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 10th August 2014
  #121
Quote:
Originally Posted by -tc- View Post
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).
Just give us the stems and let us mix it ourselves. heh


What the heck, the desktop version of Spotify has a built in compressor/limiter of some sort (defeatable). Maybe it's almost come to that...

(Of course, that seems aimed at track to track program limiting -- hence the 'play all songs at the same volume' tag on the checkbox. But it seems to be a compressor, not an indexed level adjustment like ReplayGain.)
Old 10th August 2014
  #122
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
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.
I'm not sure exactly what he meant by that. I would have thought he was calling mathematics (the foundations of digital) in general a lousy way to approach designing the technology that we use to store and play sound. I wouldn't have thought it matters how simple the math is, my point is perhaps theyre trying to answer the wrong questions.
Of course it has something to do with our hearing mechanism, there are things we know about the ear and what frequencies we hear, and how sensitive we are to those frequencies etc.. digital audio technology is built around those things we know and there are mathematical processes in place to make the whole thing work, however I would have thought Tim meant by that statement that it is not necessarily an accurate way to recreate what we really hear and there are pressumptions in that the ear will be satisfied by approaching from that angle of what we do know. There is still relatively little known about the way the ear works and how it translates to sense perception, and when people throw out statements such as 'Oh we cant hear above 20Khz so it doesnt matter', is pressumptuous ignorance. Its no wonder alot of the gear that people rave about on here is designed by talented electronics guys who use throw the spec sheets to the side and use their ears, because the ear continues to tell us things that maths and measurements dont.
Old 10th August 2014
  #123
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by PartHunter View Post
and when people throw out statements such as 'Oh we cant hear above 20Khz so it doesnt matter', is pressumptuous ignorance. Its no wonder alot of the gear that people rave about on here is designed by talented electronics guys who use throw the spec sheets to the side and use their ears, because the ear continues to tell us things that maths and measurements dont.

And here again we have the usual mystical nonsense response.

Saying we can't hear above 20khz is not "presumptuous ignorance." It's been verified by 100 years of testing. You can play signals above 20khz all day long and people can't hear them. Dogs can, bats can. This is empirically verifiable. If you prefer to believe that you hear 30khz with your pineal gland or something, fine, believe that, believe in Baal, believe in trickle down economics or people riding on dinosaurs or whatever other fairy story you like.

But if you want to argue that humans sense above 20khz then it's incumbent on you to offer some proof, and the proof should be more than "I spent 5000 on this preamp and it sounds good because it reproduces high frequency which I can hear because magic ears." Maybe you can convincingly demonstrate that people hear 30,000 hz with their eyeballs. I'd be delighted to see the proof. I have a study done in I thin Japan that claimed this. But if it's true then it has to be easily reproduceable.
Old 10th August 2014
  #124
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by PartHunter View Post
I'm not sure exactly what he meant by that. I would have thought he was calling mathematics (the foundations of digital) in general a lousy way to approach designing the technology that we use to store and play sound.

More obtuse reasoning. Think about it: language is lousy way to store and convey information. Words are not the same as the things they describe; sentences routinely fail to be the things they are written to convey.

Frequencies in the air are a lousy way to convey emotions felt in the brain and body: they fail to be the things they purport to describe.

This is often summed up on the phrase "talking about music is like dancing about architecture," which is a dumb phrase because it's true of everything. Talking about baseball is like dancing about architecture. Talking about architecture is like dancing about baseball. Talking about dancing is like painting about music.

Art is conveyed in symbolic systems. Daubs of paint are not leaves on a tree. Words on a page are not a white whale. Notes on a guitar are not the emotion of sadness. But all these things invoke the thing they represent.

