Do Audio Converters Make A Difference - Fallacies In Audio Quality and Recording - Wingman Studios
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 พ.ค. 2024
- www.wingmanstudios.net/
Call 321-536-2067
Empirical findings from testing is very important to me. To be honest, what’s more important, is what does it sound like. I will use an example of one of my heroes, Rupert Neve who shared an example within a lecture of creating a preamp with pristine specs that took years to create, only to find out it didn’t sound as good as his other creations with less performing specs.
This means you could have underperforming equipment measured against a spec sheet that sounds better.
The word better is a subjective word. Rupert Neve standard was, does the equipment reproduce the sound and the environment the sound source is in.
Let’s steal man the statement: You can’t hear a difference between converters, software or even sample rates.
If you can’t hear a difference, save your money and purchase “cost effective” equipment, software and use 48K sample rates.
This statement is true, there will not be a difference in audio if you can’t hear the difference.
You won’t find what you are not looking for.
It’s possible the music you’re listening to doesn’t allow for you to hear a difference based on how the music was recorded and the genre of music. Ex music with no dynamics, music intended to be low fi.
If the style of music and the way it was recorded doesn’t leave room for nuances that would normally be heard with well-engineered converters, that are able to record in high-resolution, it will be impossible to hear a difference. Even the highest detailed converters won’t help here. Why, there is no detail to convert.
This is why we have to use our ears. One thing is for sure we do not listen to audio gear with single test tone alone to prove sound quality.
We don’t listen to white noise the same way to confirm the audio quality based on what we hear as benchmark.
No, we listen to music. Music is not a test tone. Music is not a cacophony of white noise.
Music is a wonderfully complex combination of tones, timbers, percussive hits, transients, harmonic overtones, reverberations, delayed reflections, dynamic ranges with infinite variation and combination all with unique intensity based on style, performance, tempo, spectral rolloff, time-based energy ramping and decay.
Remember that it’s not just the instrument and its source making music, the space the music is played in is also a major contributor.
I don’t see a lot of tests accurately measuring all of these details all at the same time.
We underestimate the complexity of what music is and the ability of human hearing and sensitivity to perceive it. It’s not magic, it’s not unattainium, it’s not unicorn droppings, it’s not placebo effect.
I believe the differences that we hear in comparison to a spec sheet, is based on elements overlooked or discounted in measuring.
Is it possible that were missing a compounding measurement somewhere? The common response usually given by the person who can’t hear a difference looking at a spec sheet will say it’s placebo or you are hearing something that is not there.
What if it is not placebo effect?
Ear training is a skill. Experience in listening is something that happens over years. Both of these things take time. There are things that I was oblivious to when listening just five years ago compared to now, because I didn’t know what to listen for.
My company has been involved with video production since the early 90s. The popular fallacy back then was 640x480 video resolution was more than enough for the human eye to see.
A common TV for home use at this point is at a resolution of 8K. Thank goodness somebody challenged the fallacy to allow for curiosity, discovery and innovation.
That example deals with the perception of eyesight. Human Hearing is capable of high-resolution perception. Away from recorded music, we hear high fidelity in nature every day.
Music is just a wonderful organized extension of physics and nature. As much as we try in music technology today, we can’t get around the laws of physics when it comes to audio.
Music experienced is wave energy. Music is a moving target, it is highly complex, especially if were attempting to capture music in its entirety. In its entirety is the key phrase whether single instruments are playing or multiple instruments combined. - เพลง
![พรากรัก - เต้ย อภิวัฒน์ [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ShT2ltn8GBE/mqdefault.jpg)
Do a blind abcd comparison with an identical scientifically acknowledged control, if you can’t pick identically 5 times out of 10 u r fos, then do null tests, if it nulls there is factually ZERO difference, if it doesn’t null they are factually different, then decide via subjective opinion which is better, which is really what all art comes down to
it makes him feel better.
and that’s fine because it gives him more confidence in his sound.
this works for some people.
expensive running sneakers make you run better. until you get lapped by a barefoot guy.
Blind ABX testing is the most effective way to compare audio differences when there’s multiple converters involved. While a null test may seem useful it doesn’t usually yield proper test results because each file is being converted separately under a different time clock. So you’ll ultimately have slightly different file lengths and the audio signals will tends to just phase slowly over time from the beginning to the end. There is one caveat that can be exploited and it’s that there will be a split second when they do actually line up and if the audio nulls for that brief moment then you can probably assume they are the same.
I have an Apollo x8 I like the DA side but find the AD not so exciting. Back in the day I had the duet firewire… that thing was imperfect but so musical… a lot more than the duet usb. miss musicality in the Apollo which converter would be an upgrade ?
Oh it makes a difference. I bought an old Apogee Rosetta and like it more than what's inside most modern audio interfaces.
The best-sounding interface ever, IMO, and I'm a Prism user.
