Kingston

Re: The official DIY gear vs. original counterparts comparison page
« Reply #20 on: September 09, 2009, 05:22:17 AM »
I don't know where to start.... so I won't get into much detail!

but please do. you've certainly left a few things unmentioned this far, and it is of great interest to me how sound engineers work.

The only advantage of 24 bit over 16 bit is the use of the last 8 bits!

it means you have about 20dB more dynamic range you can use for preventing clipping, of course depending somewhat on your A/D converters.

Or we can do it your way and record 20dB more of hiss.


ok, enough of this slapstick.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2009, 05:24:13 AM by Kingston »


Biasrocks

Re: The official DIY gear vs. original counterparts comparison page
« Reply #21 on: September 09, 2009, 08:44:01 AM »
Imagine recording bass without an 1176!  ???  I couldn't. How would you stop it from clipping digitally?  ???

That's a bad example. I really don't like 1176 on bass. It makes it floppy and it only really works for seriously bad players. Which also explains why 1176 is de facto rock bass compressor.


Woah, Kingston you seem especially down on the rock n' roll.  :'(

Bad form, especially today when the Beatles are being brought back to life for the kiddies.

Not to mention what Little Richard, Chuck Berry and the Elvis did for the rock n' roll.  8)

I find an 1176 to be a fine bass comp, regardless of playing ability. I also like an API 525, Manley V-MU or LA2A depending on my mood that day.

Mark
« Last Edit: September 09, 2009, 08:45:41 AM by Biasrocks »
http://SharktankPro.com

"I'd rather use an SPX90 than a UA plugin....." Joe Barresi

Re: The official DIY gear vs. original counterparts comparison page
« Reply #22 on: September 09, 2009, 01:55:11 PM »
it means you have about 20dB more dynamic range you can use for preventing clipping, of course depending somewhat on your A/D converters.

Or we can do it your way and record 20dB more of hiss.

16 bit = 96 dB
24 bit = 144 dB

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range)

Kingston

Re: The official DIY gear vs. original counterparts comparison page
« Reply #23 on: September 09, 2009, 02:18:14 PM »
Theoretically, and only inside closed digital environment.

On the other hand you won't find an AD/DA converter that does much better than 115dB, and rarely gear that does even 100dB. That's why there's "about 20 dB more hiss" on your audio tracks.

The above simple facts tell us it's pointless to record anything close to clipping - irresponsible.

SSLtech

Re: The official DIY gear vs. original counterparts comparison page
« Reply #24 on: September 09, 2009, 03:00:53 PM »
Just a quick interjection here...

If you're running 24-bit, you gain NOTHING from running within clipping rage of 0dBfs. As has been correctly pointed out, 24-bit has a dynamic range of ~145dB, and I don't personally think that I own a converter which gets within 20dB of that, so all I'm doing by turning it up is recording the noise at a higher level. Providing the noise is a bit or so above the minimm resolution of the converter, there's nothing tangible to be gained from recording any higher... only the loss of headroom.

If you only have 16-bit converters, by all means feel free to compress on the way in. Otherwise, there's no need... and settings which "don't work out" later on don't need to be carved in stone. -This is the new way.

For background, I was a recording & mixing engineer for about 15 years before reverting to being a tech when I got married. (The hours are usually MUCH more sociable and family-friendly for a tech.) I have a small collection of silver, gold & platinum disks which can I call my own, and it's been a lot of fun over the years.

I like hardware, and I would still print with it, when I were ABSOLUTELY sure... but different people can compare the same two pieces of gear and come up with ENTIRELY different opinions... I for example might prefer an LA-2a to an 1176 for bass guitar for lots of music... someone else would look at me as if I were crazy for even contemplating an LA-2a on bass. -It is with that in mind that I think considering other people's opinions is most likely worthless. The only thing you'll ever like is what you like. -NOT what someone else likes. -And different people will use such different terms to describe sound that it only confuses the issue. -Heck, even I've surprised myself when I've had to use pieces of gear which I've previously assumed to be of little use...

Assemble a nice toolkit.
Play with it.
Allow it to surprise you from time to time.
Enjoy.

Other people's opinions should only EVER be taken as suggestions for things to audition yourself. I would NEVER take someone else's 'findings' as fact, unless we're talking about something which is established as being quantitatively measured, such as noise floor, amplitude response, etc.

Keith
"A waist is a terrible thing to mind"
Quote from: PRR
Ah, but that was 1999; we don't party like that any more.

MartyMart

Re: The official DIY gear vs. original counterparts comparison page
« Reply #25 on: September 09, 2009, 03:36:02 PM »
Yup 24 bit gives you more "low room" NOT "headroom" 0 dBfs is 0 dBfs no matter how you look at it.

I wish people wouldn't use the term "headroom" as that is total bullsh*t as far as digital goes.

24 bit is only useful for the "quiet stuff" like delicate passages of classical music or acoustic stuff.

For "rock n roll" 16 bit well recorded and without clipping is absolutely fine and dandy :-)

MM.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm"

rodabod

Re: The official DIY gear vs. original counterparts comparison page
« Reply #26 on: September 09, 2009, 03:44:28 PM »
This has been discussed to detah, but people need to understand nominal recording levels with respect to dBfs, and line-up. Eg. typical line-up here in the UK of 0dBu = -18dBfs in broadcast. Keeps things simple. Line up for 0dBu (-18dBfs), peaks at say +8dBu, 10dB of headroom remain for safety. Just know your own equipement.
Quote from: tv
punchy fat bastard chip

Re: The official DIY gear vs. original counterparts comparison page
« Reply #27 on: September 09, 2009, 04:46:47 PM »
Thanks for all the posts. The converter argument is an interesting one that I admittedly had not thought about all that much. However, putting all the technical jargon aside, I have done several listening tests, and have concluded: (at 24 bit), with good converters, the closer you record to 0dBFS, the better it sounds. The low end is clearer and more defined. Same with the high end. The mid-range is pretty much the same. To me, it's as simple as that.

Kingston

Re: The official DIY gear vs. original counterparts comparison page
« Reply #28 on: September 09, 2009, 06:10:10 PM »
with good converters, the closer you record to 0dBFS, the better it sounds. The low end is clearer and more defined. Same with the high end. The mid-range is pretty much the same.

Those are exactly the kind of pointless lists of adjectives that keep these myths and other rumors alive. That's exactly how people get sucked into buying outrageously priced vintage gear "because nothing sounds quite like it".

When you say something like that, in order to have any weight on your arguments, you better be ready to state the conditions of the test.

My guess is, in this enlightened test of yours with "good converters", whatever was recorded closer to clipping, was actually running with higher distortion. Thus "more defined".

Please, no more of this nonsense. No more meaningless lists of adjectives without any resemblance of data to back it up. There's a place for that and it's "diy audio forums". You should google that.

Re: The official DIY gear vs. original counterparts comparison page
« Reply #29 on: September 09, 2009, 06:55:36 PM »
Those are exactly the kind of pointless lists of adjectives that keep these myths and other rumors alive. That's exactly how people get sucked into buying outrageously priced vintage gear "because nothing sounds quite like it".

"as stubborn as a Finn!" haha, I'm just kidding. I enjoy these discussions :)  But to be fair (and I'm sure many would agree), you can't really judge until you've heard it for yourself.


1954U1

Re: The official DIY gear vs. original counterparts comparison page
« Reply #30 on: September 09, 2009, 08:30:56 PM »
(at 24 bit), with good converters, the closer you record to 0dBFS, the better it sounds.

Excuse me for rudeness, but..
do you mean that:

A] in your system, where 0dBFS equals to (+18? +20? +22? +24? -48?)dBu, your converters works better when hitted by a near-to-converters_clip signal

or, more explicitely, that

B] at 24 bit there is audible loss of data at low audio level because of finite resolution of the sampled signal etcetc

?


If its A], the _only_ way I can understand it, is that you like the way an embedded limiter works in your converters.
Or, that, in general, the analog sections of your converters distorts in a nice way.
Or that you like the distorted sound of your analog gear before the converters.

B] is plain wrong.

SSLtech

Re: The official DIY gear vs. original counterparts comparison page
« Reply #31 on: September 09, 2009, 09:31:34 PM »
...I'd like to point out this thread over on PSW:

"Digital tracking with low levels = better...is this new???"

-Which is in fact considered so fundamentally important a subject that they made it a full-time sticky.


The general consensus -as asserted/opined/proposed by such luminaries as Dan Lavry, Bruno Putzeys and Niko Aldrich- is that "going hot" ruins the signal. ...And they should know; they BUILD converters.

I too am presently involved with the (lengthy gestation) development of a 24-bit converter design, and MUCH attention is being paid to the consideration of what levels sound good. -It is being designed to run best somewhat 'shy' of it's full-scale level, with the remaining few dB being there to allow errant peaks not to 'splat'.

-For best results, bake at a LOWER temperature.

Full-scale was the rule for 16-bit wide-ish dynamic range... but NOT any more.

I think I've pretty much disagreed with you on just about every issue so far, which is a pity. -Sorry for that, but I do feel compelled to challenge your assertions. -Once again... -Sorry.

Keith
« Last Edit: September 09, 2009, 09:35:14 PM by SSLtech »
"A waist is a terrible thing to mind"
Quote from: PRR
Ah, but that was 1999; we don't party like that any more.

deuce42

Re: The official DIY gear vs. original counterparts comparison page
« Reply #32 on: September 09, 2009, 09:55:09 PM »
I respect everyone's opinions here, especially people who have far more experience than I have and whom have made valid criticisms in this post, but I personally feel that this thread has been skewed in the wrong direction and we have lost sight of the original idea which was simply about hearing samples for our listening enjoyment.  Getting lost in the semantics of bit resolution is fine in order to prove to each other how much more "right" our knowledge is from a technical perspective, but I would rather just listen to the sounds that people get purely because I like listening to stuff. It really is that simple in my mind.  I get tired of people dismissing the idea because its apparently so pointless. Is stimuli only important if it is measurable and technically correct? I absolutely take the point that a number of variables can affect a comparison, but this may not just be a comparison only. I had thought that part of the responses here on this thread and on this board were often about trusting your ears regardless of what other sounds are referenced to. So just because it is not a definitive comparison and just because it isn't reliable doesn't mean I cant simply enjoy listening to samples people post, whether the sounds I decide I am liking have come exclusively from their gear, their recording techniques, settings on their gear or what they have eaten for breakfast on the morning of the recording. 

In fact it only becomes a problem and is only "pointless" if I rely upon what I am hearing in the comparison to then form an opinion on which gear is better. I accept that if this happens,  then, and only then, was the shootout meaningless because I have not considered a number of issues and my naivety is forming opinions on wider technical variables I may be obtuse to.

I am trying to make this point -  and perhaps it's me that is misguided or wrong - but I don't see how posting samples is so meaningless and stupid if its about hearing what people come up with and accepting that it's not supposed to be about evaluating or comparing gear exclusively, because it simply isn't! Stating how meaningless a comparison is because the comparison has too many factors involved ( settings people use, differing sounds of vintage original units, etc) seems to only skew this thread back to the same predicament of ripping apart scientific data and forgetting that some members may just like to hear sounds people come up with and nothing more.  I sight my previous example of "flavour". Its nice to hear what flavour's peoples gear comes up with period.

Why is there an assumption that other peoples opinions will affect mine or anyone else's? Isn't one of the endemic things about samples the fact that we can listen to what we hear without needing people to uses words to describe things? - e.g. If someone says an 1176 is flabby on bass I might be swayed by their view. But with a sample I might like what I am hearing whether it is called an 1176, Beringer toy or whatever.

This post isn't meant to be me behaving like a baby, but I just feel that often those of us who like technical stuff (and that's why we are here because we all like talking ohms, farads and volts) often cannot enjoy things unless it has technical validation attached to it. Because something can't be measured adequately doesn't make it meaningless.  :)
« Last Edit: September 09, 2009, 10:12:42 PM by deuce42 »

Re: The official DIY gear vs. original counterparts comparison page
« Reply #33 on: September 09, 2009, 10:53:32 PM »

A] in your system, where 0dBFS equals to (+18? +20? +22? +24? -48?)dBu, your converters works better when hitted by a near-to-converters_clip signal

or, more explicitely, that

B] at 24 bit there is audible loss of data at low audio level because of finite resolution of the sampled signal etcetc

?

If I had to pick one, I'd go with B  :)

Re: The official DIY gear vs. original counterparts comparison page
« Reply #34 on: September 09, 2009, 10:55:37 PM »
I personally feel that this thread has been skewed in the wrong direction and we have lost sight of the original idea which was simply about hearing samples for our listening enjoyment. 

I agree. No more tom-foolery from me! I want to hear some good gear!

Kingston

Re: The official DIY gear vs. original counterparts comparison page
« Reply #35 on: September 10, 2009, 04:39:19 AM »
Blind shootouts - Chapter 2 - Psychoacoustics

Happened once on another forum, crippled with endless shootouts and useless fights over semantics, digital, analog, vintage, you name it. A friend gets tired of this shortsightedness and forms a hypothesis. A shootout is posted with the usual set up: two audio files, pick your favourite, which one is better. The usual about the other file being the shining star in trusty vintage armor and the other one being somehow inferior is added. The trap is set.

People start posting, and lo and behold! Here comes all the standard terminology attached to one of the files: "The low end is clearer and more defined. Same with the high end. The mid-range is pretty much the same." "That other one sounds more analog" "Man it sounds so warm" "What smooth crispy transients!" "Man I hate digital because it sounds so much worse"

What was the hypothesis?

"People will hear whatever difference they are told to hear, even if we simply increase volume by half a dB"

Yes indeed. Half a dB of digital fader push in your everyday DAW, and you magically acquired a revered piece of vintage magic.

The psychoacoustic implications are remarkable. And that's why shootouts are pointless if not done extremely carefully and with very clearly defined parameters. Half a dB of error and all the effort is wasted.

MartyMart

Re: The official DIY gear vs. original counterparts comparison page
« Reply #36 on: September 10, 2009, 04:59:58 AM »
I get it , listening to stuff just to get an idea of what they do / don't sound like TO YOU :-)
Just for fun and giggles ....

All good

MM.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm"

Re: The official DIY gear vs. original counterparts comparison page
« Reply #37 on: September 10, 2009, 05:26:35 AM »
Kingston, I get it. You don't like the idea of shootouts. Fair enough. To each his own. You are not required to listen/partake. Please don't post anything else unless it pertains to the subject-matter.

Thanks,

Dan P.

simonsez

Re: The official DIY gear vs. original counterparts comparison page
« Reply #38 on: September 10, 2009, 06:15:25 AM »
I personally feel that this thread has been skewed in the wrong direction and we have lost sight of the original idea which was simply about hearing samples for our listening enjoyment. 


Yes, I smell something wrong here...honestly, i've been waiting this for long time. Every time someone came up with  idea like this always end up with similar rejection....weird... ??? ???
@simonklontz

SSLtech

Re: The official DIY gear vs. original counterparts comparison page
« Reply #39 on: September 10, 2009, 09:34:34 AM »
Actually I've suggested nothing against carrying out listening comparisons.

My issue has been when describing what you perceived during said comparisons. Different people like different things, and the difficulties come when people can't hear stuff.

Also, -taking a compressor as a single, oversimplified example... Some people might prefer high ratios with super-fast attack and release settings while others go for super-gentle low ratios and more comparatively 'easy-going' attack and release settings. -Two different people might try and approach the SAME source material differently, and for one person's instinctively-preferred settings, brand X might seem to operate in a better way than brand Y (with identical control settings) to EVERYONE who hears it. However, a different person -who has a completely different idea of what they like compression to do- may well then use wildly different settings, and you may discover that -under these settings brand 'Y' trounces brand 'X'.

-THIS is why I say that sharing comparisons on the internet for supposedly similar equipment, -trying to seek out differences, and determine which is 'better' is a complete and utter waste of time.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm not against hearing what equipment people like, but I then HAVE TO use the equipment myself, to investigate how it behaves under many different conditions, and -crucially importantly- HOW I INTERACT WITH THE EQUIPMENT.

For this reason, comparisons over the internet are usually doomed to be a pointless endeavour. -The link which I posted earlier shows that (for example) Terry Manning (who is one of the finest engineers out there... look his credits up on www.allmusic.com if you're unfamiliar!) finds that recording at a lower level sounds vastly superior to 'pushing the bits'. Previously in this thread the opinion was presented as being the unswerving conviction of the poster, that 'recording as hot as possible sounds better... period' (paraphrased slightly). -One need look no further than this to find a working example of how two people will disagree on what they prefer both in terms of methodology and sound.

But by all means go ahead. -Me? I make my own comparisons side by side, and decide what I like. I've never found a way for anyone to help me over the internet with subtle preferences, and I believe that the REAL trick might lie on more people discovering the truth in this.

Keith
"A waist is a terrible thing to mind"
Quote from: PRR
Ah, but that was 1999; we don't party like that any more.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
15 Replies
4216 Views
Last post October 27, 2004, 02:23:06 PM
by chrissugar
17 Replies
8403 Views
Last post November 04, 2014, 01:23:59 AM
by gyraf
986 Replies
231006 Views
Last post August 09, 2020, 05:17:44 PM
by opacheco
6 Replies
2391 Views
Last post November 21, 2011, 09:43:41 PM
by Ethan