Golden timing - or: How much do 5 Ms matter?
#121
22nd April 2012
Old 22nd April 2012
  #121
Banned
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,823

Quote:
Originally Posted by maisonvague View Post
you have a tendency to belittle those who are less knowledgeable,
I belittle those only in cases of advice resistant behaviour to give them a hint to overthink their position.. There are things that are a matter of taste and there are things that are just facts.. and its almost insulting to be forced to provide proove for such standards everybody should know by now..

Like in this thread..

As Acid Mitch has put very well.. a test about the possibiluty to mask 5 ms dont tells a thing about the possebilty to hear such timing differnces in positions where they are not masked or even emphazised.

As i said earlier..timing trouble only hurts at positions where it hurts.. And they come along in production praxis quite regulary ...dependend on the setups..state of computer os´s..bad wordclock conections..

wordclock .. good example.. a jittery comection there is causing timing derivations in the micro second range.. but still effects the sound in nasty audible ways.. 5 ms are miles against that.

I have to assume that people that dont know about timing problems where 5ms hurt dont have much experience with computer based systems.

The problem with the test proposed here is, that the question it trys to investigate, is just absurd.. And i expected it to be a wiener test that trys to mask a problem instead one that trys to show it.. so a propaganda test.

And voila..it is... People participating in it make themself to the dolls of an uneducated kid that toys around..

because 5 ms is not much.. you need to double that to go into the obvious department.. 5 ms is mayby 4 mm on tape.. when you cut tape and do it 4mm wrong you are in the area wher you hear a little glitch already.

The real border here is around 2 ms.. thats the scientivic border of perception.. somtimes in discussion to be just 1 ms..

but.. also a question.. 1 or 5 ms of what? derivation from the real position? or jitter?..

a 5 ms jitter window equals a +/- 2,5 ms derivation from the real or indented position

So when the OP moves files 5,5 ms in one drection from the grid.. we are actually in the 11 ms jitter department

So his test trys to proove that we cant hear 11 ms jitter..

11 ms jitter ...

that is the number events can be max apart in relation from each other in a multitrack recording than..

still not much.. its like moving the speakers 4 meter to the back.. or to the front or in case of jitter having them jumping 4 meters forth and back..

But thats actually enough for the human brain to get it easily..when something does 4 meter jumps into your direction you get better alarmed..

Or musicans on headphones will start to refuse to play or at least complain.


more than 10 ms between the expected sound and its real arival is too much.. even on a plug in synth 10 ms latency is the area where it starts to hurt the playing..


So moving events along the timeline by 5,5 ms equals a jitter or max error between tracks of 11 ms..

do you really want to prove to yourself that this dont matters with this wiener test here?

Thanks god he has choosen 5,5 ms..because thats an absurd number..with 2 ms we would have a bigger problem to show that this matters..

But as victims of jitred computer clocks on otherwise straight drummachines know all to well.. 2ms is allready well enough to be experienced as a problem under such conditions..
And it never was the question wether you can tell which of the many events the drummachine produces under the wobbely clock is off or 2 ms early or late.. the feel of the thing is different..

You dont even need to evaluate better or worse.. just the plain fact of being different can hurt a production when the musicans are used to a certain feel for hours and suddenly its gone because the extra load of a certain plug makes your computers midi performance go ballistic.

And you measure whats going on..and ...suddenly you have 5 ms clockjitter what was before just 0,2 ms clock jitter..

so a +/- 2,5 ms derivation from the supposed position.. so half of that what the OP trys to proove to be irrelevant

Such situations are the prove that 2,5 ms matter !
And i had many of them in the last 17 years.. since i deal with ITB DAW´s its a permanenet topic..some years mores than in others.. depends on the projekt load now.. was better on my black macbook and the titanium than on the new ones.. the new cpu´s are stronger but the midi system goes balsitic boarder is earlier reached,.. not verified yet..but as it looks i can use less plugs on my i7 than on my old core duo in regards of the midi clock output... that sucks big time :-/

YOu get a littlle agressive when people try to tell timing is no issue and seeing the industry reacting to that by lowering the performnce in that regard again... because " nobody needs/hears it"
So we cut in the timing department"

that pisses me off..
#122
22nd April 2012
Old 22nd April 2012
  #122
Lives for gear
 
jbuonacc's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,170

listened to this several times again last night...

of the 16 bars (excluding the bass drum count-in), i think i can hear it change up on bars 4, 9, 11, and 15. this is just due to what seems like a bit of a 'flam' at the start of each of these bars. sometimes i thought i heard it elsewhere, and the more i listened the more i started to second-guess myself.