I agree with most of what you’re saying, but I’m listening on $20,000 custom coax monitors and I use aroura n’s, I mix to custom built 2 channel ADDA’s that cost upward of $10k each(prism type), I can NOT hear any diff between 96k and 192k sample rate in blind testing, and I’d bet my entire studio you can’t either
can you hear a difference between 48k and 96k sample rate?
@@snubdawg1386 I have on blind tests but it’s mostly apparent on very sparse acoustic recordings with longer reverbs, it’s actually hard to do blind AB’s and come off consistent with anything dense music, but I feel 96k has a smoothness to it that is hard to quantify, I feel it so I use it, I don’t feel any diff above 96k, that said does dark side of the moon have superior sound Q than stings dream of the blue turtles? Subjectively speaking…, You better believe it does and it’s analogue vs digital, so do what you like but be honest about your results as the only one you’ll fool is you 👍
@@bonzology322 thx....i was used to use 96k/32bit but i switched to 48k/24bit for better performance ....but when i'm reading a word like smoothness i'm instantly seduced to go back to 96k hahaa
I'll say that 192 had a slightly better 'air' about the sound than the 96, but after hearing all four through the Nagra/Cello system long ago, I decided that 96 was more than enough for me, and easy to edit reliably. CD 4416 sounded bad by comparison.
If you want to learn about what affects audio and why, Dave Rat is a good lead to follow. Get to the basics and show the results. Simple and inexpensive. If you want to know HOW something sounds you need ABX and/or consistent measurement.
I'm somewhat in the middle with opinions on converters. Why? Because, before thinking they're good or bad, we need to know which famous albums were recorded or mastered from digital sources in the '80s or '90s, technology back then being "way too low quality" compared to today's standards.
Dire Straits, Judas Priest, Paul Simon, Peter Gabriel, Michael Jackson, Bruce Springsteen and many many more others recorded albums on digital.
The famous Metallica- Metallica 1991 was masterd from DAT tape 16bit 44.1KHz.
Do they sound bad?
Your correct, saying converters are holding someone back from making good music is nonsense and an excuse.
from 1985 George Strait's albums were recorded digitally. Th9ose lps are sonic gems and reference level is sound quality. I know, I have them
I was super oblivious when we were first playing around with making music back in the Acid Pro days. We'd all get together and find ways to hook together whatever we'd found at the thrift store. One day, Justin (god reat his soul) brought a Behr----- mixer and i just remember about an hour of "what sounds like garbage?" troubleshooting taking pieces out and putting them back in the signal chain ine by one until we isolated the problem.
Around this time i played a d'n'b track id been working on for the fella at the record store. He said i needed to work on the vocals. I had no idea what he was talking about. I had recorded my then girlfriend through a RatShack mic plugged directly into a Soundblaster card in the back of my PC.
These experiences, combined with taking in a vast array of electronic records and easily available psychadelics started me down the long and expensive road of training my ears.
I cannot go back. I can no longer settle.
this happens with all audio gear. google any brand and type issues behind it. I’ve had great results with a slew of Behringer gear.
@@johnviera3884 good for you. I won't give them any of my money on principle. I would buy one of those killer mixer controllers off the eBay though.And yeah, there's all kinds of audio garbage out there. Did you have a point?
please make a video on the RME. Im so curious.
Here you bro, had em all too, but you have to engage up with lynx Hilo I only master now..
I absolutely second that thought!
So before I watch this (I'll edit with thoughts after i watch the video as I'm curious): in my experience audio converters made a HUGE difference in the early day of digital audio. these days it's less about the actual converters and more about the analog circuitry surrounding the converters. Higher end converters also have soft limiters in place to avoid nasty digital clipping among other things (like emulated analog saturation). Also because of the early converters awful (by today's standards) filters and meh other electronics of the time, the higher sample rates allowed for a better representation of the signal to come through. in the last 15 years this is less the case. And in the last 20 years there have existed converters that were great. I did a test in like 2008ish A/Bing a pro tools HD rig (it was an old digidesign unit) and an apogee unit. i could easily hear a difference between 48khz and 96khz on the HD unit, but the apogee sounded the same.
Edit: this feels more like a history and explanation than a comparison stuff. my first real audio converter/interface was a digidesign audiomedia III card.
On shootouts: 100% it'll sound like the lowest resolution, a proper shoot out after the fact is something recorded at a high resolution and played back at that resolution and a lower one. this is what I did with my friend. We also did a few other tests with things recorded on the apogee vs the HD.
Thank you… great video! I started back when ProTools was Sound Tools II (wow!). I mostly create and write in Ableton, mix in ProTools or Studio One. Even with those (compensating for workflow) there are (I think?) summing differences. I have Harrison and should give it more of a try. Also, minimum spec on sessions is 96kHz/32bit. It makes a difference. My only tape options these days is a Tascam
MS16. Remember those?
Anyway, enjoyed your talk
First real good video on Converters I kinda had a hint of this, there was a converter shoot out recently on Burl V.S Presonus using a analog print file I did not agree with the video. Great Video thanks for the inspiration.
