Jump to content

Dilemma - Mixing mastering results of EQ?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I'm not against advances at all and sure there will be new stuff invented weekly now.... but the question posed is: to what gain? 48k 192k 2097192k will all sound like 18k to us :)

 

We finally have the audiable dynamic bandwidth and what do we do? Crunch to 5db dynamic range so it sounds good on 64k mp3 internet stream. :)

 

"One thing is true, as technology progresses more idiots are going to be able to create music and at a higher degree of quality without all the knowledge we spend years learning. Dismal very Dismal more rant rant."

 

I been feeling that for years.... every Idol wannabe can press some buttons and pop out a hit - people whos only talent is button pressing, are making "Hits" now. You hear it all the time on the radio. Seriously a large amount of it sounds like CASIO's Demo Setting looping. The regular folk are EMPOWERED with these tech advnaces. Is that good? I say no. I wouldn't want my heart surgeon to rely mostly on his laptop and 1000 presets he downloaded off the internet. But that's just me. If you suck at something, don't depend on the machine to make YOU better at it. Stop and try something else. :)

 

Just some more opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

 

That's all to be considered for recording technology? Bits, dynamics, frequency range?


Okay, if this is the best we can do, the Ultimate, Perfection, try this:


-record a band. Any band. Now play it back and see if anyone thinks there's a real band in the room. Didn't think so.


-now try this with a big band and do the same thing. Anyone fooled? Less so, you say? Hmmmm...


-now try recording a full symphony orchestra. Play it back and see if anyone thinks there's a symphony orchestra in the room. Even less fooled...hmmmm...


-now try recording an earthquake. Doesn't sound the same, you say, even without the shaking? Why won't it play back correctly? {censored} that...why won't it even *record* properly?

 

Here enters surround sound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Recording can only be as good as the artists performing. Music is a generational thing. Just because the talant factor is fairly flat now doesnt mean a new wave of creativity wont begin. At the present The home recording thing with musicians has been a boone. Problem is the distribution and entertainment world has been on life support because of its availability and veurnerability. This too can change breathing new life into the recording world but I dont think it will just involve audio. With the onset of these musical video games and HDTV I wouldnt doubt there would be some kind of live interaciton that involves actual guitarists playing. The want is out there but the marketing would be the challange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't know... you figure people are already starting to jam across the internet. Once computers are fast enough it'll be like having them in your own garage.

 

But what about electronic music? You have perfect timing on the drums and synth. This music is what I would call "perfect." Yet, it's fairly underground except in clubs and the like.

 

I build houses for a living. People love wood floors. I've seen them installed in 30million dollar houses. Wood is not the best material for a floor. They scratch easy, warp, and need to be maintained every few years. Some people even buy pieces of floor or cabinetry that have knots in them. Why do people keep buying it though? Because wood isn't perfect. It's entertaining to the eye. Every piece is original and beautiful. It takes a skilled carpenter to put it together by hand. Not a robot. You never see laminant floor in a mansion. Perfect is boring. It's just a matter of time until the next punk rock phase kicks in and the whole cycle starts over. I think too many musicians miss the point completely of what we're doing. We're here to be skilled entertainers, not to be robots and make cheap formika.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

what more improvement can there be, in the quality side, having reached a point where sonically, 24/96 covers all human hearing and real world dynamics? we can go 1 bit or million bit, but that won't change the fact that we cant hear past 20k

 

Something I think people fail to understand with regards to sample rates..

 

Sample a 1 Hz sine wave at 44,100 Hz and what do you get? A nice and smooth sine wave. However, by definition it obviously can't be smoother than the true analog wave and hence can't sound better, but that's the audiophile arguement and honestly at these frequencies, I think the difference is negligible

 

BUT

Sample a 20,050 Hz sine wave at 44,100 Hz and what do you get? something varying from a triangle to sawtooth wave. Honestly, I can't believe this stuff works at all sometimes, but at least I can understand why hi-hats just don't sound right.. Sample instead at 88.2KHz, or 96KHz and it'll look a little better, but it'll still be obviously distorted from it's original form. It's not until we sample somewhere up in the GHz that we'll really be able to claim 'reproduction'.

 

Then comes bit depth

Picture a sine wave on a graph; the horizontal X axis at the zero-crossing regarding our frequency capture ie sample rate, and the vertical Y axis regards our dynamic range capture ie bit depth. If all the digital sample combinations were overlayed on the graph, we'd see a uniform mesh type grid. That is essentially how audio is 'captured' in the digital domain - by employing algorithms that decide "ehhh I reckon the wave was kinda around here at this time". If you want to improve this capture, you need to make the mesh as fine as can be.

 

At the moment, there are holes all over the place, but if we could really step it up so that even a 20KHz looks as smooth as a 1 Hz wave sampled @ 44.1KHz does, then I might agree that we're approaching the pinnicle of sound capture. Until then... :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

if we're more worried about how the wave sample has been chopped up, rather than if the song is involving, then we are listening to the wrong thing.

There would be no reason for the recording without the song

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

well

technology will progess to that point probably in research fields but im pretty sure commercial music wont its sorta like midi you dont fix something that isnt broken. also it looks like everythings going down the pan in 10years. It took peer to peer 10years to destroy 26% of CD sales and give 40%sales too iTunes. Add ten years......what do get?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

if we're more worried about how the wave sample has been chopped up, rather than if the song is involving, then we are listening to the wrong thing.

There would be no reason for the recording without the song

 

 

Agree 100%

But, what I quoted you on was unrelated to this. You said as far as quality goes, what more improvement can there be? I just wanted to clarify to you and all others that there's still massive room for improvement

 

Of course it's all about the music!

But say you've got an intricate jazz three piece.. Every component of their playing must come through on the recording in order to do their efforts justice. Every last bit of expression they put into their playing should be heard, and every instrument must be captured with as much detail as possible. Same principle can be applied to all styles of music

 

 

Weeman, it's not that it's broken, it's just that we're still getting there. As we have the ability to produce smaller and smaller electronics, hence fitting in more calculations and data manipulation (same time for electricity to travel same length path, but then can pass through more hardware hence processing) ramble ramble ramble of course they'll improve on the hardware! I guess the people are pretty resistant to change as CDs have shown us, but eventually, it'll happen. In 20 years time I don't think you'll be seeing much 44.1/16 on computer motherboards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't know that people are resistant to change, but I think what people have shown us time and time again is that they want convenience. And MP3s are convenient. The public also showed us that this with cassettes. Cassettes were mobile.

 

You could stick 'em in a Walkman or play 'em in the car. And we heard the SAME arguments back then: "People don't care how the music sounds! We've taken a step backward!!!"

 

And yeah, you can see that argument. But it was, of course, because people wanted something convenient, because they wanted music while they were on the go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

All i'm asking for is that all digital devices playback at something like 2GHz 128bit
:D
but of course, file sizes bigger etc.. hurry up technology! get your freakin act together!

 

and all that amazing dynamic range and quality will be masked by a car engine, ....like tears in rain :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

All i'm asking for is that all digital devices playback at something like 2GHz 128bit
:D
but of course, file sizes bigger etc.. hurry up technology! get your freakin act together!

 

It'd take, like, five minutes to load each song!!! :D

 

"My iPod is still hourglassing!!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

With the cost of these memory sticks coming down I'm surprised that havent put USB slots in car decks and home stereo systems. An 8G stick is $23 at the local computer Micro Center. When I think back maybe 15 yrs ago a 2G drive was a huge drive. Now were using terabyte drives that are small and compact. There have been hugh ammounts of change but you have to keep it in perspective.

 

As far as MP3s go, I relate them to AM radio for quality in comparison to FM. Growing up in the 60s and 70s AM was king for pop music and even in that format it made stars of the musicians. Those who bought albums or 45s enjoyed higher sound quality at home. I believe whats holding back improvements is inferior sound systems for computers. People still have separate Hi Fi stereo systems and computer monitors, and surround systems for that matter. The computer audio playback systems is still vastly inferior for most in comparison to Hi Fi systems except for pro recording enthusiests like those who visit this site. I can see a computerised Stereo market coming about that networks into the computer and TV equipment wirelessly for the home as being a possible solution. The audio quality can be superior in comparison to other formats

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

My buddy's new Honda FIT has a USB slot. Both my car's stereos play MP3 and WMA. My home system (PS3) has USB slots for music or whatever, and does live streaming. I bought $200 monitor speakers for my computer and it is wonderful! I was an early adopter for all this stuff and have never looked back. At first it was confusing how to GEL with everything, but now it is second nature. I'd highly recommend USB and/or MP3 playback to everybody. Just keep your file systems organized

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

its more than likely music technology will follow the trends of economics. As the economy rises so will our quality level "COME ON ECONOMY!". I don't like the fact iTunes basically owns the entire online market. Well probably wish the record companies still held control over the industry in 15years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It's so convenient. No burning, no wasting aluminum...just sweep it to the USB drive and run out to the car. Sometimes, I'll drive around with a mix for a couple of days, just to get the full vibe. It's so nice to be able to do that. The only thing is that the Kenwood interface is a bit of a headscratcher, the most difficult interface of any car stereo I've ever had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

BUT

Sample a 20,050 Hz sine wave at 44,100 Hz and what do you get? something varying from a triangle to sawtooth wave.

 

No, in practice you get a nice smooth 20kHz sine wave. Try it and see.

 

You don't need an analog scope for this, but you do need a 20kHz sine wave. A function generator is ideal.

 

Record some 20kHz tone, then zoom it to the max with any decent recording software, or look at it on an analog scope (after DAC'ing it back to analog), or read the resulting .wav file with a computer program and compare to known Sine values (I've done all three).

 

Any tiny difference from a perfect sine wave will be due to less than perfect filtering before the conversion or slight jitter in the clocking. A 44.1kHz sample rate is enough to perfectly capture a 20kHz sine wave, if the electronics were perfect.

 

At the moment, there are holes all over the place

 

16 bits gets you 65,536 levels, 20 bits gets you 1,048,576 levels, and maybe some day we'll have ICs that get full 24 bits which would be 16,777,216 levels.

 

Given that even the 16 bit CD has a 96dB dynamic range, and that the minimum dB level increase the average human being perceives as "louder" is 3dB, we're already exceeding the ear's capacity to distinguish levels.

 

:idk:

 

Higher sample rate only helps by making the pre-digitizing filters easier to design, higher bit rates really only help keep the noise floor down, especially when multiple tracks are combined.

 

Terry D.

 

P.S. We've replaced both our car stereos with newer models featuring USB jacks. Fantastically convenient, both for listening to work mixes and for my wife's books on tape. :thu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

hmm.. sorry but I have to disagree

 

If you put a 22KHz sine wave into your PC and recorded it, and it looks to be smooth, then your software is misleading you, or not letting you zoom in enough to see what I'm talking about

 

The technology itself simply does not permit capture of a nice smooth 22KHz sine wave, at 44KHz sampling it'll always come out as a triangle or sawtooth wave

 

 

The sample editor in Logic 5 lets you zoom to the extent needed to show this (Sound Forge would not let me go anywhere near this far):

 

22khzlogic.jpg

 

 

Sound forge only let me go this far:

 

22khzsoundforge.jpg

 

 

Even 10KHz with doesn't look too good:

 

10khzlogic.jpg

 

 

1Hz is acceptable :)

 

1hzlogic.jpg

 

 

 

Any pre-digitized filtering is mostly there to condition the signal for the ADC. Regardless, as soon as any signal hits the ADC, the above sampling effect takes place.

 

The only consolation when it comes to reproduction is the post filtering in the DAC, which is there to smooth out the wave in attempt to create an analog waveform. Indeed it will create an analogue waveform, but it most definitely won't be the same as the one that was sampled in the first place

 

 

let me just say again that I'm not some audio crazy must be perfect for me to listen to it kind of person; I'm merely pointing out the limitations of the digital world.

 

As MrKnobs points out, 16bits allows for 96dB of dynamic range, and 44KHz sampling can be used to capture a 22KHz sine wave. But it's statements like 'the minimum dB level increase the average human being perceives as "louder" is 3dB, we're already exceeding the ear's capacity to distinguish levels' that I have to disagree with. We might not be able to consciously discern between such small differences, but perhaps that's because the conscious is simultaenously doing so many other things that it doesn't allow for that amount of effort on it's behalf. Our sub-conscious is far more active anyway, and I believe plays a big part in listening to music. I'd argue that our sub-conscious knows exactly what's going on in these fine realms, and it comes down to 'it just sounds better'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...