More > Media Center 11 (Development Ended)

Audio 101, a primer -a very long post!

<< < (4/5) > >>

loraan:

--- Quote ---Some extended info:
True, harmonic frequencies abound on analog repro's where digital falls short. But trade-offs exist, perfection is futile and todays recording environment has tools and toys to help "control" the end result, the listening experience. Do 96k recordings offer us that much closer to analog? Yes, the idea being that more sampling "points" creates more harmonic detail, but it will always be a digital repro, simulating the real, and will never be able to capture a full spectrum of analog quality.

--- End quote ---


But, let's face it, even a very good analog reproduction of a signal isn't a perfect reproduction of the original signal. Like every measuring/reproducing device, an analog recording contains abberations or discrepancies from the original.

At the very least, analog processes always have to fight the signal/noise ratio battle--every piece of equipment that you add to the processing chain adds just that little bit more hiss, even though at pro-audio quality levels, it's very little. Pure digital processing, on the other hand, adds no background hiss at all to the signal, and that's nothing to sneeze at.

One can certainly argue that they prefer analog to digital or vice versa, but arguing that one is more accurate than the other misses the point, IMO. Think of all the processing, mixing, and mastering that goes into producing a recording. All the reverb, equalizer, etc.. The point is that nobody wants to hear exactly, accurately, what the instrument laid down. We want to hear something that is pleasing.

One other thing on the Digital vs. Analog "debate": let's not forget the effect that digital has had on the music production process. That effect is much less obvious to the listener's perspective, but it's HUGE. At the "amateur/home recorder" level, digital recording and processing has opened up possibilities that used to be only available in million-dollar studios. Using Cakewalk Sonar, CuBase VST, or something like that, and less than $2000 in equipment (mics, a computer, a good soundcard, and a preamp for the mics), I can do 24-track (or more) recording, mix down, apply very high-quality effects that rival thousand-dollar analog counterparts in some cases, master, and burn to CD all on one computer.

At all levels, both pro and home audio, digital processing gives more freedom to the artist and engineer. The artist can do as many takes as he/she wants because there's no worry about wasting tape. The engineer can sample different effects... if he doesn't like it--Ctrl-Z! Digital equalizers, which use mathematics to separate out the frequency components of the signal, are much more precise and flexible than their analog counterparts--in some cases, you can set the center frequency and Q-factor exactly where you want them for as many bands as you like.


--- Quote ---
And then the question is raised, if humans can barely hear a frequency at 20k, how can we truly understand the difference between 44.1 and 96k? It's not really audible as much "feeling", and I can tell the difference on my Meyer HD1's but on my desktop setup through my JBL control 1's, hardly. It's there, and as a professional I should proudly proclaim "I hear it", but I don't.

--- End quote ---


I've got to ask if you've ever confirmed that with a double-blind A/B listening test. I ask because I used to be sure that I could hear the difference between a 16/44.1 WAV and a 128 Kbps WMA. And when I knew which one was which, I could! I could pick things out that were definitely different between them! Then I found some software that let me do a real double-blind test... turns out I can't tell the difference, even when I playback through my EDIROL soundcard (24/44.1, >100 dB S/N) and my best set of headphones.

Bartabedian:

--- Quote ---I'm not an audiophile by a long shot, but I do like my music not to suck, and there's something thats been on my mind for a while...

So, speaking of the whole 96kHz thing, I recently purchased an Onkyo 5.1 receiver and a set of Wharfedale Valdus speakers. It's great for DVD's, but I decided to hook up my computer to one of the digital inputs, feeding it with my SoundBlaster Live! Value OEM. Now, this card, according to the specs, is 16bit/48Khz. So I play music (MP3 128 and APE) through it, via the digital output on the card, and it sounds alright, playing with the different DSP and ProLogicII settings on the reciever.
I am wondering, seeing as the receiver "features" 24bit/96kHz DAC's, whether it would make a huge difference to the sound quality by upgrading to something like a SoundBlaster Audigy (which has 24bit/96kHz) when playing MP3 and APE files.