:shrug:
#123
22nd April 2012
Old 22nd April 2012
  #123
Banned
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,823

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
You (and quite a few others) form the hypothesis that you can hear tiny timing differences.

I
no.. i never did that.. you put the question how much do 5 ms matter..

accompanied by a test that shows its winer nature without need to listen to the file..

and therfore you got a

because empirical my ass.. 5ms matter a lot.. evrybody in production knows so many areas where 5 ms seconds make a difference..its just a stupid question.
A question that shows that you are not very experienced with production tasks..

the predelay time of a reverb for example.. ..attack times..
position of drum hits.. latencys... clock jitter.. shuffles..

every 2nd 16th notes 5 ms late gives a shuffle allready..

That would be actually an emperical test .. having one file with the 16th straight and one with a 5 ms shuffle..

acording to your wild theory the 5ms shuffel would sound straight because no one can hear 5 ms timing differences..
#124
22nd April 2012
Old 22nd April 2012
  #124
Banned
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,823

so.. here to proper test files that dont try to hide the phenomen..

one file has straight events the other file has some events moved by 5,35 ms

Acording to the OP booth files should have the same timing
So test your ears..

do booth files have the same timing or has one a shuffle?

and in case they are not identical groove wise..

which is the one with the shuffle?

Jünger 4
or
Jünger 5

come people..test your ears and not your sanity
Attached Files
File Type: aif 0004 Jünger.aif (2.02 MB, 77 views) File Type: aif 0005 Jünger.aif (2.02 MB, 67 views)
#125
22nd April 2012
Old 22nd April 2012
  #125
Lives for gear
 
jbuonacc's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,170

but all he's asking is if you can hear where he made these shifts in this track. if you can (and as easily as you say), then where are they? it's pretty simple, and doesn't need to be so scientific and drawn out. in this simple case, why not just play along for the hell of it?

Audioconsult - that's a great explanation above, because the whole track could be full of computer-created jitter itself. (if i understand you correctly - is this right?)

(more to add in a bit...)
grumphh
Thread Starter
#126
22nd April 2012
Old 22nd April 2012
  #126
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Location: Denmark
Posts: 4,061

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by audioconsult View Post
That would be actually an emperical test .. having one file with the 16th straight and one with a 5 ms shuffle..

acording to your wild theory the 5ms shuffel would sound straight because no one can hear 5 ms timing differences..
I may have worded this badly - but in fact that is exactly what is happening in this test.

The hi hat runs in 16'ths but only every second hit was moved, creating exactly that "swing" that you apparently recognise so easily.

...so now that you know exactly what to listen for there are no more obstacles for you to provide us with the correct answer
#127
22nd April 2012
Old 22nd April 2012
  #127
Banned
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,823

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbuonacc View Post
but all he's asking is if you can hear where he made these shifts in this track. if you can (and as easily as you say), then where are they?)
i just listend to the stupid testfile to reassure me that its a crap test.. but it was even crappier than i thought with this drunken happy farmer lines all over the place.. no proper timing relations between the instruments.. totally chaotic.. not easy to spot so little timing shifts in such an environment.. he does evrything to mask the glitches..and still here or that ther seemed to be some.. but..

i dont waste a second to find out which one and cout bars to score in a moronic reserach labs test..

the one i just posted is much better.. just..the mp3 conversion screwed with the timing on thois one.. should have left them as wavs.. now the straight one is not straight anymore.. but you still get which one has the shuffle feel...

A test dont needs to be more complicated than that..

