Some thoughts on digital recording
- Thread starter Mo Facta
- Start date
fuzzsniffvoyage
Well-known member
What? I just got here, this can't be over. I've gotta find out if 24/48 is over kill or should I go higher?
Mo Facta
Farts of Nature
I agree. Neither of us has shown a poor "attitude" in this thread. When the only comment someone can muster is to attack the personalities of those who are actually trying to have a discussion, that says more about them than about you and me.
Thanks, Ethan. I appreciate the sentiment. The problem with internet audio forums such as this where everyone has their own experience is that when you start a thread that puts your theories on the line, yes, there will be an element of defensiveness when your views are challenged. We're all human, after all. I just want to clarify that my OP was filled with expressions like "my opinion" and I hoped that it would have been taken that way.
In a lot of ways, I'm on your side and in other ways, I find your conclusions difficult to believe which may be based in bias and/or misinformation. I believe that a lot of the so called shortcomings of modern gear can be circumvented by focusing on your monitoring environment and keeping an optimal gain structure. I believe you can get a perfectly acceptable recording on pro-sumer gear and that the minutia of the process and the gear are laboured over WAY too much instead of focussing on the fundamentals.
The thing is that I have changed gear over the years from pro-sumer to higher quality and have certainly found a huge difference between systems in the same studio. Also, I currently have two systems; my "proper" studio that is based around Lynx and Apogee converters, top quality British made mic preamps, a Dangerous summing box, and a very powerful computer. The other is my home studio which is based around an Edirol FA-101, which is not a bad interface by any means, but it definitely makes it more difficult to get the cohesion and 'lightness' that I am searching for in my mixes. For me, my ears give me the verdict and that is what it's all about: getting a better sound quicker and easier.
Well I appreciate that. I will obviously now venture into my own experiments and give your conclusions more thought.
I will check it out, thanks. And yeah, I don't particularly like mud-slinging as I like to think I'm above that. This isn't my first rodeo and I share some of sentiments of other posters on here about dick measuring. That was certainly not my intention with this thread.
All's well that ends well.
Cheers
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
I've gotta find out if 24/48 is over kill or should I go higher?
You can never go high enough....
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
R
RAMI
Guest
That doesn't count unless you do a double-blind, null test.
I come to all my conclusions through double-deaf null tests.
Ethan Winer
Acoustics Expert
That's why I'm glad to continue discussing this stuff. Pick something specific you disagree with and we'll see if we can't resolve it. Hey, you might convince me!
Monitoring and acoustics for sure. But gain structure is almost irrelevant in a modern DAW setup. Yes, you need to set the preamp gain to get a reasonable signal into the DAW - say, anywhere between -25 and -1 dBFS. Once that's done, the DAW is immune to even enormous level shifts. This is easy to prove for yourself. In my AES Audio Myths video I slammed an EQ plug-in with a signal at 18 dB above 0 dBFS, then lowered it again after the EQ. That nulled completely with a parallel track that didn't increase the level. That section starts at 53:39 into the video. You can do the same tests with your plug-ins.
Sure, but you also got better over the years. It's tough to test stuff like this because it can't easily be done blind and unbiased. But if we can show that two pieces of gear are equally transparent, that's enough to convince me that it's not really "easier" to get a good mix using one device versus the other. It just seems that way.
--Ethan
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Lovin it
Mo and Ethan, I appreciate both viewpoints and respect both opinions. Obviously I don't have enough experience from either side to give an opinion but really learn a lot fr om the discussions. Actually, and I think Greg will agree, the equipment and experience all just contribute to capturing the music and crappy music will never be improved by a few more bytes or the greatest producer/engineer. Yes, sometimes I am not in the mood for a pissing contest or the age old nubie "what mic is best..." question but I'll keep on reading.
Thanks, Ronhar
Mo and Ethan, I appreciate both viewpoints and respect both opinions. Obviously I don't have enough experience from either side to give an opinion but really learn a lot fr om the discussions. Actually, and I think Greg will agree, the equipment and experience all just contribute to capturing the music and crappy music will never be improved by a few more bytes or the greatest producer/engineer. Yes, sometimes I am not in the mood for a pissing contest or the age old nubie "what mic is best..." question but I'll keep on reading.
Thanks, Ronhar
B
Beck
Guest
I agree with the op in general that people speak too much about theory... a non-existent ideal digital system rather than specific devices.
You can't tell what word-length and sampling rate a digital device has from analog specifications alone... and that's partly because of what Mo Facta mentions concerning analog components. Besides that there are design differences that make the theoretical word-length and sampling rate meaningless; for example, low-pass filter settings and enhancements like Pioneer's Legato Link. Legato Link is a patented system for "restoring" ultra-harmonic frequencies lost through low-pass filtering. There are other similar processes by other manufacturers. The frequencies are artificially generated similar to an Aphex Aural exciter in the analog realm.