I'm just hoping I havent just made a total fool of myself :)

Cheers for the help,

Scott.
--- End quote ---


Never foolish to be inquisitive...the answer is, maybe...mostly what you'll get is a slightly better repro of your already compressed files, which you originated from 16/44 files to begin with. To truly hear a difference, find a source file at 24/96 and the difference should be quite obvious.

To Loraan,

I'm not choosing sides in the D vs A debate. I started in this business when digital recording was a mere abstract concept. Now, I do about 90% of my work in the digital realm. I know the pro-cons of each quite well and some of the most successful recordings have been a marriage of the two. In the last 3 years, every 2 inch session I've done eventually ended up in my dumping the tracks to pro-tools for editing.

Me, I prefer to record in digital for some basic reasons:

1. It is the end result, it's what your audience hears, a 16/44 CD. I like to put my tracks into the digital realm immediately, no conversion questions remain other than 24/44 or 24/96 down to 16/44. I use a host of tube pre'e and mics to get a warm signal path at the point of contact, right from the get go.

2. It's cheaper, plain and simple. Sure, major labels will throw down a bundle on some mass market phenom, but those acts comprise maybe 5% of the recording business. My clients don't want to spend $150 for 15 minutes of tape.

3. It's efficient and creative. A one-two punch, you just can't beat how quickly you can create. re-create, spin, move, alter, etc. I did a project with a song writer in which we re-wrote half his songs in the recording process, moving bridge's to chorus's, verses to bridge's, outro's become intro's, absolute madness. Try doing that with analog.

Lastly, in the sound-quality debate, i'll say this:

It's all up to you, the listener. I've worked with some of the top "ears" in the business, and we all debate endlessly about what we like, what we don't. Some swear by their Genelecs, I hate 'em. Some love their NS-10's with the tissue trick, some don't tissue, I again hate them either way. I'm not right, neither are they. Which one of us is "closer" to true hi-fi sound or realism? Only each one of us as individuals can make that distinction for ourselves. Don't go running out and buying Phase\Linear Amps or Tannoy speakers just because an "audiophile" suggested it. Just ask yourself, what sounds good to you?

WP

loraan:
Sounds like we're thinking along the same lines. I agree that you can't beat digital for flexibility in recording and editing. Way back when, some people thought electric guitars were sh*t too. Any new technology can be used artistically and creatively. I really liked your description of selectively using tube preamps and analog mics into digital recording equipment. That kind of sums up my thoughts on good ways to combine analog and digital for the best sound.

Of course, the "dark side" of digital is the temptation to lay down a crap recording and then "fix it" in the computer. Ugh. I'm not saying there isn't a place for digital improvement of a mistake, but at a certain point, you start substituting digital tomfoolery for talent!

My favorite "digital" stories:

On one song, I had a very good take of a certain verse, but I sang it so "laid back" that I dropped the end of several words--e.g. "wash" without an effectively inaudible "sh" at the end. Rather than re-record the entire verse, I found another place in the song where a word ended in "sh", very carefully cut out that sound, and then very carefully layered it in at the end of the other word. Nobody but me can tell that I didn't sing it right the first time!

On another song, I was playing a difficult (for me) guitar solo. I wanted to hold one note in between verses and then very quickly jump to another note that started the next phrase of the solo. But there was always too much of a pause between the two notes because my hands weren't fast enough. Finally, I got a great take, except for that one little pause. I digitally "expanded" the note between the verses so that it flowed nicely into the next phrase.

If you're curious about my recordings, check out:

http://www.mindspring.com/~bardwell

See the "Music From Me" links.

loraan:
Apologies to those who tried my home page and got errors. I just realized that I moved those files and forgot to update the URL. It should be working now :-)

At least, it works for me...

Wobbley:
Loraan,

Any chance you're from around the Athens, GA area?

Wobbley

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page