The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Have the higher sampling rate and bit depths cured the digital monster? Virtual Instrument Plugins
Old 8th August 2014
  #91
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by IanBSC View Post
If this does indeed all come down to belief, what is more valid: that I believe what my senses tell me through my own empirical observation,...
but you people are asking the rest of us to believe what YOUR senses tell YOU! And in situations where you admit you are not blinded! You are making statements of fact in a debate about digital audio and backing them up only with your uncontrolled 'observations'.

Expectation bias is a real thing and a very strong factor in human perception. I have had MANY experiences where "what my senses told me" melted away in the absence of the conscious foreknowledge of which was which.

MY 'empirical observation' is that people who pooh-pooh ABX testing and declare it is not necessary for them are the last people whose "word for it" I am going to take in these matters.

even the Princess in the Princess and the Pea story had to actually pass the blind test

Quote:
On this the princess had to lie all night. In the morning she was asked how she had slept.

"Oh, very badly!" said she. "I have scarcely closed my eyes all night. Heaven only knows what was in the bed, but I was lying on something hard, so that I am black and blue all over my body. It's horrible!"

Now they knew that she was a real princess because she had felt the pea right through the twenty mattresses and the twenty eider-down beds.
The whole point of the tale is that nobody TOLD her she was sleeping on a pea. If they had, the test would have been invalid. Any wench can think she is a princess, and may actually 'sleep badly' when she knows there is a pea there.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kafka
But as far as the digital aspect of the medium gets better, the improvement gets vanishingly small.
this is the whole thing in a nutshell^^.

Anyone who HAS tried this blinded has felt the cold sweat as it suddenly is not so easy to tell.

This idea that "digital sucks" until 96k comes along and somehow "saves" digital is not supported.
Old 8th August 2014
  #92
Lives for gear
 
IanBSC's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
but you people are asking the rest of us to believe what YOUR senses tell YOU! And in situations where you admit you are not blinded! You are making statements of fact in a debate about digital audio and backing them up only with your uncontrolled 'observations'.

Expectation bias is a real thing and a very strong factor in human perception. I have had MANY experiences where "what my senses told me" melted away in the absence of the conscious foreknowledge of which was which.

MY 'empirical observation' is that people who pooh-pooh ABX testing and declare it is not necessary for them are the last people whose "word for it" I am going to take in these matters.

even the Princess in the Princess and the Pea story had to actually pass the blind test



The whole point of the tale is that nobody TOLD her she was sleeping on a pea. If they had, the test would have been invalid. Any wench can think she is a princess, and may actually 'sleep badly' when she knows there is a pea there.



this is the whole thing in a nutshell^^.

Anyone who HAS tried this blinded has felt the cold sweat as it suddenly is not so easy to tell.

This idea that "digital sucks" until 96k comes along and somehow "saves" digital is not supported.
Look, I didn't tell you what you are hearing. I don't know if you personally can tell the difference or not. Maybe a bunch of people can't hear it. What I said is that I know what I am hearing, the people I work with hear the same thing and it doesn't flush with Meyer-Moran (in pretty startling way) and so I don't trust the claim that people can't hear a meaningful difference. I am a person and I hear the difference, thus, I can't accept their conclusion.

I'm kind of surprised people aren't scrambling to get their hands on those HHB CD players, as apparently they have converters that are perfectly neutral, even at 16 bit! Guys on here do loop back tests all the time, and most can tell different high end converters from each other. Meyer Moran implies that not only bit depth and sample rate irrelevant, but so is conversion.

I'd like to post some samples, AND I am on vacation in Oregon at the moment. We should be doing a new session next week after the Burls, new patchbay and Mixmaster 20 are all totally set up. I will see if the artist approves. I do have a couple mixed tracks on mp3 from a session I did on location in Big Sur a while ago, but it will take a couple days to get it and ask the artist.
Old 8th August 2014
  #93
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
the only difference between a properly dithered 16bit copy of a 24bit file *should* be the noise floor. If you hear the 16bit as "brittle" or "thin", something has gone wrong somewhere.
wouldn't dynamics suffer going from 24 to 16 bit in extreme salutations?

example 21:50 - 23:00... The dynamic range in that section is pretty drastic. Rock or pop music is not going to be subjected to such changes so it may not be as noticeable in average cases with certain production styles. I don't understand how a production like this wouldn't suffer from truncation no matter how much care was taken during dither and noise shaping.