To make yourself a fool by participating in a wiener test is unavoidable because they are designed to make fools out of people not to teach them something.. in the end the wiener can stand up and say.. yeaah you got it all wrong.. none had all identified correctly..only a 50% ..so you dont really get it.. or even better.. ther was no glitches.. i trolled you.. whooo..

So.. as sad it is.. you made yourself a fool by even trying to identify his missplaced hi hat hits..
#128
22nd April 2012
Old 22nd April 2012
  #128
Banned
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,823

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
I may have worded this badly - but in fact that is exactly what is happening in this test.

The hi hat runs in 16'ths but only every second hit was moved, creating exactly that "swing" that you apparently recognise so easily.

...so now that you know exactly what to listen for there are no more obstacles for you to provide us with the correct answer
#129
22nd April 2012
Old 22nd April 2012
  #129
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 298

Quote:
Originally Posted by audioconsult View Post
I belittle those only in cases of advice resistant behaviour to give them a hint to overthink their position.. There are things that are a matter of taste and there are things that are just facts.. and its almost insulting to be forced to provide proove for such standards everybody should know by now..

Like in this thread..

As Acid Mitch has put very well.. a test about the possibiluty to mask 5 ms dont tells a thing about the possebilty to hear such timing differnces in positions where they are not masked or even emphazised.

As i said earlier..timing trouble only hurts at positions where it hurts.. And they come along in production praxis quite regulary ...dependend on the setups..state of computer os´s..bad wordclock conections..

wordclock .. good example.. a jittery comection there is causing timing derivations in the micro second range.. but still effects the sound in nasty audible ways.. 5 ms are miles against that.

I have to assume that people that dont know about timing problems where 5ms hurt dont have much experience with computer based systems.

The problem with the test proposed here is, that the question it trys to investigate, is just absurd.. And i expected it to be a wiener test that trys to mask a problem instead one that trys to show it.. so a propaganda test.

And voila..it is... People participating in it make themself to the dolls of an uneducated kid that toys around..

because 5 ms is not much.. you need to double that to go into the obvious department.. 5 ms is mayby 4 mm on tape.. when you cut tape and do it 4mm wrong you are in the area wher you hear a little glitch already.

The real border here is around 2 ms.. thats the scientivic border of perception.. somtimes in discussion to be just 1 ms..

but.. also a question.. 1 or 5 ms of what? derivation from the real position? or jitter?..

a 5 ms jitter window equals a +/- 2,5 ms derivation from the real or indented position

So when the OP moves files 5,5 ms in one drection from the grid.. we are actually in the 11 ms jitter department

So his test trys to proove that we cant hear 11 ms jitter..

11 ms jitter ...

that is the number events can be max apart in relation from each other in a multitrack recording than..

still not much.. its like moving the speakers 4 meter to the back.. or to the front or in case of jitter having them jumping 4 meters forth and back..

But thats actually enough for the human brain to get it easily..when something does 4 meter jumps into your direction you get better alarmed..

Or musicans on headphones will start to refuse to play or at least complain.


more than 10 ms between the expected sound and its real arival is too much.. even on a plug in synth 10 ms latency is the area where it starts to hurt the playing..


So moving events along the timeline by 5,5 ms equals a jitter or max error between tracks of 11 ms..

do you really want to prove to yourself that this dont matters with this wiener test here?

Thanks god he has choosen 5,5 ms..because thats an absurd number..with 2 ms we would have a bigger problem to show that this matters..

But as victims of jitred computer clocks on otherwise straight drummachines know all to well.. 2ms is allready well enough to be experienced as a problem under such conditions..
And it never was the question wether you can tell which of the many events the drummachine produces under the wobbely clock is off or 2 ms early or late.. the feel of the thing is different..

You dont even need to evaluate better or worse.. just the plain fact of being different can hurt a production when the musicans are used to a certain feel for hours and suddenly its gone because the extra load of a certain plug makes your computers midi performance go ballistic.

