics. He has a position open for you.
>
> http://www.physics.berkeley.edu/research/chiao/morgan/supcir.pdf

Published April 1st, right? Very well done.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:26:32 -0500, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>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.

It would help to narrow the problem if "sampling rate" were defined
up front.

Chris Hornbeck

 

[Guest]

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

In article <xMadnfs8sbCURxLcRVn-pg@comcast.com> arnyk@hotpop.com writes:

[John La Grou]
> > 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?

The same thing it means in discussing the audible benefits of a
particular microphone. There is not single "192 kHz sampling" but
rather many manufacturers' implementations of the technique in
hardware. You can't listen to mathematics, you have to listen to
hardware. The "art" that John is talking about has to do with how he
applies the technology so that it sound good to him.

> 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.

Sounds different from what? You know that you can compare half a dozen
44.1 kHz converters and they will sound different from each other. Why
shouldn't different 192 kHz converters sound different from one
another, or from 96 kHz or 44.1 kHz converters?

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

Personal taste, I suspect. John makes wine, too. That's the "art" part.
The science part is the chemistry that you need in order to make a
liquid that can be classified as "wine" whether it's good or bad.


--
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

 

[Guest]

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

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1099957145k@trad
> In article <xMadnfs8sbCURxLcRVn-pg@comcast.com> arnyk@hotpop.com
> writes:
>
> [John La Grou]
>>> 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?
>
> The same thing it means in discussing the audible benefits of a
> particular microphone. There is not single "192 kHz sampling" but
> rather many manufacturers' implementations of the technique in
> hardware. You can't listen to mathematics, you have to listen to
> hardware. The "art" that John is talking about has to do with how he
> applies the technology so that it sound good to him.

In short, this could be a discussion tone controls that are adjusted by
reconfiguring hardware.

>> 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.

> Sounds different from what?

That seems clear - lower sample rates.

> You know that you can compare half a dozen
> 44.1 kHz converters and they will sound different from each other.

I also know that I can compare a dozen 44.1 KHz converters and they will be
sonically indistinguishable from each other or a piece of wire. These are
called "good connverters".

> Why shouldn't different 192 kHz converters sound different from one
> another, or from 96 kHz or 44.1 kHz converters?

The answer lies in the outcomes of properly-done listening tests, such as
are described in ITU publication BS1116. There's plenty of evidence that you
could fill a room with modern converters and waste any number of days
finding that you can't hear any differences, once you started doing proper
listening tests.

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

> Personal taste, I suspect. John makes wine, too.

If you study the literature of winemaking, or just taste the results you
quickly find that wine strongly tends to taste different, no matter how
carefully you control the taste test. There is no accepted reference for
wine in the same sense that a straight wire is a generally accepted standard
for most kinds of audio electronics (equalizers and other signal processors
excepted, of course!)

> That's the "art" part.

There may be more art in the selling than the engineering.

> The science part is the chemistry that you need in order to
> make a liquid that can be classified as "wine" whether it's good or
> bad.

Actually, you can end up making wine by accident. It's hard to end up
building a good converter by accident.

 

[Guest]

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

In article <h5Wdnb_29Y0pUQ3cRVn-3w@comcast.com> arnyk@hotpop.com writes:

> In short, this could be a discussion [of] tone controls that are adjusted by
> reconfiguring hardware.

Sure, but without having calibrated knobs, or even knowing for sure
what the knobs do until you "make the adjustment" and then try to
figure out what change you actually heard. Hopefully we're talking
about sonic differences (quite possibly subjective) that we don't know
how to correlate with measurements made with test equipment yet.

> > Why shouldn't different 192 kHz converters sound different from one
> > another, or from 96 kHz or 44.1 kHz converters?
>
> The answer lies in the outcomes of properly-done listening tests, such as
> are described in ITU publication BS1116. There's plenty of evidence that you
> could fill a room with modern converters and waste any number of days
> finding that you can't hear any differences, once you started doing proper
> listening tests.

I'd love to know that we can safely buy any converter (in the "good"
class) without being concerned with whether we were compromising our
sound but human nature isn't like that. I must not be human because I
don't agonize over such things but rather trust the work of certain
manufacturers and limit my choices based on who did the work. But
there's the quest to know "what's the best?".

> Actually, you can end up making wine by accident. It's hard to end up
> building a good converter by accident.

More often though, you end up making vinegar by accident. But good
vinegar is a good thing, too.

--
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