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
Ethan Winer article in Sound on Sound Effects Pedals, Units & Accessories
Old 3rd December 2009
  #61
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
That's the attitude!

Here's my contribution to helping folks understand at what level artifacts matter:

Artifact Audibility Report
Hrm. I heard the noise every time, on my computer speakers, with my windows open to nearby highways.
Old 3rd December 2009
  #62
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

The noises are only 50 dB down or less! Take my noise file and mix it in with some music of your own at -80 and let us know what you find. heh Then remember that jitter is another 30+ dB below that!

--Ethan
Old 3rd December 2009
  #63
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
No, they simulated jitter by generating the same type of artifacts using software. This is vastly more useful (and more reliable) than randomly trying different converters with and without an external clock. By simulating the artifacts they were able to increase the level gradually, and repeatably, to determine the threshold at which jitter is audible. Their conclusion I posted above is therefore infinitely more believable than 100 non-blind anecdotal reports posted in a gear forum.
Your conclusions would be predicated by the assumption that all clock jitter created by all clocks is equivalent and perfectly random, which you have not presented any evidence to suggest. In the real world, jitter is considered by different internal/external clocking arrangements. These arrangements can easily be tested against one another in nulling comparisons, as posted in this thread. If the tests in no way compared differing clocks, it is of little practical use, since again, there is no "perfectly random simulated jitter dial" that can be turned up and down on actual gear in actual use.


Quote:
Phase shift is not EQ, though most EQ uses phase shift internally to create boost and cut. I never said phase shift and EQ are the same!

A phase rotator like the IBP is a legitimate tool! But it's not meant as a sound effect, where a single music source is sent through it. It's meant to reduce frequency cancellations when two versions of the same signal are combined. Like a mic'd bass amp plus a DI feed. You do understand this, right?
No, you stated that someone enjoying the particular phase rotation induced by a given piece of gear required "magic", because phase shift is "benign" and "inaudible". Then you stated that you could emulate all forms of phase rotation with a simple EQ, so listeners wouldn't possibly be hearing "phase" at all, and we should only discuss frequency response. If this was not your point regarding the supposed "magic" of phase rotation, please clarify, because I'm not sure you had one to make.

It is well known that selective phase rotations can have significant impacts on how music is heard. For example, selective phase shifts can be applied to make material sound wider and bigger. Increasing perceived size of a mix is often a common goal in mixing.

Who is to dictate when the artifacts induced by any circuit are favorable or not? You? Or each individual and their individual ears?

Quote:
I don't know what "harmonic saturation" is supposed to be, but I never used that term either. Tape saturation occurs when the particles cannot accept any more magnetization. This is exactly analogous to sending more signal to a preamp - or pair of diodes - than it can handle without clipping.
That again assumes all distortion is equal, which would be absolutely incorrect. The distortion from a tube will not equate the distortion from a big muff will not equate the distortion from a pair of diodes will not equate the distortion from tape, even at equivalent THD.

All will manifest in different ways across the frequency spectrum and with different dynamics, giving the characteristic tones we know from each.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
But why would you want random pitch changes? How is that ever a good thing?

I'm not sure why anyone would want that effect.
People are not using this stuff to measure room responses. They are trying to make emotionally moving music. Why would anyone want a tube distorted guitar? Why a transformer coupled preamp? Why an SM7 on vocals? Suffice to say, Ethan, I don't think you understand the aesthetic objectives of most recordists.

As for your continued claims that analog processing and colorations are simple to emulate, I will repeat myself:

From what I know of most VST plugin programming, the algorithms are usually extremely simple and provide only one possible result. This differs completely from analog, where two passes using the same gear and settings can produce slightly, but measurably different results depending on a multitude of factors. No two kick drum hits generated by an 808 are exactly the same. Yet every hit generated by an 808 softsynth can be nulled against another with the same preset. Similarly, it has been my experience that there is little or no effort yet put into emulating the full depth of random behavior exhibited by other analog media like tape, most likely because it would be too CPU intensive.

