Artifact Audibility Comparisons

[masteringhouse]

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......

Excellent!

I think that this thread has brought up some good points and has increased awareness about various types of distortion and artifacts. I also think that this thread is much better than the dither thread as it talks about the audibility of artifacts rather than trying to debunk an audio process that is critical in helping to reduce distortion. Furthermore I agree that that there are larger things to be concerned about, in large part because engineers of good audio components have taken care of the details for us.

The one thing that concerns me however is that some might be of the opinion after reading the thread that since some artifacts aren't audible to the average listener it is "good enough". This breeds a level of mediocrity that is all too common. If someone sings or plays out of tune and it's inaudible to most is it good enough? If a drummer plays out of time, but we cover it up with other things that are out of time is it good enough?

Even though this is "home recording" one should try to the best of their abilities and resources to create audio that is as distortion free and highest quality possible. Rather than thinking the job is done by saying "that's good enough" one should without any reservations be able to say "this is the best that I can produce at this point in my career".

 

[Ethan Winer]

It sounds like a synth patch to me. I'd call that pretty loud.

Then what you're hearing must be one of the synth patches. There are a lot of them all over that piece!

The noise that's injected sounds like a very soft whoosh. You can hear the noise more clearly at some places in the tune than in others, depending on what else is going on at the same time.

Maybe you have a less than ideal control room?

Not likely, but you are most welcome to visit any time and assess my two monitoring environments for yourself. Where do you live?

can you explain how adding that noise in is NOT affecting the other audio?

Sure. Make a file with a 100 Hz tone. Then make another file with a 1 KHz tone. Now mix them together and play the result. Does the sound quality or timbre of either frequency sine wave change in the presence of the other? There's your answer.

I am no DAW guru

Okay.

I still don't quite understand how the noise equates to jitter

Okay.

Maybe you should read my article again because it explains about FM sidebands, and how the various types of IM and THD distortion and the nature of the added overtones affects their audibility.

--Ethan

 

[NL5]

Sure. Make a file with a 100 Hz tone. Then make another file with a 1 KHz tone. Now mix them together and play the result. Does the sound quality or timbre of either frequency sine wave change in the presence of the other? There's your answer.

So, the noise file does not contain any frequencies that were in the original file? That is the only way from a mathematical standpoint your example would have any relevance to the original question. I am no audio expert, but I do remember some of my math. I see no way mathematically it could not alter the original wav in a way that would be detrimental. I did your little test, and yes, when adding two wavs of differing frequency, the resulting complex wav contains both simple waves. Now, for shits and giggles, I added in a second 1 khz test tone and bumped it slightly off time. The result was catastrophic to the sound. Now, they were mixed in at equal amounts, so it is a way over exaggerated example of what I am getting at, but nonetheless backs up my assertion.

As far as the sound in the MAW file. Is it a patch or is it the FM sideband noise? You are the only one that knows for sure. If it's a patch, you timed it too exactly where you claim you put the noise. I think it's time you come clean.

 

[Ethan Winer]

The one thing that concerns me however is that some might be of the opinion after reading the thread that since some artifacts aren't audible to the average listener it is "good enough". This breeds a level of mediocrity that is all too common.

I promise you I agree with this much more than I disagree. I always strive for the lowest noise and distortion whether it's audible or not. To aim for anything less than the best is foolish and lazy, unless it costs a lot more. Then you have to weigh the value of the improvement versus how much more it costs. This is the essence of my audibility test. To help people understand how soft is soft enough, so they can make an informed decision.

A perfect example is the comparison between a $25 SoundBlaster and $6,000 Apogee. Yes, there are tiny differences, and if you listen carefully you can hear them on some - but not all! - of the samples Grekim and I recorded. My point with that wasn't to show how good the SoundBlaster is. Rather, so show that it's not as bad as is claimed by so many people expressing strong but uninformed opinions.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

I see no way mathematically it could not alter the original wav in a way that would be detrimental.

I believe you when you say you cannot see it.

Maybe you're confusing mixing audio, which is simple summation, with another process?

For someone who has admitted repeatedly not to be an expert, you sure do express strong opinions.

I added in a second 1 khz test tone and bumped it slightly off time. The result was catastrophic to the sound.

No shit. Now try it again with the second 1 KHz wave at -40 and tell us what happens.

