Audio Myth Buster Thread

Yeah...me too, I don't have any problem with digital audio. I go from tape to DAW and back again, and it all sounds good to me.

I just think that video could stress that it's NOT the same analog sound that went in, when it comes back out...just like he stresses the points he wants to make. He kinda likes giving the impression that it's the same analog sound going in and coming out.

I mean, it's like cloning something.
You can say it looks the same, and smells the same, etc, etc...but at the root of it all, it's not really the same thing...it's a clone.
Now...can you tell them apart, or is one better than the other in any way...?...those are different questions.
 
He's just using lollipops instead of steps. :D

Even he says that they are individual points...so word play...it's slices/samples/points/steps or lollipops...and not a continuous wave, and the output on the analog side is a reconstructed fabrication of the original analog wave that went in.
He doesn't really want to point that out...because it leaves some questions hanging, and he then can't imply that the analog output is the same as what went in. It's not...it never was...it never will be.

Again...I'm not trying to start any discussion about which is better, analog or digital and the reconstructed analog...or if anyone can tell the difference. That's a separate discussion. I'm just saying he's on a mission, and chooses to gloss over these things in order to prove his points.

I also like how he disabled comments on his YT videos. ;)

And damn you....you made me listen to him a 3rd time. :p

Well, don't listen again...

I don't see the points that are hanging. I'm not sure he is avoiding anything, he just isn't pointing out the obvious...because it's obvious.

Of course it's reconstructed, the same way the sound coming out of a speaker isn't exactly what was put into it, or what the source sounded like in front of a mic. It's all reconstructed and changed from what was originally happening.

The whole video was really about dispelling the myth that the audio is stair-stepped on the way out of the converter, which is not true. And that vector points are much different than slices, steps, etc...
 
This brings up another point.
when Kirk and Spock get teleported, do they really come out as the same person?? Or close enough??
hmmmm makes you think.



Just funning around.
:-)
 
The whole video was really about dispelling the myth that the audio is stair-stepped on the way out of the converter, which is not true. And that vector points are much different than slices, steps, etc...

In that one section it's about the stair-steps...right...but his overall point with the whole video is to validate digital audio and show that you get the same coming out as what went in, and that nothing is different.
While conversion may be obvious...the underlying message he's selling is that digital doesn't change the audio.
That's what I'm talking about.
I'm just making the finer point that what went in and what comes out are technically two different things....even if they sound the same.

It's OK...it's all good...I'm not arguing against digital audio...really.
I'm at a point where I actually don't much care about the digital debates anymore...that is what we use these days, and it's been accepted all around.
I think it's just his voice, demeanor and beard that was irritating me. :D
 
I hear ya. I haven't actually looked at any null test results and really don't care to do so. I am happy with how my songs come out and I enjoy listening to them, that's all that matters.

How would you look at a null test without having to digitize the analog signal you are comparing to?

You can't do a live null test because the digital version would be later in time than the analog. Of course, you could delay it, but trying to find d an analog delay that didn't degrade the signal and could be calibrated to the latency of the converters would also be impossible.
 
In that one section it's about the stair-steps...right...but his overall point with the whole video is to validate digital audio and show that you get the same coming out as what went in, and that nothing is different.
While conversion may be obvious...the underlying message he's selling is that digital doesn't change the audio.
That's what I'm talking about.
I'm just making the finer point that what went in and what comes out are technically two different things....even if they sound the same.

It's OK...it's all good...I'm not arguing against digital audio...really.
I'm at a point where I actually don't much care about the digital debates anymore...that is what we use these days, and it's been accepted all around.
I think it's just his voice, demeanor and beard that was irritating me. :D

Ugh ... this again.

The thing is, analog recording works by exciting oxide particles on the tape and arranging them to form an analog of the sound wave. And what's the number of oxide particles on the tape? finite or infinite? (Hint: it's not the latter) So ... even analog recording quantizes the signal in a manner of speaking.

If you want proof of this fact, just think about tape speed: The reason that tape moving at higher speed results in higher fidelity is because there are more oxide particles being used to replicate the waveform.

Now, obviously there are way more than 44.1K rows of oxide particles in a second of tape running at 30 or even 15 ips, but the fact is that it's still a finite number.
 
Now, obviously there are way more than 44.1K rows of oxide particles in a second of tape running at 30 or even 15 ips, but the fact is that it's still a finite number.
Sure, but those partcicles have an infinitely variable position and orientation. Course, that's not what is being argued in this thread. What they are arguing about is whether the signal that comes out of the DAC is the same that went in the ADC, which I find pretty asinine. I don't believe that the signal that comes off of an analog tape is the exact same signal that was put in to line up all those little particles either. The signal that comes off of a vinyl record is also not the same signal that went in as they cut the grooves. These things are all reconstructions of the original signal! They must be. That's what recording is all about.