Math is a symbolic system. The fact that its "lousy" means it's not different from painting, dance, music, writing, etc. Math is not the same as music, but neither are charged particles on a film of tape. Math is no more or less "lousy" than any other medium.
Old 10th August 2014
  #125
Lives for gear
 
Ephi82's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
Unfortunately they haven't cured the cheap, underpowered anemic line stages found in most converters.
This is the most under looked factor in great sounding digital
Old 10th August 2014
  #126
Quote:
Originally Posted by PartHunter View Post
I'm not sure exactly what he meant by that. I would have thought he was calling mathematics (the foundations of digital) in general a lousy way to approach designing the technology that we use to store and play sound. I wouldn't have thought it matters how simple the math is, my point is perhaps theyre trying to answer the wrong questions.
Of course it has something to do with our hearing mechanism, there are things we know about the ear and what frequencies we hear, and how sensitive we are to those frequencies etc.. digital audio technology is built around those things we know and there are mathematical processes in place to make the whole thing work, however I would have thought Tim meant by that statement that it is not necessarily an accurate way to recreate what we really hear and there are pressumptions in that the ear will be satisfied by approaching from that angle of what we do know. There is still relatively little known about the way the ear works and how it translates to sense perception, and when people throw out statements such as 'Oh we cant hear above 20Khz so it doesnt matter', is pressumptuous ignorance. Its no wonder alot of the gear that people rave about on here is designed by talented electronics guys who use throw the spec sheets to the side and use their ears, because the ear continues to tell us things that maths and measurements dont.
But mathematics is actually a very good way to design the technology -- and the proof is in the testing -- using analog gear, if one likes.

People who don't understand the underlying mathematics tend to equate the individual samples of digital audio with the individual frames of film -- which 'fools the brain' with a succession of images, the faster the film (to a certain point), the smoother the action appears. But film never creates an actual truly continuously moving image... it's a series of images as presented to the eye.

Digital audio, on the other hand, does produce a continuous wave. Where's the 'missing data' 'between the samples'? It's above the agreed upon band limit. If we want to be able to serve up a signal accurate up to, say, 30 kHz (to 'entertain' our cats and dogs) we can use a sample rate that affords us that ability, a minimum of something over 60 kHz, typically with a frequency band limit margin that allows upper frequency bandwidth that accommodates the efficiency of the antialias filtering applied.

There is no 'fooling the ear' with such a signal -- the ear is not creating the 'illusion' of continuous analog signal coming out the speakers -- the analog signal arriving at the speakers is, indeed, just as continuous as the original signal. If the process was performed properly and accurately, the results should be a precise duplicate -- up to the filter boundary. If we set that filter boundary above the threshold of the listener's hearing, we have a system capable of reproducing an electrical analog audio signal with far greater precision than any previous audio transcription system.

(In addition to conflating digital audio processes with film, it seems some tend to mix digital transcription with the very, very different, and very complex issues revolving around lossy perceptual encoding, as with mp3, Vorbis, AAC, etc. Those systems very definitely are designed to 'fool' the human audio perception system by eliminating data predicted by the governing algorithms to be 'unnecessary' to recreate a perceived semblance of the original signal. The more data that is thrown out, the greater the chance the changes will be perceived. Lower rates can be almost painfully obvious, but once we get to around 1/5 to 1/4 retention of data (320 kbps is ~ 1/4.4 of the data bandwidth of CD-A), the ability to differentiate the lossy format from original is found to be quite rare, even among trained listeners. But it IS, indeed, 'fooling' the ear. Unlike non-lossy PCM audio.)


With regard to the upper limits of human hearing, there is roughly a century of testing of human hearing that has gone into the current scientifically accepted understanding of the upper limits of human hearing. There is a large body of direct perception testing (can one hear a given tone by itself at a given level) as well as indirect (testing of program material against the same material with narrower frequency band limits applied to see if the difference between signals can be perceived).

The scientists who have been studying our hearing during the modern era have set the nominal limit of human audio perception at 20 kHz, although by adulthood, most humans are considerably under that, while the very young may perceive somewhat above that threshold. However I'm not aware of any accepted work offering solid evidence of ability to perceive over 22 kHz. There have been what seemed to be some 'tantalizing' outlier experimental findings, but the circumstances of those findings have been subject to much questioning and not a little criticism, when they haven't been rejected outright by professional review.

The overwhelming mountain of data so far collected suggests the nominally accepted limits are reasonable and realistic. If someone wants to overturn that paradigm, it behooves them to build a more persuasive body of evidence supporting their claims. Until then, the reasonable assumption flows from currently held data.
Old 10th August 2014
  #127
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PB+J View Post
And here again we have the usual mystical nonsense response.

Saying we can't hear above 20khz is not "presumptuous ignorance." It's been verified by 100 years of testing. You can play signals above 20khz all day long and people can't hear them. Dogs can, bats can. This is empirically verifiable. If you prefer to believe that you hear 30khz with your pineal gland or something, fine, believe that, believe in Baal, believe in trickle down economics or people riding on dinosaurs or whatever other fairy story you like.

But if you want to argue that humans sense above 20khz then it's incumbent on you to offer some proof, and the proof should be more than "I spent 5000 on this preamp and it sounds good because it reproduces high frequency which I can hear because magic ears." Maybe you can convincingly demonstrate that people hear 30,000 hz with their eyeballs. I'd be delighted to see the proof. I have a study done in I thin Japan that claimed this. But if it's true then it has to be easily reproduceable.
You've misquoted +mis understood me, possibly because of your own assumption on what I meant, since I didnt explain. I never said humans can hear above that point, I know that. I was quoting a commonplace statement that people make "If you cant hear above 20K so it doesnt matter". I'll leave you to ponder on what I meant within the context of that post I made, or if your your genuinly curious you can always ask me.
Old 10th August 2014
  #128
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PB+J View Post
More obtuse reasoning. Think about it: language is lousy way to store and convey information. Words are not the same as the things they describe; sentences routinely fail to be the things they are written to convey.

Frequencies in the air are a lousy way to convey emotions felt in the brain and body: they fail to be the things they purport to describe.

This is often summed up on the phrase "talking about music is like dancing about architecture," which is a dumb phrase because it's true of everything. Talking about baseball is like dancing about architecture. Talking about architecture is like dancing about baseball. Talking about dancing is like painting about music.

Art is conveyed in symbolic systems. Daubs of paint are not leaves on a tree. Words on a page are not a white whale. Notes on a guitar are not the emotion of sadness. But all these things invoke the thing they represent.

Math is a symbolic system. The fact that its "lousy" means it's not different from painting, dance, music, writing, etc. Math is not the same as music, but neither are charged particles on a film of tape. Math is no more or less "lousy" than any other medium.
Im sorry if you found that obtuse. I dont really understand your point, what did you think I meant by what you quoted? I just find it interesting what one of the worlds best audio designers said himself.. and am playing with my own thoughts on the matter., I dont know what he meant but have ideas, do you?
I can see your arguement on all that but your anologies of pixels/maths/whatever towards art or the 'bigger picture' are irrelevant. I'm not talking about art, or conveying emotions and stating that the 'dots' so to speak arnet important, Im actually with you on that. Im talking about technology which is built for the purpose of recreating physical sound. In that respect digital audio technology is absolutely a mathematical approach, and Im just stating that I find it an interesting matter that he might think that it is a lousy system to use when based on assumptions (using maths) about what our ears actually find satisfying.
The boy greg batesons got a very interesting book, theres a whole chapter about how in conversations the very structure of the conversation holds a simelar structure of the point trying to be made. The last few replies to my post have confirmed this. Its just blown my mind, its a good thing
Old 10th August 2014
  #129
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by PartHunter View Post
I'm not sure exactly what he meant by that. I would have thought he was calling mathematics (the foundations of digital) in general a lousy way to approach designing the technology that we use to store and play sound. I wouldn't have thought it matters how simple the math is, my point is perhaps theyre trying to answer the wrong questions.
The thing is, digital audio is a subset of digital theory, which is a subset of information theory. The "mathematics part" comes from information theory and represents the generalized, abstract rules of how information systems behave. It is therefore the only reasonable approach to designing these systems.

Put it another way: would you try to build a bridge (or send a rocket to the moon or whatever) without the mathematical models of physics?

Quote:
Of course it has something to do with our hearing mechanism, there are things we know about the ear and what frequencies we hear, and how sensitive we are to those frequencies etc.. digital audio technology is built around those things we know and there are mathematical processes in place to make the whole thing work, however I would have thought Tim meant by that statement that it is not necessarily an accurate way to recreate what we really hear and there are pressumptions in that the ear will be satisfied by approaching from that angle of what we do know.
The particulars of our hearing are only relevant as the final parameters of the system -- they determine the target bandwidth, the acceptable SNR, etc. These are mere details and easily tweaked. The underlying mathematical models -- the foundations of all our systems, both analog and digital -- have nothing whatsoever to do with the particulars of our hearing mechanism.

