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
if higher sample rate doesnt matter then why .... Effects Pedals, Units & Accessories
Old 26th September 2011
  #721
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
DISTORTION TO THE PEOPLE
Thomas Lund
Program Manager
[email protected]
TC Electronic A/S, Denmark

Abstract
Despite new generations of converters, higher resolution and sample rates, lower jitter, and several other technical
improvements in audio production, many music lovers believe that quality on new CD releases has generally been on a
downward slope since the mid 90'ies.
In previous papers [19-21], one of the contributing factors was found to be the use of extreme level ("0 dBFS+") on new
albums, combined with the lack of headroom in reproduction. Clipping in production and mastering causes listening fatigue, while the sound can be additionally distorted in the digital to analog conversion at the listener. Purely digital processing, such as sample rate conversion, filtering and data reduction codecs, may exhibit the same behavior.

...
Introduction
...
Maximum loudness is also becoming a goal in itself in
new movies, so film operators more frequently now
have to turn down replay level to avoid complaints from
the audience.


Distortion, which cannot be removed again, is the price paid for trying to adjust the end listener's level control.

However, not all the distortion is recognized in the
studio, because it does not show on the meters,
and is
not heard before the signal goes through a reproduction
chain. Therefore, an additional penalty is added:
Unpredictable reproduction quality due to exhausted
headroom in DA converters, sample rate converters
and
... Today, production procedures have completely changed, but the way we measure level has not. Digital dynamics processors may have familiar names such as compressor or limiter, but there is no guarantee they won't invisibly pollute the signal in ways their analog counterparts would not.
This paper describes the consequences of current
leveling and distortion techniques,...

you should get and read the whole paper

see the problems with being too hot anywhere
and
see the terminology NOT using intersample peaks that is correct and meaningful
So... since you say you had an academic career, we have to assume you wrote academic papers, theses, etc. Did you use the same, shall we say, colorful style of quoting other works? You know, they invented things like quotation marks (inverted commas to our Britspeak pals), indentation and citation for a reason.

Anyhow, mangled presentation aside, looks like a good paper or article from what I can make out. Not exactly news, perhaps, but always good to have more ink and awareness of some of the problems with many recordists' approaches to getting what they feel is a 'contemporary' and 'competitive' sound.


Looks like D3 found the part we'd all be looking for right away, of course...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveDaveDave View Post
[...]

See Page 4: "...Fig 5, level is judged to be lower than the reference
tone by the VU, 9 dB higher than the tone by the PPMs,
12 dB higher when samples are read one by one (meter
6), and 15 dB higher if intersample peaks are also taken
into account (meter 7). This meter therefore displays the
intrinsic level of a digital signal."
Signal? They're clearly wrong there, according to OAG: signal stops existing at AD and starts again, almost magically, I guess, at DA.

And... of course, as we all know by now -- there's no such thing as intersample peaks, according to OAG.

Yup.


Chickens, welcome back to the roost.
Old 26th September 2011
  #722
Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC View Post
You really just dont get that any debate is about defining the terms do you?

Narcs is the king of that, can you not see that answering specifics might help redefine the problem or lack of a problem.

It so much safer to point to Nyquist/Shannon and make sweeping generalizations like "I have a PhD, so just know that whatever I say about it is right"...because there is nothing specific to argue against...no accountability in that is there?
I have never felt like my lack of a college degree should keep me from taking a little effort and learning a thing or two about the technology I use to make music.

I'm not saying everyone has to take advantage of the wealth of information, tutorials, and explainers out there -- but if folks don't, I think it should behoove them to remove their ill-founded and indefensible suppositions from serious discussions on such a topic.

Additionally, I think, when a person comes into contact with someone who, when interjecting him or herself into such a conversation, asks for explanations or rationales and then, when people try to explain the issues and point that person to established information on the topic, rejects those explanations and information sources without seeming to make any attempt to understand or pursue them, anyone dealing with such a person needs to be aware that they are dealing with someone who appears to be acting out some psychodrama of his or her own and is not on any sort of quest for illumination or self-education.

_______________


With regard to a concern for 'being right.' Yes, I want to be right. In that I want what I vest belief in to be correct.

