Ableton Forum

Angstrom wrote:pffft, if you think that's what happened then that's even more hillarious

is that you? whoo..pretty boy

newboss wrote:

nigel1 wrote: b: This file seems to be a bit as the odd man out. There seems to be a slight bump in the midrange causing the vox to sound...for the lack of a better word...slightly more forward in the mix. It's slightly harsher..not by much...but noticeable. Stereo spread is slightly better than A. The low end is a bit less prominent than A also. In the end not bad...but not better than A.

Thats actually in big parts a good description how one would expect a 12 bit file to sound in comparison to a 16 bit file.

But that with the lowend reminds me to one interesting question..

Because a reduced bit width appears from my experiance mostly in the low end. For example when you choose the recording bit depth in ableton live. 24 versus 16 bit rec depth. 24 bit sounds more open in the low end.. and in 16 bit its more narow and tight.. good on some signals..but less expensive sounding.. Same applies to an yamaha dmc 1000 digital desk.. when you set the outputs to 22 bit the lowend sounds more open than when setting them to 16 bit..

Why?

I guess thats a psycho acoustic fx..
Or just the converters that fool me here?
Or do have 24/32 bit files really benefits in the sub bass precission or perception?
technical that should be bullshit.. but.. thats the way i hear it.

Any explanations?

In the end...I'm not really interested as an end user in the how and why...I'm interested in the result..and again...I can hear differences. I know it's not supposed to be true...I know..theoretically impossible. But that's just a it...it's a theory...and I hear differences in these three files. Now whether they are different daws...different plug ins...different master mediums who knows? only Robert...lol
I suppose we shouldn't hijack the thread though and go down this road for the ten thousandth time. lol. I'd just like to see a "result" a bit of justification for thinking that i'm not really crazy. LMAO!
btw..I do think bit depth and rate have something to do with clarity in the low end most def...but again..while clarity in the low end might be good for classical recordings..I'd probably shun it for dance stuff..go figure? I loved Nuendo for that exact reason.

Dennis

Can we possibly get back to our regularly scheduled programming? lol

newboss wrote:

nigel1 wrote: b: This file seems to be a bit as the odd man out. There seems to be a slight bump in the midrange causing the vox to sound...for the lack of a better word...slightly more forward in the mix. It's slightly harsher..not by much...but noticeable. Stereo spread is slightly better than A. The low end is a bit less prominent than A also. In the end not bad...but not better than A.

Thats actually in big parts a good description how one would expect a 12 bit file to sound in comparison to a 16 bit file.

But that with the lowend reminds me to one interesting question..

Because a reduced bit width appears from my experiance mostly in the low end. For example when you choose the recording bit depth in ableton live. 24 versus 16 bit rec depth. 24 bit sounds more open in the low end.. and in 16 bit its more narow and tight.. good on some signals..but less expensive sounding.. Same applies to an yamaha dmc 1000 digital desk.. when you set the outputs to 22 bit the lowend sounds more open than when setting them to 16 bit..

Why?

I guess thats a psycho acoustic fx..
Or just the converters that fool me here?
Or do have 24/32 bit files really benefits in the sub bass precission or perception?
technical that should be bullshit.. but.. thats the way i hear it.

Any explanations?

Well just an educated guess here but...

Low end energy consume much more power from your amplifier because of the larger wave lenght.
I figure by analogy the same thing probably applies to digital audio files.
So when you truncate bit depth it chops proportionally across the spectrum.
Since low end consume more, more of it would be cut

I dont believe this guy is 3phase...

nigel1 wrote:[...I can hear differences. I know it's not supposed to be true...I know..theoretically impossible. But that's just a it...it's a theory...and I hear differences in these three files. Now whether they are different daws...different plug ins...different master mediums who knows? only Robert...lol
Dennis

he has given the explantion in this thread allready.. A and C are identical and B is a 12 bit version of A

i would say your expectation of dealing with differnt files has fooled you a little but you clearly spotted the bad guy..

not bad i would say

bwaahaha! see i didn't even get to reading the other pages of the post! funny s**t...knew i'd be an ass to reply...CLASSIC

funny though..C still sounds brighter to me...even listening over again and knowing the answer...
could be a psycho acoustic thing after all...dunno
so i suppose all this..sounds better than that is all bullsh*t being governed and pushed by preconceived notions? perception is a royal bitch eh?

df

Dragonbreath wrote:

Well just an educated guess here but...

Low end energy consume much more power from your amplifier because of the larger wave lenght.
I figure by analogy the same thing probably applies to digital audio files.
So when you truncate bit depth it chops proportionally across the spectrum.
Since low end consume more, more of it would be cut

I dont believe this guy is 3phase...

But its not energy that gets truncated here.. just subliminal portions of the waveform ..a higher noise floor.
I think its strange.. maybe the higher noisefloor fools the brain and gives the impression of a lesser energy level?.
would think that it must be something psycho acoustic. Or are there undiscovered magic qualities of digital audio?

There are some strange phenomenons regarding low freq energy and digital audio.

A well adjusted tapemachine for example gives a better representation of ultra low basses than any AD/DA conversion.. just.. technical hard to explain..

The AD/DA conversion has a better low end response..but is usually cutted at 10 hz..

The tape machine falls of already at 40 hz. but dont has an absolute cut at 10 hz.. however cant reach a dc state really..

Opposite to the AD/DA conversion we have a much higher distortion figure on the tape machine..especially in the low end.. therefor we have overtones on the bass.. maybe that overtones together with the gentle roll off give in the end a more realistic representation of the ultra low bass than a distortion free but steeply cutted signal?
A steep cut means a phase reversal close to the dc point..maybe that eats all the energy in the 20 hz range..aso aso..

I would say there are technical explanations.. but you have to find them.

nigel1 wrote:bwaahaha! see i didn't even get to reading the other pages of the post! funny s**t...knew i'd be an ass to reply...CLASSIC

funny though..C still sounds brighter to me...even listening over again and knowing the answer...
could be a psycho acoustic thing after all...dunno
so i suppose all this..sounds better than that is all bullsh*t being governed and pushed by preconceived notions? perception is a royal bitch eh?

df

maybe he hasnt told us everything yet and a and c are not the same after all?

.so..i finaly should get back to work..i hate setting up studios.. did that to often as a job,..

But i will check the files later .. on laptop speakers really no chance ...

Forge. wrote:

friend_kami wrote:
it seems like are living under the delusion that an audio engine and food is the same thing and produces the same results.
i find that utterly fascinating.
i also find your comparison to be incredibly flawed.
it reminds me of the argument antipiracy lobbyists reaches out for:
you wouldn't steal a car, neither would you let someone steal YOUR car!

of course i would if i could just copy paste it. we all would.
but hey, i guess someone actually falls for that argument as a good point.

did you watch the 2nd AES link?

In any case, for me this all just seems like a very ... I dunno "first world" problem?

For me a far bigger issue is trying to stay at all inspired or interested in even making music any more.

I watched a video the other day where Jack White got a couple of blocks of wood, a pickup and a string and did this mad slide guitar on one string on this instrument he just built... it was awesome

far more awesome than anything I've heard on 427zillion hertz super conductive speakers from the perfect 128bit DAW.......

my battered ears wouldn't be able to hear the difference in any of these stupid academic exercises, and I'm sorry but any of you out there who really think your ears can are probably deluded, because (like the 2nd video shows) ears are a pretty imperfect organ - ON EVERYONE.

A good sound engineer is not someone who hears perfectly. He is someone who hears WHAT'S IMPORTANT perfectly. And that skill comes with a lot of practice, but not golden ears.

i'm not syaing that live sounds bad, it's the other half of this community that is saying that, for some reason. most likely because everybody else is saying it.

the whole discussion is stupid and has been done to death, and the results are always the same; two camps yelling at each other and one of them provides the only proof they can come up with (phase cancellation tests, A/B blind tests and so on) while the others come up with the only proof they can come up with: hearsay (x producer slates live, y consumers considers iflive is faulty), subjective opinions (such as "i swear that i hear this and that, but i have no way of proving it and when i failed in your A/B test i was having a bad day, i blame my gear, i blame it on my untraained ears, my dog, neighbour, ufo's, whatever i can think of in order to continue to believe that i am right"), and claiming the tests invalid because a phasecancellation test and an A/B test isn't conclusive enough, and doesn't have a big enough control group.

it's a dead end, and hopefully now the other camp might shutup for a while because someone with "credibility" (because you know, you don't know shit until you release a couple of albums, right?) actually showed them just how easy it is to fool yourself into believing something that isn't there.

Forge. wrote:

Best Python sketch ever IMO.

friend_kami wrote:... most likely because everybody else is saying it. .

if there is one singular point from my posts it's this. ^

Placebo is sadly a far bigger influence on... probably all music than any of this ever could be.

And there are stats to support that.

Tone Deft wrote:funny that the differences are at ~-108 dB. dunno if I could be subjective at this point but I've always wanted to do this kind of test on a BIG sound system to experience the difference between bit depths' dynamic range.

16 bits yields 96 dB dynamic range; 12 bits yields 72 dB. Where do you get 108?

ark wrote:

Tone Deft wrote:funny that the differences are at ~-108 dB. dunno if I could be subjective at this point but I've always wanted to do this kind of test on a BIG sound system to experience the difference between bit depths' dynamic range.

16 bits yields 96 dB dynamic range; 12 bits yields 72 dB. Where do you get 108?

by actually measuring the difference with Spectrum. that was the average level.

Dude, totally 3phase. Good catch.