p.s. I'm asking not arguing
Old 8th August 2014
  #94
Gear Guru
 
kafka's Avatar
16bit has a maximum S/NR of 98dB, which is really excellent. 24bit has a maximum S/NR of 144dB, but a lot of equipment actually specs out at around 120dB. So, yes, it may be possible to hear some difference, but it's not earth-shattering, and you're definitely not getting a full 8 more bits of improvement. If I'm listening to a 16bit recording at 110dB, my ears are becoming fatigued by the volume of the sound energy that's coming through, and the noise floor of my ears is going to be higher than 12dB. I'm also pretty sure that I have well over 12dB of background noise around me at all times anyway, unless I'm listening through closed headphones.

Also, your microphone may not have 120dB of S/NR available to it, and I don't believe recording noise in greater detail necessarily constitutes an 'improvement' in sound quality. For instance, a new issue Neumann KM has 22dB of self noise, and a dynamic range of 138dB. While this does indicate that a 24bit recording should be detectably better, it's not by a whole lot.

While I have really excellent hearing for my age (I can still hear in the 18-20kHz range), I can't say there's a whole lot of sound energy up there to listen to. Doubling the sample rate just isn't going to do a whole lot for me, if anything at all.
Old 8th August 2014
  #95
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
...The Meyer-Moran paper in the AES Journal paper describes its methods and presents its findings. It's been published and is open to analysis and criticism...
Again, it's NOT a paper which implies that it was peer reviewed. it has absolutely no more credibility than anything you or I might post here.
Old 8th August 2014
  #96
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
wouldn't dynamics suffer going from 24 to 16 bit in extreme salutations?

example 21:50 - 23:00... The dynamic range in that section is pretty drastic. Rock or pop music is not going to be subjected to such changes so it may not be as noticeable in average cases with certain production styles. I don't understand how a production like this wouldn't suffer from truncation no matter how much care was taken during dither and noise shaping.



p.s. I'm asking not arguing
Try it. You don't even need to truncate after adding TPDF noise at the correct level; it won't make a difference to what it sounds like. Truncation only affects the sound of a digital audio stream when it is not preceded by proper dither.

The only question to answer for a given scenario is how low the noise level needs to be (or needs to be perceived to be ...). Almost all the time, 16 bits is fine. For some orchestral examples it definitely could be audible at some points if you have a good listening environment. Now try it with noise shaping ...
Old 9th August 2014
  #97
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by IanBSC View Post
What I said is that I know what I am hearing, the people I work with hear the same thing and it doesn't flush with Meyer-Moran (in pretty startling way).
this is you admitting you have only ever compared CD vs high-res in sighted tests? No one who has tried it blindfolded would say it was "startling".
Old 9th August 2014
  #98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
Again, it's NOT a paper which implies that it was peer reviewed. it has absolutely no more credibility than anything you or I might post here.
From my post that apparently initially provoked your multiple reminders that it was not peer-reviewed prior to publication:
Quote:
Not, of course, that it would directly reflect on the later Meyer-Moran study, which has been open to peer review since its publication.
Note important prepositional phrase qualifying the time frame?

I certainly understand that peer-review before publication is a very different and a formal process. But I didn't suggest here that the paper had been subject to pre-publication peer review.

Now, it's entirely possible that I have, perhaps sloppily, referred to it previously as 'peer-reviewed' without the post-publication qualification -- but I doubt you'll see me claiming that it had gone through a formal, academic, pre-publication peer review process because it wasn't my understanding that it had.

Peer review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


With regard to the study's credibility or lack thereof, I think that rests on the experimental design and execution and the accuracy of data reporting and collation. If you were to present a body of evidence along the lines of that represented by the Meyer-Moran study, I would certainly take it just as seriously.

Would I like to see follow up studies performed under experimental lab rigor and subjected to rigorous peer scrutiny before publication? Sure, that would certainly enhance credibility out the gate.

But Meyer-Moran has been the subject of considerable discussion (and has been cited in a range of articles: cited by 11 - Google Scholar ) and its inherent but not immediately obvious limitations* (like the Norah Jones CD-in-SACD-form cited above, I guess) should by now be well-exposed, which was why I wrote what I wrote.

* I'd initially written 'flaws' but I reflected on the narrow scope of the study and realized that what seems a 'flaw' is actually simply a limit to the conclusions that can be drawn from the data and design. Ultimately, it can only tell if the test materials from the SACDs used in the testing had music with 'high resolution' content that couldn't pass through a 16/44.1 bottleneck but that when listened to directly could be reliably differentiated from the former. By apparently 'assuming' the music being sold as 'HD' actually had HD content, they perhaps inadvertently limited the scope of conclusions that might be drawn.

(A reanalysis of the tested content presumably could be performed and data recollated to exclude any SACD's that were actually just repackaged CD content. As we know from some informal audio forensics work, there have been a number of HD releases that don't appear to have HD content. http://www.itrax.com/Pages/ArticleDetails.php?aID=32)

Old 9th August 2014
  #99
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
wouldn't dynamics suffer going from 24 to 16 bit in extreme salutations?

example 21:50 - 23:00... The dynamic range in that section is pretty drastic. Rock or pop music is not going to be subjected to such changes so it may not be as noticeable in average cases with certain production styles. I don't understand how a production like this wouldn't suffer from truncation no matter how much care was taken during dither and noise shaping.
This might be true if we set our playback levels based on the quietest parts of the source material, but no one does that for obvious reasons. Instead we set our levels so that the loudest parts won't blow our speakers/ears. Consequently, the CD noise floor is well below the ambient noise floor in practically every listening environment, thus a 16-bit playback sounds no different than a 24-bit playback.
Old 9th August 2014
  #100
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
This might be true if we set our playback levels based on the quietest parts of the source material, but no one does that for obvious reasons. Instead we set our levels so that the loudest parts won't blow our speakers/ears. Consequently, the CD noise floor is well below the ambient noise floor in practically every listening environment, thus a 16-bit playback sounds no different than a 24-bit playback.
I listen to a fair amount of classical music and for most of the last quarter century have been seeing up to six or seven symphonic concerts a year.

And, for sure, an orchestra of 60 or 80 people can raise a big ruckus -- and then, in, say, a concerto, go quiet and leave the space open for the soloist. Pianos are loud, of course, violins cut through, but other solo instruments that have had concerti written around them not so loud. Think oboe. But even the cello, a frequent choice for concerti: I heard a cello concerto last year that had an extended passage where the cello played contemplatively/moodily in solo -- but with occasional full fury interjections of bass drum. Just those TWO instruments created an enormous dynamic range. I had to keep my fingers by my ears because I was leaning forward to catch all the cello fine points but then here comes that canon-like bass drum. (Orchestra bass drums can be almost as tall as a person. They are stupid loud when really smacked in a hall with good acoustic delivery.)

I found myself thinking, no way in hell would I want to try to listen to this concerto at home with this kind of dynamic range -- at least under most circumstances. I mean, I kept having to shove my fingers in my ears because of the drum, yet the unamplified cello, while quite audible, was, of course, far from loud. I strongly suspect that piece, if recorded with no gain riding or compression would be well over the ~90 dB DR afforded by a CD (if one was trying to capture all the nuances in solo) -- but I don't think I'd actually want to listen to it that way at home. (Frankly, it was a bit uncomfortable in 'real life.' But what you gonna do? They don't put volume controls on cellos OR bass drums. Or conductors. )
Old 9th August 2014
  #101
Gear Maniac
 
Gbar's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
And, for sure, an orchestra of 60 or 80 people can raise a big ruckus --)
Even when they aren't playing anything or talking

Chair squeaks, pages turning, coughs, bows tapping. Noisy buggers.
Old 9th August 2014
  #102
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
I heard a cello concerto last year that had an extended passage where the cello played contemplatively solo -- with occasional full fury bursts of bass drum. Just those TWO instruments created an enormous dynamic range. I had to keep my fingers by my ears because I was leaning forward to catch all the cello fine points but then here comes that canon-like bass drum.
As a listener I'm greatly annoyed by composers and/or conductors who feel compelled to use dynamic range as a shock tactic. It's a cheap trick, more theatrical than musical.
Old 9th August 2014
  #103
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
As a listener I'm greatly annoyed by composers and/or conductors who feel compelled to use dynamic range as a shock tactic. It's a cheap trick, more theatrical than musical.
unless you're Philip Glass...
Old 9th August 2014
  #104
Gear Guru
 
kafka's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
As a listener I'm greatly annoyed by composers and/or conductors who feel compelled to use dynamic range as a shock tactic. It's a cheap trick, more theatrical than musical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
unless you're Philip Glass...
Does Philip Glass use shock? I haven't listened to him since his minimalist days.
Old 9th August 2014
  #105
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kafka View Post
Does Philip Glass use shock? I haven't listened to him since his minimalist days.
If endless repetition = shock, then yes...last time I checked he is still minimalist, I should say rather he is himself.

btw, I love certain things of his, i.e. Koyaanisqatsi, Mishima, some others...but then some of his stuff - 'meh' at best...much prefer John Adams as a whole...

