| Author
|
analog shmanalog
|
undertones
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
25
Posts :
165
Posted : Apr 10, 2006 18:40
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-04-10 11:32, 5Meo-Geo wrote:
undertones...
analog emulation is indeed emulation
mostly emulation of the signal path thru different algorithms that emulate analog modules
like lfo controling vcf by sending control voltage(analog)....= lfo algorith sends 010111001 to filter algorith and this signal controls ,lets say, cutof (digital)
|
|
ur right...but that still doesnt make it analog...a continuous voltage on one hand...and numbers representing fixed values for the same on the other...it sounds different, it behaves differently...im not saying one is better than the other...both has its share of advantages and disadvantages...and the algos keep getting better... but u know, i think its brand advertising... |
|
|
Trip-
IsraTrance Team
Started Topics :
101
Posts :
3239
Posted : Apr 10, 2006 19:11
|
no it doesn't make it analog - it only tries to emulate it...
 Crackling universes dive into their own neverending crackle...
AgalactiA |
|
|
|
5Meo-Geo
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
23
Posts :
515
Posted : Apr 11, 2006 09:56
|
well average psytrance listener REALY got used to digital sound level of quality due past 7 years and all the "artists" reffer's their sound to this level aswell
and then someone like IM or Posford hit them with warm analog quality of sound and then u c 50 pages of "how to do this bassline" thread here
Jesus didnt dance,but his beat goes on
http://www.myspace.com/5me0ge0
PSYCHEDELIC-ZION |
|
|
|
TopDown
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
62
Posted : Apr 12, 2006 20:36
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-04-11 09:56, 5Meo-Geo wrote:
well average psytrance listener REALY got used to digital sound level of quality due past 7 years and all the "artists" reffer's their sound to this level aswell
and then someone like IM or Posford hit them with warm analog quality of sound and then u c 50 pages of "how to do this bassline" thread here
|
|
So right, it all really is a matter of gettin used to!
The change is being felt mostly only a short time after the quality is changed. We can remember whole generations listen to vinil sound (with all those ticks and clicks u'd never heard elsewhere), after that to stereo cassete (correct me if I'm wrong those where 40000-120000 hz), and then digital. They did most agressive complaining only when that new equipmwnt was introdueced. Luckily for us being living in a capitalistic society drived science to develop an even better and more realistic media.
Now the only huge limitation of digital sound is its inability to produce a pure sine wave.
This horribal inacuracy in sound reproduction is still being felt and drives science to work and increase bitrate/fidelity bringins us 128/192 environments. Digital media is stored on digital hardware and being transfered by it gets really heavy and uncomfortable in those hi-fi rates. Now this other problem is gonna get fixed in the nearest future (hi-tech legend called "Moors low" makes them double cpu/speed every x years or something).
Believe my hombile word in 20 years from today CD will sound as bad as stereo cassete is.
Back to analog ...
Listening to any acustic concert (even being amplified) will sound much more true then on the cd. That works great with "organic" music, till u get to techno, where is no natural and there I can't see any importance to that pure sine wave not getting right.
Never touced any analog equipment, but somehow think it is not as varsatile and easy as DAW. |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Apr 12, 2006 21:21
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-04-12 20:36, TopDown wrote:
Now the only huge limitation of digital sound is its inability to produce a pure sine wave.
|
|
Total and utter bollocks. Actually you will get much closer to a perfect sine wave in ditigal than analogue.
Quote:
|
This horribal inacuracy in sound reproduction is still being felt and drives science to work and increase bitrate/fidelity bringins us 128/192 environments.
|
|
I'm not sure what you mean by 128 (bits?) but 192Khz is just a marketing gimmick. It will not make the sound any better, it will actually measure worse than 96Khz.
Quote:
|
Digital media is stored on digital hardware and being transfered by it gets really heavy and uncomfortable in those hi-fi rates. Now this other problem is gonna get fixed in the nearest future (hi-tech legend called "Moors low" makes them double cpu/speed every x years or something).
|
|
The speed of computers has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Quote:
|
Back to analog ...
Listening to any acustic concert (even being amplified) will sound much more true then on the cd.
|
|
Not once it has been amplified. Of course without amplification it will sound different as you don't just have two sound sources (assuming it is stereo) but otherwise, if you have the right equipment, it will make no difference.
Of course the beer and J's at a live show have an influence not to mention the loudenss and the crowd ... (PS: Most live shows pass through digital gear these days anyway).
Quote:
|
That works great with "organic" music, till u get to techno, where is no natural and there I can't see any importance to that pure sine wave not getting right.
|
|
You should really learn how digital audio works before saying such silly things ...
