ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Thought I was better than I was.  (Read 8443 times)

Al Rettich

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 598
Thought I was better than I was.
« on: December 14, 2017, 12:21:30 PM »

I’ve been making my living in this industry since early 90’s and thought I had a pretty good ear. We went into a studio today, listened to a gentleman’s voice recorded once in 48k, the second time was in 96k.  Played back through your choice of Genelec 8260’s or Focal SM9’s.

I couldn’t tell the difference.

Then we did the same with a kick drum, cymbals, and a guitar. The only time I guessed right was on the cymbals.

I know I’ve read about the grand debate of 48/96/ or even 192.  But what was it that you heard the difference in between those settings?
Logged

Ivan Beaver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9534
  • Atlanta GA
Re: Thought I was better than I was.
« Reply #1 on: December 14, 2017, 12:38:40 PM »

The only time I guessed right was on the cymbals.


Did you "guess" or did you pick?  Very different things.

Could you pick it out repeatably?

While there are differences in gear, the question "does it matter" much always come up.

Sometimes when listening to gear you can learn to hear the differences.

But that does not mean it is better, just different, and you have learned to recognize the differences.

But does that make it better?
Logged
A complex question is easily answered by a simple-easy to understand WRONG answer!

Ivan Beaver
Danley Sound Labs

PHYSICS- NOT FADS!

Keith Broughton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3667
  • Toronto
Re: Thought I was better than I was.
« Reply #2 on: December 14, 2017, 01:53:09 PM »

I’ve been making my living in this industry since early 90’s and thought I had a pretty good ear. We went into a studio today, listened to a gentleman’s voice recorded once in 48k, the second time was in 96k.  Played back through your choice of Genelec 8260’s or Focal SM9’s.

I couldn’t tell the difference.

Then we did the same with a kick drum, cymbals, and a guitar. The only time I guessed right was on the cymbals.

I know I’ve read about the grand debate of 48/96/ or even 192.  But what was it that you heard the difference in between those settings?
If there is a difference to be heard, I would imagine it's the top end where the nuances might be revealed.
Unless it's a blind, or double blind, test, results can be very suspect.
 I have found 48 to be more than acceptable for 99% of what I do live.
Oddly enough, I have never had a corporate client be critical of the sample rate of my console :D
Logged
I don't care enough to be apathetic

Xandy Whitesel

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
Re: Thought I was better than I was.
« Reply #3 on: December 14, 2017, 02:35:00 PM »

I couldn’t tell the difference.

Then we did the same with a kick drum, cymbals, and a guitar. The only time I guessed right was on the cymbals.

For me, a solo'd single voice/instrument might be the hardest scenario to actually be able to pick the difference between 48 and 96.  I usually find a difference in resolution is more perceivable, if at all, on an entire mix.  Higher resolution manifests as increased depth/3D, and possibly increased perception of loudness and clarity, and nothing at remotely close to "game changer" levels. 

But if I hear a live or studio mix that sounds like dogdoo, bitrate won't come to mind as a possible culprit.
Logged
Xandy Whitesel
Bon Iver FOH
Denver, CO

John Roberts {JR}

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17176
  • Hickory, Mississippi, USA
    • Resotune
Re: Thought I was better than I was.
« Reply #4 on: December 14, 2017, 02:45:35 PM »

I learned decades ago that I can measure differences on my test bench that I can't hear (reliably).

I liken human hearing to a voltmeter with 10 digits of display resolution but only 5 digits of repeatable accuracy.  ::)

If something sounds good it is probably good. If something sounds bad it is surely bad.

Uncontrolled listening tests are almost as bad as politics. Put one hand on your wallet and slowly back out of the room.  :o

JR
Logged
Cancel the "cancel culture". Do not participate in mob hatred.