The last thing I want is to go spewing incorrect information.

But I have in the past -- and, guess what, when someone corrects me (as Dan Lavry did some years ago in this forum when I was making a particularly inapt analogy regarding sample rate conversion -- which I was completely cockeyed on) I make a point of publicly correcting myself. I've even gone so far as to search for every instance of such incorrect information from me that I can find and add an addendum that the info I had presented was incorrect and noting the correct information.

I don't mind 'embarrassing' myself by such an admission of error -- because I believe it is so important to give out the correct information if one is going to open his or her mouth in the first place.
Old 26th September 2011
  #723
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
I have never felt like my lack of a college degree should keep me from taking a little effort and learning a thing or two about the technology I use to make music.
damn right!! The point is - you learned it.
Old 26th September 2011
  #724
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC View Post
The picture of four dots with a sinewave explains absolutely nothing regarding intersample peaks...and frankly as I stated before, if that is the best you've got in the form of proof, then the argument goes to OAG by a longshot.
What the heck, I'll take another stab at it. I'm gonna hit it from a more analog approach.

Instantaneous transitions don't exist, at least anywhere in Newtonian physics. (BTW, can we please avoid talking about quarks and m-brane theory in the followups?) Simple harmonic motion is basically sinusoidal. The arc of a pendulum, a ball, the ting of a tuning fork, the charge time of a capacitor, all sinusoidal or directly related to it. In nature, whenever anything changes, it takes time to change, and the rate of change takes time to change, hence a curve.

A square wave is a LOT more complicated than a sine wave. Nothing is quantized and square. When you take a square wave and REMOVE harmonic frequencies, you get the more natural, give and take oscillation that is a sine wave.

It takes your massively complicated computer system with 500 million transistors and probably millions of filtering capacitor to put out that quantized square wave on your DAW's monitor. If you could look at the stairsteps coming out of the DAC, you'd find that even those aren't perfectly square, but sloped, curved and full of ripple.
Then it takes single simple capacitor and resistor make up the filter that removes these frequencies. If it's tuned to a low enough frequency, any square wave will sound rounded and sinusoidal - one fundamental, no harmonic overtones (with a perfect filter). Still, even with a real world, non-perfect filter, this resulting sine wave IS simpler than the square wave the a huge network of components to quantize - it's simple harmonic motion.

It's not just the RC decimation filter that eliminates frequencies - the air does this, your ears do it - nothing moves instantaneously. Even if you smack your fist down on the table, the cushy flesh, the give of the wood, the propagation of kinetic energy from molecule to molecule in the air - the near instantaneous "clap" is quickly filtered to simpler sine waves and also simultaneously combined with higher harmonics as everything else vibrates - all sinusoidally at one scale or another.

It makes me wonder what really happens with the fluid and the hairs inside the cochlea when we hear a square wave... I'm no MD, but I'd wager that you'll see a LOT more hairs firing off a lot more nerves with a square wave than you do with a sine wave,

I really do hope this helps. If it does, I'm pretty sure your next line of thinking might take you deeper into Fourier analysis - which is much cooler than Nyquist, Shannon, Whittacre et. all.

Dang, I didn't quite finish did I? Anyone else want to continue my wild ramblings and offer any corrections where needed? I didn't quite get to the point, did I? Anybody want to point out the other way of seeing it, the response of the filter cap as hit's hit by the jaggies?

Dave

Last edited by DaveDaveDave; 26th September 2011 at 09:07 PM.. Reason: merged posts
Old 26th September 2011
  #725
Lives for gear
 
minister's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveDaveDave View Post
...and full of ripple.
Like Fred Sanford and his pal Grady.
Old 26th September 2011
  #726
Quote:
Originally Posted by u b k View Post
Analog does not derive from analogy; analog is straight from ancient greek, analogy's etymology is latin (which comes from the greek). Common roots, different sources.

