Artifact Audibility Comparisons

[SouthSIDE Glen]

This is the kind of discussion you have offline. Even if you are right and Ethan is wrong about his hypothesis, you've chosen not to debate it with him, but merely to condescend to him in public. He's not as an unintentionally entertaining mediocre student of yours to be used to stroke your needy ego.

I see. I'm sorry, I didn't understand that discussion, disagreement and debate were not what descussion forums were for. I didn't realize that we're all here to agree with each other and sing Kumbayah, regardless of the falshoods and pablum that one tries to spread.

I totally forgot that this is the Internet, where all opinions are of equal truth and value, regardless of whether they are bullshit in the real world or not.

You don't like it, then don't read it. You don't understand the subject, then move on. You disagree with my technical analysis, then let's talk abouit it here and now in a public discussion.

If someone came on here and insisted that the way to hook up your monitors was to plug the line in into the AC wall outlet and to plug your headphones into the monitor's AC recepticle, and here's some completly unrelated files of noise and music to prove it, would you get on my case for calling him to the carpet for it? Shit, this whole forum would be jumping all over that guy's ass for making such an idiotic and misleading post.

It's not much different here. The only difference is that it's such an advanced topic, not something obvious to everyone and misunderstood by most, that not many folks can see through the baloney, and buy the snake oil "this is science" position as a valid argument.

Jesus, what is it about the Internet that makes people think it's OK to talk about stuff they know nothing about?

G.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Hey - I have another question. This is only getting mixed in one time - it's bad enough just the one time. How would it apply to having it on EVERY d to a and a to d pass. On an average mix, I must have over 100 passes thru a converter for the various tracks. Obviously it's not 100 times worse, or there would be nothing but that sound. So how does that equate in a real world setting?

I wasn't as sure of this response as I thought. In the interest of not building up the noise any further (pun intended), I'm withdrawing this answer unless/until I have one I'm more sure of.

G.

 

[Daisy]

Wow ... just wow.


Some pretty serious badgering going on here.

Methinks the troll needs to have himself a midnight snack and go to bed.

 

[SonicAlbert]

Hey - I have another question. This is only getting mixed in one time - it's bad enough just the one time. How would it apply to having it on EVERY d to a and a to d pass. On an average mix, I must have over 100 passes thru a converter for the various tracks. Obviously it's not 100 times worse, or there would be nothing but that sound. So how does that equate in a real world setting?

Probably very similarly to how tape hiss built up in the old analog days, but at a slower rate per pass.

It's also different in terms of: one track at 100 passes, or 100 tracks at 1 pass each. If you do one track a hundred times then you are obviously magnifying (or amplifying) the artifacts with each pass. But when doing 100 tracks one time each, the artifacts themselves are not building upon themselves.

 

[Ethan Winer]

It almost sounds like another instrument. Like an industrial synth patch of some sort. Actually kind of compliments the music in a weird sort of way.

I'm not sure what you guys mean. The noise is 3/4 second long and is inserted at 2-second intervals. So it runs from 0:10 for 3/4 second, then comes back again at 0:12 for 3/4 second. There's a lot of sound effects in there too. Maybe you could load the file into an editor program and tell me exactly where you mean, down to a tenth second?

--Ethan

 

[NL5]

I'm not sure what you guys mean. The noise is 3/4 second long and is inserted at 2-second intervals. So it runs from 0:10 for 3/4 second, then comes back again at 0:12 for 3/4 second. There's a lot of sound effects in there too. Maybe you could load the file into an editor program and tell me exactly where you mean, down to a tenth second?

--Ethan

I checked at 12, 14, and 16. Yep. That's right where the noise is, for approx 3/4 I would guess. It sounds like a industrial synth patch. Extremely loud. You have to be able to hear it, it sounds like another instrument. Maybe you have a synth patch running at the exact same time?

 

[Treeline]

I see. I'm sorry, I didn't understand that discussion, disagreement and debate were not what descussion forums were for. I didn't realize that we're all here to agree with each other and sing Kumbayah, regardless of the falshoods and pablum that one tries to spread.

I totally forgot that this is the Internet, where all opinions are of equal truth and value, regardless of whether they are bullshit in the real world or not.

You don't like it, then don't read it. You don't understand the subject, then move on. You disagree with my technical analysis, then let's talk abouit it here and now in a public discussion.

If someone came on here and insisted that the way to hook up your monitors was to plug the line in into the AC wall outlet and to plug your headphones into the monitor's AC recepticle, and here's some completly unrelated files of noise and music to prove it, would you get on my case for calling him to the carpet for it? Shit, this whole forum would be jumping all over that guy's ass for making such an idiotic and misleading post.

It's not much different here. The only difference is that it's such an advanced topic, not something obvious to everyone and misunderstood by most, that not many folks can see through the baloney, and buy the snake oil "this is science" position as a valid argument.

Jesus, what is it about the Internet that makes people think it's OK to talk about stuff they know nothing about?

G.

Just try checking your ego at the door now and then instead of prancing around and making such a fool of yourself.

