Autofilter

skiptracer · Post by **skiptracer** » Tue Jun 15, 2004 7:00 pm

the ableton EQ and filter sound terrible. you would benefit from getting a better filter and EQ VST. and Nyquist's law whatever has been proven wrong, it was a marketing gimmick to make people buy into digital.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Jun 15, 2004 7:15 pm

skiptracer wrote:and Nyquist's law whatever has been proven wrong, it was a marketing gimmick to make people buy into digital.

you must be kidding!
i had a few years education as an electronics engineer, so i tell you: this thing's applying to a whole lot more than just audio and daws, and so far it works excellent.

(and it's called the shannon-nyquist-theorem btw)

peeddrroo · Post by **peeddrroo** » Tue Jun 15, 2004 7:20 pm

skiptracer wrote: and Nyquist's law whatever has been proven wrong, it was a marketing gimmick to make people buy into digital.

that's a good one!

and e=mc2 is a marketing gimmick to make people use nuclear power (or drop atomic bombs like you just did!

)

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Jun 15, 2004 7:28 pm

skiptracer wrote:the ableton EQ and filter sound terrible. you would benefit from getting a better filter and EQ VST. and Nyquist's law whatever has been proven wrong, it was a marketing gimmick to make people buy into digital.

the EQ 4 is great--I have tried to convince myself time and time again that the Waves Q10 sounds better, cause it costs so damn much and has widespread respect, but dammit, Ableton's definitely sounds better everytime. Your broad statements that are at least partially, if not fully in error don't lend you much credibility.

Ryan

the8bitdeity · Post by **the8bitdeity** » Tue Jun 15, 2004 7:36 pm

skiptracer wrote:the ableton EQ and filter sound terrible. you would benefit from getting a better filter and EQ VST. and Nyquist's law whatever has been proven wrong, it was a marketing gimmick to make people buy into digital.

This is hilariously ignorant. Congratulations.

Nyquist's Sampling Theorem is the prime foundating for any Digital Signal Processing. It states that for any discrete signal a fs of *at least* 2X the highest signal present must be used for accurate representation. BUT Nyquist stated as such assuming ideal circumstances. Thus the real issue is the DACs. An appropriate anti-aliasing filter must be applied before the DAC conversion. Therefore moving the sampling frequency up we're able to have less perfect AA Filters allowing the harmonics to properly be replayed.

This is all highly generalized, but I hope it explains the nature of the beast.

tekkers · Post by **tekkers** » Tue Jun 15, 2004 7:38 pm

i just want it tooo have all the top end!!! nice and crisp and sharp like it isnt on - but with the ability to sweeep the blooody thing nice and deep!

anyway - i gotta pack for sonar....

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Jun 15, 2004 7:43 pm

back on topic--I feel you, the Live Auto Filter is missing a bit on the top end tip. But, as other's have said, a simple on/off key on your computer keyboard or midi controller can solve that. That said, I agree, Live should make the flat defualt auto-filter have the full spectrum of sound--I wonder if they were trying to save processor power of graph space by eliminating 8k of range?

Ryan

the8bitdeity · Post by **the8bitdeity** » Tue Jun 15, 2004 7:48 pm

More than likely trying to avoid having to create anti-aliasing filters, since if they included an aliasing resonant filter that swept up that high you'd most likely get high pitched noise. Think the early Nord filter IIRC.

forge · Post by **forge** » Tue Jun 15, 2004 7:49 pm

skiptracer wrote:. and Nyquist's law whatever has been proven wrong, it was a marketing gimmick to make people buy into digital.

fair enough, I mean the whole world's a conspiracy. I mean look at cats. They're a conspiracy with their purring. And 'miaow' I mean wtf is that all about? They're only there so we'll buy cat food.

And mud - well there had to be a reason to buy washing powder.

Oil - the bush family put it all there. There was no oil before George Bush senior, it was all a lie - he made them put all the oil in saudi arabia and Iraq so they could sell weapons to everyone else to try and steal it.

And people? well dont get me started on people - people were a god damn advertising ploy that got out of hand. Have you any idea how unappetising McDonalds looks without people?

The sun was only developed so it's bright rays would make coke cans look nice.

And that's just the beginning

(will somebody please get me a live 4 beta, I'm starting to feel weak...

vivaplex · Post by **vivaplex** » Tue Jun 15, 2004 8:02 pm

I've enjoyed the refresher on Nyquist. But back to the original issue about the AutoFilter, I'm surprised no one has suggested sending everything through the sends only and giving one send a clean signal to mix with the AutoFilter send. Works for me. I couldn't tolerate sending my whole signal through the filter.

tekkers · Post by **tekkers** » Tue Jun 15, 2004 8:17 pm

a simple on/off switch would be tooo much work for my live set up - i have auto filter on as defult on track 1 and 2 - which i use to play full mixes dj style.. - i have the cuttoff frequency attached too 2 sliders on my korg microkontrol .... also i got bass kills assigned too pads for those channels only, and the crossfader for chops between channels..

ontop of that i got another 6 to 8 tracks with breaks and loops that i drop in over the full mix tracks on channel one and 2

delay fx i tweak with the mouse... scene select and punch in i got defined to the pads on my korg as well ....

basically i sweep when i feel the need - having to press a button to activate the filter is just a level of twiddlyness too far...

if this ISNT possible to fix with autofilter in an update - its not a great loss - as the fidelity isnt a great loss over a pa - and for a sequence i can (I SUPPOSE!) switch it on and off when needed with automation - but its all abit tooo much work...

it would be nice if it was sorted out - but - hell i can live with it

loophead · Post by **loophead** » Tue Jun 15, 2004 8:17 pm

Nyquist is a Dope ! Think it through gentlemen. If you sample a signal twice per wavelength you get a very poor representation of it. This is why we are now seeing much higher sample rates, so that the highest frequencies are still sampled several times thus rendering a smoother and clearer, but still incomplete representation of the signal.

Vercengetorex · Post by **Vercengetorex** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 9:59 am

Wow...
This thread started out with a lot of merit...
Some strong questions, and good suggestions all around, but Nyquist is a dope? Or worse yet, a marketing ploy? F*&#in hell!

*Sigh*

loophead · Post by **loophead** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 1:29 pm

"Foundation of digital audio" or not he's still a dope. No getting around it two samples per waveform (even if that wave form is a defacto sine) is not even in the ballpark. He was correct only in that with one sample you have ziltch. With two the hope is that each sample rate would hit a different part of the wave and we would eventually get something happening.

Columbus discovered America. Edison Invented the lightbulb and well I have a nice Bridge here in Brooklyn I can sell you for cheep !

Moonburnt · Post by **Moonburnt** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 2:35 pm

loophead wrote:"Foundation of digital audio" or not he's still a dope. No getting around it two samples per waveform (even if that wave form is a defacto sine) is not even in the ballpark. He was correct only in that with one sample you have ziltch. With two the hope is that each sample rate would hit a different part of the wave and we would eventually get something happening.

Columbus discovered America. Edison Invented the lightbulb and well I have a nice Bridge here in Brooklyn I can sell you for cheep !

Aaargh, it's the Chewbacca Defense. It just Doesn't Make Sense.