UnderTow |
|
|
|
5Meo-Geo
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
23
Posts :
515
Posted : Apr 12, 2006 23:20
|
TopDown making sine wih digital is prety easy
problem is do this proccess back way... take sine and convert it to 0101100 (easy with simple sine but get more and more complex when u adding more waves)
take simple kick....
its made of several sine waves one on top of each other
like sin(x)+sin(y)+sin(z)+sin(whatever)
to make it digitaly its realy not a problem
to take a ready kick and transform it back to that formula is different issue (and u need to transform it back to be able to proccess it)
and here is the problem
those transformations give ya close but not exact formulas back
so here is the begining of the problem
put eq on it and it will proccess not ur kick but this close-but-not-same formula
u screw ur data more
u put thru other proccess/fx u screw more and more
after each step like this the formula gets far and far from original sound
one will say that taking dowh lets say 1khz on digi eq will yeld ya same effect like if u would do it on graphic eq... for me the difference is obvious... but thats me 
Jesus didnt dance,but his beat goes on
http://www.myspace.com/5me0ge0
PSYCHEDELIC-ZION |
|
|
|
TopDown
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
62
Posted : Apr 13, 2006 01:56
|
Undertow, give me some credit, I can distinct beer and crowd from sound; digital sine is no way more acurrate than analog, its being devided to bits/hz, the more the better.
You probabilly are much better informed to know about that mighty conspiracy aginst the world, that marketing gimik to present us much better sound.
Computing speed has everything to do with storing and transfering digital data. The industry developes in its all areas, bigger speed brings a bigger need for storage, etc.
Now, ask 5meo-geo to pm u an explanation to how important those inaudible hi-freqs are to audible sound, he seems to really dig into that "adding waveforms" rutine. May be than you stop being paranoid about that conspiracy thing.
|
|
|
|
TopDown
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
62
Posted : Apr 13, 2006 02:06
|
Quote:
|
That works great with "organic" music, till u get to techno, where is no natural and there I can't see any importance to that pure sine wave not getting right.
|
|
You should really learn how digital audio works before saying such silly things ...
UnderTow
[/quote]
That very general answer of yours isn't making me any smarter. The key is what the audience used to, if its sound or music quality. The other key is being creative with your equipment and not fight it to get sound which it is not capabale to provide.
I personnaly love conteporary sound (production) and can swear it is being improved with time - equipment is changing for better and easier to work with, artists explore deeper soundscapes ... New equipment is mostly digital and can't make that pure sine like analog and still does sound better and better ...
|
|
|
|
Pavel
Troll
Started Topics :
313
Posts :
8649
Posted : Apr 13, 2006 02:58
|
I'm sorry but if you think that a sinewave signal that was sampled at 24bit@96KHz or even better with 1-bit delta-sigma modulation (DSD) sounds worse than it's analog version than you'll probably have golden ears.
And btw, there's no such thing as a pure sine wave. Not in analog and not in digital. For every 1KHz of the signal you get -144dBm of the so called Thermal Noise. There is no way to avoid it, and you as an owner of golden ears must been suffering from it for years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_noise
Everyone in the world is doing something without me |
|
|
|
fuzzikitten
Annunaki
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
603
Posted : Apr 13, 2006 03:23
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-04-13 02:58, Pavel wrote:
I'm sorry but if you think that a sinewave signal that was sampled at 24bit@96KHz or even better with 1-bit delta-sigma modulation (DSD) sounds worse than it's analog version than you'll probably have golden ears.
And btw, there's no such thing as a pure sine wave. Not in analog and not in digital. For every 1KHz of the signal you get -144dBm of the so called Thermal Noise. There is no way to avoid it, and you as an owner of golden ears must been suffering from it for years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_noise
|
|
Ohh sources! Don't see many people backing up their point of views 'round here.  |
|
|
|
bandarlog
Bandarlog
Started Topics :
44
Posts :
809
Posted : Apr 13, 2006 03:41
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-04-13 03:23, fuzzikitten wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2006-04-13 02:58, Pavel wrote:
I'm sorry but if you think that a sinewave signal that was sampled at 24bit@96KHz or even better with 1-bit delta-sigma modulation (DSD) sounds worse than it's analog version than you'll probably have golden ears.
And btw, there's no such thing as a pure sine wave. Not in analog and not in digital. For every 1KHz of the signal you get -144dBm of the so called Thermal Noise. There is no way to avoid it, and you as an owner of golden ears must been suffering from it for years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_noise
|
|
Ohh sources! Don't see many people backing up their point of views 'round here.
|
|
yeah but 24bit@96KHz doesn't reply on my emails  |
|
|
|
TopDown
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
62
Posted : Apr 13, 2006 12:01
|
No there isn't pure sine wave, even in nature. Still every sound is based on them. Giving that link doesn't convience me in nothing - it sayes nothing about digital reference, which imo, creates greater distortion.