And you measure whats going on..and ...suddenly you have 5 ms clockjitter what was before just 0,2 ms clock jitter..

so a +/- 2,5 ms derivation from the supposed position.. so half of that what the OP trys to proove to be irrelevant

Such situations are the prove that 2,5 ms matter !
And i had many of them in the last 17 years.. since i deal with ITB DAW´s its a permanenet topic..some years mores than in others.. depends on the projekt load now.. was better on my black macbook and the titanium than on the new ones.. the new cpu´s are stronger but the midi system goes balsitic boarder is earlier reached,.. not verified yet..but as it looks i can use less plugs on my i7 than on my old core duo in regards of the midi clock output... that sucks big time :-/

YOu get a littlle agressive when people try to tell timing is no issue and seeing the industry reacting to that by lowering the performnce in that regard again... because " nobody needs/hears it"
So we cut in the timing department"

that pisses me off..

Some very well explained stuff here, but i feel there are some issues with it.
Wordclock; thats a mechanism for synchronising digital systems, bits if you will.
It will have an effect on the audio, but the deviation in the wordclock is not the same as the deviation in audio. So, that 0.5 ms wordclock jitters is audible does not mean that 0.5 ms audio jitter is noticeable. I am sure you know that, but wordclock is not a good example here.

Also, isnt jitter a deviation that is not constant?
So if the audio is shifted a constant 5.5 ms to one direction, there is no jitter.
It would only be 11 ms jitter if the deviation fluctuated 5.5 ms to both sides.

For the OP; there is nothing in this test which makes it universal enough to state that such a timing difference can not be heard. In that way its probably not scientific. What you might prove is that it cant be heard under the specific circustances in your recording.
#130
22nd April 2012
Old 22nd April 2012
  #130
Banned
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,823

jitter is random fluctuations along the timeline.. in the sum the timing stays intact because the random distributed positve and negative derivations from the supposed positions will equal out in the sum of them.. if not we deal with a drift and not a jitter.. of cause booth phenomens can occur combined ..than you have a drifting jitter...


and the wordclock example was only to show that even way smaller timing fluctuations than 5 ms can cause neg fx in audio production.

And its only about negative fx..positive fx like a gentle swing for example dont hurt and go easily unrecognized..

In general sound engineers face the problem that they only get realized when something goes wrong..when everything sounds perfect people take this as a gift from god and natural.. while when something goes wrong its the soundmans fault.

but same thing with timing problems.. only when they get in your way you realize them..aslong evrything goes smooth together a 5 ms of really doesent do harm..but.. you cant conclude from that that 5 ms dont matter... that would be indeed moronic..
#131
22nd April 2012
Old 22nd April 2012
  #131
Banned
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,823

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
I may have worded this badly - but in fact that is exactly what is happening in this test.

The hi hat runs in 16'ths but only every second hit was moved, creating exactly that "swing" that you apparently recognise so easily.

...so now that you know exactly what to listen for there are no more obstacles for you to provide us with the correct answer


@*yubonac..


you see? he made a fool out of you by making you counting and looking for single hits of.. and maybe they were off by computer glitches or just appeard to be off in relation to the other events in the messy track..But how can you know that without measuring it.. There was odd timings in the track all over the place...you was supposed to loose..


even more so because his question after spotting single hits that where off, moved your focus in a total other direction..

fooled by a fool..

As all of us that participate in such a troll thread..
#132
22nd April 2012
Old 22nd April 2012
  #132
Lives for gear
 
jbuonacc's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,170

Quote:
Originally Posted by audioconsult View Post
i just listend to the stupid testfile to reassure me that its a crap test.. but it was even crappier than i thought...

To make yourself a fool by participating in a wiener test is unavoidable because they are designed to make fools out of people not to teach them something..

So.. as saqd it is.. you made yourself a fool by even trying to identify his mis placed single hi hat hits..
as was already said, you'd really help your case if you didn't come across like this. then again, i'm pretty harsh with words myself.



Quote:
the mp3 conversion screwed with the timing on thois one.. should have left them as wavs..
and now MP3 conversion screws with timing? so every MP3 in the world is a sloppy mess? jeez, we're in trouble now.


