Analogue sounds warmer

[H20nly]

[Tone Deft]

there will always be guys like 3phase, Monster Cable and Bose that will go ROAR!!! about the 'unknowable, unmeasurable' aspects of audio.

and one more about this most stupid sentence...

unknowable? sorry.. many many people know...
actually everybody i know knows.. most prefer to use digital for professional reasons like total recall.. but beside some weiss processors, kimas, tc 6000 aso they use mainly analog emulations.. so why would one use an analog emulation when analog is bad? Actually you can clearly see that UAD knows.. they emulated some secret trick machines not everybody knows...


and unmeasureable? it sometimes looks like that somethings are unmeasureable...but that might depend on the measuring methods.. its difficult to measure with dynamical signals and static measurements have clearly shown that they dont explain the sound quality of a machine at all. they only point to obvious flaws.. but a unit with a flaw in freq response still can sound much better than another one that has a prefectly flat response..

See a behringer desk in comparison to a studer... bet who has the better freq response?
mr tondeft is therfore a behringer user.. and who is using behringer desks will allways win in the box.. its easy to diss analog production technology with a behringer mind.

With the wright measurement method you probably can measure it..but things like dynamical phase freq plots or Dynamical harmonic spectra of the distortions would be defently part of it..

you just never see such measurements... probably because nobody sees a point in investing 200k in measuring equipment to convince behringer guys about things everybody knows anyway..
The only people that need such measurements are the companys that try to emulate the original gear..
And theese most likely wont tell the world theire findings...

ok 3phase. I'm quoting this so that I can refer to it later. this is a different tact than you usually take. you'll see.

still, you're writing a lot without saying much of anything.

[H20nly]

Coeur de Lion was a grade A cunt. He tried to sell most of London to finance his idiotic crusades. Including trying to use it as his "kings ransom" when he got himself imprisoned.

what a damn waste of time and life that was.


almost as big a waste of time as worrying about inaudible audio.

[3dot...]

also there is information lost when you record to digital...

can you explain?

frequencies above the 'audio range'..in the ultrasonic...
playing the highest note on a pianofor instance.. will produce harmonics+overtones above what our ear/brain can cognitively perceive...
highest C note will be approx. 17Khz which means the closest 1st harmonic will be about 35Khz(octave) and the next would be about 44Khz(IV)
many other instruments go above audio range as well...
these can be measured (and the body feels them I believe) ...but not heard...but I believe they shape the whole (timbre) of the sound.

that stuff will not go in your standard 44100 rate recordings...as the sampling freq should be twice the rate of the frequency sampled
so...192Khz sampling rate.. is what I want..
but it's not time yet..
unfortunately both my sound cards go "only" up to 96Khz..
huge cpu eater upper..
almost 0 plugin support for rates above...
not to mention huge file-sizes..
and even if I could sample in those freqs... almost no consumer A/D/D/A that will play them 192Khz files back...

in short it's still an esoteric need.. I know..
but then I would be finally able to release my masterpiece...(titled :"music for dogs and canaries")

[3dot...]

Coeur de Lion was a grade A cunt. He tried to sell most of London to finance his idiotic crusades. Including trying to use it as his "kings ransom" when he got himself imprisoned.

what a damn waste of time and life that was.


almost as big a waste of time as worrying about inaudible audio.

pfffft

[davepermen]

can you fix the distortions and saturations that happen afterwards? i can add them. i can remove them. i have choice.

you have no choice because you have no clue...

and you have no choice because of your analogue equipment. once i have a clue, i have the choice. still on the winning side..

[H20nly]

So my new mic is picking up cell phone frequencies. this is a real problem because I live near a high school and all the cheerleaders keep talking about make up and blow jobs on my recordings, I think. I can't actually hear it, but I'm sure its there and I'm worried that others may not be able to hear it on my recordings as well.

discuss...

[LoopStationZebra]

still, you're writing a lot without saying much of anything.

lol. Isn't that pretty much always the case?
M.O.

[Tone Deft]

still, you're writing a lot without saying much of anything.

lol. Isn't that pretty much always the case?
M.O.

we'll get there in time. he's frustrated, we're frustrated, in time the bonobos learn then the makeup party begins. seen it time and again.

[davepermen]

also there is information lost when you record to digital...

can you explain?

frequencies above the 'audio range'..in the ultrasonic...
playing the highest note on a pianofor instance.. will produce harmonics+overtones above what our ear/brain can cognitively perceive...
highest C note will be approx. 17Khz which means the closest 1st harmonic will be about 35Khz(octave) and the next would be about 44Khz(IV)
many other instruments go above audio range as well...
these can be measured (and the body feels them I believe) ...but not heard...but I believe they shape the whole (timbre) of the sound.

that stuff will not go in your standard 44100 rate recordings...as the sampling freq should be twice the rate of the frequency sampled
so...192Khz sampling rate.. is what I want..
but it's not time yet..
unfortunately both my sound cards go "only" up to 96Khz..
huge cpu eater upper..
almost 0 plugin support for rates above...
not to mention huge file-sizes..
and even if I could sample in those freqs... almost no consumer A/D/D/A that will play them 192Khz files back...

in short it's still an esoteric need.. I know..
but then I would be finally able to release my masterpiece...(titled :"music for dogs and canaries")

the playback is the least of the issues. the actual editing and messing around with it, that's where you want the higher quality. imagine for some break down stretching your recording to 4x the sound.. if you would have sampled at 192khz, you would still have a dvd quality signal out of the stretched source. if you'd have 44.1khz, you'd be at 11.025khz by now, not really anything of quality anymore.

so when ever you do the translation from digital to analogue or from analogue to digital, you want the highest sampling rates, and the best hardware doing it with the least distortion and artefacts in both directions.

but once in the digital domain, the environment is much more controllable and predictable. one can actually compute the errors, and thus evaluate and prevent them. (the reason why the 64bit summing engine wasn't really needed, and only done for marketing..). there is no myth or magic or anything involved, it's proven math and science and logic, which everyone can understand if he takes the time to learn it.

the one thing that is important is to take care of the movements from and to those worlds. best is to stay in one for as long as possible, don't switch if not needed.


edit: one bit of food for thought: that 192khz recording which gets stretched will reveal recorded signals that where unhearable. question is, do you want to hear them, actually? because they're not really stuff that where in your control during the recording. most likely, you'd filter them out afterwards for being disturbing..

[3dot...]

...no ..I just want them (partials) to be there with the rest of the tone...
they are a part of it..after all.. created when I hit the key on the piano.. or banged on the cymbals...
so even if I personally can't enjoy the qualities of ultrasonic freqs..
my dog could! ..(kidding)

[Tone Deft]

not true at all.

your sound card, your monitors, your entire signal chain cannot duplicate audio frequencies over ~20kHz. the entire notion of ultrasonic frequencies will not work in practice. think about it. there's no reason to even talk about all that crap until your mixing abilities can already fully use what we already have, do they?


dave - what's the connection between sample rate and time stretching?? how do you make that connection? I don't buy into all that. 48kHz is fine, 96 is approaching overkill. 192kHz is just overkill unless you want low latency.

[3dot...]

simply not true.. electrostatic speakers can produce freqs up to 110Khz..easy..
granted...I don't know any people who own them personally though..
so I get your point..
I'm wanting this for purely aesthetic reasons...
the main reasoning being that I believe they are an integral part of the sound..
that certain 'extra' feeling you get when playing music with people in a room...or listening to a live act..

something is missing in digital recordings..(of analog material)..
I beleive this may be it..
but that's only my opinion../belief..

I'll just wait for it to be standardized..I'm guessing 20 years...(shot in the dark)

[Tone Deft]

any speaker can drive just about any frequency you want until you rip the cone or saturate the driver. what are you going to drive it with? a sound card? OK, then what are you going to drive the sound card with? Ableton Live? it's not going to give you ultrasonic frequencies. OK, then how are you going to record into Live (ultrasonic edition?) what pre-amp will record at these rates? what mic will do it? etc....

you think you just thought of a concept in audio that's never been marketed? if you had a point consumers would've been doing this for decades by now. it's an old argument that's been debunked many many times.


this is ridiculous. sorry man.

[3dot...]

these.. I believe will be standardized soon enough... (as they are a groundbreaking invention everyone is gonna want)

http://www.holosonics.com/products.html

they go up to 60Khz... and these are only the first models..