pretty cool website

[DPDAN]

I stumbled across this website (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/chris.burmajster/audio_schitzophrenia.htm) and did some reading, and he is right on the money, at least all of what I read.

It is some great info, especially for those who are not familiar with recording engineering.

Dan

[efiebke]

Thank you for posting the link, Dan. It was very interesting. I appreciate and share the author's concerns and frustrations. I also appreciate the knowledge shared by the author.

Explored the web site a bit further. There's some interesting web pages to be found. Here's one! It's both informative and funny. It's titled Innocent Ear A Glossary of Recording Terminology (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/chris.burmajster/glossary_of_technical_terms.htm). I hope you enjoy it. It gave me a chuckle and a smile! :)

Ted

[DarwinKopp]

Hey Dan!

I'd agree with the author that current trends in audio are schizo. Up until about the early 80s, when analog still reigned, everyone was trying to improve their stereos, the bandwidth, frequency response, signal-to-noise ratio, etc. Then suddenly, the convenience of digital shelved all that. I will grant that digital is insanely convenient, so I can see why it has happened. Still, it's probably a two steps forward, one step back kind of thing, and the focus on accurate sound will return in time, once the current technology has been absorbed, and the price of memory, storage, and processing power continues to decline.

I think the author is a little confused about the reasons behind increasing sampling rates. Yes, higher frequencies will be possible, but we already easily have a perfectly adequate frequency response with current generation CD at 16-bit 44.1 kHz. The point of the higher sampling and bit rates is to more closely replicate the incoming waveform, as current digital is a pretty rough approximation, and the higher the frequency sampled, the worse the approximation is. Digital just never sounds immediate or life-like to my ears. Loud, yes, clean, yes, even punchy, but those attributes only take the sonic experience so far.

I still far prefer the sound of clean vinyl or quiet tape to anything released digitally. However, higher sampling rates should start moving things closer to analog, while retaining the convenience of digital. How high should the sampling rate be in order to replicate the analog equivalent? I've never worked out the math, but what sampling rate would be able to distinguish the energy of a single electron? I think analog could do that (or close to it), disregarding constraints on noise floor, bandwidth, and frequency response.

Good article!

Thanks,
Darwin

[Leaf]

Thanks Dan! I agree with the Ted and Darwin, great info in there with some great humor thrown in, and great article.

David:hp:

[rayzalaf]

You're enjoying yourself Dan,

But! if you don't know what sound your looking for how can you ever find it. :(

Ray

[Rhap2]

Very informative, Dan. Sites likes these really tell the whole story and I wish I could visit more of them. Thank you for such an educational experience.

Jack

[DPDAN]

As with any technology created by man, there will always be shortcomings and faults with the design.

Darwin mentioned how a lower sample rate affects digital audio in a negative way, I agree it does. The analogy that I commonly use is,.... audio sample rate is similar to lines of resolution in video.

To some, film still has a better resolution than the highest quality video available at this time. And to some, they like vinyl and analog tape compared to any digital format.

I am not trying to turn this into another boring digital verses analog topic, but my next statement is something that I want to make clear as being my opinion, not that it matters. :)

I absolutely despise analog tape and vinyl. While everyone has their reasons, sentimental or not for liking the old technology, I have never looked back. In my opinion, the distortion, (lack of dynamic range for live recording), the tape hiss and general artifacts associated with analog stuff is something I don't miss at all.

I fully embraced digital recording technology a long time ago in it's infancy, and remember coming home with recordings that were flat response, super clean and no distortion even on the loudest peaks. So nice to not have to sit there and manipulate or fiddle with the knobs during the recording to minimize chances of clipped levels. Anyway there I go rambling again.

I wanted to post this info because I believe what Chris said in that website is so true about the masses making music recordings today. They are constantly bragging about or wanting to buy that magic plugin for maximum punch and loudness, and that new mastering plugin that eliminates the need to send your final master to a seasoned mastering engineer.

Yes, I agree higher sample rates are better, but as long as we continue to go backwards with MP3 ipods and small files, we can kiss the high quality goodbye.

It certainly reinforces my thinking that buying all this esoteric equipment is not appreciated by anyone except those who seem to be impressed with it in the studio. Once the master leaves the studio,, bye bye. Such a shame, and as long as the world is controlled by greed and the love of money, convenience will always rule supreme, and if that is what the masses are buying, then the manufacturer's will believe it is what they want. For the first time ever, I think they have indeed figured out the consumer, they don't care about quality, only convenience. Sad

When CD's first came out, they were significantly cheaper to manufacture than a 12" LP (long play) record. Not only were they more profitable, they were twice the retail price. OK rambling again.

I don't agree 100% with everything in the different links on his website, but he sure hit home about what's the point of trying to make everything sound so good when you can only hope that at least it is listened to on an ipod instead of the car stereo.

Almost nobody buys expensive speakers these days for their home. Everyone thinks tiny cute little inconspicuous speakers on a stick with a massive 8 inch subwoofer is where it's at. Sorry, it's not!

Today, I don't see very many people sitting in the sweet spot between their two nice stereo speakers in the living room or den, listening to their favorite new recording with their eyes closed, and the lights off.
I still do that, and it has been some of the best times in my life.
Alot can be learned by being quiet and listening.
Dan

[Raymond62]

Almost nobody buys expensive speakers these days for their home. Everyone thinks tiny cute little inconspicuous speakers on a stick with a massive 8 inch subwoofer is where it's at. Sorry, it's not!

I do!! or better I did in the past. But ATOH why should people do this? Everywhere you go there is booming noise. Listen to the radio (news broadcast) and there is that booming noise again in the background. TV-sets, Car-Stereo, Earphones together with iPods, all have some "Bass Enhancer".

Most of us are just deaf for higher frequencies and don't miss it. What a shame. Studies revealed that the youth in Germany lost thousands of nuances in hearing. What a joke. The guy who was deaf, Beethoven, made such great music, most of us even can't hear all nuances he'd put in it.



Today, I don't see very many people sitting in the sweet spot between their two nice stereo speakers in the living room or den, listening to their favorite new recording with their eyes closed, and the lights off.
I still do that, and it has been some of the best times in my life.
Alot can be learned by being quiet and listening.
Dan

We don't have time to listen anymore. I make time to do so. But since I am occupied with rendering GPO I listen to music in a different way. Former I listened to the mood, nuances, the beaty of the instruments and the first hidden melodies, etc. Now I listen to those records with an attitude: how on earth can I do that on my computer (technical listening). But I have to go back to "emotional" listening to enjoy those great works again, fully.

Raymond

[germancomponist]

You are soooo right, Dan!

At least it is always and ever the money, the money greed that will kill any quality more and more. Young people more and more don`t want to buy high quality, they want to have all which is "in" now.

And, what has to be "in", the money-greedy manufacturers determine this. They invent each day somewhat new and say in their advertisement: Only if you buy this, only then you are “in”.

So, they want to sell their mp3 players, Bass Boosters and so on and so on.... .

Some weeks ago my doughter bought an Ipod. I told her that the soundquality is not very good. She answered: That can already be, but the Ipod is "in", and all the others of her friends have it too..... .:confused:

Best

Gunther

P.S. In all historical books you can reread, which died sometime each highly developed culture. ~|

[DPDAN]

iPods are actually pretty cool, and I was surprised when I listened with the Apple earbuds that it was a good as it was. Still, I just don't see things getting better before they get worse. Not trying to be negative, it's just a gut feeling. And another sad thing is how loud some people listen to them. When these iPodders get to be 40, they probably will not hear anything about 10k they may be lucky to hear 10k.

Sad

Dan

[germancomponist]

iPods are actually pretty cool, and I was surprised when I listened with the Apple earbuds that it was a good as it was. Still, I just don't see things getting better before they get worse. Not trying to be negative, it's just a gut feeling. And another sad thing is how loud some people listen to them. When these iPodders get to be 40, they probably will not hear anything about 10k they may be luck to hear 10k.

Sad

Dan


No problem for them :D . :wow: They can whatch the music, as the most young generation is doing.... .

Two girls are talking about a new hit that you can hear at all radiostations... .

"The music sounds not so good, but have you seen the videoclip? :confused: :wow:

http://techeffect.thedealblogs.com/images/iCarta0614.gif

[L0W]

Just to add something to the 'high frequency' debate as it comes up time and again, has done hear [boom boom] and on the website and is often used as an argument as to why we don't need anything more than 44.1 or 48kHz in our recording technology.

The inner ear is mechanically capable of transmitting much higher frequencies than 20kHz - all the way up to 100kHz even. However we don't perceive those vibrations as 'sound'. Average adults 'think' noise above 15kHz is silence. However studies have shown that when presented with sound with and without instrument harmonics above 48kHz statistically significantly people 'prefer' or feel more 'involved' with the sound with the > 48kHz harmonics than the one without. I believe current thinking is that these harmonics all the way up to 100kHz and beyond affect perception of sound so are important while not being 'audible' in sense of a conscious recognition of the sound itself. In some instruments most of the 'sound' is actually way above 20kHz. I'll see if I can find reference to the research papers on this later.

The rest of the site was very interesting thanks Dan.

[dewdman42]

We don't like to think about it in our circles, but a huge part of what drove the masses towards CD's and then later to MP3's, was not related to sound quality at all, it was related to sheer convenience. The hard truth is that most people put convenience at a higher priority than sound quality, as long as the sound qualtiy is "good enough". I would dare say that they also put economic factors into their buying decisions as well. Buying decisions are what drive a capitalistic marketplace, which way down the line is what drives all those bozo engineers to compress the hell out of everything.

That's the world we live in folks.... get used to it.

I could see higher sample rates being useful for the recording process, and actually higher bit rates as well. There is a difference between playing back something at a high sample rate that nobody can hear; or mixing down 32+ tracks of high frequency, high bit depth material. Once all that sound is combined and all the resulting beat frequencies, etc.. obtained, then there is probably not much point in having hi frequency stereo playback devices, when most people are listening on their iPod anyway.

[rayzalaf]

This thread has got me all a dither

Digital Dollars to quote Bob Katz

$1.51 is attenuated by 6 dB it's halved.
does the math add the half cent or remove the half cent after the division

16 bit has up to 65,536 discrete steps
24 bit has 16,777,216 discrete steps
analog has no steps just tape noise :D Dan laughing

Ray

[fastlane]

Sometimes loosing your hearing can be a blessing. When she starts in on you, you just turn off your hearing aid. :D