COCKOS
CONFEDERATED FORUMS
Cockos : REAPER : NINJAM : Forums
Forum Home : Register : FAQ : Members List : Search :
Old 07-19-2014, 03:25 AM   #1
giro1991
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 9
Default My view on how digital is quantified?

Hi, I'll do my best to keep this simple. This not reaper specific.

I observed the main difference between digital and analog to be how much 'information' they consist of.

Sounds vague, let me continue...


Analog bears infinite 'information' or 'quantisation'.
Due to technological limitations a digital representation of analog can be finite at best.

What we use today gets the job done.
Though I still think this can be improved with the abundance of processing power available today...

I would like to discuss and stick to fixed point (as an example) for time being, simply because of how fixed point quantifies a signal.

The main consensus is that recording technology is already a limiting factor, that and the fact the ear won't detect higher amounts.

These two are definately not relevant for mixing signals in the digital domain. Mixing is wholefully done between these stages. I think a computer will appreciate more quantisation values.

I note 32bit fixed point adds 65535 new values between each original points of information upon import. The spacing between each point is exactly the same.

So what is stopping developers from simply increasing 32bit to a more esoteric number? (I notice pro tools ues 48).

Again no increase will prove to be infinite (like analog), but can still improve the realm of possiblilty.

I read how floating point adheres muLaw and therefor a is an inherantly non linear form of PCM (am I wrong?)
If this is true then I can't understand why float is more prefered.

If you want to accurately emulate, mix and affect digital information (and synthesise analog) surely PCM must be handled and quanitised in a linear way - throughout daw/plugins - for best results.(?)

Perhaps a stupid question but thought I'd ask.

Thanks for reading.
giro1991 is offline  
Old 07-19-2014, 05:48 AM   #2
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
Analog bears infinite 'information' or 'quantisation'.
Due to technological limitations a digital representation of analog can be finite at best
I'd start here...

__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
karbomusic is offline  
Old 07-19-2014, 07:15 AM   #3
Quest The Wordsmith
Human being with feelings
 
Quest The Wordsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Shaolin => NJ
Posts: 1,213
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
I'd start here...

This guy is a genius. I'm subscribing to his channel and watching everything he's got. Did you see the coffee mug he had at the end? "CSS IS AWESOME" where the text goes outside the box. Hahahaha. I need that mug.
__________________
freestylefam.com
Quest The Wordsmith is offline  
Old 07-19-2014, 07:41 AM   #4
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quest The Wordsmith View Post
Did you see the coffee mug he had at the end? "CSS IS AWESOME" where the text goes outside the box. Hahahaha. I need that mug.
LOLZ, I didn't but I do now, that is hilarious.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
karbomusic is offline  
Old 07-19-2014, 08:48 AM   #5
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12,562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by giro1991 View Post
Due to technological limitations a digital representation of analog can be finite at best.
Sure, but the precision that we can now digitize with (24 bit, 96k or 192k), and then handle audio with (64 bit floating point at 96k or 192k) is at the point where only a 'money no object' analog shootout of the highest caliber could approach it.

Such a shootout would need a $10,000 monitor system in a very well tuned room to even begin to evaluate as well.

Many people still equate 'digital sound' with the 16 bit CD format and have no idea this high def is now a thing. And of course if you only have some $600 set of monitors in a reasonable well tuned room, you're not going to even be able to evaluate 44.1k sample rate vs. 96k. You hopefully will be able to perceive the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit but that's about it. (This really is one of those 1 or 2% conversations.)

Point being, if you think you are going to get the edge on sound with analog recording/processing vs. digital, I hope you have a doctors or lawyers income for the gear. Otherwise the digital system wins by quite a lot!

And we can deliver that 24 bit 96k master directly to the consumer who can put together a very high end sounding DA converter system for only around $500 here in 2014 to hear it vs. the $5000 - $10,000 investment needed for a turntable system (and then you hope you get a good pressing!).