Wow, I took bogosort's post as facetious...but I guess he was serious...
Old 9th August 2014
  #106
Gear Guru
 
kafka's Avatar
Glass did get more melodic, although he still uses repetition. I found much greater depth in Steve Reich's works than Philip Glass'. Glass just sounded too 'pop' for me. Maybe I'm referring to the dynamic element in his music when I say that. Reich seemed to really understand how repetition can be sublime, whereas Glass seemed to be more just occupying space with it. I could never stand anything John Adams wrote, although I tried. I just can't hear any substance in it at all.

Oh, and to stay on-topic, wasn't Glassworks one of the first digital recordings?
Old 9th August 2014
  #107
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
I found myself thinking, no way in hell would I want to try to listen to this concerto at home with this kind of dynamic range -- at least under most circumstances. I mean, I kept having to shove my fingers in my ears because of the drum, yet the unamplified cello, while quite audible, was, of course, far from loud. I strongly suspect that piece, if recorded with no gain riding or compression would be well over the ~90 dB DR afforded by a CD (if one was trying to capture all the nuances in solo) -- but I don't think I'd actually want to listen to it that way at home.
To be pedantic, since you're talking about perception and not simply peak noise level as pertains to DR, 16 bit PCM is not limited to "~90 dB" if noise shaping is used instead of/as well as dither. Because of that, I wouldn't want to presume offhand that it wouldn't be possible to encode the entire performance with perceptually acceptable noise levels, including solo nuances, with "only" 16 bits ... even though, as you say, perhaps it wouldn't even be desirable to try and enjoy the performance that way again :p

And around in circles we go, kind of ... increase the sample rate and noise shaping can be done more effectively, as evidenced by DSD which has only 1 bit (even though DSD is not a useful medium most of the time, technically speaking).
Old 9th August 2014
  #108
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by IanBSC View Post
I'm going to answer the original question as I understand it, from my minority and extremist position: Have higher sample rates and bit depths cured the digital beast? No, not really, though they have tamed it a good bit. Even at 24/192 using Prism Orpheus (same with 192, Apollo) I've noticed when I do tape transfers something is lost. That's right something is lost from the TAPE, and same from mic feeds/console. That thing is realness, a relaxed 3d sound.

That said, when doing some 2" transfers from the A827 a few years back to the 192 IO, 192khz was the first sample rate that seemed musical, or that got some air on the top end of the cymbals. Lots of people say you won't notice the difference with high sample rates, I do (A LOT) and so prefer to work at 192. I don't relate to people who can't hear or don't care about anything above 24/48 or 16/44, the lower rates sound hard, crunchy, and flat to me. I can't really ignore that. That said, on the gear I'ved used 24/192 is not the end all, be all. To me it's like the bare minimum that gets the musical space and feel.

The only thing that actually preserves the original analog to me is DSD, which isn't really viable. I've heard 352khz recordings, and they STILL had a bit of a stiff quality. I've yet to test my brand new Burl's, and I'm guessing they will also be an improvement. The main factors seem to be the analog circuitry in the converter and the digital filtering. The more gradual the filter (which higher bandwidth at 96k and 192k afford) the more real and immediate the sound.

I guess the question these days is if less clinical, more overbuilt converters like Burl and JCF+ high sample rate/bit depth, cure the digital beast.
Absolutely spot on. I was doing tape transfers a few months back with the JCF Latte at 192K, that was the closest I got to just monitoring the tape repro. At 96K there was noticable loss, at 192 its very very close. Your dead right Ive found that the low level ambience and air is where you notice, and the openness + front to back reach is more relaxed at 192. Despite the analog build, Im thinking the sample rate is the main bottleneck in terms of realism... Tim De Paravacini who's very tuned into resolution issues says that digital has a sound because its built on pressumptions on our hearing mechanism using lousy mathematics., and that a rate of 400Khz pcm is needed to satisfy that mechanism. i believe him.
Old 9th August 2014
  #109
Lives for gear
 
Lance Lawson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PartHunter View Post
Absolutely spot on. I was doing tape transfers a few months back with the JCF Latte at 192K, that was the closest I got to just monitoring the tape repro. At 96K there was noticable loss, at 192 its very very close. Your dead right Ive found that the low level ambience and air is where you notice, and the openness + front to back reach is more relaxed at 192. Despite the analog build, Im thinking the sample rate is the main bottleneck in terms of realism... Tim De Paravacini who's very tuned into resolution issues says that digital has a sound because its built on pressumptions on our hearing mechanism using lousy mathematics., and that a rate of 400Khz pcm is needed to satisfy that mechanism. i believe him.

The fact that the question still remains indicates that we're still a ways away from realizing the digital promise. Just today today there is a thread where analogue enhancers are discussed. If we really were at the full digital promise delivered we wouldn't need these analogue emulators to make digital recordings work for all ears.

I suspect the professionals have abandoned the question because they can't afford to ask the question anymore. Eventually you either accept the state of the art and pay your bills or you close the doors.

Perhaps the "we've arrived mindset" goes something like this "I have a big fat mortgage so I tell the kids and audiophiles don't you believe the arguments anymore. 44/16 will get you home it's all just a subjective speculation, it always has been. So book with my studio and no matter which digital format you choose you're still going to be on top of the audio pyramid."

Personally I don't think it's so simple. I can be satisfied with the better digital formats but I'm never quite at ease with it.
Old 9th August 2014
  #110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gbar View Post
Even when they aren't playing anything or talking

Chair squeaks, pages turning, coughs, bows tapping. Noisy buggers.
Ah, the players ain't got nothing on my local audience (which, admittedly, is an audience on the wheezing, coughing side of geriatric -- which, come to think, is starting to include me... heh )
Old 9th August 2014
  #111
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Ah, the players ain't got nothing on my local audience (which, admittedly, is an audience on the wheezing, coughing side of geriatric -- which, come to think, is starting to include me... heh )
conductors fuming and turning beet red over coughs in the audience is fairly common, but nothing compared to the apoplectic reactions at ringing cellphones - there have been some notable incidents of late...
(offenders should be kicked out of the concert hall, just like at MLB ballparks where idiot fans interfere with the ball in play)
Old 9th August 2014
  #112
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
As a listener I'm greatly annoyed by composers and/or conductors who feel compelled to use dynamic range as a shock tactic. It's a cheap trick, more theatrical than musical.
Shostakovich, Cello Concerto #2.


I'm listening to it by Alexander Ivashkin with the S.O. of Moscow now. That part hasn't come up yet. I seem to recall it in the second of three. [EDIT: make that the largo first movement. But maybe the big drum returns later, too. Just starting the 2nd movement now.]

But earlier I listened to Yo Yo Ma/Ormandy/Phillie doing Shostakovich's Cello Concerto #1, which has a couple passages toward the end with heavy bass drum punctuations (but the orchestra is in there, too) and while it's hard to say precisely how hard the percussionist is banging the bass drum, it's being played hard. And, in this recording, it's nothing like the dynamic range in the hall. That said, this YYM recording takes a very distant, drowned-in-hall-reverb approach which certainly cuts down on the [expected] dynamics. The Russian recording of #2 is much more present.


Oh, wait -- the part I'm talking about just came up on the Russian recording. It's definitely got some dynamic range in use, here -- and it felt a bit surprising even though I was, in a vague way, waiting for it. But it was nonetheless backed off from the sternum-pounding assault live. That said, honestly, it's all the DR I would probably need. I get the aesthetic message, bigtime. Boom! Boom! heh

It's kind of cool if you can afford to commit to it in an uncompromised way, otherwise you're probably going to be doing some volume adjusting. As it is, I felt like I had to turn the sound down when it got cooking, I do have neighbors and while the bizarre mix of music floating out my windows no doubt perplexes them, I'm not sure they're all that beguiled.
Old 9th August 2014
  #113
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by PartHunter View Post
Tim De Paravacini who's very tuned into resolution issues says that digital has a sound because its built on pressumptions on our hearing mechanism using lousy mathematics., and that a rate of 400Khz pcm is needed to satisfy that mechanism. i believe him.
Please point out the "lousy" mathematics, because the definitive mathematical statement on the issue comes from Shannon, and not only is his math simple, clear, and unimpeachable, it has nothing whatsoever to do with our hearing mechanism.
Old 9th August 2014
  #114
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