Quote:
...with this drunken happy farmer lines all over the place.. no prpper timing relations between the instruments.. totally cahotic..
are you f'ing serious or what?
#133
22nd April 2012
Old 22nd April 2012
  #133
Banned
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,823

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbuonacc View Post
are you f'ing serious or what?
sure..i am..

you was the one that scored in the moron test.. i refused to take that "challenge"

wise me

under certain conditions the mp3 encoding can screw with the timings..especially in low level breaks with just non tonal events..like on my testfiles.. rather lo level rims versus a high noise floor.. i ve replaced the testfiles with the original aifs... but attach the mp3´s now here.
Because guys like you always need prove for things any sound engineer knows since the times such systems showed up.. in case of mp3 thats 15 years now? so you are a rather late bloomer...

have´nt you heard that mp3´s are shit and do bad things to music yet?
Not knowing is bliss?

but... try theese and compare with the other files

when you dont hear a difference measure the distance between the hits in an editor..havent done that.. I trust my ears .
but as you like to do tests and prove me wrong....its just 4 bars..so 63 distances to measure.. piece of cake...
#134
22nd April 2012
Old 22nd April 2012
  #134
Lives for gear
 
maisonvague's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 4,273

Quote:
Originally Posted by audioconsult View Post
I belittle those only in cases of advice resistant behaviour to give them a hint to overthink their position..
See below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by audioconsult View Post
And voila..it is... People participating in it make themself to the dolls of an uneducated kid that toys around..
Not only have you contradicted yourself, you have provided a perfect example of my comment earlier.

Based on this statement, I am a "doll" since I chose to participate in grumphh's test. Rather belittling, wouldn't you say? And yet I went to great effort to acknowledge and show respect for your superior knowledge of the topic at hand. Have I not demonstrated a willingness to rethink my own position on these matters? (I don't believe "overthink" was the word you wanted btw).

Why do you feel such statements are necessary? What purpose does it serve to make that "extra dig" or "twist of the knife" to belittle others in such a manner? I find it... baffling... and rather sad, actually.

I will admit that my comment earlier in the thread about 2ms of jitter turning a great pianist into a mediocre one being bollocks was provocative -- rude, even. I'm not particularly proud of that moment. But what disturbed me about your claim was its swaggering exaggeration. There is no question that 2ms of jitter can have an effect on the fidelity of a MIDI recording. No question. But NOT enough to turn a great pianist into a mediocre one. That's just swaggering exaggeration that serves no purpose other than to swagger. I'm absolutely certain Alfred Brendel could pull off a spectacular recording of Beethoven despite 2ms of MIDI jitter. Such exaggerations reek of arrogance for me -- arrogance being something I truly abhor!

Anyway, for the record, I am not offended. Not in the least. I chose to participate in the test because I simply wanted to see if I could identify -- with confidence and accuracy -- which hats had been shifted 5.5ms. Nothing more.

It's funny: you remind me of a former GS member, namely 3phase. In fact, I believe you are the same person. Oder? Kumpel?
#135
22nd April 2012
Old 22nd April 2012
  #135
Lives for gear
 
jbuonacc's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,170

of cause he's 3phase!
#136
22nd April 2012
Old 22nd April 2012
  #136
Lives for gear
 
maisonvague's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 4,273

Quote:
Originally Posted by audioconsult View Post
You scored in the moron test too.. i cant help that..sorry..

but can happen to the most intelligent among us to score high in a moron test.. the world is full of evil traps.
So dont worry and be more careful next time.
Mind the good ol think first advice...
I'm certain now. You are 3phase. Christ, I can't believe it. Yes, the world is full of evil traps. Quite right, quite right.

Kumpel!

And so, without further ado I hereby submit my resignation from this thread. So long, folks! And thanks for all the fish!
#137
22nd April 2012
Old 22nd April 2012
  #137
Banned
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,823

Quote:
Originally Posted by maisonvague View Post
Why do you feel such statements are necessary? What purpose does it serve to make that "extra dig" or "twist of the knife" to belittle others in such a manner? I find it... baffling... and rather sad, actually.
ever heard about the rock n roll biz? get over it... can get much worse...