Additionally, analog-sim plugins continue to get more and more complex, using more and more CPU power by the day. With these improvements, most UAD, Waves, and Nebula type buyers have claimed to have heard a consistent increase in sonic realism. If the simplest plugin emulations were already long ago perfect, that would be impossible. Do you, Ethan, claim to know that as a matter of fact that these plugin users are somehow "wrong" as well?

Again, please do not state or imply that your opinion is a matter of scientific fact without actual proof to back it up.

If you can null some diodes with EQ against a tape deck, I am fairly certain the entire audio world will thank you for your contribution and be lining up to enjoy the results.

If it is all so simple, where are your null tests?

I think they would be a far better example of "magic" than anything else described in this thread.
Old 4th December 2009
  #64
Lives for gear
 

I haven't done enough scientific testing between analog tape and digital to quantify the differences. Subjectively I can say I prefer tape. The simulations I've heard don't quite cut it for me yet, much like a POD doesn't sound like a real overdriven tube amp (but it's getting closer). The problem with modeling is non-linear simulation requires enormous CPU horsepower. I think Ethan you are simplifying this process a bit too much. A good parallel would be an acoustic space, you can get close by approximating but a true analysis requires solving differential equations, boundary conditions, permitivities, etc.

As far as jitter goes it is clearly audible with any mid-grade digital cards I have used. By switching between internal and external clocks there is a definite difference. Though if one person hears it but the other doesn't there isn't too much point debating it.

Jitter manifest itself as phase noise in the frequency domain, yes you could build a variable phase noise clock.

Hear's an article by Bob Katz Jitter I used to think I was hearing things when listening to different brand CDRs but apparently I'm not the only one.
Old 4th December 2009
  #65
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by mobius.media View Post
Your conclusions would be predicated by the assumption that all clock jitter created by all clocks is equivalent and perfectly random, which you have not presented any evidence to suggest.
The exact nature of a given jitter is irrelevant if the level is so low it can't be heard. Since jitter is always too soft to hear, why does its "sonic signature" matter?

Quote:
No, you stated that someone enjoying the particular phase rotation induced by a given piece of gear required "magic", because phase shift is "benign" and "inaudible". Then you stated that you could emulate all forms of phase rotation with a simple EQ
I'm glad to defend and clarify statements I make. But it's impossible to defend statements I never made! Please show where I said any of those things!

Quote:
It is well known that selective phase rotations can have significant impacts on how music is heard. For example, selective phase shifts can be applied to make material sound wider and bigger. Increasing perceived size of a mix is often a common goal in mixing.
I already agreed that altering the phase differently for each channel of a stereo mix (or track) is the basis for most widening effects. But that's the only time static phase shift is audible. The phase shift in an analog recorder, or preamp, or compressor, is not audible, and is not part of that device's "color."

Quote:
Who is to dictate when the artifacts induced by any circuit are favorable or not? You? Or each individual and their individual ears?
I'm comfortable saying that artifacts 80 dB below the music are inaudible, or at least soft enough not to matter. This goes for anyone's ears, not just mine.

Quote:
The distortion from a tube will not equate the distortion from a big muff will not equate the distortion from a pair of diodes will not equate the distortion from tape, even at equivalent THD.
Sort of. The transfer curve of tape is fairly simple, and is close enough to a pair of diodes and resistor as shown in my pre-distortion circuit to sound similar. That a pre-distortion circuit can reduce THD from 3% to 1% means it's at least a pretty close match! The reason a big muff sounds different from analog tape is not relevant because that box is intended to be used with high levels of distortion. Versus tape that is meant to have as little distortion as possible.

Quote:
As for your continued claims that analog processing and colorations are simple to emulate, I will repeat myself:
What I said is that analog tape coloration is simple to emulate. And it is. As I mentioned elsewhere this morning, there are several current threads here at GS about tape-sims being useful, and I'm sure you've heard of Charles Dye. heh

Quote:
This differs completely from analog, where two passes using the same gear and settings can produce slightly, but measurably different results depending on a multitude of factors.
Tape has dropouts that vary every time, but what other analog gear varies like that?

Quote:
If it is all so simple, where are your null tests?
Tell you what - you bring over an analog tape deck, and I'll try to model the sound with tape-sims so we can see how low they null to. Deal?