Joseph D. Macry

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 425
  • Austin TX
Re: Thought I was better than I was.
« Reply #5 on: December 14, 2017, 03:45:05 PM »

Back when I used to work for Rupert the Famous Audio Designer (late 1990s), he described to me how he was certain that consumers would naturally demand and prefer higher resolution audio than CD.
I counter-argued that consumers (not pros) were becoming quite happy with MP3 quality.
He didn't agree.
Logged
Joseph Macry,
Austin, TX

Ivan Beaver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9534
  • Atlanta GA
Re: Thought I was better than I was.
« Reply #6 on: December 14, 2017, 04:15:35 PM »

Back when I used to work for Rupert the Famous Audio Designer (late 1990s), he described to me how he was certain that consumers would naturally demand and prefer higher resolution audio than CD.
I counter-argued that consumers (not pros) were becoming quite happy with MP3 quality.
He didn't agree.
The problem is that we are so surrounded by bad audio everywhere you go, many many people (including "audio professionals") think THAT is what it is SUPPOSED to sound like."

When they hear clean, uncompressed audio, they think it is weird sounding or something is wrong.

For example, how many people listen to audio clips on their computer speakers?

Those are FAR from accurate, but we do it anyway.

It is an odd world we live in, where certain parts of the system are pushed to the bests quality, yet others are basically garbage.

You are only as good as your weakest link.
Logged
A complex question is easily answered by a simple-easy to understand WRONG answer!

Ivan Beaver
Danley Sound Labs

PHYSICS- NOT FADS!

Lee Buckalew

  • Classic LAB
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1384
  • St. Louis, MO area
    • Pro Sound Advice, Inc.
Re: Thought I was better than I was.
« Reply #7 on: December 14, 2017, 04:34:59 PM »

The problem is that we are so surrounded by bad audio everywhere you go, many many people (including "audio professionals") think THAT is what it is SUPPOSED to sound like."

When they hear clean, uncompressed audio, they think it is weird sounding or something is wrong.

For example, how many people listen to audio clips on their computer speakers?

Those are FAR from accurate, but we do it anyway.

It is an odd world we live in, where certain parts of the system are pushed to the bests quality, yet others are basically garbage.

You are only as good as your weakest link.

Harman has done extensive blind listening tests with different groups of people in multiple nations utilizing measureable accuracy as the standard.  The different speaker systems tested were measured for accuracy to the original source. 
The groups ranged from professionals in the industry to consumers. Every group tested chose the most accurate speaker as being the best sounding.  One of the things that they wanted to discover was if the belief that listening to MP3's is causing people to prefer the artifact laden sound of compressed files over accurate reproduction was actually true.  They found that it was not true.

If I am remembering the study correctly they also found that the higher resolution (up to original master resolution of course since we cannot add resolution) files were also universally preferred.  I am going to have to see if I can find the study.

Lee
Logged
Lee Buckalew
Pro Sound Advice, Inc.

Al Rettich

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 598
Re: Thought I was better than I was.
« Reply #8 on: December 14, 2017, 06:57:28 PM »

I was able to guess the cymbals correct a few times.  We had to guess if it was in 48 or 96. 
Did you "guess" or did you pick?  Very different things.

Could you pick it out repeatably?

While there are differences in gear, the question "does it matter" much always come up.

Sometimes when listening to gear you can learn to hear the differences.

But that does not mean it is better, just different, and you have learned to recognize the differences.

But does that make it better?
Logged

Stephen Kirby

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3006
Re: Thought I was better than I was.
« Reply #9 on: December 14, 2017, 07:43:22 PM »

The most aware listeners I've encountered are women who have played an acoustic instrument at some point in their lives.  Especially if they've been in symphonic bands or orchestras.  They usually can't technically describe what they hear, but I usually get comments like "it sounds more 'real'".  They seem to focus on the overall sound.  Men have a tendency to pick the sound apart and focus on some aspect or other.
Logged

ProSoundWeb Community

Re: Thought I was better than I was.
« Reply #9 on: December 14, 2017, 07:43:22 PM »


Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Up
 



Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.041 seconds with 19 queries.