Robert, why are you quoting this from a paper? All it takes is to ask a famous engineer to send over a file to be able to 'test' a recording on a separate workstation, no different than independent label owners and artists sending demos back and forth through AIM chat
On Mon, Jan 10, 2022, 10:00 PM robert bristow-johnson < [email protected]> wrote: > 12 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS > > We are particularly grateful to Morten Lindberg, Bob Ludwig, Mick > Sawaguchi, Peter McGrath, and John Atkinson who participated in testing > their recordings on workstations. > > Thanks also for many stimulating discussions on the dither topic over the > years with Stanley Lipshitz, John Vanderkooy, Vicki Melchior, Rhonda > Wilson, Wieslaw Woszczyk, and, of course, our co-conspirator, the late > Michael Gerzon. > > > On 01/10/2022 7:42 PM Zhiguang Zhang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > sorry to beat a dead horse, but from this 2019 paper's synopsis: > > > > https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=20457 > > > > "Although dither methods for ameliorating quantization error have been > well understood in the literature for some time, these insights are not > always applied in practice. It is rare for an audio performance to be > captured, produced, and played back with a flawless chain." > > > > no, we aren't in the dark ages of concert-going as the only way to > experience music, and haven't been for quite some time. audio performances > are never experienced in a flawless chain, and even at the event you have > the potential of hearing the quantization error of a Behringer/Midas FOH > board's DAC > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 6:51 PM Zhiguang Zhang <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Seeing that the president of MQA came from Warner, I'm sure he's well > aware of what goes on in the studio. It might just be a matter of your > average modern consumer's distribution / consumption habits and various > demographics > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 10, 2022, 6:47 PM vicki melchior <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Your confusion is different than Eric’s though. I was aiming to > address his previous post about "well i'm not here to talk about whether or > not i can discriminate dither from music” > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with your comments. Subtractive dither is used in the MQA > codec because Peter Craven is trying to salvage every last ounce of SNR, > but it's not difficult to handle in a streamed file, and in a situation > where the original file’s specs are measured during encoding. > > > > > > > > Vicki > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 10, 2022, at 5:53 PM, robert bristow-johnson < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 01/10/2022 1:37 PM vicki melchior <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Okay. In the context of subtractive dither, I understand the > confusion. > > > > > > > > > > I don't. I'm just confused. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, the purpose of subtractive dither is to reduce the total > dither noise remaining in the output, typically after adding dither during > bit reduction. Clearly, that will increase the SNR > > > > > > > > > > But only by 4.77 dB. But, hey, it's 4.77 dB. So if they can > standardize how the dither is generated from the LSBs of the quantized > signal, and, if noise shaping is done, what the transfer function is from > dither to quantized output, then why not do this subtractive dither thing? > > > > > > > > > > The worst that can happen is that the receiver does not decode > those LSBs and subtract the dither. Then you're no worse off than if it was > just additive dither and you don't recover those 4.77 dB SNR. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and allow you to hear more of the signal. > > > > > > > > > > only really makes a difference if the audio is living down by the > noise floor (which it could be if it's a CD and classical or uncompressed > acoustic music with a large dynamic range). > > > > > > > > > > but 4.77 dB is 4.77 dB. that's something. 96 dB dynamic range is > better than 91 dB. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > "Imagination is more important than knowledge." > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > . > > > > > . > > > > > > -- > > r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ [email protected] > > "Imagination is more important than knowledge." > > . > . > . >
