Interesting articles

Silent Stage w/IEMs

This is more on the live side, but could be useful in a large studio.

https://blog.64audio.com/the-benefits-of-switching-to-a-silent-stage/
_____________________

I was moving in this direction some 30 years ago when I ditched my large bass rigs for a rack module processor DI'd to FOH. Didn't have IEMs in those days so still had to monitor from wedges and PA. Our guitar player downsized to a 15W combo mic'd to FOH - almost silent. Drummer was full acoustic mic'd to FOH with his own wedge, made for some peculiar stage mixes.
 
Last edited:
One of my longtime wishes has been to record music directly from my thoughts to some type of recording device. Like an XLR from my brain to an interface - or wireless, even! So this afternoon I Googled 'can i record music directly from my brain' and tripped across this brief article. It has some interesting points, and I would like to have had it go on longer and into more detail, but..

Bear in mind this was written 14 years ago.

https://cdm.link/2007/08/mp3-music-no-longer-connected-to-your-brain/
 
Glitch Free - An In-Depth Guide To Tuning Windows For Reliable Real-Time Audio Performance

Not really an article, but.. I tripped across this over at the Tascam Forums. It may be helpful.

GUIDE PDF
 
I've always just flipped knobs on my amps every which way without actually knowing what I was doing. It seemed like the quickest way to find a sound i liked. The presence knob always left me scratching my head, though. I kind of always liked when I cranked it up as it gave me a cleaner sound without adding harshness. To my ears, it's a subtle difference from 0 to 10.

This explains in layman's terms what it's doing : https://www.fender.com/articles/tech-talk/be-in-the-moment-the-presence-control-explained

Also, check out the additional info after the end of the article - about the difference between an amp's gain and volume [no longer part of the article]
 
Last edited:
Ah, you kids! My first computer was self built around a Z-80 processor, no disks, and 1MB of anything was a pipe dream. I made my own audio interface
to work on an 8086 PC-XT clone.
Things have moved on a bit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TAE
Slouching Raymond said:
Things have moved on a bit.
Click to expand...
yeah just a smidge...ya got me beat by a mile I built my first daw in 1995 with a P133 and a awe 32 soundblaster that came bundled with digital performer..also bought the daughter board for that card...dems was the daze and so are these.
 
Slouching Raymond said:
Ah, you kids! My first computer was self built around a Z-80 processor, no disks, and 1MB of anything was a pipe dream. I made my own audio interface
to work on an 8086 PC-XT clone.
Things have moved on a bit.
Click to expand...
I remember writing BASIC programs on an HP2000 in college, around 74-75. I couldn't afford a computer when they first came out, but once TI dropped the price of the TI99/4a down to $150, I was able to get one. Add a cassette recorder and a black and white TV and I was on my way. I've still got my old TI, Atari 800 and 800XL, and Apple }{+.
Yeah, I would say things have changed a bit.. the cheapest smartphone is light years more powerful than what we started on. But, now almost everyone is just a user, hardly anyone knows how to program or even build systems.
 
I built this pc I am on just over 2 years ago now. Its easy with the part pickers that sell the bits. All it is is a few nuts and screws. Not even a kids 'Mechano' kit. Now there's something from the past!

About 13 years ago I learnt code and built websites and also learnt about seo internet marketing stuff. I got my websites and others I had made to top of Google etc.

First pc I had was a Dell in 2002. Never knew anything about pc's or internet until then. I never knew anything about sound/recording until a couple of years ago. I never stop learning every day. Fascinates me.
 
TalismanRich said:
I remember writing BASIC programs on an HP2000 in college, around 74-75. I couldn't afford a computer when they first came out, but once TI dropped the price of the TI99/4a down to $150, I was able to get one. Add a cassette recorder and a black and white TV and I was on my way. I've still got my old TI, Atari 800 and 800XL, and Apple }{+.
Yeah, I would say things have changed a bit.. the cheapest smartphone is light years more powerful than what we started on. But, now almost everyone is just a user, hardly anyone knows how to program or even build systems.
Click to expand...
Coming from the electronics side I learnt to program in Assembly Language first, and never really liked Basic. I too bought a TI99/4a, which was quite impressive, but also slow. I took mine completely to bits, on some late nights in my college room, and mapped out the circuit diagram. It was slow because there was NO main RAM, just a tiny amount of 'scratchpad RAM'. The Basic programs were passed to the video processor, to store in the video RAM. You could buy a RAM/Assembler module for it, which would have been great, but I couldn't afford it.
Although technically trained, I am just another 'user' most of the time.
 
I was snooping around, looking to see if I could locate a user manual for a Maplin BX810 mixer that someone here is looking for... no luck. BUT !!

For all of you gearheads out there (you know who you are), I stumbled upon an internet archive of Maplin's magazines covering some twenty years. There are gobs of schematics for building all kinds of goodies.. really cool goodies.

 
the only programs I wrote were for CNC machines. I have to laugh about the first time I, we, ever played to a click track. Everyone thought they were
pretty good at staying in time, that put and end to that myth! We all would swing back an forth over the "straight time". We didn't worry about it to much
as long as we were "close". Gave it that human "touch'. I guess they all worry about it too much these days? As for autotune, my philosophy is if you can't sing, which
I am not that great at, don't be a singer. I myself, although I could certainly use it, never would. I would consider it cheating and I don't cheat.
 
There are times when I want the tempo to drift for one reason or another but I do use a click most of the time. It's not a recent development either because I still have my Seth Thomas metronome from the mid 70's that I used to record on my first 4-track reel to reel. I thought it was pretty slick at the time because you could turn down the volume and use the red blinking light to keep time so the click would not be recorded.
 
digital and ears and yeah....marketing.....but I often side that technology does improve, but yeah our human ears dont...so....

the Beatles sets were released on CD, it was kind of a flop apparently, with goobers pulling mono tapes and playing them on stereo reel to reels and released that way...

then there was a more serious release and that one was supposedly 24/192 to Pro Tools then Pro Tools became the "reel to reel" and more attention by the EMI staff.

so if transferring something from tape to digital , 24/192 or the best available makes sense for something like this.
can we hear it? probably not .....