Quote:
Its no wonder alot of the gear that people rave about on here is designed by talented electronics guys who use throw the spec sheets to the side and use their ears, because the ear continues to tell us things that maths and measurements dont.
Talented designers use their ears to tweak the system -- the ears, after all, are the final destination in audio gear -- but everything they do is guided by the science and mathematics of systems design.
Old 10th August 2014
  #130
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by PartHunter View Post
Im talking about technology which is built for the purpose of recreating physical sound. In that respect digital audio technology is absolutely a mathematical approach, and Im just stating that I find it an interesting matter that he might think that it is a lousy system to use when based on assumptions (using maths) about what our ears actually find satisfying.
I guess you don't realize that analog audio technology is also based on a mathematical approach, much of it quite similar to the math of digital systems. Those Studer tape machines started life as equations on a chalkboard.
Old 10th August 2014
  #131
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PartHunter View Post
'Oh we cant hear above 20Khz so it doesnt matter', is pressumptuous ignorance.
nonsense - what is presumptuous ignorance is pushing mystical explanations in order to explain 'why' your placebos might be "really happening" before demonstrating that they ARE happening.

If I said my light bulbs do not need to be putting out radio wavelengths, just visible light, even the most unscientific fraud would not dare say I was being "presumptuous". FIRST you show me someone can tell which light bulbs are missing the radio waves. THEN we might expend some time and energy figuring out why.

Your caveat that you are "not necessarily" advocating for "ultrasonic hearing" is hollow. It's the same old mystical magic rocks. No matter how you slice it, you putting the cart before the horse. First you need to prove that the things you claim are actually happening, and sadly, that means a blindfold.
Old 10th August 2014
  #132
Lives for gear
 
Ephi82's Avatar
 



Don't you guys have other people to argue with besides GearSlutters?

Old 10th August 2014
  #133
Sometimes I argue politics on Facebook, but that's not much fun because, well, it matters.

(Also, it's kind of hard to get a meaningful dialog going right now among my friends because, well, most of my FB friends are pretty well-informed, reasonable people, on either 'side' -- but one side seems particularly reluctant to speak out right now for fear of being lumped with 'neo-populist, anti-science know-nothings' who may hold the same party allegiance but who neither have a grip on the facts nor the ideological precepts traditionally underlying their party.)
Old 10th August 2014
  #134
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
nonsense - what is presumptuous ignorance is pushing mystical explanations in order to explain 'why' your placebos might be "really happening" before demonstrating that they ARE happening.

If I said my light bulbs do not need to be putting out radio wavelengths, just visible light, even the most unscientific fraud would not dare say I was being "presumptuous". FIRST you show me someone can tell which light bulbs are missing the radio waves. THEN we might expend some time and energy figuring out why.

Your caveat that you are "not necessarily" advocating for "ultrasonic hearing" is hollow. It's the same old mystical magic rocks. No matter how you slice it, you putting the cart before the horse. First you need to prove that the things you claim are actually happening, and sadly, that means a blindfold.
It seems you have jumped to an assumption as well. I have never claimed what you are saying I claimed., The statement I made has nothing to do with whether you can hear above that or not.. I dont quite understand, do you think I was asserting that one can hear above the 20K point and everyone who doesnt agree is ignorant?? If so you have in fact proved the very point Im trying to make. Mystical rocks whatever mate, Im just genuinly curious and questioning the things that make up the systems we all use, I never said something was one way or another...
So I need to prove the things I claim are actually happening, could you 'remind' me what I was claiming?
Old 10th August 2014
  #135
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Scientists know a lot about human hearing but lay people often select only the bits of science that support whatever they are selling while pretending none of the rest exists.
Old 10th August 2014
  #136
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
Scientists know a lot about human hearing but lay people often select only the bits of science that support whatever they are selling while pretending none of the rest exists.
Bob Olhsson you have basically just said everything I was trying to say in one line. Thanks!
Old 10th August 2014
  #137
Lives for gear
 
decocco's Avatar
 

ROAR! Digital Monster! ROAR!