Pickin' nits on a Monday morning! heh


Gregory Scott - ubk
More on the subject...
Quote:
Etymology

Greek ???, "up to", + ?????, "ratio".
(You'll have to go to Wiktionary to get the actual Greek characters, I suspect. In my browser, once transferred to this BB, I just get question marks instead of the Greek, above.)


from the Online Etymology Dictionary:

Quote:
analogue 1826, "an analogous thing," from Fr. analogue, from Gk. analogon (itself used in English from c.1810), from ana "up to" (see ana-) + logos "account, ratio" (see lecture). Computing sense is recorded from 1946.
Old 26th September 2011
  #727
Gear Nut
 

merged

Last edited by DaveDaveDave; 26th September 2011 at 09:07 PM.. Reason: merged with prior post.
Old 26th September 2011
  #728
Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
damn right!! The point is - you learned it.
[long, boring autobiographical ramble redacted but available on request]


It was a tough fight, Ma...
Old 26th September 2011
  #729
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by minister View Post
Like Fred Sanford and his pal Grady.
LOL.. sigh... I tried.
Old 26th September 2011
  #730
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveDaveDave View Post
I didn't quite get to the point, did I?
Too bad Harry Nilsson's no longer with us.
Old 26th September 2011
  #731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syncamorea View Post
Too bad Harry Nilsson's no longer with us.
I think that a lot.
Old 27th September 2011
  #732
Lives for gear
 
dcollins's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
the truth
the pictures still confuse digital and analog
and have no probitive value
Worst Turing machine ever.


DC
Old 27th September 2011
  #733
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by timlloyd View Post
Should we interpret this to mean that (on some level at least) you're not that interested in understanding this stuff? That's how I read it, sorry if that's a misinterpretation ...

Can't think of an example right now, but I do not think it's "ok" for great engineers to say technically ridiculous and incorrect things and stay unchallenged. If people look up to a person and respect what they have to say (often unconditionally), I feel that person has a responsibility not to talk bull**** Personal attacks are never warranted, but correction of false information always is.

To interpret the underlined bit in a different way than I implied above - we should be thankful when someone else bothers to correct our misconceptions - I totally agree with that!

Being confused about some technical points does not inherently make a person "better" at the artistic aspects of this profession ... just to get that out of the way, as it seemed like you may have been hinting at that

///

What have you read on the subject so far? Knowing that might help in pointing you to some literature that's appropriate. What are your specific questions that haven't been answered?
I AM very interested actually...I guess some miscommunication there, but yes very interested ...I am not interested in being RIGHT in this argument as I have no position either way. I'm pointing out that narcs side of this debate isn't really persuading those of us that that aren't "scientifically" inclined as it were...and also are being a little rude along the way. That's all. I haven't once said that I know better than anyone on this subject...as I don't. I'd like to understand a little better actually. My ears are fine and I'm comfortable with what I know is good and bad sounding, however understanding more of the theory and science behind conversion can only help I think.

What Have I read? wow well...some of Nyquist...a LOT of Lavry...way too much bickering on forums...various suggested links...it's all a little to disjointed these days for me...the way info (or lack therof) flows. I thought this thread could open up a new way of looking at it.
Old 27th September 2011
  #734
Lives for gear
 
DaveUK's Avatar
That's the thing far too much misinformation around! If you're not going for a f*****g phd in this stuff just give me the currently accepted theorum and let's get back to making or recording music to the accepted best practice ! And stay a little bit shy of 0dbfs
Old 27th September 2011
  #735
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveUK View Post
That's the thing far too much misinformation around! If you're not going for a f*****g phd in this stuff just give me the currently accepted theorum and let's get back to making or recording music to the accepted best practice ! And stay a little bit shy of 0dbfs
Good point...doesn't everyone do that?
Old 27th September 2011
  #736
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC View Post
I AM very interested actually...I guess some miscommunication there, but yes very interested
I suggest giving Nika Aldrich's "Digital Audio Explained - For the Audio Engineer" a try. I don't own it, but have read parts; it's very good but less maths-centric than much of the other stuff out there. You could read an example of his writing style here if it helps.
Old 27th September 2011
  #737
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC View Post
I AM very interested actually...I guess some miscommunication there, but yes very interested ...I am not interested in being RIGHT in this argument as I have no position either way.
Well - being right isn't really important here. What is important is just everyone understanding the truth. That simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC View Post
I'm pointing out that narcs side of this debate isn't really persuading those of us that that aren't "scientifically" inclined as it were...and also are being a little rude along the way. That's all.
The closest I've come to being rude is getting a bit annoyed at people refuting obvious truths! Not that it matters. You've assigned a standpoint to me which I haven't taken. It isn't rude to say someone isn't right!!

