The Pono Explanation: Part I Dr. AIX Ponos Executive Summary incorrectly identifies the Problem with current music delivery in the same way that Harmans film The Distortion of Sound. Id like to take today and parse a relevant part of their Executive Summary. Music is fundamentally analog. It’s made up of sound waves that travel through air and hit our eardrums, generating signals processed by our brain and recognized as music. Music has a quality that other sounds don’t, it can connect with our spirits in a way other sounds can’t. But this connection is made only when we can hear all of the sound that was originally created and only when we listen to it as it was meant to be heard. All sound is analog. It doesnt matter whether its music, spoken words, a love poem, or cacophony. It doesnt matter whether its processed and stored in analog or digital form. What gets to your ears is always analog and has always has been. There is nothing in an analog recording that contains any more of the originally created sound than a high-resolution digital recording. In fact, its exactly the opposite...a PCM digital recording eclipses all analog formats in terms of frequency response, dynamic range and distortion. Its just more accurate, if thats what you want. If you believe what the Pono statement, we should be able to make a connection to music recorded in the 20s, 30s, or 40s. Does the limited fidelity of a lacquer disc recorded by Charlie Christian or Robert Johnson fail to make the connection because it lacks some of the original sound? I dont think so. I dont know what it means to say listen to a piece of music the way it was meant to be heard. The flat mixed master is what leaves the mixing studio. Is that flat master the definitive version? It generally has more dynamic range and fidelity than a commercially mastered version. I think if you played Neil Youngs mixes through a great system that he would love them...if you played the re-mastered versions after they are made radio friendly, Im not so sure. Prior to the digital revolution, music was recorded, mixed, mastered, sold and played back on analog devices. Because every stage of this process was analog, the essence of the original music was preserved, allowing the listener to hear music the way it was recorded by the artist and to experience music the way the artist intended. The music production industry, just like the film industry, has moved from exclusively analog production to a production path dominated by digital processes. Would it be appropriate or correct to state, Because every stage of a film production was analog, the essence of the original film was preserved? I doubt it. The use of analog film or analog tape is a creative decision not one that guarantees that the essence of the creative effort thrives. The artists that use analog are happy (for a particular analog sound) and so are bands/musicians that use high-resolution digital. Analog and digital methods are creative tools that are used by craftsmen to realize their own particular vision. There is nothing inherent in analog productions that makes them any better than digital ones and allows, the listener to hear music the way it was recorded by the artist and to experience music the way the artist intended. The large majority of music we listen to today is digital. Because music is made up of analog waves, it is impossible fully to record those waves digitally because the music must be captured as a series of numeric samples saved as bits (0s and 1s). This is where digital recording devices are used to sample audio waves thousands of times a second, capturing the “loudness” of sound waves at each point in time – a process called analog-to-digital conversion. Ultimately, the digital bits end up on a playback device where the reverse process takes place. The data is processed through a Digital-to-Analog Convertor (DAC), which attempts to reproduce the original analog waves based on the digital samples. Clearly, the more samples taken and the better the loudness spectrum of each sample, the higher the quality of analog sound that can be reproduced. This is the essence of high-resolution audio. This is where some knowledge of digital sampling theory and practice would be helpful (as well as the difference between loudness and amplitude). The Pono folks are suggesting that, it is impossible to fully record those waves because the process and storage containers are binary as opposed to analog tape, lacquer, foil, wire, or vinyl. This is just wishful thinking and a useful sound bite but otherwise false. A well-designed high-resolution digital production chain consisting of an ADC and DAC running at 96 kHz/24-bits is more than adequate to record the fidelity as it was recorded by the artist and to experience music the way the artist intended. Anything higher than 96 kHz/24-bits is overkill. When people start talking about 384 kHz and even 768 kHz sample rates and 32-bits, theyre in spin mode again. Its pure fantasy. Its not clear at all that, the more samples taken and the better the loudness spectrum of each sample, the higher the quality of analog sound that can be reproduced Contrary to their statement, this has nothing to do with high-resolution audio. High-resolution audio is sound that has been captured and distributed at fidelity levels that meet or exceed the capability of the human ear. Analog tape doesnt get us there. CDs get very close. High-Resolution Digital does! Thats just the way it is. If you would like to leave a comment on this article, you can do so at the RealHD-Audio site at the bottom of this article page. Click here to visit that page.
Posted on: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 20:21:13 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015