You said a lot here, now make some videos to back up your claims by utilizing simple scientific tests and collect data, blind A/B’s and null testing, otherwise you’re just talking
He gave his opinion and shared his experience. He doesn’t owe you anything.
@@joeydego2 Dude, this video is terrible, opinion is one thing, false statements are another and there are plenty of false statements.
And what would it prove? It's youtube and video.
@@cjay2 your comment is soooo TH-cam! did you read the first comment? Scientific method is scientific method, so the answer is it would prove what it proves
Can you reference a single test from a credible source, done to the scientific standards mentioned in your post, on any piece of audio equipment ever made? Just one test that shows us, this is how its supposed to be done.
Are you referring to the RME ADI-2 or 2/4?
Are you aware that plug-ins are designed and optimized at 96k? Simply don’t work as well at 192k, more truncation, more aliasing
Which specific RME device is he referring to in this video?
You lost me when you stated that white noise is blasted into a room to determine the flatness of that listening environment. First, it's PINK noise that's used, and second, it's not blasted, and third, for measurement and RTA evaluation purposes, pink noise is more frequency inclusive than any type of music sample. Pink noise is more logarithmic, which is closer to the way sound is perceived by our ears, which is why it's one of the signals used for measuring how a sound system performs in a listening environment.
What is your opinion of The RME UFX III and using a Ferrofish A32pro for hardware inserts such as compressors, EQ's and such or should I move to something like a Lynx?
A buddy of mine "upgraded" to lynx from RME stuff when we shut down the commercial studio and turned the basement of his house into a studio. It doesn't sound any better, but the software experience and flexibility is definitely a downgrade.
@@draztiqmeshaz6226 Just to confirm. You heard no real difference between using Lynx and RME and in fact the software for RME is better? I take it I should keep the RME and get the Ferrofish A32pro to go with the UFX III and call it a day?
Have this exact setup.
The converter matter so much less than the quality of the analog inputs and outputs. So a great D/A converter coupled with a line output lower than 100 Ohms is bad, if your monitor outputs are say lower than 100 ohms you are not getting the correct impedance for your monitors which will matter WAY more than the brand of converter chip. Example the Presonus Quantum 2626 is a popular interface but the output impedance is 51ohms so it won't have the correct impedance to drive any high end monitors. Everybody talks about impedance for headphone outputs on interfaces but no one talks about the monitor outputs. On the flip side a Mic preamp with an input impedance of 1kilo-ohm or lower will sound like a squashed mess with modern microphones, so its desirable to see at least 2kilo-ohm or higher. Most modern mixing consoles adopted 2 to 5 kilo-ohms Mic preamps as standard in the 1980s so anything below that is actually not good for modern gear. But the analog side of your converter/interface and the input and output impedance is far more important than converter chip they use today. Most are either 1 of 3 brands anyway, Texas Instruments Burr Brown, Sabre, and Cirrus Logic
@2:00 yup yup yup
yes AD/DA Converter are the most important thing in your studio you can hear the difference in quality specially if you mixing.
ROFL, "there will not be a difference if you can't hear a difference?", really? Two sine waves sound the same but can have different phase, that's a big difference! So little in this video makes sense. I'm not sure you understand sound quality or the theory. For example, claiming rooms are tested with white noise makes no sense at all, rooms are tested by sweeping sine waves. You don't see tests measuring all those details of music at the same time because a scientific test should only have 1 variable at a time not multiple! "What if its not placebo???" just do a double blind test, those are designed to take out the placebo effect. Sorry, couldn't get through this video, its not good. No clue where you are getting the 640x480 comment from, no one ever considered that good enough. I don't think you understand what "hi-fidelity" even means. You're saying we hear hi-fidelity sounds in nature? That isn't true, the definition of hi-fidelity is "high quality REPRODUCTION of sound", if I'm outside unless I'm living in a simulation I'm hearing the actual sound, not a reproduction!, ROFL. If you think pcm is stair stepped I suggest spending some time reading about DA converters and then rethinking your comments on sony's one bit technology vs pcm. I'd also suggest spending some time reading about anti-aliasing filters in regards to sample rates.
"You don't see tests measuring all those details of music at the same time because a scientific test should only have 1 variable at a time not multiple! "What if its not placebo???" just do a double blind test, those are designed to take out the placebo effect"
One of the other posters made a very similar comment to yours. I asked him a question that he doesn't seem to be able to answer. Here's the same question. Maybe you can answer it.
Can you reference a single test from a credible source, done to the scientific standards mentioned in your post, on any piece of audio equipment ever made? Just one test that shows us, this is how its supposed to be done.
If you can't hear the difference, you should find another job. That's basically the jist of it.
"Do Audio Converters Make A Difference" Listen to any Frank Zappa that was recorded on his Sony PCM... yikes.
what zappa was recorded on his sony pcm? i take it that's not good conversion?
@@barneyrubble8255 Zappa was the first in the U.S. to run the Sony console. That was maybe 1981. Frank had a tin-ear.