--Ethan
Old 4th December 2009
  #66
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyc View Post
I haven't done enough scientific testing between analog tape and digital to quantify the differences. Subjectively I can say I prefer tape. The simulations I've heard don't quite cut it for me yet, much like a POD doesn't sound like a real overdriven tube amp (but it's getting closer).
The key is to have someone else test you blind with material you haven't heard before. Then you have no preconceived notions or expectation bias. I know it's difficult to accept, but we're all influenced greatly by such biases.

Quote:
The problem with modeling is non-linear simulation requires enormous CPU horsepower. I think Ethan you are simplifying this process a bit too much. A good parallel would be an acoustic space
Modeling an acoustic space is incredibly complex. Modeling analog tape is drop-dead simple by comparison. It's a fairly simple transfer curve!

Quote:
As far as jitter goes it is clearly audible with any mid-grade digital cards I have used. By switching between internal and external clocks there is a definite difference.
It can't be audible unless something is broken. I know it pisses people off greatly when I say this, but I'll say it again anyway: Audiophooles are absolutely convinced they hear a change when they add a $5,000 replacement AC power cord, or raise their speaker cables off the floor on little ceramic lifters, or place tiny plastic "room treatment" dots around the room. How would you explain to them that they only imagined hearing a change?

--Ethan
Old 4th December 2009
  #67
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
The exact nature of a given jitter is irrelevant if the level is so low it can't be heard. Since jitter is always too soft to hear, why does its "sonic signature" matter?
Where is your proof jitter is always too soft to hear? You have provided none. A perfectly randomized simulation of jitter is not necessarily jitter in actual reality, as I have already explained. Unless you have analytic proof to the contrary.


Quote:
I'm glad to defend and clarify statements I make. But it's impossible to defend statements I never made! Please show where I said any of those things!

I already agreed that altering the phase differently for each channel of a stereo mix (or track) is the basis for most widening effects. But that's the only time static phase shift is audible. The phase shift in an analog recorder, or preamp, or compressor, is not audible, and is not part of that device's "color."
Phase shift is audible every time it is applied selectively across the frequency spectrum. I have never seen a phase plot from analog gear that provided equal rotation across the entire spectrum.

Quote:
I'm comfortable saying that artifacts 80 dB below the music are inaudible, or at least soft enough not to matter. This goes for anyone's ears, not just mine.
Depends what you plan on do with recordings that have those artifacts in them.

Quote:
Sort of. The transfer curve of tape is fairly simple, and is close enough to a pair of diodes and resistor as shown in my pre-distortion circuit to sound similar. That a pre-distortion circuit can reduce THD from 3% to 1% means it's at least a pretty close match! The reason a big muff sounds different from analog tape is not relevant because that box is intended to be used with high levels of distortion. Versus tape that is meant to have as little distortion as possible.
Please null a muff and a Marshall head line out and you will have a point to make. Total % has nothing to do with the character of the distortion. It tells you the quantity, not how it sounds.


Quote:
What I said is that analog tape coloration is simple to emulate. And it is. As I mentioned elsewhere this morning, there are several current threads here at GS about tape-sims being useful, and I'm sure you've heard of Charles Dye. heh
What does Charles Dye have to do with anything? I thought you didn't want to talk about individual subjective experience, anecdotes, or endorsements?

The list of experienced engineers who would say a tape plugin or pair of diodes is perfectly indistinguishable relative to a real tape deck is far, far shorter than the list that would not, and you are well aware of that.

That path does not help to make your point. Rather it makes mine.

Quote:
Tape has dropouts that vary every time, but what other analog gear varies like that?
I already gave an example of analog synths.

Quote:
Tell you what - you bring over an analog tape deck, and I'll try to model the sound with tape-sims so we can see how low they null to. Deal?
I don't own one, and wouldn't care to fly it to see you for this anyway.

You have made multiple statements of personal opinion mis-represented as proven fact. When others have exhibited this behavior, you have told them to put up or shut up. So please do the same. Or at a minimum, please learn to use these following "magic" phrases:

In my opinion/experience ...
From what I have heard/read/seen ...
It seems to me like/that ...

etc.

It's really not complicated. And believe it or not, it will make you a far better 'scientist' along the way.

For example, I'll fix the following quote for you to make it scientifically accurate:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
IN MY EXPERIENCE, Modeling an acoustic space is incredibly complex. TO ME, IT SEEMS LIKE Modeling analog tape is drop-dead simple by comparison. FROM WHAT I HAVE SEEN It's a fairly simple transfer curve!
Do you not understand that aspect of scientific writing? If not, what is your education as a 'scientist'?

Not surprisingly, you also still haven't answered my question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mobius.media View Post
Analog-sim plugins continue to get more and more complex, using more and more CPU power by the day. With these improvements, most UAD, Waves, and Nebula type buyers have claimed to have heard a consistent increase in sonic realism. If the simplest plugin emulations were already long ago perfect, that would be impossible. Do you, Ethan, claim to know that as a matter of fact that these plugin users are somehow "wrong" as well?

Again, please do not state or imply that your opinion is a matter of scientific fact without actual proof to back it up.
Old 4th December 2009
  #68
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by mobius.media View Post
Where is your proof jitter is always too soft to hear? You have provided none.
Of course I provided proof! What is this, the Twilight Zone? I showed the conclusion portion of an article that detailed thorough testing, and offered to email you the entire article. If you'd like further proof, I'll be glad to scan a figure from the book Principles of Digital Audio by Ken Pohlmann showing the typical levels of jitter as being well below the noise floor of 16-bit digital.

Quote:
A perfectly randomized simulation of jitter is not jitter in actual reality, as I have already explained.
How do you think anyone can hear stuff 100+ dB below the music while the music plays? And what's the residual noise SPL in your listening room? How many times do I have to explain this? Sheesh! heh

Quote:
Phase shift is audible every time it is applied selectively across the frequency spectrum. I have never seen a phase plot from analog gear that provided equal rotation across the entire spectrum.
Please upload a pair of Wave files that prove your point.

Quote:
What does Charles Dye have to do with anything? I thought you didn't want to talk about individual subjective experience, anecdotes, or endorsements?
A lot of people are satisfied with tape-sims.

Quote:
The list of experienced engineers who would say a tape plugin or pair of diodes is perfectly indistinguishable relative to a real tape deck is far, far shorter than the list that would not, and you know it.
I know nothing of the sort. And unless the comparisons were auditioned blind, I wouldn't believe those anecdotal reports anyway.

--Ethan
Old 4th December 2009
  #69
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
Of course I provided proof! What is this, the Twilight Zone? I showed the conclusion portion of an article that detailed thorough testing, and offered to email you the entire article. If you'd like further proof, I'll be glad to scan a figure from the book Principles of Digital Audio by Ken Pohlmann showing the typical levels of jitter as being well below the noise floor of 16-bit digital.
That 'detailed thorough testing' was, in your words, a theoretical simulation. A theoretical simulation does not represent reality unless sufficiently proven to and validated by direct tests of the actual reality it is trying to simulate.

In other words, I would prefer to see actual testing of actual equipment under various actual clocking arrangements.

Quote:
How do you think anyone can hear stuff 100+ dB below the music while the music plays? And what's the residual noise SPL in your listening room? How many times do I have to explain this? Sheesh! heh
You are arguing with your words, not mine.

Quote:
Please upload a pair of Wave files that prove your point.
Apply a multitude of selective, partial phase rotations with a UAD IBP. If phase rotation is perfectly transparent, you can add 500 if you like, all rotating different parts of the spectrum by different degrees. I expect the result will sound significantly different from the original, but I do not have a UAD to do this myself, so sorry, I have to sit this one out.

Quote:
A lot of people are satisfied with tape-sims. I know nothing of the sort. And unless the comparisons were auditioned blind, I wouldn't believe those anecdotal reports anyway.
Now you're improving.

Similarly, you cannot claim to know whether your two diodes or Cakewalk plugin accurately emulate tape, as you have never actually tested or nulled them side-by-side. Based on this, you also cannot possibly claim to know or prove that room modeling is more complex than tape/analog modeling.

Again, my quarrel is not with you expressing your opinion. I think it is great, and you are welcome to it. But please learn to represent it as such, and I think you'll be doing much better with it.
Old 5th December 2009
  #70
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
The key is to have someone else test you blind with material you haven't heard before. Then you have no preconceived notions or expectation bias. I know it's difficult to accept, but we're all influenced greatly by such biases
I agree about expectation bias but disagree about using unfamiliar material. I think it is important to evaluate musical gear with audio material that is familiar to you, the more you know something the more in tune and aware you are of it's nuances. And I have done these tests with sometimes surprising results. Trust me I love finding inexpensive gear that performs well, it's a lot easier on the wallet.

Just listened to the behringer files and there is clearly an audible difference to me. If there is none to you then you can correctly conclude that jitter artifacts are inaudible to you. It is incorrect to say they are inaudible as a blanket statement.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
It can't be audible unless something is broken
Perhaps some stuff is "broken" or probably more accurately "poorly designed". But at $30/channel price point it's understandable to cut corners. I get upset when a $1000/channel converter gets improved with an external clock.
Old 5th December 2009
  #71
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyc View Post
I agree about expectation bias but disagree about using unfamiliar material.
Yes, it doesn't have to be that. I was just trying to make the test suggestion as "neutral" as possible.

Quote:
Just listened to the behringer files and there is clearly an audible difference to me.
I never said otherwise! And the files don't even come close to nulling. Which is why I commented above that the difference cannot possibly be due only to one file having more jitter than the other. I asked for clarification on what the test is supposed to show and how the files were created, but nobody replied. Also as mentioned, the result after nulling has much more ambience than either original file, so my guess is that one file has 5 percent more Reverb Send or whatever. I won't accuse fraud, but maybe incompetence? heh

Quote:
I get upset when a $1000/channel converter gets improved with an external clock.
I'd be upset too, but first it has to be proven beyond all doubt that the sound is really changed. The one time I tested an external clock with a friend, neither of us heard any difference. Which yet again makes sense because the artifacts are so incredibly soft compared to the music.

--Ethan
Old 5th December 2009
  #72
Lives for gear
 
Arksun's Avatar
I would love to see Paul Frindle or Dan Lavry chime in on this topic
Old 6th December 2009
  #73
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
The files sound the same to me
Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant then. Will try to do a similar loopback test and post them when I get the chance.

Don't want to speak for Dan Lavry but from what I've read from him his contention is that in a well designed apples to apples system an internal clock will always be superior to an external, you don't have to deal with extra electronics, cables losses, etc. From an engineering perspective this makes perfect sense.

Mr. Lavry designs nice high end converters, I wouldn't expect to hear an audible improvement externally clocking his converters. But that doesn't mean this holds true for all converters.

My contention is that certain converters DO improve with an external clock. Or rather I should say there is an audible change, the improvement part is subjective opinion. If there is an audible change it is reasonable to conclude that certain jitter artifacts are audible.
Old 6th December 2009
  #74
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
I never said otherwise! And the files don't even come close to nulling. Which is why I commented above that the difference cannot possibly be due only to one file having more jitter than the other. I asked for clarification on what the test is supposed to show and how the files were created, but nobody replied. Also as mentioned, the result after nulling has much more ambience than either original file, so my guess is that one file has 5 percent more Reverb Send or whatever. I won't accuse fraud, but maybe incompetence?
Here were Steven Slate's comments:

Quote:
I found this very interesting. I used to post a lot of A/B tests at gearslutz and I always found them to end up very revealing.

I own an Aurora 16. When I first got it I compared it to the AD16X apogee that I had. At first I liked the Apogee better. Then I clocked the Aurora to the Big Ben and I could here a choir singing and birds chirping. The highs were smoother and the lows were richer and fatter.

I use the Aurora Big Ben combo and it was the means of transferring all the 2inch tape for my drum sample software. However this test got me curious.

For one thing, in the wav tests, it was obvious to me that the A version was a tad crisper then the original and the B version sounded more like the original, maybe a tiny bit less bright. Like Norman, I zoomed in with NUENDO to sample view and the B verion looked just like the original, where A did NOT. Then the cancelation test, as Norman said, Original and B were much closer then Original and A.

So the Behringer is not transparent (on its own clock) and adds some hair, apparently some good hair. But I wanted to see what happened if I clocked the Behringer to the Big Ben.

So I got the ADA8000, dusted off an old Hammerfall 96/52 card, and hooked it up. I was all happy and then I realized that the Behringer's output signal is WAY lower then what I was getting from the Lynx. I don't see any switching that would cause this so as soon as someone can help me out, I'll post wavs of the Behringer clocked to the Big Ben, as well as the Aurora to the Big Ben.
Quote:
Had a drum mix in Nuendo. My chain is Nuendo to Lynx AES16 to Aurora16 (clocked by Big Ben) to my Neotek console. I mixed the drums to 8 channels on the Neotek, and the faders were at UNITY.

Then I hooked up the Behringer via the RME 9652, and mixed into the console. As previously stated, the levels were lower. I ddn't touch the console levels, but I did adjust the Behringer input knobs almost to 12 o clock to compensate. This left them almost exactly 2db louder then the Lynx, so I printed the Behringer files at -2, so they are very close to level matched.

I don't see the need for a blind test so I labeled the files as such.

click below to get the files
Index of /norman

Behringer1 is internal clock
Behringer2 in Big Ben
Lynx is Aurora with Big Ben

With this test, the Lynx is far more open and natural and deep. The Behringers both sound boxy, chalky, and less clear. The Big Ben added some extra umph in the lows to the Behringer, but not all that much better. If you want to make this a blind test, have a friend or loved one work the transport while you close your eyes. There is a huge difference in these boxes.
If you want to disprove the results, you are again welcome to do so by reproduction. Casting aspersions on others' testing ability, referring to others as 'incompetent', and referencing abstract, unproven theory does not accomplish this.
Old 6th December 2009
  #75
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

I still don't understand how those files were created. From a DAW? Analog tape deck? Whatever, that description is full of subjective opinion. Saying the Behr with the Big Ben "added some extra umph in the lows" is easy to disprove by simply measuring (FFT) the files or nulling them. The low end is basically the same in both files.

This just goes to show how fleeting our hearing is, and how easily we're fooled by hearing what we expect to hear.

Were those two wave files were created by recording the playback of an analog tape recorder in separate passes? If so, jitter from the tape deck is 1,000 times worse than the crystal clock on the cheapest motherboard sound card. That would also explain why the files don't null.

--Ethan
Old 6th December 2009
  #76
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
I still don't understand how those files were created. From a DAW? Analog tape deck? Whatever, that description is full of subjective opinion. Saying the Behr with the Big Ben "added some extra umph in the lows" is easy to disprove by simply measuring (FFT) the files or nulling them. The low end is basically the same in both files.

This just goes to show how fleeting our hearing is, and how easily we're fooled by hearing what we expect to hear.

Were those two wave files were created by recording the playback of an analog tape recorder in separate passes? If so, jitter from the tape deck is 1,000 times worse than the crystal clock on the cheapest motherboard sound card. That would also explain why the files don't null.
No they were from DAW, sent out and back in by varying soundcard/clock (Aurora, Behr, and Behr with Big Ben).

Also, you know analog tape doesn't have "jitter".

As for "umph", changes to the upper and mid frequencies will always affect how the lows are perceived. The lows don't have to change to sound different and truly be different in relation to the rest of the spectrum.
Old 6th December 2009
  #77
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by mobius.media View Post
No they were from DAW, sent out and back in by varying soundcard/clock (Aurora, Behr, and Behr with Big Ben).
Sent out and back in through the same converter, or through different converters? Again, something is going on to make the files different, and I do not accept that the only difference is using an external clock. Unless the wire was like 100 feet long or some such causing sync problems.

Also, if the files were MIDI tracks triggering a sampler, that could explain small timing differences. SONAR doesn't do that, but I've seen sequential renders from Cubase of the same MIDI tracks create Wave files with small differences.

Quote:
Also, you know analog tape doesn't have "jitter".
How are the random micro-timing changes in analog tape playback any different from jitter?

Quote:
As for "umph", changes to the upper and mid frequencies will always affect how the lows are perceived.
Yes! This is exactly why such subjective impressions are never a substitute for measuring. If something changes in the midrange and the listener hears it as a change in low-end fullness, they do a disservice by stating that the low end changed. This is why I constantly harp on the frailty of human hearing, and why measuring is a better arbiter of what's really happening than subjective impression.

--Ethan
Old 6th December 2009
  #78
Gear Addict
 
topperf's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
That's a great idea, and I used my DPA 4090 for every single track I recorded on my Tele-Vision video:

Tele-Vision on Vimeo



If nothing else, I am 100 percent consistent. heh

--Ethan
Great video Ethan! - I like your subtle hint to whats on every mans mind once in a while at 03.31
Old 6th December 2009
  #79
Gear Addict
 
topperf's Avatar
 

Hope I didn't interrupt anything? if so - my apologies
Old 7th December 2009
  #80
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by topperf View Post
Hope I didn't interrupt anything? if so - my apologies
Relax. If there's any way to get out of an argument with Ethan, we'll take it and thank you for it.
Old 7th December 2009
  #81
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
How are the random micro-timing changes in analog tape playback any different from jitter?
Jitter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
Yes! This is exactly why such subjective impressions are never a substitute for measuring. If something changes in the midrange and the listener hears it as a change in low-end fullness, they do a disservice by stating that the low end changed. This is why I constantly harp on the frailty of human hearing, and why measuring is a better arbiter of what's really happening than subjective impression.
Music is made to be listened to. How the human ear hears it is far more important to me than how an FET interprets it. Software audio analyzers are not the end audience. People are.

To the contrary, this is exactly why measuring is never a substitute for listening.
Old 7th December 2009
  #82
Moderator
 
toolskid's Avatar
 

To all the doubters of Ethan's Skills...I think this video

YouTube - Recorded Realism

gives a better idea of what Ethan is about...

Last edited by toolskid; 7th December 2009 at 09:40 AM.. Reason: mellower....
Old 7th December 2009
  #83
Lives for gear
 

I am NOT an Ethan hater! tutt
Old 7th December 2009
  #84
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by toolskid View Post
To all the Haters...I think this video

YouTube - Recorded Realism

gives a better idea of what Ethan is about...
I haven't seen anyone in this thread voice any hate for Ethan. (And I don't hear anything in that video that would likely null. )

Quote:
Originally Posted by spicemix View Post
I am NOT an Ethan hater! tutt
Ditto.
Old 7th December 2009
  #85
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by topperf View Post
Great video Ethan! - I like your subtle hint to whats on every mans mind once in a while at 03.31
Thanks, though I guess that means you never saw my Acoustic Treatment Exposed video. But you'll have to Google it because Jules doesn't like me to post the link here at Gearslutz. heh

--Ethan
Old 7th December 2009
  #86
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by toolskid View Post
To all the doubters of Ethan's Skills...I think this video

YouTube - Recorded Realism

gives a better idea of what Ethan is about...
I think the one that best explains that would violate this site's terms of use...

-Z-
Old 7th December 2009
  #87
Lives for gear
 
Ben B's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
Thanks, though I guess that means you never saw my Acoustic Treatment Exposed video. But you'll have to Google it because Jules doesn't like me to post the link here at Gearslutz. heh

--Ethan
Ethan, I had no idea you've worked with Alan Smithee. Small world.



-Ben B
Old 7th December 2009
  #88
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

Alan is great! heh
Old 7th December 2009
  #89
Lives for gear
 

Nice video Ethan, must have been torture making it heh

What are the acoustic properties of "exposed" females?? Might be nice to decorate my studio with them, probably too distracting to get work done though....
Old 8th December 2009
  #90
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyc View Post
What are the acoustic properties of "exposed" females??
It's a simple formula:

sabins = (height + bust size) / weight

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
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Glenn Kuras / Studio building / acoustics
37
Martin Kantola / The Moan Zone
467
dannygold / Bass traps, acoustic panels, foam etc
2
RedEar / Geekslutz forum
10

Forum Jump
Forum Jump