I think analog is more monster-like. Moving a pro tools rig between studios is pretty easy. Moving a 2-inch machine.... ROAR!
Old 10th August 2014
  #138
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by PartHunter View Post
You've misquoted +mis understood me, possibly because of your own assumption on what I meant, since I didnt explain. I never said humans can hear above that point, I know that. I was quoting a commonplace statement that people make "If you cant hear above 20K so it doesnt matter". I'll leave you to ponder on what I meant within the context of that post I made, or if your your genuinly curious you can always ask me.
I didn't misquote you, unless by "mis-quote you" you mean "quote what you said." See above, where your words are being quoted. here they are again, being quoted:

"There is still relatively little known about the way the ear works and how it translates to sense perception, and when people throw out statements such as 'Oh we cant hear above 20Khz so it doesnt matter', is pressumptuous ignorance."


If what you said was not what you meant, then by all means, explain.


In fact a great deal is known about how the ear works. There's been 100 years of international research in medicine, anatomy, acoustics. It's not presumptuous ignorance to claim people can't hear above 20khz. It's actually presumptuous ignorance to claim they can--that is, you are presuming this form of hearing exists, and you are ignorant of any evidence proving its existence--hence presumptuous ignorance.

If you have this evidence, i'd be delighted to see it and to be re-educated about the limits of human hearing. What you are offering amounts to "science doesn't know everything, therefore my evidence free-presumption must be true." This gets offered a round here a lot--"science doens't know everything dude" Indeed it does not. And aware that it doesn't know everything, it works to be as accurate as possible about what can be known.

Please point me to the evidence that people hear above 22 khz.You think I'm being arrogant--which I guess is what you meant by "presumptuous ignorance?" But all I'm doing it looking at the results, repeated millions of times over the last 100 years, of hearing tests on human subjects
Old 11th August 2014
  #139
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PartHunter View Post
It seems you have jumped to an assumption as well. I have never claimed what you are saying I claimed.,
you said

Quote:
"There is still relatively little known about the way the ear works
this is simply not true. The fact that science "does not know everything" does not imply that "science knows nothing". You cannot refute known science with the "possibility' that Unknown Science might exist

there may well be "relatively little known" that supports the mumbo-jumbo you would prefer to believe. However, you will wait a lifetime for the "discoveries" you anticipate that will justify your personal taste for whatever. People like what they like, it doesn't mean they need to prove there is something "wrong" with what they don't like.

Digital monster, my ass.
Old 11th August 2014
  #140
Lives for gear
 
Sofa King's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Lawson View Post
SNIP...... I record in high rate and I know once it's reduced to CD it is a shadow of the high res master. I hear very vividly the way high res thins out when at CD rate. SNIP
Hi,
Maybe Im not following, but are you saying that when you track at 24/96k the final printed 16/44.1 mix sounds "thinned out", compared to if you had started, and stayed at 16/44.1?


all the best,
Sean
Old 11th August 2014
  #141
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PB+J View Post
I didn't misquote you, unless by "mis-quote you" you mean "quote what you said." See above, where your words are being quoted. here they are again, being quoted:

"There is still relatively little known about the way the ear works and how it translates to sense perception, and when people throw out statements such as 'Oh we cant hear above 20Khz so it doesnt matter', is pressumptuous ignorance."


If what you said was not what you meant, then by all means, explain.


In fact a great deal is known about how the ear works. There's been 100 years of international research in medicine, anatomy, acoustics. It's not presumptuous ignorance to claim people can't hear above 20khz. It's actually presumptuous ignorance to claim they can--that is, you are presuming this form of hearing exists, and you are ignorant of any evidence proving its existence--hence presumptuous ignorance.

If you have this evidence, i'd be delighted to see it and to be re-educated about the limits of human hearing. What you are offering amounts to "science doesn't know everything, therefore my evidence free-presumption must be true." This gets offered a round here a lot--"science doens't know everything dude" Indeed it does not. And aware that it doesn't know everything, it works to be as accurate as possible about what can be known.