One doesn't need to own golden ears to hear those differences, our normal ears can spot those overtones added to every sine wave in the sound (Furie something ...).
Take a vinil (I think "organic" music will be better) and give it a two hours playback (less, I'm sure), after change to a CD (same compilation) and see how you spot the difference immidiatly, make it blind if u want.
I'll repeat myself : it all is a matter of adjustment; when the sound was born digital, the listener will never "catch" it being lo-fi; the higher we go in resolution - the better and more pleasant the music is.
|
|
|
|
5Meo-Geo
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
23
Posts :
515
Posted : Apr 13, 2006 12:50
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-04-13 02:58, Pavel wrote:
I'm sorry but if you think that a sinewave signal that was sampled at 24bit@96KHz or even better with 1-bit delta-sigma modulation (DSD) sounds worse than it's analog version than you'll probably have golden ears.
|
|
pavel again u talking about different issue
sampling at sertain bitrate is not "digital production" (althou u right that u need golden ear to hear the difference and still dont u think that any "artist" that do their own mix and master should have golden ear???)
and also man....
u have any idea of how low iss -144dBm is ????
probobly open space have more noise than that (and sound dont travel in open space) 
and fuzzikitten no sources cose non 1 page html will explain ya this kind of stuff
digg the net and pay attention to what u listen to
P.S. i repeat again.. im not some analog freak
99% of my tracks r digitaly/vst made...
i just dont bother to mix them to sound "crystal" and all becouse of whaat been said here (answer to all f*ckers that biaching about sound quality)
Jesus didnt dance,but his beat goes on
http://www.myspace.com/5me0ge0
PSYCHEDELIC-ZION |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Apr 13, 2006 14:14
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-04-13 01:56, TopDown wrote:
Undertow, give me some credit, I can distinct beer and crowd from sound;
|
|
That was a joke. I seem to have forgoten a smiley.
Quote:
|
digital sine is no way more acurrate than analog, its being devided to bits/hz, the more the better.
|
|
No no and no again. All you need is sampling at double the frequency (and a bit) of the signal you want to sample to sample and reproduce a perfect sine wave. The bit depth affects noise levels up to a point. Beyond 24 bits you are in the noise floor of the analogue components so here is no point in going any further.
Things to google for: Nyquist shannon Theorem, Sampling theory, Reconstructions filters.
Quote:
|
You probabilly are much better informed to know about that mighty conspiracy aginst the world, that marketing gimik to present us much better sound.
|
|
Apparantly.
Quote:
|
Computing speed has everything to do with storing and transfering digital data.
|
|
As we can now allready easily handle 96Khz/24 bits, no speed increase in computing will help much. The one thing that it will help is the price of the converters as we can reduce the cost of decimation filters in ADCs. This has more to do with component manufacturing costs than computing speeds.
Quote:
|
The industry developes in its all areas, bigger speed brings a bigger need for storage, etc.
|
|
Indeed, that is a very good reason NOT to increase the speed of sampling beyond what is strictly needed for audio.
Quote:
|
Now, ask 5meo-geo to pm u an explanation to how important those inaudible hi-freqs are to audible sound, he seems to really dig into that "adding waveforms" rutine.
|
|
He can post it here so I can debunk it publicly.
Quote:
|
May be than you stop being paranoid about that conspiracy thing.
|
|
Funny comment. I am not the one being paranoid. Irrationaly wanting higher sampling rates without a good (and correct) explanation of how it might improve sound is being paranoid.
UnderTow |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Apr 13, 2006 14:19
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-04-13 02:58, Pavel wrote:
I'm sorry but if you think that a sinewave signal that was sampled at 24bit@96KHz or even better with 1-bit delta-sigma modulation (DSD) sounds worse than it's analog version than you'll probably have golden ears.
|
|
Or a subjective experience. Of course you shouldn't use a soundblaster to do your tests. (DSD bah!)
Quote:
|
And btw, there's no such thing as a pure sine wave. Not in analog and not in digital. For every 1KHz of the signal you get -144dBm of the so called Thermal Noise. There is no way to avoid it, and you as an owner of golden ears must been suffering from it for years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_noise
|
|
Indeed. There is always a noise floor but that doesn't mean that the sine wave itself isn't good. You just have sine+noise.
UnderTow |
|
|
|
