24bit vs 16bit and Hz

[Ethan Winer]

Agreeing that in a pro environment there IS a need for high-end (and often high-priced gear)....is not the same as saying you don't need that gear to make pro recordings.

Again, I distinguish between the fidelity of the sound and the reliability of the gear. Not just reliability, but ease and repeatability of knob settings by using either better quality pots or switched resistors which of course cost much more than pots. But for pure fidelity, you do not need to spend a thousand dollars or more per channel. When someone says Brand X high-end converter sounds "vastly better" than Brand Y prosumer sound card, I call BS and challenge them to prove they can even hear a difference in a blind test. These two listening comparisons are still active on my web site, and I still invite people to email me their choices:

Converter Comparison
Converter Loop-Back Tests

I don't say you can *never* make a pro recording with a basic home-rec setup...but certainly the odds or less in your favor than when using more high-end gear.

Why do you believe this? In what specific way does using "more high-end gear" improve the quality of the production? Not "I feel better when I use expensive gear, and feeling better helps me make a better mix." I can (almost) accept that, but it's a psychological issue that could be resolved with psychotherapy.

I think at the crux of this division is that you see the home-rec studio as one being mostly ITB, which certainly is the case, while the pros also rely heavily on hardware to get their pro sound.

A lot of pros work entirely in the box these days. Yes, many use a control surface, or a digital console as an extension of the box. And some do work ITB but send tracks and stems outside through analog outboard gear. I contend that plug-ins are by and large better than analog gear because they have less distortion, less noise, a better frequency response, and of course 100 percent recall and repeatability. You can argue that this or that hardware device has "nicer sounding distortion" when over-driven, and I can't refute that. But paying big bucks for what amounts to a fuzz-tone seems silly to me.

when we talk about someone like George Massenburg, who is not only an audio engineer, but also a designer/maker of audio gear, and someone who I think most audio folks would consider a straightshooter...do you think that he has a real reason for using hardware, and more specifically HIS hardware, and selling it to top audio pros at top prices...or do you think he's just selling analog hype?

I can't speak for GM, but I imagine he wants to make money in every way possible. As I recall, ad copy for his products is accurate and honest. He claims high quality which is true, rather than the kind of magic nonsense I see from other vendors such as an ultrasonic "air band" in an EQ or "increased width" from a passive summing box.

AFA as the whole thing with "perception"...I don't disagree at all that we can perceive things that are not there.

I was thinking the other day how audiophile believers are the same as people who believe they were abducted by aliens. In both cases they're certain that their recollection of events is accurate and real, and they won't accept that their perception could be faulty. I've also noticed that everyone accepts that the placebo effect is real, but audiophile types don't think it ever happens to them.

Thanks Miroslav for being civil and discussing this stuff calmly even when we disagree. It's a real shame when some people can't defend their position logically, so all they have is insults.

--Ethan

 

[FonHom]

...and that's all I'm saying, that pro gear is pro gear for a lot of reasons, and it will always yield a slightly better end-result in the same hands as basic home-rec fare.

Miroslav, I respectfully disagree. I'd say any gear in pro hands will usually yield a better result. People who buy above their technical ability won't get consistently better results until their ability rises as well.
Anecdote...my first career was segment producer for a TV network newsmagazine program. All of our pieces went through audio post in or out of house. Sometimes, terrific music or effects sequences were simply gone when we heard our pieces at home. Once this beautifully mixed program was squeezed through the broadcast chain the signal that made it through (whether OTA or via cable) was not what left the studio. And the best home TV audio output in the world wasn't going to bring it back.
The visible solution was adding a cheapcheapcheap Radio Shack speaker to each studio. The real solution was high end professionals using their experience with top of the line equipment to craft a high quality audio mix that would survive the journey to low quality. But I have no doubt they could have made it work with lesser gear. Could I? Not a chance. Learned a lot from that.

 

[miroslav]

Again, I distinguish between the fidelity of the sound and the reliability of the gear. Not just reliability, but ease and repeatability of knob settings by using either better quality pots or switched resistors which of course cost much more than pots. But for pure fidelity, you do not need to spend a thousand dollars or more per channel. When someone says Brand X high-end converter sounds "vastly better" than Brand Y prosumer sound card, I call BS and challenge them to prove they can even hear a difference in a blind test.