A given 20-bit device may have no better dynamic range than a given 16-bit device. It should have a better signal-to-error rate, however... but that's one of many digital specs you don't see listed on a device spec sheet, though you may see it on an integrated circuit spec sheet for a DAC or ADC.
As for the term, "Semi-pro" (or prosumer) that's one of the most misunderstood terms in audio. It often comes down to the difference between +4 dBm and -10 dBv line levels. Actually that's about all it originally meant for the most part. Standardization from one studio to the next was another part of the equation. For example, 2-inch tape is standard like Pro Tools is a defacto standard. Back in the day 1-inch tape was not considered "Professional" although it was used by many professionals. Other than that, equipment is either designed well or poorly. Often that means cutting corners and thus inexpensive, but plenty of inexpensive things are well-made and used professionally and always have been.
As for definitive tests that settle everything... again... no. The human being doesn't work that way. The impact of technology becomes apparent gradually. The experience of professionals in the field over years is to be trusted above a bunch of nerds sitting in a room in front of speakers and a point in time, trying to tell YOU what YOU can hear... or people running around with scopes. People don't hear like test equipment does, and one of the most important differences is that our perceptions vary. Human hearing is not consistent. Listening fatigue is only one phenomenon that can make things start to sound more the same. Of course every good engineer knows to come back to his mix the next day with "Fresh ears"... and by his I also mean hers.
You can't tell what word-length and sampling rate a digital device has from analog specifications alone... and that's partly because of what Mo Facta mentions concerning analog components. Besides that there are design differences that make the theoretical word-length and sampling rate meaningless; for example, low-pass filter settings and enhancements like Pioneer's Legato Link. Legato Link is a patented system for "restoring" ultra-harmonic frequencies lost through low-pass filtering. There are other similar processes by other manufacturers. The frequencies are artificially generated similar to an Aphex Aural exciter in the analog realm.
A given 20-bit device may have no better dynamic range than a given 16-bit device. It should have a better signal-to-error rate, however... but that's one of many digital specs you don't see listed on a device spec sheet, though you may see it on an integrated circuit spec sheet for a DAC or ADC.
As for the term, "Semi-pro" (or prosumer) that's one of the most misunderstood terms in audio. It often comes down to the difference between +4 dBm and -10 dBv line levels. Actually that's about all it originally meant for the most part. Standardization from one studio to the next was another part of the equation. For example, 2-inch tape is standard like Pro Tools is a defacto standard. Back in the day 1-inch tape was not considered "Professional" although it was used by many professionals. Other than that, equipment is either designed well or poorly. Often that means cutting corners and thus inexpensive, but plenty of inexpensive things are well-made and used professionally and always have been.
As for definitive tests that settle everything... again... no. The human being doesn't work that way. The impact of technology becomes apparent gradually. The experience of professionals in the field over years is to be trusted above a bunch of nerds sitting in a room in front of speakers and a point in time, trying to tell YOU what YOU can hear... or people running around with scopes. People don't hear like test equipment does, and one of the most important differences is that our perceptions vary. Human hearing is not consistent. Listening fatigue is only one phenomenon that can make things start to sound more the same. Of course every good engineer knows to come back to his mix the next day with "Fresh ears"... and by his I also mean hers.
Fare enough then, Ethan.
I'll grab a few racks of ale and head over.
Then we will converge in a multi verse sing-a-long on what can you do with a drunken sailor.
Should be fun.
Last edited:
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Shameless.....
Ethan Winer
Acoustics Expert
Nobody is trying to tell anyone else what they can or cannot hear. All that us "nerds" are trying to do is get people to understand that what they think they hear may not be real. Now, it might be real! But until you test yourself properly you can't know for sure. Speaking of which, I'm still waiting for your replies to this post:
https://homerecording.com/bbs/gener...iques/24bit-vs-16bit-hz-355305/5/#post4036793
I'm especially waiting for an email from you showing that you can hear what you claim regarding the test files linked here:
https://homerecording.com/bbs/gener...iques/24bit-vs-16bit-hz-355305/5/#post4037164
It's one thing to find you can't defend your position and leave a thread while questions are outstanding. But it's quite another to realize you can't defend your position, then continue to spout the same misinformation a week later anyway.
Hey, that's been my point all along! Test gear does indeed trump "the experience of professionals" when it comes to establishing what is real and what is imagined.
--Ethan
Ethan Winer
Acoustics Expert
Sorry Ethan....but that just made me spit coffee all over my laptop screen.....
Hey, I've been proven wrong in audio forums. I like to think the difference between me and "believers" is that I admit I was wrong and then change my opinion and my subsequent posts. I have a text file full of stuff where I was wrong, and maybe one of these days I'll publish it on my web site. Here are two entries:
Ethan Wrong File said:
Then there's this entire project, which is published on my web site, based on my flawed understanding:
Ethan's Failed Live Reverb Room
I have a bunch of others, mostly about acoustics, but some are about general audio.
--Ethan
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
I may take up the debates again....
Much of your points, when only viewed how you wish to present/view them....are accurate.
You base most everything on what can be heard as differences by people in double-blind tests or what can be measured by current measurement technologies and techniques.
Thing is, some folks feel that there may be more to it....but we just 1.) don't hear it within the assigned limits of actual hearing, and/or 2.) we haven't figured out what else to measure or even how to measure it.
If more is studied....much of that could turn out to be nothing or mostly insignificant...or it may not.
It would take some serious studies that go well beyond what's been done, which I don't think many scientist are going to bother about as it's not easy or inexpensive to do....but, we may yet learn things we now have no clue about and are not even considering.
People sense a lot of things, and yet there's NO measurement for that.
So what many here argue, is why be so quick to put a definitive "." after everything and take the position that everything after that is pointless...?
You DO do that with stuff, but like I said, you do it based on the way you view it as mentioned above, which within those limits...is accurate.
Perception, as you very well know, is a powerful thing, and who's to say how much of it is just about what we are hearing within a specific range and/or being able to measure with current technologies and techniques....?
Last edited:
Ethan Winer
Acoustics Expert
Yes, thank you.
This is easy to disprove both with blind tests and null tests. If you can tell one converter from another, or the presence of ultrasonic content, etc, only when you know what you're hearing but not blind, that proves the effect of sighted bias. The audio is the same, you only think it's different. This is the most compelling and logical explanation for why people believe they can hear things that "science" doesn't know how to measure. But even if there was some aspect of audio that "science" didn't know about, it would have been revealed years ago as a null test residual. Nulling has been used to assess artifacts since the 1940s! See here:
Hewlett-Packard Distortion Analyzer
Name one thing about audio that people "sense" for which there's no measurement. Not musical appreciation or emotion, but audio and properties of sound.
I am.
And I'm not alone in debunking audio mythology. A lot of people who are more schooled and more skilled than me will tell you the same thing.--Ethan
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Right...that's where your focus ends.
This is exactly my point.
You seem to think audio is only important to the point of what we can or can't *hear*, based on some sort of measurement, or on measurement tools that only measure those specific things.
I'm saying that evoking emotion is VERY MUCH the real point of audio, maybe the only point....and it's not just about the *physical hearing of the sound*.
If you don't agree with that....then we'll never come to any understanding.
If you do agree that the main point of audio is to evoke emotion....well then, there can be much more to it than just what you can physically hear-n-measure.
The same piece of music affects different people differently....and that might have a lot to do with both what's being obviously heard, but quite possibly also with what is NOT being actually physically heard.
There's been little scientific study done with that in mind...so let's stop making it all about physics and nothing more, until then.
I mean, you can at this time choose to stop at the physical limits of human hearing....but that's a choice, that's not absolute proof that there is nothing more, or that even if there is, it should be assumed as insignificant for music.
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
I think "understanding" was the wrong word.
Ethan and I understand each other pretty good.
Maybe "agreement" would be the better word. I don't agree that audio is only important up to the point of what is "physical"...what can be obviously heard, and what can be measured only by sound's physical properties.
Of course....since science has mostly been measuring sound purely for those properties....the weight for now appears to be on Ethan's side....but I said, "appears".
If science would/could focus more intensely on the study of effects of audio (primarily "music") on more than just what our ears know they are hearing....it might lead to more expanded views, but who knows when that will happen.............?
One thing is for sure....if you can simplify it down to specific numbers, everything else becomes a lot easier, so I think for some folks, that is their goal, rather than looking to complicate it beyond the obvious and physical.
Ethan and I understand each other pretty good.
Maybe "agreement" would be the better word. I don't agree that audio is only important up to the point of what is "physical"...what can be obviously heard, and what can be measured only by sound's physical properties.
Of course....since science has mostly been measuring sound purely for those properties....the weight for now appears to be on Ethan's side....but I said, "appears".
If science would/could focus more intensely on the study of effects of audio (primarily "music") on more than just what our ears know they are hearing....it might lead to more expanded views, but who knows when that will happen.............?
One thing is for sure....if you can simplify it down to specific numbers, everything else becomes a lot easier, so I think for some folks, that is their goal, rather than looking to complicate it beyond the obvious and physical.
Ethan Winer
Acoustics Expert
Yep, though there's still a disconnect, and it's not mine.
But how music affects us emotionally is outside the realm of science. Or at least the type of science I address. That's more psychology, and possibly psychoacoustics. All I ever address is how fidelity is defined, and what properties of sound are and are not audible. If we can't hear stuff higher than 20 KHz, then ultra-high samples rates and more expensive equipment to support them are not needed. If the masking effect hides artifacts softer than 60-70 dB below the music, then truncation distortion and jitter are not the problem so many gear sellers would have us believe.
IMO the root problem here is magical thinking. People want to believe that magical properties of audio exist just as they enjoy believing in alien abductions and government cover-ups. I am serious.
--Ethan