I thought this thread was about other "myths" that we encounter in audio engineering world, but it's turned into just another (is this the third now?) parallel thread arguing the same damn thing. Why are we having the same argument in three fucking threads at the same time?!?
 
Why then are you guys resurrecting the arguments that died over a day ago? :)

There was/is no "same argument"...it was just a comment about the video's presentation that IMO glosses over some things.
We have newbs here who don't even know that there's a preamp inside their all-in-one "interface"...plus the converter(s).
Many just view it as some "black box".
So let's not make assumptions that they understand all the finer details of the video presentation.
 
Cool ... moving on then to a true audio myth that drives me crazy:

Some people think there are actually preamps inside an all-in-one interface! It drives me crazy!

It's just a black box, y'all! Enough already! :)
 
It may be funny....but I wish I had a dollar for every time someone asked on these forums..."Do I need a preamp for my microphone in order to connect to my interface"?...and then you explain to them that the interface already has one, and they go "Oh?".

I dunno...either people just don't RTFM...or they too just gloss over the details...or they just don't understand them. :)

You should do another book...except, if they don't RTFM...they probably won't read your book. ;)
 
You should do another book...

Speaking of book. There should be one written called "The Digital Recording Dictionary"

There are so many terms that are not defined that are just thrown out there. It can be confusing to one not familiar with the terminology.

For example Artifact. I just recently figured out what that meant, but only after gleening the meaning through context.
Often times, and especially how brutal the internet has bcome, a novice won't ask for fear they'll get ridiculed.

The digital age has its own specialized language, and a dictionary would be useful..

Just a thought, could be a winner.

:-)
 
Thanks for the links.
still think a book is a good idea.
could be sold everywhere gear is available
 
Speaking of book. There should be one written called "The Digital Recording Dictionary"

There are so many terms that are not defined that are just thrown out there. It can be confusing to one not familiar with the terminology.

For example Artifact. I just recently figured out what that meant, but only after gleening the meaning through context.
Often times, and especially how brutal the internet has bcome, a novice won't ask for fear they'll get ridiculed.

The digital age has its own specialized language, and a dictionary would be useful..

Just a thought, could be a winner.

:-)

I just finished writing a huge book (280+ pages) called How to Record at Home on a Budget.
Should be published in a month or so. In includes a fairly comprehensive glossary in it (although I didn't get super technical), but it's definitely overkill for just a list of definitions. That's not a bad idea though!
 
Congrats on your next book release.

Also as technology advances new additions could be written. More revenue
:-)

Remember the computers for dummies?

They did real well.

A dictionary of terms in all the major brick and mortar, as well as online retailers could be a great hit!
Buy an interface, buy a book.
 
Warmth

I'm declaring 'warmth' to be a myth unless someone is able to define it.

Based upon the harmonics that are distorted (great or small amount) you get either a "cold or blue" type of sound that was mostly associated with solid state amps and preamps back in the late 60s/70s or you get a "warm or fat" sound that is generally associated with tube gear such as guitar amps. The harder the solid state or tube amp is driven the more of the type of cold or warm sound was heard. The warm or fat sound that tube amps with transformers exhibit is caused by the amp or pre amp producing what was then referred to as "even or pleasant" harmonics..namely the root, the fifth and octave and multiples of the same. Whereas solid state distortion hit on the third and seventh harmonics which sound dissonant and cold or sterile. Also damping factor comes into play here as the higher the damping factor an amp has the more sterile it will sound. Therefore a solid state amp with a low damping factor will sound more like a tube amp when played at a level where the sound remains undistorted.
 
The idea that tubes = even harmonics and solid state = odd is a myth.

The proportion of even to odd harmonics in a given distortion mechanism is all about the symmetry of the transfer curve. It is completely possible to create a solid-state distorter which creates only even harmonics - most octave fuzz boxes are pretty close. It is also perfectly possible to get odd harmonics out of tube gear. Most class A/B power stages are pretty symmetrical at the output, and a properly biased class A stage pushed far enough looks pretty symmetrical too, because the signal gets "around the bends" fast enough that their differences don't much matter.

The only difference between warm and harsh is a filter or two.
 
Regardless...tube guitar amps sound better when distorting than solid state guitar amps.

No myth. :)
 
Back
Top