Please point me to the evidence that people hear above 22 khz.You think I'm being arrogant--which I guess is what you meant by "presumptuous ignorance?" But all I'm doing it looking at the results, repeated millions of times over the last 100 years, of hearing tests on human subjects
Ok, im sorry you have not mis-quoted me, but you have completely mis-understood me and thus taken that line I wrote out of context. Thus now I can understand why you are probably infuriated over it. Firstly let me admit the 'presumptuous ignorance' thing was extreme, wrong way to describe what I meant.
I can see how you interpreted me meaning I think humans can hear above 20K from the way I wrote and worded everything.
What I meant by that statement was an example of a commonplace attitude that is laced with assumption that if something like that is true, then everything is fine, in the context of SAMPLE RATES. That people often say well you dont need above 44.1Khz because you cannot hear above 20-22K so higher rates dont matter ..whatever bla bla. In fact I am actually on your side of your arguement and was never claiming humans can hear above that.. I was merely using that statement as an example of what many people say which I believe IS ignorant in the fact that there is so many other variables involved as to why something sounds good, not just audible bandwidth. You read what I wrote and had an assumption that because I wrote that, that I believe humans can hear above bla bla.
My point basically being that linear and narrow style of thinking or approaching problems is what I related to what Tim might have been thinking when he said what I quoted. In the fact that yes we cannot hear above 22K, but does that mean that thats all we need based on the assumption that if thats our audible bandwidth than thats all that matters.
Do I think your being arrogant by saying presumptuous ignorance...of course not but you know well that that comment wasnt aimed at you personally so no need to be dramatic. I would say though that youve kinda helped proved my point. Apologies if you misunderstood me, I can see why you would though I should have been more clear.
Old 11th August 2014
  #142
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
you said



this is simply not true. The fact that science "does not know everything" does not imply that "science knows nothing". You cannot refute known science with the "possibility' that Unknown Science might exist

there may well be "relatively little known" that supports the mumbo-jumbo you would prefer to believe. However, you will wait a lifetime for the "discoveries" you anticipate that will justify your personal taste for whatever. People like what they like, it doesn't mean they need to prove there is something "wrong" with what they don't like.

Digital monster, my ass.
Dont do that. So now your changing your original point to suit?? It seems youre quoting something else Ive said now, what about them lightbulbs mate? and my hollow assertion of ultrasonic hearing? Read my post to the guy above, you had the same assumption as him, or just jumped on his bandwagon. Either way youve actually proved two things for me. One is the kind of people that Im talking about in my post (Im sure your not presumptuous that was extreme sorry) 'ahem LEMMING. Two is something far more phenomenal, the kind of thing that hits you if your on LSD or the like.. this time Im not.
Old 11th August 2014
  #143
OK, this is getting "he said, she said" now...can we leave the personal insults out of it, and get back on topic please?
Old 12th August 2014
  #144
Lives for gear
 
Lance Lawson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sofa King View Post
Hi,
Maybe Im not following, but are you saying that when you track at 24/96k the final printed 16/44.1 mix sounds "thinned out", compared to if you had started, and stayed at 16/44.1?


all the best,
Sean
That is exactly what I'm saying. Things like reverb tails decay earlier as does note sustain. It's more than just a function of having gone from 96/24 to 44/16 since I was aware of this from my early 44/16 recordings that were recorded and mixed at that rate. 44/16 has never approached the fullness of tape for me. 96/24 does a very good job of having that all there sense that good tape has. If not for the beneficial tape artifacts like tape compression and warming harmonic distortion I'd consider 96/24 as a fully formed sonic medium.

When CD came into being the negative remarks were usually that it didn't sound as good as the technologies it was replacing. I can't recall a single instance in the 80's of anyone saying it sounded equal to or simply different to vinyl and or tape. This is very telling because as often as not remarks of how it was inferior concerned the lack of bass depth and top ends that were unpleasant. It was obvious that consumers were questioning what they were hearing. Bear in mind at that time everyone was well versed in the sounds of vinyl and tape. The professional engineers I worked with unanimously panned CD and for many of the same reasons everyone else did.

As someone there at the beginning I maintain, as do others that the 44/16 format is indeed flawed regardless of what the math says. If it wasn't flawed we would have heard many more comments that CD has a different sound but it is a satisfying sound all the same. This never occurred. You loved it for the tech and sterility of the sound but I never encountered anyone who championed it because it was satisfying to the ears. 44/16 is the antithesis of the old Bumble Bee scenario. The math says a Bumble Bee shouldn't be able to fly but it fly it does. The math says 44/16 should present a fully developed sound but it does not. 44/16 is the Bumble Bee that does not fly so to speak. It sort of hops and glides but only after engineers have to jump through all kinds of hoops to make it sound reasonable.

I've maintained for a long time that the 44/16 was an good engineering guess but it wasn't the best guess that could have been made. If it had been the debate would not have rolled on for nearly quarter of a century and the higher sampling rates would not have been necessary.

This said 96/24 is as reasonable as can be to the sonic completeness rolling tape.
Old 12th August 2014
  #145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Lawson View Post
That is exactly what I'm saying. Things like reverb tails decay earlier as does note sustain. It's more than just a function of having gone from 96/24 to 44/16 since I was aware of this from my early 44/16 recordings that were recorded and mixed at that rate. 44/16 has never approached the fullness of tape for me. 96/24 does a very good job of having that all there sense that good tape has. If not for the beneficial tape artifacts like tape compression and warming harmonic distortion I'd consider 96/24 as a fully formed sonic medium.

When CD came into being the negative remarks were usually that it didn't sound as good as the technologies it was replacing. I can't recall a single instance in the 80's of anyone saying it sounded equal to or simply different to vinyl and or tape. This is very telling because as often as not remarks of how it was inferior concerned the lack of bass depth and top ends that were unpleasant. It was obvious that consumers were questioning what they were hearing. Bear in mind at that time everyone was well versed in the sounds of vinyl and tape. The professional engineers I worked with unanimously panned CD and for many of the same reasons everyone else did.

As someone there at the beginning I maintain, as do others that the 44/16 format is indeed flawed regardless of what the math says. If it wasn't flawed we would have heard many more comments that CD has a different sound but it is a satisfying sound all the same. This never occurred. You loved it for the tech and sterility of the sound but I never encountered anyone who championed it because it was satisfying to the ears. 44/16 is the antithesis of the old Bumble Bee scenario. The math says a Bumble Bee shouldn't be able to fly but it fly it does. The math says 44/16 should present a fully developed sound but it does not. 44/16 is the Bumble Bee that does not fly so to speak. It sort of hops and glides but only after engineers have to jump through all kinds of hoops to make it sound reasonable.

I've maintained for a long time that the 44/16 was an good engineering guess but it wasn't the best guess that could have been made. If it had been the debate would not have rolled on for nearly quarter of a century and the higher sampling rates would not have been necessary.

This said 96/24 is as reasonable as can be to the sonic completeness rolling tape.
You're still confusing the differences between production at 16bit and 24bit (which no-one is advocating) and delivery format, and also comparing early CD transfers (older conversion, in many cases poor transfer techniques - it was in it's infancy of course at that point) with the format itself.

You have to work out what you're actually talking about, and compare like with like. Until that point it's impossible to discuss anything meaningful.

I'm not quite sure what the bumble bee analogy is trying to say, but a bumble bee doesn't defy physics - gravity and air resistance etc still effect it. If there's something that says that it shouldn't be able to fly according to what we know, then that just says we don't understand something quite yet. Because a bumble bee doesn't exist in some weird physics-defying bubble, it's just a quirk of nature. Pretty sure that's nothing to do with CD or 16bit/44.1 delivery formats!
Old 12th August 2014
  #146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Lawson View Post
[...] I can't recall a single instance in the 80's of anyone saying it sounded equal to or simply different to vinyl and or tape. [...]
LOFL

Seriously, what freakin' universe were you living in, cowboy?

Within a period of about a decade, CD sales knocked the bottom out of the vinyl delivery market -- DESPITE the fact that people had to buy new (and for a while fairly expensive) players AND had to pay a 30% to 50% premium for CD instead of vinyl.

Do you think they were doing that because it sounded WORSE?

I was among those who really did NOT like the sound of the very first CD playback I heard. But within a few years, the rough spots had largely been worked out. By 1985 or so I had made the decision to buy CDs instead of vinyl when I had the choice.

So NOW you've heard at least ONE person who, in the 80s, thought the CD definitely, absolutely sounded better than vinyl and put his money where his ears took him.

And, based on the numbers, I'd say I had PLENTY of company.


Do yourself a favor and don't say such patently silly stuff. It makes it very hard to have anything approaching a serious discussion when someone is issuing totally off-the-wall, unsupportable nonsense and, apparently, expecting to be taken seriously.


PS... with re bumble bees and aerodynamics -- the notion that bumble bees defy what is known about aerodynamics or that any sort of consensus of scientists have said they 'shouldn't' be able to fly is complete and utter NONSENSE promoted by moronic feature writers and know-nothings like the self-help authors who titled their respective books Bumble Bees Can't Fly (Barry Siskind) and The Bumblebee Flies Anyway (Robert Cormier). Great minds clearly think alike, huh? snopes.com: Bumblebees Can't Fly
Old 12th August 2014
  #147
Lives for gear
 

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.
isn't that part of the appeal of classical or symphonic music? Like anything if it gets over used it's is sort of a cheap trick as you put it, but in film it's very effective. John Williams did a lot of that, he did it very tastefully though. It's like anything else in music, you can do it in cliche' manner or you can use it subtly and it can be very effective.
Old 12th August 2014
  #148
Lives for gear
 
Lance Lawson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
LOFL

Seriously, what freakin' universe were you living in, cowboy?

Within a period of about a decade, CD sales knocked the bottom out of the vinyl delivery market -- DESPITE the fact that people had to buy new (and for a while fairly expensive) players AND had to pay a 30% to 50% premium for CD instead of vinyl.

Do you think they were doing that because it sounded WORSE?

I was among those who really did NOT like the sound of the very first CD playback I heard. But within a few years, the rough spots had largely been worked out. By 1985 or so I had made the decision to buy CDs instead of vinyl when I had the choice.

So NOW you've heard at least ONE person who, in the 80s, thought the CD definitely, absolutely sounded better than vinyl and put his money where his ears took him.

And, based on the numbers, I'd say I had PLENTY of company.


Do yourself a favor and don't say such patently silly stuff. It makes it very hard to have anything approaching a serious discussion when someone is issuing totally off-the-wall, unsupportable nonsense and, apparently, expecting to be taken seriously.
Why I'm living in a universe where there is serious debate over the merits of the CD format 44/16 that was decided on as the standard consumer digital listening format of course. I argue with vinyl advocates that it does not sound as good as CD. However my preference has always been with reel to reel tape. Personally I've never advocated vinyl over anything. But I have passed along the enthusiasm others have for it.

CD sales are not an indication of a superior sound. The industry made the decision to abandon vinyl and set about doing it. It was clearly a marketing decision that paid well for the industry when they re released vinyl onto CD. They got to sell collections twice. I put zero stock in the concept of sales. Reel to reel sounded better than anything and the inferior cassette replaced it. MP3 and other compressed formats outsell CD today. Is it because it sounds better? If we're in my universe it does not. It's intellectually dishonest to say otherwise.
Old 12th August 2014
  #149
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
The "mathematics part" comes from information theory
Not really, the mathematical aspects of digital audio are all based on integration. "Information theory" is more just broader term for the modern implementations. That is more a Shannon/Nyquist term. The actually nuts and bolts of digital audio is all Newton and Leibniz and to a smaller degree Gauss.
Old 12th August 2014
  #150
Quote:
Originally Posted by chainrule View Post
isn't that part of the appeal of classical or symphonic music? Like anything if it gets over used it's is sort of a cheap trick as you put it, but in film it's very effective. John Williams did a lot of that, he did it very tastefully though. It's like anything else in music, you can do it in cliche' manner or you can use it subtly and it can be very effective.
I've long felt about the canons in Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture much as I felt about KISS.

OTOH, I still marvel at what I consider the brilliance of Stravinsky's still kind of shocking Sacre du Printemps (Rite of Spring).

I mean, I'll admit I'm not the most sophisticated music lover in the concert hall -- I've mostly eschewed finding out about the composer's lives (OK, I watched Amadeus ) or reading historical analyses of the progression of 'serious' music through the centuries. I had an abreaction to the traditional music establishment when I was young and I determined I wasn't going to let them spoil music for me. Turning my back on the formal music world was the only way I could learn to play and maybe even keep enjoying music. For me, I need the immediate connection. Sure, when killing time I might read the program notes but they're usually more the bio detail stuff and when they stretch they get pretty silly -- 'the composer's angst in the cold and hungry winter of 1844 can be felt in his choice of the double flatted...'
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