|
|
Dirty Digital [sic.]
"Rob" wrote in message
Couple of the Wki things - 24 bit recording isn't always dithered, As a practical matter *every* real-world 24 bit audio recording *is* dithered by random noise from other parts of the recording chain. and there are different types of dither. Even at 16 bits, there's enough environmental noise to wash out *all* practical differences due to dither. |
Dirty Digital [sic.]
Eeyore wrote:
Don Pearce wrote: I was unhappy with much of the mixing and balance from Glastonbury - far too much drums for the most part. Modern damn newbie mixing style, along with making the vocals just that little bit too quiet to hear peroperly.. Graham Probably necessary, mostly. The singer is the "talent" and hence incompetent and out of tune. The bands are largely session men - huge talent, and no problem winding them up a bit. d |
Dirty Digital [sic.]
"Rob" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: "Rob" wrote in message Just seemed possibly ironic that digital might have to be 'shaped' to sound decent. And you think that LPs aren't shaped? I do think they are. The point I was trying to establish is that there's only one way of doing digital. Skim and ill-informed reading indicates that there *could be* variables - dither, bit rates, and digital to analogue conversion. The consensus appears to be that these variables are either irrelevant to sound, or objectively and universally applied. I'm not sure that I would go that far, but I do believe that 44/16 gets an amazing number of different jobs done in a highly effective way. You've obviously had a bad experience of vinyl Almost 40 years when it was for many practical purposes, all we had to listen to. It's moved on a lot in last 40 years IMO. If you study the professional literature in the field of recording, you will find that there have been no significant innovations in almost 30 years. I think Thorens moved things along in the 60s and early 70s, No. and Pink Triangle set a benchmark that hasn't really been bettered significantly to this day. Rega RB250 and AT MCs, both 80s I think, similar. No. You're hung up on playback hardware, and it is the production side including the basic material that set the bounds. If you read the consumer audio ragazines, a naive person might think otherwise. Indeed. I don't buy them but have a leaf through if I'm waiting for a train. I get my fun from music by recording it and listening to it. What I routinely do for fun would be totally impractical with vinyl-type technology. |
Dirty Digital [sic.]
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
In article , Don Pearce wrote: Rob wrote: Couple of the Wki things - 24 bit recording isn't always dithered, and there are different types of dither. It is certainly dithered, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a specific noise signal has been provided for the purpose. Anything noise-like will dither, and at 24 bits the inevitable input noise from the analogue circuitry is already more than big enough for the job. It is only when native noise levels are below the digital threshold that you need to dither specifically. And of course when you are creating music by synth. Since synths are now largely based on samples, they inhrent the dynamic range limitations of the samples, which are often acoustic recordings. Also if doing something like using 24 bit source material to create something at a different bit depth or rate. e..g using 24/96kHz recordings to make a CD. Dithering down is the rule. In general, the default assumption should be to employ dither (or an equivalent) when processing the recording in the digital domain. Dithering down is the rule. Although I have no idea if those in the business know this, or perhap even in many cases have a clue what the equipment inside the boxes does. It does. But with luck, the people who made their kit had the necessary level of clue. :-) They did. |
Dirty Digital [sic.]
In article , Rob
wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: "Rob" wrote in message Just seemed possibly ironic that digital might have to be 'shaped' to sound decent. And you think that LPs aren't shaped? I do think they are. The point I was trying to establish is that there's only one way of doing digital. Not quite. There are many ways of "doing digital" which may be less than optimal. It also depends on the *purpose* of the "digital". But if you wish to make recordings of musical waveforms, etc, then dither (or an equivalent) is required if you don't want to unnecessarily add distortion to the results. Skim and ill-informed reading indicates that there *could be* variables - dither, bit rates, and digital to analogue conversion. The same information (that defines/records the details of the sound waveforms) can be represented in a nominally infinite variety of "digital" forms. But if done correctly, they all can use used to reconstruct the same result, and be indistinguishable from the waveforms presented for conversion into 'digital' form at the point the recording was made. The consensus appears to be that these variables are either irrelevant to sound, or objectively and universally applied. All of which doesn't make either necessarily sound more enjoyable to me. Which simply reflects the use to which the methods have been put by those making the recording and distributing it for you. I gave a TT to a friend a while ago. [snip] I have tried recording various LPs onto CDR. Simple method based just on CD Audio sampling rate, etc. With no processing, the results sound just like the LP did in every case. You are clearly welcome to prefer whatever you decide. There are also many reasons for expecting the sound from LP to have been altered by the replay system you choose. There are also good reasons for suspecting that those who produced a CD and an LP of - nominally - the same recording will have produced different results in some respects when it wasn't necessary. Obvious example being the deliberate use of excessive level compression by one desk-wallah, but not by another. None of which tells you anything about CD or LP as such. This is, for me, the real problem with some of NK's claims. They fog over the real problems. Divert attention from trying to get those who make CD or LP to do a decent job of it. This gets lost under a dogma mantra of "LP gooood, CD baaad, LP goood, CD baaad, Four Legs gooood, Two legs... oops." I'd prefer people to get angry about excessive level compression, clipping, or other needless idiocies that get applied to recordings. Not to follow NKs daft argument that you need high levels on CD to avoid the 'distortion'. sic FW during the last few days I've been re-enjoying the 4CD box set of Ella Fitzgerald singing the Gershwin Song Books. Stunningly good. Also the Hickox/LSO Vaughan Williams London Symphony CD. This morning I got the EMI 30CD VW set (cost about 40 quid). Only had a chance to listen to a tiny fraction of that as yet, but... Can't say I've noticed any of NK's claimed 'hard grey sound'. Just a lot of superb music, generally well recorded and performed. The Hickox was a full price CD when bought (I think it was replaced by a hybrid CD/SACD) but the others were bargain prices when bought. I do have some poor CDs (and some poor LPs) but the idea that all CDs have a 'hard grey sound' and are excessively distorted at low levels simply doesn't agree with my experience. I think Thorens moved things along in the 60s and early 70s, and Pink Triangle set a benchmark that hasn't really been bettered significantly to this day. Rega RB250 and AT MCs, both 80s I think, similar. One of the interesting features of HFW is the way they plot spectra of 'arm resonances', and how these vary from one cart/arm/tt to another. Example of one of the ways you can alter the results with such a system.[1] However since digital systems don't do this, you may just have to listen to the recording with those and do without the added resonances. :-) Slainte Jim [1] Indeed, I think NK is to be praised for the early work he did on this some decades ago. It was a major source of data showing that choice of arm or tt might affect results in ways most people hadn't taken into account. He did do some work like this which I personally hold in regard. Shame I can't say the same for what he sometimes claims about digital audio and CD Audio. -- Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
Dirty Digital [sic.]
|
Dirty Digital [sic.]
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: "Rob" wrote in message Just seemed possibly ironic that digital might have to be 'shaped' to sound decent. And you think that LPs aren't shaped? I do think they are. The point I was trying to establish is that there's only one way of doing digital. Not quite. There are many ways of "doing digital" which may be less than optimal. It also depends on the *purpose* of the "digital". But if you wish to make recordings of musical waveforms, etc, then dither (or an equivalent) is required if you don't want to unnecessarily add distortion to the results. OK, and the reason for trying to establish the 'one way' point of digital hardware is an attempt to understand if different CDPs (for example) can sound different. The answer it seems is on thr whole 'no'. You would understand my curiosity and confusion here, given the claims of manufacturers and reviewers. I'm also confused by the fact that most of you tech aware types seem to have spent many, many, times more than necessary on your CDP hardware to achieve nothing of sonic benefit. Skim and ill-informed reading indicates that there *could be* variables - dither, bit rates, and digital to analogue conversion. The same information (that defines/records the details of the sound waveforms) can be represented in a nominally infinite variety of "digital" forms. But if done correctly, they all can use used to reconstruct the same result, and be indistinguishable from the waveforms presented for conversion into 'digital' form at the point the recording was made. The consensus appears to be that these variables are either irrelevant to sound, or objectively and universally applied. All of which doesn't make either necessarily sound more enjoyable to me. Which simply reflects the use to which the methods have been put by those making the recording and distributing it for you. I gave a TT to a friend a while ago. [snip] I have tried recording various LPs onto CDR. Simple method based just on CD Audio sampling rate, etc. With no processing, the results sound just like the LP did in every case. As with me, more or less. You are clearly welcome to prefer whatever you decide. I thank you :-) I remain curious about why I find some records sound better than CDs. Part of the explanation could be 'in the mix'. There are also many reasons for expecting the sound from LP to have been altered by the replay system you choose. There are also good reasons for suspecting that those who produced a CD and an LP of - nominally - the same recording will have produced different results in some respects when it wasn't necessary. Obvious example being the deliberate use of excessive level compression by one desk-wallah, but not by another. None of which tells you anything about CD or LP as such. This is, for me, the real problem with some of NK's claims. They fog over the real problems. Divert attention from trying to get those who make CD or LP to do a decent job of it. This gets lost under a dogma mantra of "LP gooood, CD baaad, LP goood, CD baaad, Four Legs gooood, Two legs... oops." I have read his article on dither; must have been ten years ago. Lay readers like me can't really conclude anything. IIRC he also does the little 'technical boxes' in reviews, concluding that certain measured characteristics will lead to a certain sound. Now, that I find a little naughty, particularly as he reflects with the subjective review in front of him. ISTR David Price was/is one of the reviewers, and thinking then he needed a good shake. I'd prefer people to get angry about excessive level compression, clipping, or other needless idiocies that get applied to recordings. Not to follow NKs daft argument that you need high levels on CD to avoid the 'distortion'. sic FW during the last few days I've been re-enjoying the 4CD box set of Ella Fitzgerald singing the Gershwin Song Books. Stunningly good. Also the Hickox/LSO Vaughan Williams London Symphony CD. This morning I got the EMI 30CD VW set (cost about 40 quid). Only had a chance to listen to a tiny fraction of that as yet, but... Can't say I've noticed any of NK's claimed 'hard grey sound'. Just a lot of superb music, generally well recorded and performed. The Hickox was a full price CD when bought (I think it was replaced by a hybrid CD/SACD) but the others were bargain prices when bought. I do have some poor CDs (and some poor LPs) but the idea that all CDs have a 'hard grey sound' and are excessively distorted at low levels simply doesn't agree with my experience. I just don't know. It's very rare that I listen to a whole CD - one or two tracks tops. It's very rare that I interrupt an LP. For some reason I find uncompressed computer rips (of a CD) played through a CDPs DAC less 'unpleasant' Like me, you can prefer what you decide :-) I think Thorens moved things along in the 60s and early 70s, and Pink Triangle set a benchmark that hasn't really been bettered significantly to this day. Rega RB250 and AT MCs, both 80s I think, similar. One of the interesting features of HFW is the way they plot spectra of 'arm resonances', and how these vary from one cart/arm/tt to another. Example of one of the ways you can alter the results with such a system.[1] However since digital systems don't do this, you may just have to listen to the recording with those and do without the added resonances. :-) Slainte Jim [1] Indeed, I think NK is to be praised for the early work he did on this some decades ago. It was a major source of data showing that choice of arm or tt might affect results in ways most people hadn't taken into account. He did do some work like this which I personally hold in regard. Shame I can't say the same for what he sometimes claims about digital audio and CD Audio. Credit where due. I can relate to the problem of trying to explain something not understood. Rob |
Dirty Digital [sic.]
Arny Krueger wrote: "Rob" wrote in message Couple of the Wki things - 24 bit recording isn't always dithered, As a practical matter *every* real-world 24 bit audio recording *is* dithered by random noise from other parts of the recording chain. You'd be be hard preseed NOT to dither a 24 bit recording - LMAO ! Silly beyond extreme. Graham |
Dirty Digital [sic.]
Don Pearce wrote: Eeyore wrote: Don Pearce wrote: I was unhappy with much of the mixing and balance from Glastonbury - far too much drums for the most part. Modern damn newbie mixing style, along with making the vocals just that little bit too quiet to hear peroperly.. Probably necessary, mostly. The singer is the "talent" and hence incompetent and out of tune. The bands are largely session men - huge talent, and no problem winding them up a bit. Yes, the band's CRAP. Situation normal. Graham |
Dirty Digital [sic.]
Eeyore wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote: "Rob" wrote in message Couple of the Wki things - 24 bit recording isn't always dithered, As a practical matter *every* real-world 24 bit audio recording *is* dithered by random noise from other parts of the recording chain. You'd be be hard preseed NOT to dither a 24 bit recording - LMAO ! Silly beyond extreme. Graham No point shooting messenger people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantiz...und_processing) Rob |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:14 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk