 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
198.112.236.6
In Reply to: Hi Alex, thanks for the very level-headed response posted by Christine Tham on August 19, 2004 at 14:28:46:
one question i have is that your graphs consistently show what appears to be higher relative dynamics in the m-ch versions compared to the stereo versions and you seem to be implying that in your text.can you confirm this is so? have you also compared the difference between Maximum RMS - Average RMS across the various recordings (using the statistics function of adobe audition) and do they also support the hypothesis of higher relative dynamics?
Take a look at figure 6 in the article:
http://www.ixbt.com/dvd/sacd-dvd-a/fig6.png
The statistics you're interested in seem to indicate slightly greater dynamics from the stereo tracks (right hand side) but it's not clear whether the statistics are for a whole track or just a sample. I assume a whole track since it's clearly not just for the brief sample shown in the traces at the bottom.
*if* the original masters are at 44.1 or 48 kHz sampling, then the ultrasonics in the m-ch tracks can also be explained by processing done during the surround remix (for example, digital reverb).Nope. Take a look again at Hourglass multichannel track data that Alex took from the outputs of the 47Ai:
http://www.ixbt.com/dvd/sacd-dvd-a/fig4.png
http://members.cox.net/alex_lat/Tests/Taylor-2.PNGNo unexpected ultrasonics are present except in the data taken from the 49TXi. I'm not sure how I could make this point any more clear...
Dave
Follow Ups:
i think i would prefer alex to provide the answers rather than make assumptions based on the graphs in his article.as you say, we really don't know what those statistics really represent (whole album, 1 track, or simply the waveform as depicted below the statistics).
in terms of the "fake" ultrasonics - that was how i initially read the graphs, but alex seems adamant that is not the case, so i am trying to prompt him to offer more explanation, just in case (for example) the graphs are wrongly labelled and he was comparing stereo against m-ch outputs.
i'm trying my best to give alex the benefit of any doubts and to understand his position. i found his writing style a bit difficult to comprehend, and i realise english is probably not his first language, so i'm willing to give him a chance. i know i hate it when people misread my articles, and then start criticizing them without even bothering to check that their criticisms are valid.
i'm trying my best to give alex the benefit of any doubts and to understand his position. i found his writing style a bit difficult to comprehend, and i realise english is probably not his first language, so i'm willing to give him a chance. i know i hate it when people misread my articles, and then start criticizing them without even bothering to check that their criticisms are valid.
Christine,
Why beat around the bush? Just tell me you think I'm an asshole for criticizing Alex's article. I deserve it.
I've been trying to hold this back, but I just can't anymore. The real problem here is that anyone with a sound card and web hosting space can take measurements and fancy themselves a technical writer. It used to be that technical articles carried some weight, because the authors typically had credentials and their work was reviewed by staff technical experts or industry/academic peers. But now the internet has become a vehicle for mass disinformation with far too many poorly researched articles that reach the wrong conclusions or make sweeping generalizations based either on bad assumptions or suspect/insufficient data. Technical articles should be held to higher standards than opinion pieces.
I think that you, Alex, and everybody else who publishes articles of this sort on the web need to be a lot more diligent in your work. It's simply irresponsible to just throw something out there as if it's an authoritative work and rely on the denizens of the internet to help counter/correct the errors in it after the fact. In my opinion, the review process is something that should take place *before* publication, and forums like this one are not the place to find qualified reviewers. I KNOW that I am not qualified to review your work or Alex's, so if I can find basic problems in the first reading then something is wrong. And I would like to continue educating myself using the internet as a souce of information, but how can I do that if I can't have at least some minimal trust in what I read?
I _really_ don't like getting involved in these discussions, but at some point people have to cut through the platitudes ("interesting artcle", "good job", etc.) and call a spade a spade. Otherwise, people who practice irresponsible journalism will continue to plant seeds of misinformation that spread like wildfire around the internet.
Anway, I've ranted enough and this is the end of the discussion for me. Feel free to have the last word and defend yourself as you see fit.
Dave
Dave,
I don't understand your emotions. We are here to learn, don't we?
I agree with you concerning the technical articles, but it is not one of them. Another point is - nothing wrong is in it - though we we have 2 choices - fraudulent (because no one warned about such possibility) additional ultrasonics in 49TXi (then it should be the same in 49TX and 59TXi) or existing on the disk ones. We don't know the truth yet, but we will find out. Without attention to this article from experts around the world and their help we would never do it.
This article had been reviewed (and discussed) many times - by technical experts in iXBT, the best Russian technical website and personally by Maxim Ladov, the director of RMAA project and editor of Home Theater and DVD plus Multimedia parts of iXBT. He is an author of many reviews as well.
I don't understand your emotions. We are here to learn, don't we?
What about the all the people who read your article and accept the conclusions it contains because they don't know enough to question your results? Have they learned anything? Your article has only added to the vast amount of misinformation being spread around on the web. The main reason why I got interested in the web 10 years ago was the potential to learn about new subjects and new research. But how can I really do that if a large percentage of the technical articles on the web are untrustworthy? Most of the time, readers are not knowledgeable enough to sort out the good from the bad. I can only do it in certain areas of certain subjects. The rest of the time, I'm relying on responsible journalistic practices not to misinform me.
I agree with you concerning the technical articles, but it is not one of them.
That is a cop-out excuse. You wrote a factual article, not an opinion piece. Your article presented data and analyses and your conclusions were presented as facts.
Another point is - nothing wrong is in it - though we we have 2 choices - fraudulent (because no one warned about such possibility) additional ultrasonics in 49TXi (then it should be the same in 49TX and 59TXi) or existing on the disk ones. We don't know the truth yet, but we will find out. Without attention to this article from experts around the world and their help we would never do it.
My point is that it shouldn't be up to casual readers in internet forums to inform you about the nature of your source data or point out issues with your test setup, and it certainly shouldn't happen AFTER the article is published.
What makes me so upset about this discussion is that you and Christine seem to be unconcerned about how many people are misinformed while you two try to make a name for yourselves as audio experts and journalists. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I just can't have a level headed conversation with either of you about this.
Dave
Dave,I think you vastly overestimate the critical process involved in scientific and technical papers (I won't even mention journalists). Some fantastic misunterpretations have been published over the centuries, without anyone daring to verify or even question the results. I remember seing one book about this, but I can't find the title at the moment, but examples of scientific mistakes abound*.
The discussion that followed Alex's publication on this board is a very healthy one in my opinion, including your careful reading and subsequent discussions. Since he has the ability to correct, amend, or complement his article, the process is actually productive, including for readers who are not specialists, like me.
And, again, I think a lot of the problems raised could be prevented by some common methodology and procedures. This would also allow comparisons between different people and publications.
Cheers
Eric
* I do have one example in mind, though. One of the leading sociology books, Durkheim's Suicide, contained a major misunterpretation of some statistical data. That book was reviewed, published, and studied by thousands (if not tens of thousands) of students, teachers, researchers, and no one had noticed this mistake for about a century, until one guy actually double checked the tables in the book.
BTW, the book is still printed with the same mistake, and there's not even a mention of the article where this was discovered :)
Eric,I don't expect perfection, but there have to be some minimum standards in every field otherwise nobody can learn anything from the body of published works. The level of rigor varies by field. It's been quite high in the fields I have had the opportunity to publish or present work in. But rigor seems utterly missing in audio and garbage science has almost become the norm. A lot of the technical articles published in this field could use a disclaimer: "For entertainment purposes only", because that's all you're going to get out of them.
But even in the absence of standards, I still expect people to take responsibility for the accuracy and correctness of what they publish. I don't think Alex is willing to do that. I even question his motives for replying here and I have my doubts about his sincerity in wanting to resolve the issues raised by Dan, Frank, and myself. I think Alex is only interested in damage control and further, I expect that we will be able to revisit this article in 6 months and it will still be there without any resolution to these issues.
I admire your attempts to find some sort of common ground in this discussion. I really do. But I don't think there is any to be found and therefore I see no point in continuing it any further.
Dave
You are completely wrong, Dave. The article is in the process of correction:
It was corrected already the information concerning Chris Johnson, as it is a different person that the guru of SFI. - request to correct by Chris Johnson
On the next week two points will be corrected:
1. "HD-DVD promoted by Microsoft (WMV9 Pro supporting multi-channel audio 24bit 96 kHz WMA9 Pro)" is going to be replaced by:
"and WMA9 pro, supporting 24 bit 96kHz multi-channel Audio,
promoted by Microsoft." due to the fact, that only video part of MS technology had been approved for HD-DVD standard - this correction was requested by one of the members of hydrogenaudio forum
2. "The first SACD were developed in ProTools," will be corrected with "Some SACD were developed in ProTools" - request of Michael Bishop, Chief Recording Engineer Telarc International Corp.
We are working on correction.
I am going to make the measurements ASAP and find out the source of ultrasonics in different, then THX Music modes, though at the moment I still believe, that they are presented on the disks.
The article will be corrected or a follow-up will be posted.
I also "see no point in continuing it any further", because it looks that you don't look for any co-operation. Thank you.
Dave,
First of all we have results of measurements and my suggestions, explaining them at this point of my knowledge, based on statements of the respectable sources. For example, THX post-processing had been presented without any artificial ultrasonics. Then Pioneer stated that Hi-bit/Hi-sampling used in CD mode. I have no points (yet) to argue with those statements.
I tried to explore the ability that DF1706 was used in slow roll-off mode in my experiments (i.e THX Music mode switches that mode on) but since DF1706 is working in software mode, I can't do that without exploring of the DSP software. Or I need to make some additional measurements. I intend to do it.
You can't blame me for the wrong information, because it is not wrong at this point. You don't know if those images are presented on the disks or not, simply because some DVD players use DSPs processing for signals decryption at 48kHz and therefore you can't get reliable results. The same with SACD modes - DSD stream is processed through CXD2753, which has some kind of specific functions - here is the comparison of modes:
http://members.cox.net/alex_lat/Tests/SACD_modes.PNGCop-up excuse? I supplied my opinion/suggestion about results of measurements which I got, if you don't have enough information to confirm yours, why don't you condemn mine? I am ready to admit that I was wrong, but you are just talking - I see no confirmation of your statements.
... if you recall, i said to eric that i agree with your comments on alex's article and thought they were pretty spot on.as for your "rant", if you sit back and think about it you can't really compare an article written by an enthusiastic amateur with a technical paper that has gone through a review process and published in a journal.
the beauty of the internet is that it opens up access and visibility of information and opinions. of course, the quality and accuracy will vary, but it's up to each of us to filter the good from the bad. even though i agreed that you have uncovered some real concerns about alex's article, i learnt quite a few useful things from it and i am more knowledgeable now than if i had ignored the article. at the very least, i am now curious as to exactly what the 49txi does when THX music mode is engaged and how exactly does it convert DSD to PCM.
if you don't trust these articles, don't read these things. resist the temptation. but also resist the temptation to dismiss them all - otherwise you will be the one making the sweeping generalization.
the internet is full of ill-informed people who don't understand what they are talking about and make incorrect statements. however, it is also full of judgemental people who don't take the time to read things properly and jump in and criticize inappropriately. both sets of people are equally bad IMHO.
you yourself admit that you are not "qualified" to review alex's paper, then why did you jump in and call it hopeless? doesn't that make you equally as bad as the people you criticize? i'm not trying to criticize you, i'm simply pointing out that you have been part of and contributing to the "problem" that you are ranting about, if it is in fact a problem in the first place.
I completely agree with you here, Christine. Even in the published techical articles we have some doubtful or discussed information, take for exampe OOhashi's experiments http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/83/6/3548 and following by them NHK experiment: http://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/publica/labnote/lab486.html
People are still discussing this matter, no one claims that it was no reason to publish such information because it could be wrong. We all are humans, we all make mistekes, and probability of them is significantly higher in the unexplored areas.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