I think I posted this before but just in case, here's the best explanation of dynamic range that I'm aware of:

Old 9th August 2014
  #115
Gear Maniac
 

The best explanation of digital audio i have ever heard was from a Computer Science teacher at Stanford.
Old 9th August 2014
  #116
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
conductors fuming and turning beet red over coughs in the audience is fairly common, but nothing compared to the apoplectic reactions at ringing cellphones - there have been some notable incidents of late...
(offenders should be kicked out of the concert hall, just like at MLB ballparks where idiot fans interfere with the ball in play)
I was hoping I wouldn't get started.

Our audience is usually pretty good about cell phones. I think there might have been two incidents. One was minor, one was annoying, as it took its owner a few rings to get turned off.

But what drove our conductor nuts was misplaced enthusiasm. He hit the bigger-and-better-thing trail as of this season, I suspect he saw our local symphony as a bit of a career backwater. He got some very cool people in -- including Pepe Romero (twice) -- and some very good up and coming or veteran non-star soloists.

But he was continually embarrassed, seems like, by a handful (and sometimes way more) of rubes jumping to their feet after particularly compelling, but not final, movements. I mean, he actually lectured the crowd a number of times -- in a friendly way (if not terribly intelligible way, the man's Spanish accent is thick ) but you could tell he just couldn't believe it was happening again. A couple times during his tenure they actually used an announcer over the PA (never used to have announcers at all but cell phones require the make-sure announcement and after a while it was a good chance to thank the [much-needed] corporate sponsors, etc, etc) to 'explain' to people that it was important to the artists' concentration and the conductor's pacing to shut the F up between movements and, oh, yeah it's not a cough break [or maybe I just imagine the long suffering mgmt said that]). Anyhow, I love my symphony. I loved the conductor. I love the audience, in the christo/humanitarian sense... but, I dunno, I needed a break on at least that level. (And, yeah, at least once or twice, I've even leapt to my feet with the rubes after miscounting movements or the like on an unfamiliar piece. So, I'm guilty, too.)
Old 9th August 2014
  #117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
I think I posted this before but just in case, here's the best explanation of dynamic range that I'm aware of:

Old 10th August 2014
  #118
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
conductors fuming and turning beet red over coughs in the audience is fairly common
I do a fair amount of location recording of classical music performances. I always buy a bag of cough drops and set up a bowl at the entrance. The trick is to get the ones wrapped in wax paper, as the some of the wrappers make as much noise as the coughing.

Peter Frampton Throws Audience Member’s Cell Phone Into The Rafters
Old 10th August 2014
  #119
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

props to PF - that and championing the talk box...

oh, and that photo on the url...must say he has aged helluva lot better than Steve Lukather, he still looks dashing in mid/late manhood...(though in all reality SL could still shred circles around the wank*risms of PF)
Old 10th August 2014
  #120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Lawson View Post
The fact that the question still remains indicates that we're still a ways away from realizing the digital promise. Just today today there is a thread where analogue enhancers are discussed. If we really were at the full digital promise delivered we wouldn't need these analogue emulators to make digital recordings work for all ears.

I suspect the professionals have abandoned the question because they can't afford to ask the question anymore. Eventually you either accept the state of the art and pay your bills or you close the doors.

Perhaps the "we've arrived mindset" goes something like this "I have a big fat mortgage so I tell the kids and audiophiles don't you believe the arguments anymore. 44/16 will get you home it's all just a subjective speculation, it always has been. So book with my studio and no matter which digital format you choose you're still going to be on top of the audio pyramid."

Personally I don't think it's so simple. I can be satisfied with the better digital formats but I'm never quite at ease with it.
that is one way of looking at it.

Personally my view is as I've stated - even if higher sample rates do provide a "better" audible result (and if I were archiving, I'd definitely use the highest option available, assuming the converters were up to it), the workflow limitations are too great - they have a NEGATIVE effect on the audible end result.

As and when the systems can cope - I'll gladly switch over to 96k. In fact, if I know I'm doing low track count stuff, I'll use it anyway now. Without doing an A/B I don't really know what (if any difference) it makes, but hey, might as well!

Maybe that's a variant of the mercenary approach you detail above...I dunno. I'm happy to let others with the time to spend do the research/provide the examples. I'd rather spend my time off doing something else!
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump