R/E/P > Reason In Audio
George....what's the resolution of analog?
Geoff Emerick de Fake:
compasspnt wrote on Mon, 18 January 2010 14:08
I will inform George Massenburg to STOP his recording on analogue tape at significantly lowered levels.
Did I say that? I've been pretty clear, running too hot generates distortion and running too low exacerbates noise. But again, I was answering someone who thought ther was a mystical relationship between level and resolution...
Geoff Emerick de Fake:
Edvaard wrote on Mon, 18 January 2010 14:25
If someone were about to go out driving for the first time and asked the simple question; "is it true that I need to have the accelerator all the way to the floor to reach top speed?" should I just give as answer a simple (and true) "yes" and leave it at that?
You're giving a misrepresentation. There was a affirmation that was similar to: "certainly, it cannot be that simple, more I push the pedal, faster the car goes, no, there must be something else?" And you cannot answer yes...Quote:
There is a series of sharp curves a half mile down the road, not to mention a speed limit whatever the road is like, and it being the first drive, no one knows how well the brakes work yet. But he didn't ask about any of that, so I'll only answer what he asked.
He was not asking, he was rehashing some GS myth
Quote:
People here assumed by the very simplicity of the question that more information beyond the simple question might be warranted.
All people are trying to do is to say an obvious newcomer "well, there's more to it than that."
Does it really prevents anyone to tell the simple truth first? And there were about a hundred posts saying: don't go too fast!
Edvaard:
Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Mon, 18 January 2010 13:41
And again: Please remember, the question was: "Is it really necessary in digital to print all the way up to 0dBfs to maximize your word length? Are amplitude and word length in digital truly related in that way?".
There's only one answer to that: Yes
Because the question is exactly the same as: "Is it really necessary in analog to print all the way up to maximize S/N ratio? Are amplitude and S/N truly related in that way?". Again, yes.
I'm not saying that there won't be any problems, because there will be distortion, but the QUESTION doesn't mention distortion. To a unidimensional question, I bring a unidimensional answer. If distortion had been mentioned in the question I would have said that S/N and THD are mutually exclusive. If the question was about quality, I would mention the compromise between wordlength and loss of headroom.
The driver only asked me how the accelerator worked; if he had asked me about the cliff just beyond the blind curve, I would have told him about it.
The 1 bit = 6dB info tells you as much about recording as knowing how the accelerator works tells you about driving. This site is about audio recording, and so necessarily about concerns of implementation of whatever technology. In any technology and for whatever purpose, the simple numbers are only a starting point.
I'm not meaning to question your intentions here, just saying that many in audio recording are well aware of the "a little learning can be a dangerous thing" phenomenon. The early digital audio especially is mostly unlistenable because people just went by the numbers, and then things improved noticeably when particulars of implementation and actual r/l limitations were better understood.
Geoff Emerick de Fake:
I agree 100% with you. But when someone says: "It can't be true that more level means more significant bits", should we disagree or not? Just because the subject is complex, should we accept a misconception?
It is a matter of properly establishing where the flaws are.
Operating at reduced level is NOT the result of a digital limitation; it is a limitation due to the analog environment of conversion and the inadequacy of metering (which includes visual perception).
The goal is improving both the equipment and the process.
If we start with the notion that the problem lies in some inadequacy of the PCM representation, who will be motivated to improve the converter drivers and the meters?
minister:
Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Mon, 18 January 2010 12:41
And I don't really need to read any "digital for dummies" book after 37 years of product development...
Calling this book "digital for dummies" just reveals your arrogance which does not impress me in the least. It is hardly a book for dummies. I suggest perusing it.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version