Quote:
But NOT enough to turn a great pianist into a mediocre one. That's just swaggering exaggeration
was´nt you the one that critizied nut picking?

of cause that was just a symbolic statement.. a bad recording never changes the quality of the musican.. but a highly trained and precise articulation versus one that is mashed up with random event placement?

maybe 2 ms jitter dont hurt..
or was you talking about 2 ms misplacement of the notes? so +/- 2 ms?

thats 4 ms jitter than.. is that still ok?

In any case the 11 ms jitter boarder the OP trys us to sell as non detectable here is not ok and most certainly will turn a brilliant keyboard player into a bad one.. not even medicro anymore..

so where is the border that turns brilliant into medicro? i well can belive that 2 ms jitter is not enough to really do that..

just was an example to show that timing is not only about drum machines.. sometimes its about catching an artists performance.. and not only something close to that with an additional random factor..
#138
22nd April 2012
Old 22nd April 2012
  #138
Banned
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,823

Quote:
Originally Posted by maisonvague View Post
I'm certain now. You are 3phase. Christ, I can't believe it. Yes, the world is full of evil traps. Quite right, quite right.

Kumpel!

And so, without further ado I hereby submit my resignation from this thread. So long, folks! And thanks for all the fish!

what do you mean by kumpel? Sorry, i ve a hetro sexual orientation.
Please kumpel somebody else.
#139
22nd April 2012
Old 22nd April 2012
  #139
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 298

Friend in german.
Wasnt 3phase german....

Perhaps you dont want any friends either.
#140
22nd April 2012
Old 22nd April 2012
  #140
Banned
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,823

Quote:
Originally Posted by sensing View Post
Friend in german.
Wasnt 3phase german....

Perhaps you dont want any friends either.
What have friends to do with internet guys that try to kumpel you without permission??? nothing

Besides this is a technical forum and no dating platform.
#141
22nd April 2012
Old 22nd April 2012
  #141
Gear addict
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 450

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
Where is the flaw?

People here claim they can hear timing differences down to two ms.

All i have done is to create a file that clearly demonstrates that these same people can't even hear a 5.5 ms difference - even when it is shoved right into their faces.


...the only flaw i see is that these same people not even in the face of hard evidence attempt to modify their claims.
Actually there is a flaw in the test as you're not testing if people can hear small time shifts, you're testing if people can hear small time shifts which are being masked, while their attention is diverted to counting.
#142
22nd April 2012
Old 22nd April 2012
  #142
Lives for gear
 
viewing's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: waterloo, ontario
Posts: 1,420
My Recordings/Credits

i just don't get why this guy assumes that the way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that timing does not matter (if that is what the hypothesis that he seems to present with this thread is) is by shifting a couple of hi hats on a corny house beat and then pointing a finger and saying 'HA! YOU'RE ALL WRONG!'

definitive test? please. this is nothing more than the old rubber pencil trick or the disappearing thumb trick back in grade school. silly pointless slight of hand that only proves that you have way to much time on your hands

unless this is some joke that only house producers get, i don't see how producers in any genre of music much less dance music will be able to spot where you shifted those hats.

if you want to use the scientific method, use it! give us many examples of different types of music with different sounds shifted. AT LEAST MAKE IT INTERESTING!
#143
22nd April 2012
Old 22nd April 2012
  #143
ear nut
 
Joined: Apr 2012
Location: London
Posts: 167

+1 for this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by sensing View Post
For the OP; there is nothing in this test which makes it universal enough to state that such a timing difference can not be heard. In that way its probably not scientific. What you might prove is that it cant be heard under the specific circustances in your recording.
#144
22nd April 2012
Old 22nd April 2012
  #144
Banned
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,823

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWiggly View Post
+1 for this:
he is prroving nothing. all people that really tried his test have seen the slight swing of he hihiat as the norm state from which they tried to get exceptions..
So its the classical test where people are send out to catch differences that are just not there .. and the troll can than try to conclude from that that people just dont get differences..or better..there are no differences.. a classical wiener test..
nms
#145
22nd April 2012
Old 22nd April 2012
  #145
nms
Lives for gear
 
nms's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,767

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
According to your post two in this thread that would make it extremely easy to hear.

But instead of providing the answer (which according to you is easy to do) you just spend your time in front of the computer keyboard, making up bad excuses
Yep. No excuse for spending that amount of time talking the talk but not putting your money where your mouth is. A lot of smug beating around the bush here. I know that 5ms timing difference is significant and can be heard but it depends largely on the context, the attack of the sound, and whether it is placed over another sound meant to hit at the same time or slightly before/after. No idea what the sample here sounds like though as I am in bed but I'm sure I could identify why it's not easy to tell here if in fact I couldn't.

Audioconsult - your could really benefit from trying to be less arrogant/rude/insulting. It's not a good look and greatly takes away from the substance of your posts.
#146
22nd April 2012
Old 22nd April 2012
  #146
Gear addict
 
basmartin's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 468

Quote:
Originally Posted by audioconsult View Post
so.. here to proper test files that dont try to hide the phenomen..

one file has straight events the other file has some events moved by 5,35 ms

Acording to the OP booth files should have the same timing
So test your ears..

do booth files have the same timing or has one a shuffle?

and in case they are not identical groove wise..

which is the one with the shuffle?

Jünger 4
or
Jünger 5

come people..test your ears and not your sanity
Jünger 4
#147
22nd April 2012
Old 22nd April 2012
  #147
Gear addict
 
basmartin's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 468

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
So, within another threads subdiscussion on timing and tightness i came up with this file, and would really like to know how many people can actually hear a 5 ms difference on hihats within a mix.

Get the attached file and read more about it here

Very basically in some bars of the piece, the hats have been displaced by 5½ ms against all the other sounds that sit rigidly on the grid.
(Some people will be able to hear this immediately, i do freely admit that i can't pick out the changes.)

There are 4 changes in the piece (i.e. where the hats go from straight to displaced or vice versa), please just name the bars where you hear hats changing.
Changes occur only at whole bars.

As in the other post, bonus points for those that correctly identify not only the changes but also which hats are on and off the grid.

Have fun listening
Bar 4, 8, 11 and 15, excluding the bass drum count in. Hard to say, the number of beats makes it harder if it only were one beat off here and there.
#148
22nd April 2012
Old 22nd April 2012
  #148
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 839

Quote:
Originally Posted by maisonvague View Post
With all due respect, you have a tendency to belittle those who are less knowledgeable, which I feel is unfortunate. But style and manner are very personal choices.
As you quoted AC's response to one of my posts I just wanted to make clear that I felt in no way belittled by AC's post. Thanks anyway and well done for maintaining a sense of sobriety during this thread

As for his knowledge.....he seems relatively knowledgable, I doubt more so than myself on this matter. I have looked into clocking/midi timing probably a little more than most.
grumphh
Thread Starter
#149
22nd April 2012
Old 22nd April 2012
  #149
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Location: Denmark
Posts: 4,061

Thread Starter
I see, the plot has thickened during my short absence

Anyway, here is the solution, in form of a screenshot of the music.

The track "audio 7" are the 16th hats that were both lower in volume and were not moved at all.

Every single sample except the 8th hats was placed exactly on the grid.



...also, my upload is a .wav file, so no timing info has been lost because of mp3 compression - god, my tummy still hurts from laughing when i read that one
Attached Thumbnails
Golden timing - or: How much do 5 Ms matter?-goldenears.jpg  
#150
22nd April 2012
Old 22nd April 2012
  #150
Gear addict
 
basmartin's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 468

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
I see, the plot has thickened during my short absence

Anyway, here is the solution, in form of a screenshot of the music.

The track "audio 7" are the 16th hats that were both lower in volume and were not moved at all.

Every single sample except the 8th hats was placed exactly on the grid.



...also, my upload is a .wav file, so no timing info has been lost because of mp3 compression - god, my tummy still hurts from laughing when i read that one
Cool, but next time, try moving some beats 5 ms if it´s the test you want to make. It´s pretty much a waste of time listening for differences that doesn´t exist and then trying to guess when they happens.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
composer / So much gear, so little time!
17
reid / Post Production forum!
8
Mike Jasper / So much gear, so little time!
7
rodhmos / Mastering forum
7
JPM / Music Computers
0

Forum Jump
 
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.