 

[Ethan Winer]

I checked at 12, 14, and 16. Yep. That's right where the noise is, for approx 3/4 I would guess. It sounds like a industrial synth patch. Extremely loud. You have to be able to hear it, it sounds like another instrument. Maybe you have a synth patch running at the exact same time?

Yes, that's the noise. I don't agree it's "extremely loud" but you can definitely hear it if you listen carefully. In this file the noise is added at -40, and the music is normalized to peak at -1, so the noise is 39 dB below the music. I imagine if I made another version with the noise at -50 nobody could hear it, and I'm certain at -60 it would be totally inaudible to everyone. I'll be glad to add those versions if anyone wants to test that. My goal is the same as everyone else's - to find out what really matters and what doesn't.

--Ethan

 

[NL5]

Yes, that's the noise. I don't agree it's "extremely loud" but you can definitely hear it if you listen carefully. In this file the noise is added at -40, and the music is normalized to peak at -1, so the noise is 39 dB below the music. I imagine if I made another version with the noise at -50 nobody could hear it, and I'm certain at -60 it would be totally inaudible to everyone. I'll be glad to add those versions if anyone wants to test that. My goal is the same as everyone else's - to find out what really matters and what doesn't.

--Ethan

It sounds like a synth patch to me. I'd call that pretty loud. If that doesn't jump out at you, you really need to take a look at your monitoring situation. Maybe you have a less than ideal control room? That would explain a lot of things, to me at least.

Anyway, can you explain how adding that noise in is NOT affecting the other audio? I am no DAW guru, but I believe they sum all the wav's together, no? So, by very simple mathematical logic, one would expect there to be changes in the original waveform. I would think the higher the frequency, the more susceptible to the additional information. Thus the detail in the sound that is found in the upper frequencies would be skewed. This is what my ear hears. Also, isn't a lot of the spatial placement depend on the higher frequencies? It seems it would create a "fuzzier" image, which is also what my ears tell me.

I still don't quite understand how the noise equates to jitter, but like I said, I am certainly no expert, I can only go off my own experiences. I do think though that a part of why better converters sound better has to do with a superior analog stage, or does that not matter either?

 

[pezking]

I do think though that a part of why better converters sound better has to do with a superior analog stage, or does that not matter either?

We talking A-D, or D-A? Or both?

 

[Jamz0r]

It sounds like a synth patch to me. I'd call that pretty loud. If that doesn't jump out at you, you really need to take a look at your monitoring situation. Maybe you have a less than ideal control room? That would explain a lot of things, to me at least.

Anyway, can you explain how adding that noise in is NOT affecting the other audio? I am no DAW guru, but I believe they sum all the wav's together, no? So, by very simple mathematical logic, one would expect there to be changes in the original waveform. I would think the higher the frequency, the more susceptible to the additional information. Thus the detail in the sound that is found in the upper frequencies would be skewed. This is what my ear hears. Also, isn't a lot of the spatial placement depend on the higher frequencies? It seems it would create a "fuzzier" image, which is also what my ears tell me.

I still don't quite understand how the noise equates to jitter, but like I said, I am certainly no expert, I can only go off my own experiences. I do think though that a part of why better converters sound better has to do with a superior analog stage, or does that not matter either?

I doubt Ethan's control room has much by way of issues.

I also don't think he meant for it to equate to anything, other than a very low level of noise that he was wondering how many would be able to hear.

It seems to me that some people (not you) want to read too much into everything, and twist people's words.

 

[mixsit]

Glen,

I don't dislike you either. I really don't. But you still haven't shown an example of very soft (< -90 dB) artifacts being audible. Which is very much the point. If you have such an example, I'd love to see it and be proven wrong.

--Ethan

With all due respect to everyone involved, while it would be interesting to know whether Glen has pointed out a legitimate disconnect from 'jitter equaling 'this example of noise (I surely do not know), the point seems to be steering towards -it doesn't matter what the nature of the distortion -any and all are inaudible(?)

I got a chuckle 'cause back in the 'dither thread I was actually pondering,, what would be cool would be to just cut to the chase-
Some intermittent Banshee screaming-bashing sheet metal scraps ...@ -100.
Can you hear it or not?
Now here we are..

 

[NL5]

I doubt Ethan's control room has much by way of issues.

What makes you say that? You have been there? I'd really like to hear about it. If you listened to the sample in question, could you hear the noise? I can't imagine a control room bad enough that, as Ethan originaly claimed, made that noise "inaudible". It sounded like a synth patch to me, and I was even thinking that was what I was hearing as it was so loud that it was impossible to miss.

I also don't think he meant for it to equate to anything, other than a very low level of noise that he was wondering how many would be able to hear.

Actually, unless I am misunderstanding the whole point of Ethan's article - it is meant to equate to jitter. I am no tech expert, so I don't know how jitter even relates to the whole thing. Ethan said it creates FM sideband noise, and that's what he added. (I think that's how he explained it)

 

[NL5]

I got a chuckle 'cause back in the 'dither thread I was actually pondering,, what would be cool would be to just cut to the chase-
Some intermittent Banshee screaming-bashing sheet metal scraps ...@ -100.
Can you hear it or not?
Now here we are..