As far as the sound in the MAW file. Is it a patch or is it the FM sideband noise? You are the only one that knows for sure.

I already told you precisely where the noise starts and stops. So now you know too. Assuming you have a capable editor program that shows exact times, versus Windows Media Player or some such that lacks the resolution.

--Ethan

 

[NL5]

I promise you I agree with this much more than I disagree. I always strive for the lowest noise and distortion whether it's audible or not. To aim for anything less than the best is foolish and lazy, unless it costs a lot more. Then you have to weigh the value of the improvement versus how much more it costs. This is the essence of my audibility test. To help people understand how soft is soft enough, so they can make an informed decision.

A perfect example is the comparison between a $25 SoundBlaster and $6,000 Apogee. Yes, there are tiny differences, and if you listen carefully you can hear them on some - but not all! - of the samples Grekim and I recorded. My point with that wasn't to show how good the SoundBlaster is. Rather, so show that it's not as bad as is claimed by so many people expressing strong but uninformed opinions.

--Ethan

Funny, we are all arguing the exact same argument it sounds like. We are about a foot apart, but sounding like we are miles apart.

It's all a matter of degree IMHO. What a "big change" in sound to me, may be a "tiny change" in sound to you. It all relative. If you read my post above, I am a strong believer that people put a WAY disproportionate amount of energy into what pieces of gear they record with, than into learning the proper way to use their gear, or create a proper environment to record in and mix in. The studio building forum should be the #1 forum on this BBS. Period. Followed by the Recording techniques, and Mixing/Mastering.

 

[Ethan Winer]

Funny, we are all arguing the exact same argument it sounds like. We are about a foot apart, but sounding like we are miles apart.

It must be your accusatory tone.

Yes, this is all part of my master plan to get people to stop buying overpriced, I mean "high-quality" audio gear, and instead buy bass traps from my company.







--Ethan

 

[NL5]

For someone who has admitted repeatedly not to be an expert, you sure do express strong opinions.

It's simple math Ethan. that is all I am asking YOU to explain. You are the one claiming to be an expert. I am just asking you to explain. At the end of the day, a DAW is just a big ass calculator, no?

No shit. Now try it again with the second 1 KHz wave at -40 and tell us what happens.

The signal is degraded, albeit by a much lesser amount, but clearly audible.

I already told you precisely where the noise starts and stops. So now you know too. Assuming you have a capable editor program that shows exact times, versus Windows Media Player or some such that lacks the resolution.

Is it a patch or not? Can you please answer that simple question? I would really like to know, as it would change my interpretation significantly. I told you EXACTLY where the sound was, I don't know how much clearer I can be. At least three people in this thread heard it at a level loud enough to be a synth patch, so you must be able to hear it and know if you put it in at the same times as the noise or not. I have no way of knowing if it's just the noise, or the noise and a patch that sounds very much like the noise file you posted.

It must be your accusatory tone.

No tone, just text. I am a really laid back guy, I think sometimes my typing doesn't come across that way, but it is not intentional.......

 

[NL5]

Yes, this is all part of my master plan to get people to stop buying overpriced, I mean "high-quality" audio gear

A perfect example is the comparison between a $25 SoundBlaster and $6,000 Apogee. Yes, there are tiny differences

Just wanted to add - this argument could apply to ANYTHING. Is a 400k cello really that much better than a 4k? I bet Ma would sound like Ma on either, so is it really worth the expense? Only Ma can say if it's worth it to him.........

 

[Ethan Winer]

Yes, a DAW is just adding waveforms together. Or, more precisely, adding together the sample numbers at each point in time to make a single new sample.

The signal is degraded, albeit by a much lesser amount, but clearly audible.

Can you post the file?

Is it a patch or not? Can you please answer that simple question?

I don't know what you're hearing. I already said the noise is a very soft whoosh. If you'd like I can 1) post the raw file so you can hear it without the noise and/or add the noise in yourself at varying levels, or 2) I can prepare the additional two files I offered with the noise at -50 and -60. Your choice.

Is a 400k cello really that much better than a 4k?

The value of a cello depends on more than just its sound quality. Old cellos in particular have "antique" value in addition to their sound quality and playability. And really expensive cellos are more like $5 million.

My own cello cost $4,800 when I bought it 15 years ago, and it's now "worth" about $10,000. Depends on who you ask. It's a very nice cello, and Yo-Yo could definitely play a concert with it and nobody in the audience would complain. But my teacher's cello definitely sounds better. Would most people hear a difference? Sure, but most probably would not be able to express a preference for one over the other. But I can hear that my teacher's cello is better, and so could any other pro cellist.

BTW, my teacher paid $12,000 for her cello about 20 years ago. She got a great deal because it sounds as good as any Strad IMO. Amazingly, when she bought a new bow a few years ago she spent $50,000. Well, actually, her mom spent $50k. As you probably know, few classical musicians earn enough to pay for their toys.

--Ethan

 

[NL5]

The value of a cello depends on more than just its sound quality. Old cellos in particular have "antique" value in addition to their sound quality and playability. And really expensive cellos are more like $5 million.

My own cello cost $4,800 when I bought it 15 years ago, and it's now "worth" about $10,000. Depends on who you ask. It's a very nice cello, and Yo-Yo could definitely play a concert with it and nobody in the audience would complain. But my teacher's cello definitely sounds better. Would most people hear a difference? Sure, but most probably would not be able to express a preference for one over the other. But I can hear that my teacher's cello is better, and so could any other pro cellist.

BTW, my teacher paid $12,000 for her cello about 20 years ago. She got a great deal because it sounds as good as any Strad IMO. Amazingly, when she bought a new bow a few years ago she spent $50,000. Well, actually, her mom spent $50k. As you probably know, few classical musicians earn enough to pay for their toys.

--Ethan

So, your next crusade will be against musicians (or more precisely, their benefactors) paying ludicrous sums of money for an instrument, when a cheap one would sound good enough that "nobody in the audience would complain"? Makes a $6k converter look like a bargain by comparison.


edit - and I listened to the whole MAW song. The noise I was hearing is not a patch, it's the noise. There is a patch in that song that has a similar quality, but is mixed in at a lower level than the noise, or at least it perceptibly quieter. I also re-listened to the -70 file. You can actually hear several of the noises sections - it almost sounds like string/bow noise. it gets masked pretty well in some spots, and I can no longer hear the sound in those sections. Now that I know where it is, I can't reliably say that the original file is degraded enough to actually hear or not.

 

[NL5]

Ok, I took and added that sound at -70db into a short section of a classical piece. It's in two longer bursts. The small noise sample was not not cut and pasted perfectly to make a longer section of it, which probably brings out the noise a bit, or at least draws a bit more attention to it. However, if it's inaudible, you won't hear it anyway.

http://www.lightningmp3.com/upload/classical.wav

Can anybody hear where it's at?

 

[Ethan Winer]

So, your next crusade will be against musicians (or more precisely, their benefactors) paying ludicrous sums of money for an instrument, when a cheap one would sound good enough that "nobody in the audience would complain"?

I didn't say nobody can hear the difference! I can hear the difference, and so can 50,000 other professional classical musicians.

If someone can afford a $5 million cello, or has a rich benefactor, more power to them. The people I aim to "protect" are newbies on a budget who wrongly believe they must invest $2k per channel if they ever hope to achieve professional results. This is a lie, and I intend to expose that lie. Much to the chagrin of people with a vested interest in perpetuating that lie.

it gets masked pretty well in some spots, and I can no longer hear the sound in those sections. Now that I know where it is, I can't reliably say that the original file is degraded enough to actually hear or not.

Exactly my point. If the noise is at -70, and you can barely hear it, who cares about noise that's 20 to 30 dB softer? Yes, it all adds up and we all strive for as good as we can get. But not if it means paying $$$$ more. And regardless, this stuff is not what limits the quality of anyone's projects. A good mix sounds slammin' on an iPod or even on AM radio. A bad mix sucks no matter which boutique dither you apply.

Looks like we've finally reached an agreement here. Thumbs up all around.

--Ethan

 

[NL5]

The people I aim to "protect" are newbies on a budget who wrongly believe they must invest $2k per channel if they ever hope to achieve professional results. This is a lie, and I intend to expose that lie. Much to the chagrin of people with a vested interest in perpetuating that lie.