I was working DLP and Samsung who was the company driving everything, said no one can see much better than 720P so they stopped pushing research into 1080 or above... they seemed to think the market and tech was worth 480 to 720, but the rest was kind of not noticeable by humans. So they said work on making parts cheaper so they laid everyone off and sent the factory to Taiwan...lol
 
"Samsung who was the company driving everything, said no one can see much better than 720P" They they were total idiots.
I am but a lowly ex colour tv technician but it is totally bloody obvious that as screen size increases, for a given viewing distance, definition, density of pixels must increase to keep a crisp image. Anyone who cannot tell standard TV from high deff needs to see an eye doctor!

I have been infesting audio forums for about ten years and people are forever comparing video with audio. They are not at all comparable.
People speak of "resolution" in audio thinking of the same term in video. It is bollox, 24 bits does NOT get you better "resolution" than 16, just a lower noise floor. Each 'bit' is still about 6dB.

Audio just needs a 20-20kHz bandwidth and a low enough noise and distortion floor. Video bandwidth must increase as the amount of data, pixels, goes up.

Dave.
 
ecc83 said:
I have been infesting audio forums for about ten years and people are forever comparing video with audio. They are not at all comparable.
People speak of "resolution" in audio thinking of the same term in video. It is bollox, 24 bits does NOT get you better "resolution" than 16, just a lower noise floor. Each 'bit' is still about 6dB.

Audio just needs a 20-20kHz bandwidth and a low enough noise and distortion floor. Video bandwidth must increase as the amount of data, pixels, goes up.

Dave.
Click to expand...
This is something that I've wondered about and haven't been able to find a credible answer to.

Yes, adding a bit adds 6dB to the S/N ratio, but if you look at the math, you have a tremendous increase in the number of discrete steps. 16 bit audio provide 2^16 levels, or 65536. 24 bit audio has 2^24 levels or 16,777,216. Are those extra 16.71million levels only used for the extra 48dB on top? If you start at 0dB, you actually have 23 possible levels to drop to -6dB. With 16bit, you only have 15 levels. Does it provide for a more accurate approximation of the waveform? You are most likely using the top 50 dB of the signal level. Thinking from top down, it would seem that 24 bit, or 32 bit, would allow for a more accurate sample, (less quantization noise). This is separate from dither, which is LSB randomization.

I have looked for some information on this, but all everyone focuses on it lowering the noise floor. In terms of dB, how much of an decrease do you get going from say 16525001 to 16525000, vs 65321 to 65320?

Any math majors here that can clarify this?
 
I am NO maths major nor digital geek Rich, I only know what I have learned from the top bods at Sound on Sound magazine and this is it.
24 bits gets you a dynamic range of 144dB (24.6) and that is some 20dB, x10 better than THE very best A/D D/A converters which are limited by the Johnson noise of their analogue circuits (a 'simple' balanced line input stage with a 10k input z cannot get quieter than about -105dBu. Add 20dB headroom and that is still only 125dB DR. With some VERY complex circuitry we can reduce that by about 5dB but that's just the input, OP stages generate noise as well!)

No matter how hard you look you will not find an interface with a DR of 130dB.

16 bits is good enough for reproduction. Think about it? Say the maximum sound level from your monitors was 100dB? Subtract 90dB and you get an SPL of 10dB! Nobody outside the NPL has a room that quiet. Sure, you can go louder and subject yourself to 120dB but even 30dB is barely achievable in most homes and some studios. Plus of course your ears would be ****ed after ten minutes!

It is a basic principle that 'professional' recording systems be better than the domestic end result so we recorded at 15ips and Dolby A. Similarly studios use 24 bits but release at 16 bits (or a LOT worse!) In UK FM radio has been distributed via digital MW links at, IIRC 13.5 bits and of course FM has always stopped at 15kHz. Never read of anyone complaining about BBC radio sound quality? In fact I don't think anyone has ever noticed!

Yes, the extra 'levels' just give a wider DR and really 24 bits does not add 'Headroom' but LEG room! Theory tells us that at 44.1kHz a 20kHz sine wave can be reconstructed perfectly. Of course, D/As are not perfect but since even mid range ones have a THD figure in the third decimal place they are about an order better than anything else in the repro' chain.

I am now about to be shot at by a maths major!

Dave.
 
ecc83 said:
"Samsung who was the company driving everything, said no one can see much better than 720P" They they were total idiots.
I am but a lowly ex colour tv technician but it is totally bloody obvious that as screen size increases, for a given viewing distance, definition, density of pixels must increase to keep a crisp image. Anyone who cannot tell standard TV from high deff needs to see an eye doctor!

I have been infesting audio forums for about ten years and people are forever comparing video with audio. They are not at all comparable.
People speak of "resolution" in audio thinking of the same term in video. It is bollox, 24 bits does NOT get you better "resolution" than 16, just a lower noise floor. Each 'bit' is still about 6dB.

Audio just needs a 20-20kHz bandwidth and a low enough noise and distortion floor. Video bandwidth must increase as the amount of data, pixels, goes up.

Dave.
Click to expand...
Plus, look at it from an evolution/improvement stand point. TV was 40's? Audio late 1890s. By the time the 70's rolled in, recording was really at its peak for quality. That is 80 years. If you add 80 years to video, that is 2020. So we are now reaching the peak of video quality. Seems right on track with audio. Plus video has to carry audio with it at the higher quality/grade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top