Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ronny]

TotalSonic wrote on Thu, 22 September 2005 21:08

This is the reason why I included Waves IDR Type2 with Ultra ns to boot - it's supposedly a "no-no" so if we go by BKs post - people should be able to identfity the example that was processed with it by its "grunge" - but so far that hasn't happened - then again - So far we've had over 25 posts on this thread - but only 3 actual evaluations! c'mon people - step up and give us some feedback! thanks in advance... Best regards, Steve Berson

This is what Michael Gerzons says about type 2 from my L2 manual.

IDR type2 dither. This dither is a narrow-band dither, adds virtually no audible noise, and so is nearly 5dB quieter than type1, but with some low level distortion. However, this distortion is generally much lower than with no dither at all. type2 is of a unique kind designed to minimize the amount
of noise added, thereby giving a lower noise level than the IDR type1 process, but at the expense of some low level distortion. type2 does have some advantages for high quality mastering as well, and it is purely your choice whether the ultimate in low distortion of type1 is preferred, or the additional reduction in noise of type2.

This is what he says about ultra:

Ultra. This gives the greatest perceived hiss/distortion reduction, typically 18dB. The HF noise gain is about 23dB for 44.1kHz. Ultra is a very highquality setting, suitable only for use at the very last stage of mastering high-resolution audio (16bit and longer wordlengths) targeted for highquality
digital media. It is best to use Ultra in the last stage of audio
preparation (Production Master). Due to the HF gain, it is theoretically possible that the relatively high amount of high frequency energy could cause undesirable side effects if the signal is going to be processed or digitally edited again. However, with many thousands of L1-processed masters (L1 is the software plug-in that led to the development of the L2 hardware), no such situations have been reported or observed. Since it is theoretically possible, we wish to inform you of it.

I hope I don't start hearing grunge now, due to power of suggestion.

[William Boyle AKA Elfy]

So what do you guys think of the ultra from waves IDR.
Do you guys think it is worth using.
Why would waves allow its use if it is dangerous.

[TotalSonic]

elfy wrote on Fri, 23 September 2005 15:12

So what do you guys think of the ultra from waves IDR. Do you guys think it is worth using. Why would waves allow its use if it is dangerous.

"dangerous" is kind of a silly adjective to me if all we're talking about is the possibility of some tiny bit of low level distortion added, and build up of excessive ultra high frequencies if you re-edit from the processed 16bit file instead of the 24bit original.  

It's not like using it will blow up anyone's speakers or corrupt a minor into becoming a meth addict or anything like that.


Personally I've avoided "ultra" in the past because when you listen to a tail cranked up processed with it - it adds an ultra-high freq "buzz" to the audio that while barely audible is subtly annoying to me.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Tomás Mulcahy]

OK, here's my evaluation:

 1. Emphasizes breathing noise in a distracting way.
 2. Aggressive. Not suitable at all.
 3. Very tense. Unpleasant to listen to.
 4. Screechy, metallic top end. No likee.
 5. Good rhythm, emphasizes breath noise. Nice tail.
 6. Nice groove.
 7. Spacious, nice.
 8. Emphasis (very slight) of background rumble and bass notes. Nice tail.
 9. Wierd. Seems to mess with dynamics. No likee.
10. Messes with dynamics and metallicises top end. Next!
11. Kinda sexy, emphasizes breath a little. Good.
12. Tense. Not good.

After listening to the fade outs with 60dB of gain added, it's obvious that #3 is the truncated version. The 24 bit version sounded the best (thank God). None of these dithers managed to preserve what I liked about the music. Does this indicate that gain optimisation of some sort should always be carried out when mastering to 16 bit? It's an absolutely beautiful piece of music by the way!

So, c'mon folks, let's see more evaluations! Thanks for the opportunity Steve.

[William Boyle AKA Elfy]

TotalSonic wrote on Fri, 23 September 2005 15:26

elfy wrote on Fri, 23 September 2005 15:12 So what do you guys think of the ultra from waves IDR. Do you guys think it is worth using. Why would waves allow its use if it is dangerous. "dangerous" is kind of a silly adjective to me if all we're talking about is the possibility of some tiny bit of low level distortion added, and build up of excessive ultra high frequencies if you re-edit from the processed 16bit file instead of the 24bit original.   It's not like using it will blow up anyone's speakers or corrupt a minor into becoming a meth addict or anything like that. Personally I've avoided "ultra" in the past because when you listen to a tail cranked up processed with it - it adds an ultra-high freq "buzz" to the audio that while barely audible is subtly annoying to me. Best regards, Steve Berson

Sorry guys, i shouldnt have said dangerous.
it is a  bit silly.
Forgive my newness.

Great evaluation Tom

[Ed Littman]

I think I'm a little off due to a slight cold, so i focused on listening to the fade at high volumes. we're in the real world over here!

my fav was #10. nice & clean. I didn't hear as much h/f noise shaping like the others.
#4 was next... pretty close to #10

worst was #3 truncation
#6 had some low level pump/click
#5 dither hiss seemed to be louder then the others.

sorry for the rest..i have to go blow my nose.
Ed

[William Boyle AKA Elfy]

Would you guys care to tell which dither you currently use, or does it differ for each song.
I normally use IDR Type 2 Ultra, but im starting to rethink this.

I think it might be nice to reveal your preferred dither, after the evaluation.
Cheers

[jackthebear]

Ed Littman wrote on Sat, 24 September 2005 12:05

sorry for the rest..i have to go blow my nose. Ed

Now Ed,

We spoke about this!!


Next time you get the urge strap on your boots and climb the mountain....

Seriously I would love to be able to do that. Must be nice to be in a great room and have Mother Nature's playground in your backyard.

You have it all my man. More power to ya!

Cheers,

[bobkatz]

Ronny wrote on Thu, 22 September 2005 20:24

Don't tell me that you are going to give a lecture on dither and not take the test, Bob. Have we not had a million dither discussions without some valid tests under our belt? Isn't this a thread on identifying dither types and discussing sonic changes that each brand of dither may or may not impart to the audio signature? You should be able to identify each dither type and give us a review of how each one sounds on your Lipinsky's. Won't take 30 minutes.

I SAID I WOULD! I also SAID I MIGHT HAVE TO WAIT TILL AFTER AES. IF YOU WANT TO COUNT THE POSTS THAT I'VE POSTED BETWEEN THEN AND WHEN I DO IT AS WASTED TIME, THEN GO AHEAD AND MAKE MY DAY...


BK

[Jerry Tubb]

Wow tuff test Steve !

I've only worked with about half these types of dither.

I listened at home, with headphones coming directly from the Mac, without the benefit of my studio DAC.

Nice modified string "quartet" work in C minor... 6/8... very beautiful hypnotic music... thought I could hear the ghost of an open "A" string ringing in spots... esp left channel,  which seemed to "rub" with the melody at times... unless it 's a reverb artifact. The melody in the mix is about 2/3 in the right channel.

Naturally I like the 24 bit file the best, I listened to each about 3 times, here's my quick impressions.

1. sounds OK, maybe a little middy ?

2. sounds OK, more presence than 1.

3. Edgy bow sound, grainy, noisy artifacts... truncated ?

4. similar edgy bow sound, noisy artifacts.... truncated ?

5. OK, more melody presence, less lows.

6. OK, smoother than 3, 4, or 5.

7. Very Nice, good tail.

8. more "singing" melody, maybe the Best one.

9. Ok, a little hissy artifacts.

10. less lows, middier.

11. very good, more tail?

12. very good.

Most had subtle differences, like slightly diff shades of color, similar, but yet different. I wouldn't dare venture a guess as to which dither was which. Suppose I could run the original through a few dither varieties and compare, but that would be cheating the Blind. About half of them didn't really float my boat.... a few did.

Just wanted to participate... that's my 2 cents.

peace

[Ronny]

I listened to the tails for a few minutes, this time turned up a bit. The only one that I heard artifacts on was # 6. I listened and listened to 3 and just couldn't perceive much difference from the rest except 6, which sounded worse than any of them to me. If I had to guess on the noise shaped type 2, I'd say that it was #8.

[Ronny]

bobkatz wrote on Fri, 23 September 2005 23:53

I SAID I WOULD! I also SAID I MIGHT HAVE TO WAIT TILL AFTER AES. IF YOU WANT TO COUNT THE POSTS THAT I'VE POSTED BETWEEN THEN AND WHEN I DO IT AS WASTED TIME, THEN GO AHEAD AND MAKE MY DAY... BK

You forgot to dither your message, Detective Callahan.

[Tomás Mulcahy]

Interesting evaluations so far...

I'm gonna try this test again, with the tracks shuffled around randomly to see if I can be consistent. If I'm not, that just proves I was imagining things... just as Bob has described a double blind test.

[Ed Littman]

Ronny wrote on Sat, 24 September 2005 03:40

I listened and listened to 3 and just couldn't perceive much difference from the rest

my monitor gain was full up. I did hear a low level ground hum from my amp(the only thing that was not plugged into the furman it 1220) I then routed the bryston 14b to the furman & wow. now i just about can hear a ant piss at full throttle.
Ed

[compasspnt]

Ed Littman wrote on Sun, 25 September 2005 14:42

...my monitor gain was full up. I did hear a low level ground hum from my amp(the only thing that was not plugged into the furman it 1220) I then routed the bryston 14b to the furman & wow...

I knew these shootout tests were useful!