R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23   Go Down

Author Topic: George....what's the resolution of analog?  (Read 83302 times)

compasspnt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16266
Re: George....what's the resolution of analog?
« Reply #315 on: December 13, 2009, 11:00:40 am »

Tomas Danko wrote on Sun, 13 December 2009 09:31

So all in all, advocating staying as close to full scale based on theory will only hurt actual recordings due to the way it's been practically implemented.



Thank you Tomas.

I almost felt like giving up.
Logged

Geoff Emerick de Fake

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 348
Re: George....what's the resolution of analog?
« Reply #316 on: December 14, 2009, 11:12:25 am »

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?". The answer to that simple question is simple.
Now, the poor implementation of the analogue counterparts may impose some limitations and operating workarounds, but the simple relation: "More level = more resolution" is a mathematical fact.
Fortunately, 24bit bit-depth offers so much headroom that it is possible to displace the operating range in an area where both analog and digital gear are happy.
Logged

minister

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1761
Re: George....what's the resolution of analog?
« Reply #317 on: December 23, 2009, 08:58:18 pm »

Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Mon, 14 December 2009 10:12

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?". The answer to that simple question is simple.
Now, the poor implementation of the analogue counterparts may impose some limitations and operating workarounds, but the simple relation: "More level = more resolution" is a mathematical fact.
Fortunately, 24bit bit-depth offers so much headroom that it is possible to displace the operating range in an area where both analog and digital gear are happy.

This is the myth of Digital Audio that permeates the internet.  More level ≠ More Resolution. It is simply not a Mathematic Fact. The analogy to digital graphics and photography is, in fact, a DIS-analogy.  24 bit gives you more dynamic range above the Noise Floor.  It give you more "foot room", not "head room".

Recording close to 0dBFS invites not only inter-sample peak distortions, it is forcing your pre-DAW analog gear to operate beyond it's optimal range.  IOW, there is no way in which it is "good".

Logged
tom hambleton C.A.S.
minister of fancy noises
ministry of fancy noises

IMDb

Geoff Emerick de Fake

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 348
Re: George....what's the resolution of analog?
« Reply #318 on: December 26, 2009, 07:28:36 pm »

minister wrote on Wed, 23 December 2009 19:58

Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Mon, 14 December 2009 10:12

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?". The answer to that simple question is simple.
Now, the poor implementation of the analogue counterparts may impose some limitations and operating workarounds, but the simple relation: "More level = more resolution" is a mathematical fact.
Fortunately, 24bit bit-depth offers so much headroom that it is possible to displace the operating range in an area where both analog and digital gear are happy.

This is the myth of Digital Audio that permeates the internet.  More level ≠ More Resolution. It is simply not a Mathematic Fact.
Yes it is. For anyone with a notion of binary calculus, it is an evidence. This is a pure mathematical (digital) truth. Analogue has nothing to do in there.
Quote:

 It give you more "foot room", not "head room".
You are inventing strange new concepts that have no scientific existence. Dynamic range is the difference between OdBfs and noise floor. You can't do anything for optimising low levels, they're just as low as they are. The operating level is a compromise between all sorts of factors, one being avoidance of digital clipping and the others dictated by whatever compromises and optimisations have been done to the analog chain. But whatever you do, the higher the level, the higher the number of bits effectively used.
Quote:

 Recording close to 0dBFS invites not only inter-sample peak distortions, it is forcing your pre-DAW analog gear to operate beyond it's optimal range.
This is very often true, but inadequate implementation in the analog domain is not a reason to invalidate digital theory.
Logged

Nick Sevilla

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 853
Re: George....what's the resolution of analog?
« Reply #319 on: December 31, 2009, 01:04:53 pm »

Gawd,

I'm unsubscribing from this awful mess...
Logged
-------------------------------------------------
It is quite possible, captain, that they find us grotesque and ugly and many people fear beings different from themselves.

www.nicksevilla.com

compasspnt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16266
Re: George....what's the resolution of analog?
« Reply #320 on: December 31, 2009, 01:21:04 pm »

I am not the Moderator of this area, otherwise I might clean a bit of it up.