So, if you remove the reliability, hands-on functionality, tonal quality and feature set, and distill it down to the most basic aspect of the intended design (such as straight-wire gain for a preamp design)...
...then high-end pro gear is the same as the inexpensive, basic home gear...?

Well...OK, but I think at that point you're throwing the baby out with the bath water!
To me, everything comes into account, and each one of those aspects adds to the final result....to the sound that comes out the box.

I also note that you tend to always come back to converters, and I will agree with your that sonically (since converters are not supposed to add anything) many units from inexpensive to very expensive will do about the same job converting, though there are features in the high-end units that can make a difference, depending on the rest of your studio rig and your application.

AFA plug-ins being better because they are pure math-based algorithms...well, it then comes down to what is really "better", which I think is a very personal thing....but I honestly don't think the most prized analog gear is just a high-priced "fuzz box" that can emulated perfectly by software. I certainly don't think designers like Massenburg (this is the guy who invented the parametric EQ) would call their gear nothing more than that....and the fact that even in this plug-in rich audio environment today, the high-priced pro gear is still sought after and used extensively, leads me to conclude there more to it than "fuzz".
I've had access to some high-end gear, and even own a few pretty decent pieces. You can say it's all probably just "placebo" effect, but I certainly can hear the improved sound quality...and I would much rather NOT have to buy something for $3000 if I can get the exact same thing for $300!

To tell the truth, even if we just talk about the "distortion/fuzz box" angle....to date, I can still tell the difference between digitally emulated distortion VS analog/tube distortion when run side by side. Digital emulation is often very homogenized sounding, and while one can argue that it's mathematically more accurate by being always homogonized...it also sounds crappier to my ears.
Of course...people will say that in a mix, it can get masked and therefore become as usable as the real analog/tube device...but, sometimes it's not just the end result, it's also the using part that counts.

Miroslav, I respectfully disagree. I'd say any gear in pro hands will usually yield a better result. People who buy above their technical ability won't get consistently better results until their ability rises as well.

I never said that pros only get better results with pro gear. Sure, experience will carry over to a degree even when using inferior tools...but side-by-side, I think both pro and home-rec users will get a better result with pro gear VS pro-sumer gear in some cases. Of course, a total newb will not understand even basic gear, never mind pro gear, so they need to walk before they can run....but that aside, which would you rather use?

Assuming your skill set is pretty solid with most things audio both OTB and ITB....
You walk into a studio, and on the left is a totally pro rig, full of high-end gear with all kinds of great analog hardware and a sweet mixing console...and on the right you have a computer with a mouse and keyboard, with some installed DAW app and a bunch of plugs.
Which gear setup would you rather use.....feel more excited about using, feel more secure about how it would affect the quality your production, and simply have more enjoyment using?
I bet you know which side of the room I'm going to be working on.

All those things when totaled would most certainly add to the overall sound quality of the final production.

 

[Ethan Winer]

So, if you remove the reliability, hands-on functionality, tonal quality and feature set, and distill it down to the most basic aspect of the intended design (such as straight-wire gain for a preamp design)... then high-end pro gear is the same as the inexpensive, basic home gear...?

The disconnect here is separating "tonal quality" from "straight-wire gain." If a device is audibly transparent, then it has no tonal quality. I think this is a disconnect for a lot of other people too. There are only four parameters that define everything that affects the fidelity of audio gear:

* Frequency response
* Distortion (THD, IMD, aliasing, quantization)
* Noise (hiss, crackles, hum, buzz)
* Time-based errors (wow, flutter, jitter)

So it's not possible for a device to behave as a wire with gain and still have a tonal quality.

I also note that you tend to always come back to converters, and I will agree with your that sonically (since converters are not supposed to add anything) many units from inexpensive to very expensive will do about the same job converting

Yet some people will spend $1,000 per channel because they believe otherwise. This is exactly the point I've been making for several years now! I also include mic pres and EQs, because those too should aim for high fidelity rather than add color. IMO of course. When I want to add color I use EQ, compression, reverb, echo, and tape / tube simulator plug-ins to add distortion.

AFA plug-ins being better because they are pure math-based algorithms...well, it then comes down to what is really "better", which I think is a very personal thing.

To me "better" is the device with higher fidelity. Fidelity is not subjective preference, and it's easily defined and measured. If you're not aiming for high fidelity, then you are indeed looking for a fuzz box.

I certainly don't think designers like Massenburg (this is the guy who invented the parametric EQ) would call their gear nothing more than that.

You should invite George to this discussion because I'd love to hear his opinion. Again, the copy I've seen for George's gear cites high fidelity rather than color.

in this plug-in rich audio environment today, the high-priced pro gear is still sought after and used extensively, leads me to conclude there more to it than "fuzz".

Go back a few paragraphs where you said you understand that all modern converters are about the same. We both know that a lot of audio pros disagree with that, even though it's easy to prove them wrong. So just because "professionals" buy expensive gear is not evidence that expensive gear is actually better. It doesn't matter how many professionals believe it. Truth is not something you decide by voting. If it were, that'd be all the "proof" needed that god exists.

You can say it's all probably just "placebo" effect, but I certainly can hear the improved sound quality ... I can still tell the difference between digitally emulated distortion VS analog/tube distortion when run side by side.

But can you really tell in a blind test? Yet again I extend my standard offer for anyone who believes they can hear an obvious difference between [whatever] to visit me in person and we'll put it to a proper test.

--Ethan

 

[miroslav]

I know your entire definition of "better" audio is tied directly to how much fidelity/transparency/clarity it has...and that's your choice. There are times when THAT is the sought after sonic quality for a sound, mix or gear, and then you go for that....but that's not the only criteria that I use to judge about how something sounds to me.

You seem to like reducing everything down to a basic sources, two files and then compare....but I've been saying that I view it as a combination of a lot of things, that include the four parameters of mathematical measurement you mentioned, but also include whatever deviations from "fidelity" there are, and also the non-audio things that have been mentioned (ease of use, reliability, etc)...
...plus the intangible and immeasurable --- personal perception (good or bad).

That's why I can't find a ton of value in pure laboratory double-blind tests. I mean, if you want to simply prove if item A has less distortion than item B....and someone is disagreeing...then fine, you can do your distortion measurements and be done with it, but that won't necessarily prove to me that item A is "better" because it has less distortion.
If both item A and B are identical, and someone claims one has less distortion how they hear it....I don't think that doing a double blind test always achieves a positive end-result. It may mathematically prove to the person that they are identical....but it would not surprise me, nor would I find any deep fault/issue with the person STILL perceiving that one is different than the other.

If you feel the need to hunt down sales guys who use extreme deception to pimp their gear...that's one thing....but changing minds of end-users is another, and something that maybe needs to be done with a bit of caution at times, because IMHO, when dealing with subjective, creative stuff...it's not always about who is right or wrong, but rather the effect it will have on the end-result, that subjective/creative process...and that may not always be positive. If someone prefers the amp with the red Tolex, even it's identical to the one with the black Tolex....I see nothing wrong with letting them have their "mojo".
I think digital audio has put a lot more math into the subjective/creatrive process...and I don't think it's always a good thing. People now look at the numbers on their DAW screens and plug-in GUIs more than they simply listen...and perceive...what is "better/louder/fuller/thinner/...etc.
For all the times people show up on an audio forums asking for "settings"....and that's them looking at ther DAWs and asking for the numbers to use in the various fields of the plug-in.
I guess they must believe they will feel more secure about their decisions and their perceptions, if they have the "right" numbers" to use.

AFA you and I doing some testing....well, it would be fun, though maybe a bit of a logistical hurdle.

 

[Ethan Winer]

I know your entire definition of "better" audio is tied directly to how much fidelity/transparency/clarity it has...and that's your choice.

High fidelity is not always my definition of "better." But it is the definition of fidelity! As a guitar and bass player I like distortion too, and I add that routinely when appropriate. Again, if your goal is added color, then anything goes. When the goal is clean sound, then that is easy to define.

I view it as a combination of a lot of things, that include the four parameters of mathematical measurement you mentioned, but also include whatever deviations from "fidelity" there are

Those deviations can only occur within the confines of the same four parameters. Color can be skewed frequency response, or added distortion, or intentional "wow and flutter" (vibrato and tremolo effects). But those four parameter categories describe everything that affects audio fidelity.

If you feel the need to hunt down sales guys who use extreme deception to pimp their gear...that's one thing.

IMO much of the high-end audio industry - both audiophile and professional - is based on customer deception. This entire thread is (originally) about the deception by audio vendors and their partners in crime, audio magazines, as they attempt to sell us on the value of high sample rates and bit depths! Even though it's been proven that 44/16 is sufficiently transparent, they still want us to buy the same music again, and new "better" gear to play it on.

--Ethan