VO-BB - 20 YEARS OLD!

chrisvoco · Club 300 Joined: 14 Mar 2014 Posts: 380 Location: Local

This won't help anybody decide which audio geegaw to purchase, but clears up a few commonly-held misconceptions and explains several key ideas - especially dither and noise floor relative to the conversion process - that may make clear a bunch of things for anyone who wants to know a bit more about the process:

http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

Run time is a bit over twenty minutes. For folks who dislike geek talk, don't worry, it's fun and accessible. Smile

_________________
Finally, Ford stops starting to say things and starts.

vkuehn · Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2016 8:32 am Post subject:

Thank you for posting this. Once in a while I like to wallow around in some mud-hole ... which is my term for geek-stuff that reaches out a bit beyond my skill set.

Even though the product we deliver is 44.1/16bit in most cases, I have this superstition that recording and producing and editing at 24 bit (or even 32 bit) and then as a last step coverting down to 44.1/16 permits better integrity in the the noise removal, EQ and other processes. But this video left me wondering: Maybe it's wasted storage space? Things that make you go Hmmmmmmm.

chrisvoco · Club 300 Joined: 14 Mar 2014 Posts: 380 Location: Local

You might also take a peek at:

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

...which isn't precisely about Neil Young, as the link suggests, but about bit depth and rate.

As the author mentions, while playback at higher rates and depths is not the best idea, recording and manipulation at higher rates and depths is.
_________________
Finally, Ford stops starting to say things and starts.

Bish · Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:41 pm Post subject:

That was a wave of nostalgia!
Back when I was seventeen, I became a British Telecom engineering apprentice. Within a year I was specializing in PCM & digital transmission... and for the next thirty-three years worked in data transmission in some capacity or another. For a few years I taught... again specializing in data transmission (which was basically stuffing as much digital information down an analogue line as possible). Everything in that video made perfect sense... even seeing the vintage equipment brought a smile of familiarity to my face. The principles of sample rates, bit depths and quantizing noise (along with phase jitter, group delay, psophometic noise, bit-robbing, etc.) were second nature to me... it was the language we all spoke. I could have given that presentation! (In fact I have).

But here's the sad part. I've given up.

I am repeatedly saddened by the technical decisions made by people who have not had a firm grounding in the technical basics needed to make informed (and meaningful) decisions. Facts have become optional and we are all impressed by numbers... it's the same argument that makes people think that (by definition) a 64MB camera is better than a 32MB camera... or their high-bandwidth consumer internet is (again, by definition) better than a relatively low bandwidth ISDN connection.

A sampling rate of a little over twice your highest frequency is technically all you need for perfect sampling and reconstruction of signal... 44.1/48K is perfect for audio because it covers the frequency range heard by (young) adults. In telephony, you only need a sampling rate of 8KHZ because the CSB (commercial speech band) is only designed to work up to around 3.4KHZ maximum (the roll-off after that is like stepping off a cliff!).

OK... rant mode off. I shall now go back to ignoring all sampling frequency and bit-rate arguments. Life is too short.
_________________
Bish a.k.a. Bish
Smoke me a kipper... I'll be back for breakfast.
I will not feed the trolls... I will not feed the trolls... I will not feed the trolls... I will not feed the trolls.

DenaliDave · Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2016 4:21 pm Post subject:

I've looked around, and I haven't found much info on this...

I have two interfaces...an older Apogee Duet (the silver firewire one), and a new TAC-2R thunderbolt one. The TAC makes claims about using a Burr-Brown converters. I remember back in the 80's and into the 90's Nackamichi used to make a big deal about using Burr-Brown in their CD players.

I've looked, and the only way to step up beyond the converters in the interfaces is to spend a LOT of money (we're talking thousands). I really wonder if the difference is that noticeable to the average ear?

I also try and record at 24 bit, as I have been lead to believe it leaves you more "room" to work, before exporting the final product to 16 bit...
_________________
"The wise ones fashioned speech with their thought, sifting it as grain is sifted through a sieve." - Buddha
www.alaskamic.com

chrisvoco · Club 300 Joined: 14 Mar 2014 Posts: 380 Location: Local

heyguido · Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 1:03 am Post subject:

Like Bish, I quit looking long ago for perfection, when I realized the standards by which the majority of the media world functions....

Good enough is good enough. Ella remastered from the original source recordings is still magical. Rush uses a gold plated Guitar Center Special. Jack White and Neil Young created a masterpiece in a 50's transcription booth.

It ain't the meat, it's the motion. Wink

_________________
Don Brookshire
"Wait.... They wanna PAY me for this?"

vkuehn · Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:26 am Post subject:

Bish · Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:45 am Post subject:

This is partly my point. Once you rise from the baseline of "perfect", you get into the reams of "academic" and it becomes a numbers game. He who has the biggest numbers wins! I have been dismayed at some technical presentations of audio standards (ACX included) where they have made it almost impossible for a technophobe to grasp and understand... and they have actually gone a long way to further obfuscate the basic principles with misleading technobabble.

I'm an engineer... I can't help it. I also believe that no one should be granted a driving license without understanding the basic principles of how a car works. As before with the camera example... a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing... "My 32MB cameraphone must be better than your Nikon DSLR because you only have a 24MB sensor." Taking one technical specification in isolation from everything else is dangerous and misleading... even more so when you actually have no bloody idea what that number means apart from it being bigger!

We are surrounded by self-appointed experts who pontificate and spout nonsensical rubbish. It's a sign of the age we live in... facts have become relegated to opinion because everyone is empowered to make up their own facts... and how dare we challenge them!

Crap... I ranted again Embarrassed

_________________
Bish a.k.a. Bish
Smoke me a kipper... I'll be back for breakfast.
I will not feed the trolls... I will not feed the trolls... I will not feed the trolls... I will not feed the trolls.

chrisvoco · Club 300 Joined: 14 Mar 2014 Posts: 380 Location: Local

I think quoting Scott Adams is in order:

chrisvoco · Club 300 Joined: 14 Mar 2014 Posts: 380 Location: Local

Eddie Eagle · M&M Joined: 23 Apr 2008 Posts: 2393