I think people are looking at this from the wrong end. Can you hear the "banshee screaming at -100" in a mix, or even mixed in a track? I don't think many, if anybody could. Now, the real question is - is it altering the original wave enough to change it by an audible amount. If you listen to a track with it mixed in vs. one without it, could you tell a difference? Now, let me clarify, that I do agree with Ethan that 99% of people on HRBBS have WAY WAY WAY bigger fish to fry than dither, or even which converter they choose. Heck, I think people spend way to much time and energy fussing over this pre or that. I'd even go so far as to say even mics are fussed over way disproportionately to their actual role in making a good recording. The crazy thing is that the dither thread got WAY more attention than the entire studio building/acoustics section. That should be the #1 forum on this BBS. Seriously.

 

[mixsit]

..Can you hear the "banshee screaming at -100" in a mix, or even mixed in a track? I don't think many, if anybody could. Now, the real question is - is it altering the original wave enough to change it by an audible amount. If you listen to a track with it mixed in vs. one without it, could you tell a difference?

I don't see the distinction though. The whole point, and where Ethan I think gets props' for coming back to, is find any way to reliably do it; Mix it in, turn it on and off..

Now, let me clarify, that I do agree with Ethan that 99% of people on HRBBS have WAY WAY WAY bigger fish to fry than dither, or even which converter they choose.

Right on. I'm there. I feel it's the same as when I'm about to drop $K on a piece and Donna asks 'So, is this supposed to make (so in so) play his drums or something better when he comes in to track next week?...

.. The crazy thing is that the dither thread got WAY more attention than the entire studio building/acoustics section. That should be the #1 forum on this BBS. Seriously.

 

[Jamz0r]

What makes you say that? You have been there? I'd really like to hear about it. If you listened to the sample in question, could you hear the noise? I can't imagine a control room bad enough that, as Ethan originaly claimed, made that noise "inaudible". It sounded like a synth patch to me, and I was even thinking that was what I was hearing as it was so loud that it was impossible to miss.



Actually, unless I am misunderstanding the whole point of Ethan's article - it is meant to equate to jitter. I am no tech expert, so I don't know how jitter even relates to the whole thing. Ethan said it creates FM sideband noise, and that's what he added. (I think that's how he explained it)

Well, Ethan is an acoustics guru...it seems unlikely that he'd be doing any critical listening in a poor sounding room.
And yes, I could hear the noise clearly. Ethan said it was barely audible, not inaudible, and being that it sounded like a "synth" it may go unnoticed if you weren't listening for it.

 

[NL5]

Well, Ethan is an acoustics guru...it seems unlikely that he'd be doing any critical listening in a poor sounding room.
And yes, I could hear the noise clearly. Ethan said it was barely audible, not inaudible, and being that it sounded like a "synth" it may go unnoticed if you weren't listening for it.

There is more too listening than the room itself, and I have seen his home theater room in a vid, but I have no idea about his control room - it sounded like you did. The fact that he said that it wasn't audible made me think there must be something wrong in his listening environment. Also, he WAS listening for it - or maybe not.......

Did you read the article in the link Ethan provided? He said -

"The file men_at_work1-40.wav (3 MB) is a section from the "industrial" pop tune Men At Work I recorded recently, with the noise mixed in at -40. I had planned to create other versions with the noise at ever-softer levels as above, but it's barely audible (if at all) even at this relatively high level so I didn't bother."

Barely audible (if at all). Again, if you cannot hear that clearly I must question your listening environment. It is clearly audible, so much so, I don't see how there is any way someone could not hear it. You also said it was clearly audible and sounded like a synth patch. It's Ethan's song, and he put the noise in. If he can't hear it, I revert back to my above question about his listening environment.

I am thru with this thread, as Ethan has clearly shown that FM sideband noise effects tracks more than I ever thought possible. If you are fine recording with a soundblaster, and it is working for you, that is fantastic. I do firmly believe a decent recording can be made with them. I, however, aspire to make a product as good as the pro's. It's a lofty goal that I may never attain, but I really have nothing better to do......

I don't see the distinction though. The whole point, and where Ethan I think gets props' for coming back to, is find any way to reliably do it; Mix it in, turn it on and off..

I don't even understand what this means?????

 

[Jamz0r]

"Barely audible (if at all)" was a bit of a stretch, I admit.

Maybe Ethan can elaborate on that. Maybe he already has...lol

As for the Soundblaster comment...I'll assume you were you talking about people in general, and not directing that toward me.

 

[NL5]

As for the Soundblaster comment...I'll assume you were you talking about people in general, and not directing that toward me.

Yes it was meant for anybody that agrees with Ethan that a soundblaster is just as good as a Lavry. That is the whole point of Ethan's argument. That they are the same.

 

[mixsit]

... I don't even understand what this means?????

Sorry. That was terrible.

The distinction between "..I don't think many, if anybody could" (hear it) and "..the real question is - is it altering the original wave enough to change it by an audible amount."