It's not my side of the debate ya see!! It's just "what is so". It's not really for me to translate papers into layman's terms - but honestly, the papers aren't that difficult in concept. Give them a go - you'll completely "get it". The maths? forget that just read the concepts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC View Post
I haven't once said that I know better than anyone on this subject...as I don't. I'd like to understand a little better actually. My ears are fine and I'm comfortable with what I know is good and bad sounding, however understanding more of the theory and science behind conversion can only help I think.
Absolutely right - this has never been a discussion about music or art or mixing etc. This is a purely math based debate with a bit of physical implementation thrown in. The ONLY point of contention has been OAGs dislike of certain terms. It doesn't change what's there and doesn't affect anyone ability to use all the studio goods to make music. As has oft been pointed out - some of the best music makers out there are entirely ignorant of what makes the stuff work.

Knowing how it works and why the math's is infallible has no relevance to making music or recording anything. It's useful to know, but not all important - however, misinformation should always be corrected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC View Post
What Have I read? wow well...some of Nyquist...a LOT of Lavry...way too much bickering on forums...various suggested links...it's all a little to disjointed these days for me...the way info (or lack therof) flows. I thought this thread could open up a new way of looking at it.
A new way? Well - there isn't really a new way. Depends what you're trying to understand.

I agree with OAG that inter sample peaks aren't a problem. Where we differ is in our reasoning. They're not an issue for me because they're dealt with by any properly designed system. They're not an issue for OAG because he doesn't like one term to mix between two domains. On that issue I agree - but the fact is they don't join two domains. It's merely and equivalence to reference one against another - not the same thing.
Old 28th September 2011
  #738
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC View Post
I AM very interested actually...I guess some miscommunication there, but yes very interested ...I am not interested in being RIGHT in this argument as I have no position either way. I'm pointing out that narcs side of this debate isn't really persuading those of us that that aren't "scientifically" inclined as it were...and also are being a little rude along the way. That's all. I haven't once said that I know better than anyone on this subject...as I don't. I'd like to understand a little better actually. My ears are fine and I'm comfortable with what I know is good and bad sounding, however understanding more of the theory and science behind conversion can only help I think.

What Have I read? wow well...some of Nyquist...a LOT of Lavry...way too much bickering on forums...various suggested links...it's all a little to disjointed these days for me...the way info (or lack therof) flows. I thought this thread could open up a new way of looking at it.
you really need to read a good textbook
prove the theorems so you understand what they really say
work the problems
learn the correct terminology

take a mathematicians exact precise correct perspective
not the casual good enough approach that most audio books and internet sources use

lavry is not a bad summary from a heuristical approach but it leaves out a lot and is confusing with some things it does

if that is all you read then fine
especially if you dont need that info to make music or
do what you want to do

if you are into designing tweaking etc gear
then you need to knwo the real truth
not internet whizdumb urban myths that highschool seniors know is "correct" cause everybody else said so
Old 28th September 2011
  #739
Whew!

You had me worried there up until that last line.
Old 28th September 2011
  #740
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Whew!

You had me worried there up until that last line.
Yeah - consecutive paragraphs nearly in English...I was about to ask who had abducted OAG...I particularly like the bit about learning "the correct terminology"...

I've just realised that maybe OAG is formatting his posts in prose... I like the way the lines are formatted here:

"if that is all you read then fine
especially if you dont need that info to make music or
do what you want to do"
Old 28th September 2011
  #741
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Yeah - consecutive paragraphs nearly in English...I was about to ask who had abducted OAG...I particularly like the bit about learning "the correct terminology"...

I've just realised that maybe OAG is formatting his posts in prose... I like the way the lines are formatted here:

"if that is all you read then fine
especially if you dont need that info to make music or
do what you want to do"
Whatever you think it is...