My perspective on how digital audio has matured.
serr is offline  
Old 07-19-2014, 09:03 AM   #6
ivansc
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near Cambridge UK and Near Questembert, France
Posts: 22,754
Default

analogue didn't just come on vinyl.
Just sayin'

15ips was do-able very cheaply and even 30ips didnt require selling your house.


Mind you my old ears are so knackered I suspect I am just imagining everything I think I hear above 12k.
ivansc is offline  
Old 07-19-2014, 09:10 AM   #7
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivansc View Post
15ips was do-able very cheaply and even 30ips didnt require selling your house.
Yep and as far as the first post is concerned, that tape was 12-14 bits at best.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
karbomusic is offline  
Old 07-23-2014, 05:11 PM   #8
Don Schenk
Human being with feelings
 
Don Schenk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 253
Default

Here's an hour with Ethan Winer you really won't want to miss.

It's his Audio Myths Workshop recording at Youtube. This one is a real eye-opener.

:-Don

http://youtu.be/BYTlN6wjcvQ
Don Schenk is offline  
Old 07-23-2014, 06:46 PM   #9
ashasha
Human being with feelings
 
ashasha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 121
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Schenk View Post
Here's an hour with Ethan Winer you really won't want to miss.

It's his Audio Myths Workshop recording at Youtube. This one is a real eye-opener.

:-Don

http://youtu.be/BYTlN6wjcvQ
Is that the one with Poppy Crum? I think that about 5 of us fell in love with her after watching that.
__________________
Just here to steal all of your knowledge
ashasha is offline  
Old 07-24-2014, 07:20 PM   #10
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12,562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ashasha View Post
Is that the one with Poppy Crum? I think that about 5 of us fell in love with her after watching that.
Make that 6
serr is offline  
Old 07-25-2014, 09:29 AM   #11
whiteaxxxe
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: United States of Europe, Germany, Mönchengladbach
Posts: 2,047
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by giro1991 View Post
Analog bears infinite 'information' or 'quantisation'.
Due to technological limitations a digital representation of analog can be finite at best.
as others proved and reported a million times on the internetz this is simply wrong.

analog has not the capability of infinite information. let alone that we humans cant recognise audio-information beyond a certain limit. and no, the information that is unhearable doent affect in no way the hearable audio. every other "opinion" is uneducated bs, because its simply plain wrong.

the second thing is, that in this universe there isnt no such thing as "analog". its a myth! no analog! nowhere. this universe doesnt work analog on no level. go and get educated before stating such bold bs. (yes, I am angry, because all the time the people who shout out the loudest are the least informed ... :-((() go to Wikipedia and look up "Klaus von Klitzing" and what for he won the Nobel Prize. and then derive some conclusions from that. :-(

you have seen the video of mr. Montgomery? so ... that says it all. there is nothing left to say.

and yes, the digital representation of audio is finite. so is our hearing. beides the fact, that we dont hear with our ears. our ears transport objective information to our brain (if our ears are in perfect ahpe and condition) in a very limited way. what we think we hear is an interpretation of what is objective. and that interpretation depends on such a lot of factors, that it is impossible to "hear" anything near objective.

and digital represents audio in a way and with a bandwidth, that nobody - the ones, that call themselves "golden ears" are a bunch of biased liars - can hear in a double blind test - and every other kind of test is simply bs - a difference between 16bit/44.1kHz and these new Neil Young - formats like 1024bit/3billionGHz ... go figure.

all these things are believings. and believing something means that it is not known. if you would know, you wouldnt believe. this analog religion is based on misinformed b***sh**.

when will this ever stop ... next thing is "but vinyl sounds better ...."

oh, my god, isnt it enough on gearslutz???
whiteaxxxe is offline  
Old 07-25-2014, 09:30 AM   #12
whiteaxxxe
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: United States of Europe, Germany, Mönchengladbach
Posts: 2,047
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ashasha View Post
Is that the one with Poppy Crum? I think that about 5 of us fell in love with her after watching that.
oh, I saw that a year ago. and next week I will marry her ... :-))
whiteaxxxe is offline  
Old 07-25-2014, 01:39 PM   #13
ashasha
Human being with feelings
 
ashasha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 121
Default

This is just my subjective opinion on the argument, but if can hear the difference between 44.1kHz and 192kHz than chances are that you what you hear as "better" is more a function of the converters than the sample rates.

The biggest issue with the misunderstanding of how digital works is likely due to the way that people have traditionally represented it while trying to explain it. The notion that a digital signal is jagged stairsteps is not only wrong, but damaging to the reputation. Once you get that visual in your head you are going to hear it because of a predisposed bias.

Now on the other hand I can hear the differences in bit depth, but that has more to do with signal to noise ratio and noise floors where extremely low level signals will experience granulation noise. Dithering fixes this most of the time, but I'm going to record and edit in 24 bit so I don't have to worry about it (especially because I record dry guitar tracks for re-amping purposes). But once again this isn't about accuracy as much as it is about the minimum signal levels you can record.

If you've got a good set of converters that are designed to operate at 44.1 or 48kHz natively and the entire circuit is well designed and made it is going to sound great. Ironically I believe that it is much cheaper for a company to use a higher sample rate to achieve similar results because the most expensive part of the circuit is the filtering portion. With oversampling and higher sample rates the filters can be designed cheaper because you're just dealing with increased clocks rather than precision components.

Once again I reserve the right to be completely full of crap, but I've had mid-level gear that was capable of operating at 192kHz and it sounded best at that sample rate. When I'd back it down to 48kHz it would start to sound muffled a bit. Using a high end device at 48kHz and it sounds just as good if not better than the 192kHz signal did. To me that's a symptom of design and not the way that digital audio works. It'd be like someone taking a cheap transistor radio and saying that analog audio sucks because that radio sounds like tinny garbage. It's the device.
__________________
Just here to steal all of your knowledge
ashasha is offline  
Old 07-29-2014, 08:00 AM   #14
giro1991
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 9
Default

Hi, sorry for late response. Thanks for the feedback.

I understand well the true requirement for "transparency" of "analog".
I read this encoding pcm paper. Very interesting is the sample rate and depth ideals proposed.
https://www.meridian-audio.com/ara/coding2.pdf.
20bit rectangular channel (noise free) or lesser depths with relevant noise shaping.

I was playing around with 8bit and different NS curves recently and it is astonishing how well even 8-bit can sound.

It shows me that s/n ratio specs are over-rated because, clearly 8bit already trumps audibility of LP groove noise on its own - that and the fact that most converters capture with a cleaner channel than typical mic in (even the quietest) environment anyway.

So really, s/n can be completely ignored. I'm focusing on accuracy.
The best converters quantize to 24bits, (though technically can only really be 20bit at most internally because of limitations in voltage dividing).

So focusing on depth that is used to mix signals/effects, whether original (quantization) depth is retained, or increased upon entering a new container.

So far people have addressed that accuracy beyond 20 is 'inaudible'.

I'm not trying to prove audibility, merely establish whether increasing depth can increase 'accuracy' of dsp.

If we follow linear 'levels' throughout a 20bit a/d/a chain, addressed using fixed-point (fixed is easier to explain because it allocates levels linearly).


lets say 20bit ladder ADC captured & 'quantized' to 20bit INT.
20 provides +/- 524,287 levels.

This can be sliced further for mixing, for example Pro tools uses 48fixed.
~ +/- 140,737,488,355,328 levels.

mixed down to 20bit(or '24bit') and distributed.

played through 20bit 'ladder' multibit' dac. (i.e PCM1702).


I realize that 48bit is already alot. But to get my point across, using more than 48, should increase mixing resolution albeit beyond capability of a/d/a but still more realistic approach (I feel).

I'd also like to ask why float allocates quantization in a non linear manner and whether or not this concerns anyone (theoretically)?

As I understand float allocates / quantizes more frequently as it approaches MSB.

If you wanted to be theoretically stubborn, surely fixed with its linear allocation of levels, should theoretically provide a more linear 'signature'.

Last edited by giro1991; 07-29-2014 at 08:39 AM.
giro1991 is offline  
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.