Well, you need to start with Guitar Center. They have everybody convinced that they can make pro recordings at home with an Mbox. When that doesn't work, it's "well, if you had a better pre", then "well if you had a better mic", etc, etc, etc. I believe strongly that gear makes a difference - probably more so than you. (I doubt we are really that far apart though ) I believe even more strongly that people put WAY to much emphasis on the gear. I think a big part of it is that the weekend warrior musician type truly believes that the only difference between them and a platinum band is the pro studio. This is what they are preying upon to sell the gear (whether intentional or not). I hate to break it to all you struggling musicians, they biggest reason they sound pro is BECAUSE THEY SOUND PRO. I'd bet Yo Yo Ma would sound better recorded here in my crappy home studio than a weekend warrior cellist would in the finest studio on the planet.

Yes, it all adds up and we all strive for as good as we can get. But not if it means paying $$$$ more.

Unless it's a Cello? Seriously though, this is my point. There is a difference. Is it worth it to you to pay the extra money? Only each person can say. I have said in pretty much every thread I have posted in, that the VAST majority of people have WAY bigger fish to fry first.

And regardless, this stuff is not what limits the quality of many people's projects. A good mix sounds slammin' on an iPod or even on AM radio. A bad mix sucks no matter which boutique dither you apply.

Looks like we've finally reached an agreement here. Thumbs up all around.

I'll agree with my slight modification. I do think saying a SB is as good as a Lavry is quite overstated, but will concede the higher up the chain you go, the differences become smaller and smaller and the $$$ gap gets bigger faster. But again, this is true of ANYTHING - even cello's!

 

[NL5]

Here are four more samples. What amazes me is the amount of noise in classical recordings. The noise floor is -45db!

Anyway, two have the noise all the way through, two do not. I think most people will be able to tell in the softer passage of the first two, but the second two are pretty full on loud. Curious to see if anybody can tell.

http://www.lightningmp3.com/upload/classical-01.wav
http://www.lightningmp3.com/upload/classical-02.wav
http://www.lightningmp3.com/upload/classical-03.wav
http://www.lightningmp3.com/upload/classical-04.wav

 

[SonicAlbert]

The people I aim to "protect" are newbies on a budget who wrongly believe they must invest $2k per channel if they ever hope to achieve professional results. This is a lie, and I intend to expose that lie. Much to the chagrin of people with a vested interest in perpetuating that lie.

Okay, I'm a professional musician and I can hear the difference between a cheap preamp and a high quality preamp. I can also hear the difference between a $25,000 violin and a $250,000 violin.

Therefore, as a professional making my living in this field who can hear the difference, you simply can't say that someone can achieve "professional" results with cheap gear. By the very definition that I'm a professional and I can hear it and I wouldn't accept it on my gigs.

What you really seem to be saying is that it is acceptable to dumb down standards because you can get away with it (or think you can get away with it) in the minds of an unknowing public. I personally feel this is incorrect, and frankly bad advice to be spreading around on message boards that are read by inexperienced and impressionable home recordists.

I have no vested interests in any "lie" and I really don't think you are "protecting" anybody. I'd love to spend less money on gear than I do and get the same results, and believe me I've tried. The fact is that *money buys quality* when it comes to audio gear and to lead people to believe otherwise is simply to deny reality.

"Professional" means you do it for a living and work with other people who do it for a living. Please, please, please don't try to convince me that a soundblaster is okay for professional work. If you show up at a professional gig with a soundblaster, you are gone. Period. I frequently come across situations where if people don't have the right gear or are known not to have professional expertise with commonly used gear, they simply are eliminated from contention before even being called.

As an educational tool, or a step along the way in learning the craft, yes, I can perhaps agree with your general idea. But I do not agree at all with your premise as you stated it regarding the concept of "professional".

 

[NL5]

http://www.lightningmp3.com/upload/classical-01.wav
http://www.lightningmp3.com/upload/classical-02.wav
http://www.lightningmp3.com/upload/classical-03.wav
http://www.lightningmp3.com/upload/classical-04.wav

These samples remind me of a statement from a former HRBBS'er - it always cracks me up. He said that "this whole mixing thing would be a lot more fun if it weren't for the f**king musicians". I think they worst thing in those clips is the chair noise from the orchestra! You would think they could afford quieter chairs! Or, at least made them sit still.........