... it's verse.



buh doom ssss
Old 28th September 2011
  #742
Lives for gear
 
dcollins's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Whew!

You had me worried there up until that last line.
"Making baseless accusations takes a second, and exposing them takes a month."

-- Maybe Churchill, maybe Mark Twain
Old 28th September 2011
  #743
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcollins View Post
"Making baseless accusations takes a second, and exposing them takes a month."

-- Maybe Churchill, maybe Mark Twain
All my accusations are in base 10 unless otherwise noted.
Old 28th September 2011
  #744
Lives for gear
 
minister's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcollins View Post
-- Maybe Churchill, maybe Mark Twain
News of my death is information up with which we should not put.

Best I could do off the top of my head.....
Old 3rd October 2011
  #745
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
Well - being right isn't really important here. What is important is just everyone understanding the truth. That simple.

The closest I've come to being rude is getting a bit annoyed at people refuting obvious truths! Not that it matters. You've assigned a standpoint to me which I haven't taken. It isn't rude to say someone isn't right!!

It's not my side of the debate ya see!! It's just "what is so". It's not really for me to translate papers into layman's terms - but honestly, the papers aren't that difficult in concept. Give them a go - you'll completely "get it". The maths? forget that just read the concepts.

Absolutely right - this has never been a discussion about music or art or mixing etc. This is a purely math based debate with a bit of physical implementation thrown in. The ONLY point of contention has been OAGs dislike of certain terms. It doesn't change what's there and doesn't affect anyone ability to use all the studio goods to make music. As has oft been pointed out - some of the best music makers out there are entirely ignorant of what makes the stuff work.

Knowing how it works and why the math's is infallible has no relevance to making music or recording anything. It's useful to know, but not all important - however, misinformation should always be corrected.

A new way? Well - there isn't really a new way. Depends what you're trying to understand.

I agree with OAG that inter sample peaks aren't a problem. Where we differ is in our reasoning. They're not an issue for me because they're dealt with by any properly designed system. They're not an issue for OAG because he doesn't like one term to mix between two domains. On that issue I agree - but the fact is they don't join two domains. It's merely and equivalence to reference one against another - not the same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
you really need to read a good textbook
prove the theorems so you understand what they really say
work the problems
learn the correct terminology

take a mathematicians exact precise correct perspective
not the casual good enough approach that most audio books and internet sources use

lavry is not a bad summary from a heuristical approach but it leaves out a lot and is confusing with some things it does

if that is all you read then fine
especially if you dont need that info to make music or
do what you want to do

if you are into designing tweaking etc gear
then you need to knwo the real truth
not internet whizdumb urban myths that highschool seniors know is "correct" cause everybody else said so

The both of you are hillarious actually..."refuting obvious truths"..."dont believe internot wizdumbs"....

I wouldn't take either of your opinions to the bank actually...I do like a fair and open discussion though....perhaps you both should reconsider your approach of force feeding people info.

Good luck.
Old 3rd October 2011
  #746
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Throw those toys right outta that pram...... heh
Old 3rd October 2011
  #747
Lives for gear
 

All I know is that a lot of aliasing disappears at higher sample rates when using plugins.

If that is the ONLY benefit working at higher sample rates does then I shall stick with working at 96khz and downsampling to 44.1khz when project is finished.
Old 3rd October 2011
  #748
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

good post!
Old 3rd October 2011
  #749
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Proton View Post
All I know is that a lot of aliasing disappears at higher sample rates when using plugins.

If that is the ONLY benefit working at higher sample rates does then I shall stick with working at 96khz and downsampling to 44.1khz when project is finished.
I have never noticed aliasing when using plugins.
Old 3rd October 2011
  #750
Quote:
Originally Posted by MandyC View Post
The both of you are hillarious actually..."refuting obvious truths"..."dont believe internot wizdumbs"....

I wouldn't take either of your opinions to the bank actually...I do like a fair and open discussion though....perhaps you both should reconsider your approach of force feeding people info.

Good luck.
To paraphrase the fable, you knew he was a snake when you took him home.

Uh...
and I'm not referring to narcoman.

heh
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