If you end up on such a list, Robert, would it be presumptive if we nickname you "1Pac”? :-D
> On Jan 10, 2022, at 7:46 PM, robert bristow-johnson > <[email protected]> wrote: > > ya know what's cool about that paper, Vicki, is getting real OCD ("you can't > spell 'analysis' without 'anal'") with offsetting the dither so that the end > result doesn't really give a rat's ass whether it's round-up, round-down, or > round-to-nearest-even. > > i cannot out-geek these guys. in a contest of paying attention to detail, i > will lose and it will hurt. > >> On 01/10/2022 10:00 PM robert bristow-johnson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> 12 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS >> ... >> 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. >> > > and i would give my left testicle to be on that list, Eric. > > i think it was 1991 (whatever was the last year that AES was in the Hilton on > 6th Ave), that i got to go on an exclusive walk with Michael Gerzon in > Central Park for about an hour (it was real close to the AES Convention). it > was like, uh, what they say is a "grace gift". total serendipity. > > i also got to meet Jon Dattorro and the Eventide people. maybe i met you, > Vicki, then. i dunno. i remember meeting Rhonda and i had met Stanley > earlier when i was at Northwestern in the mid 80s. > > > -- > > r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ [email protected] > > "Imagination is more important than knowledge." > > . > . > . >>> 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." >> >> . >> . >> . >