But I don't want to start a silly flame war, so I haven't responded forcefully as to my beliefs on this recent mess.
Logged

minister

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1761
Re: George....what's the resolution of analog?
« Reply #321 on: January 17, 2010, 12:54:27 am »

Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Sat, 26 December 2009 18:28

minister wrote on Wed, 23 December 2009 19:58

Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Mon, 14 December 2009 10:12

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?". The answer to that simple question is simple.
Now, the poor implementation of the analogue counterparts may impose some limitations and operating workarounds, but the simple relation: "More level = more resolution" is a mathematical fact.
Fortunately, 24bit bit-depth offers so much headroom that it is possible to displace the operating range in an area where both analog and digital gear are happy.

This is the myth of Digital Audio that permeates the internet.  More level ≠ More Resolution. It is simply not a Mathematic Fact.
Yes it is. For anyone with a notion of binary calculus, it is an evidence. This is a pure mathematical (digital) truth. Analogue has nothing to do in there.
Quote:

 It give you more "foot room", not "head room".
You are inventing strange new concepts that have no scientific existence. Dynamic range is the difference between OdBfs and noise floor. You can't do anything for optimising low levels, they're just as low as they are. The operating level is a compromise between all sorts of factors, one being avoidance of digital clipping and the others dictated by whatever compromises and optimisations have been done to the analog chain. But whatever you do, the higher the level, the higher the number of bits effectively used.
Quote:

 Recording close to 0dBFS invites not only inter-sample peak distortions, it is forcing your pre-DAW analog gear to operate beyond it's optimal range.
This is very often true, but inadequate implementation in the analog domain is not a reason to invalidate digital theory.



http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/15038/0/

http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/mv/msg/4918/0/48/ 11603/

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/69929-q-paul- frindle.html

http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Digital-Audio-Ken-Pohlmann/ dp/0071348190/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263707 637&sr=1-2

Logged
tom hambleton C.A.S.
minister of fancy noises
ministry of fancy noises

IMDb

Geoff Emerick de Fake

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 348
Re: George....what's the resolution of analog?
« Reply #322 on: January 18, 2010, 01:41:46 pm »

Most of these threads are a collection of beliefs with not one line of scientific demonstration. It is quite interesting, however that Paul Frindle demonstrates that operating a TOO LOW level may introduce problems.
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.
And I don't really need to read any "digital for dummies" book after 37 years of product development...
Logged

compasspnt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16266
Re: George....what's the resolution of analog?
« Reply #323 on: January 18, 2010, 03:08:18 pm »

I will inform George Massenburg to STOP his recording on analogue tape at significantly lowered levels.

He has been doing it wrong for 38 years.

But nothing will EVER make me go back to recording at "near red" levels on digital.

Maybe not scientific evidence, but my empirical observations are in NO DOUBT in my mind.

Way more than 38 years,

T
Logged

Edvaard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1334
Re: George....what's the resolution of analog?
« Reply #324 on: January 18, 2010, 03:25:42 pm »


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?


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.




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 to an obvious newcomer "well, there's more to it than that."

Logged

Geoff Emerick de Fake

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 348
Re: George....what's the resolution of analog?
« Reply #325 on: January 18, 2010, 05:16:37 pm »

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...
Logged

Geoff Emerick de Fake

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 348
Re: George....what's the resolution of analog?
« Reply #326 on: January 18, 2010, 05:29:05 pm »

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!
Logged

Edvaard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1334
Re: George....what's the resolution of analog?
« Reply #327 on: January 18, 2010, 06:34:45 pm »


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.



Logged

Geoff Emerick de Fake

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 348
Re: George....what's the resolution of analog?
« Reply #328 on: January 19, 2010, 02:57:57 am »

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?
Logged

minister

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1761
Re: George....what's the resolution of analog?
« Reply #329 on: January 25, 2010, 04:15:56 pm »

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.



Logged
tom hambleton C.A.S.
minister of fancy noises
ministry of fancy noises

IMDb

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23   Go Up