!! Sample Rate !!

On 2007-06-24 10:06, Upavas wrote:

And yes the quality of the converters is important. However most converters in the mid price range do just nicely nowadays,

and as to the sample rate as being less important, I don't think so and both arguments, yours and mine have their right.

Just recently I played a set at Organix and remember the dj after me saying he had trouble keeping up with the overall volume and was wondering how I had the system that loud without distorting everything. Came out he was playing mp3's and I was playing wavs... particularly the bass was what made him trouble. Go figure...

DCPCM or Delta Pulse Code Modulation is generally being used in mp3 compression,

oh and who told you that film data is data compressed before it reaches the audience?

No way man. My boss would kill anyone doing such a thing... as a matter of fact he would probably be really pissed off...hahaha...

Also remember that when you change the sampling rate digitally (not using DA/AD converters the sound will be out of sync with the original... meaning faster or slower depending which way you go...

which always is a pain in the @$$ when you have to convert sound with film to tv format... especially in North America where we have 29.97 fps as opposed to the nice even 25fps they have pretty much everywhere else in the world...

Most audio for tv film actually is recorded with a sampling rate of 48048 khz, so when it is reduced by .1% which has to be done in North America because the film itself is reduced in Speed by.1% to match the damned 29.97 frames per second...it will be playable on most systems (48k)...It is so much easier to convert when you have even numbers...

as to analog recording, the recording is always more accurate than digital recording,

the reason why we use digital is because of the static noise that comes with analog recording, the hiss on a tape if you will.

Since we don't have an option for infinite sampling rates, which you explained well above the recording can never be as accurate as analog, where we get a straight 100% recording.

What are you referring to when you speak of analog format btw. ? You mean the device (Tape, Nagra etc.) ?

On 2007-06-24 07:00, shamantrixx wrote:
Do you have any pleasure in life beside calling someone a no brain? I guess not!!!

On 2007-06-25 21:46, Upavas wrote:
As to the myth that nearly all audio data in the movie industry is compressed, you obviously do not know what you're talking about. Under no circumstances would any sound supervisor or even sound editor ever do such a thing, unless they work in Game audio, that is a totally different story.

Hell, I told a supervising soundeditor of this remark who works in Hollywood, currently involved in a production with Owen Wilson, and he said after looking at me that how could I have asked such a question and then laughing out loud as well that this is absolute bolloks.

I recently finished a post production in 5.1 surround with DTS and nothing of the audio was ever compressed. It would take too much out of the movie. As a matter of fact it would sound too hollow!

There are significant technical differences between commercial/theatrical and home variants: the former being a traditional ADPCM compression system and the latter a sophisticated hybrid perceptual and signal-redundancy compressor based on ADPCM called APTX-100.

On 2007-06-25 21:46, Upavas wrote:
You should try Nagra

Distortion always ocurs when yor recording levels are to high or through a proximity effect that occurs on your mic when the soundsource is too close to the diaphragm of the mike...

and not all analog recording devices have significant levels of distortion. Most do, yes, but not all of them...

However, technically the analog recording will always be more precise than any digital recording. (one reason why my cat does not like cd's...

On another note lets say here that I prefer analog to digital distortion, especially when it comes to loud noises, gunshots etc.,

simply because it is recorded seamlesssly analog and not digitally sampled!

As to you thinking I have a deep misunderstanding of how digital audio works, I have actually learned all that stuff years ago @ school, so my understanding of the digital audio realm is quite ok.

Yes , for the human ear it might be precise at 44.1, technically you should know as well as I do it never is 100% precise!

Higher frequencies will still get aliased as previously mentioned (Niquist Theorem) even if not audible by the human ear they will still be present and as sound pressure level affect the human being though not his or her hearing.

Hence the lowpassfilter...

As to the myth that nearly all audio data in the movie industry is compressed, you obviously do not know what you're talking about. Under no circumstances would any sound supervisor or even sound editor ever do such a thing, unless they work in Game audio, that is a totally different story.

Hell, I told a supervising soundeditor of this remark who works in Hollywood, currently involved in a production with Owen Wilson, and he said after looking at me that how could I have asked such a question and then laughing out loud as well that this is absolute bolloks.

I recently finished a post production in 5.1 surround with DTS and nothing of the audio was ever compressed. It would take too much out of the movie. As a matter of fact it would sound too hollow!

And yes, not all mp3 converters are made equal, if this would be a onetimer with the dj who played after me I would probably tend to agree with you Undertow, since this happened to me again and again on many events however I am pretty sure that it is just the case that mp3's just do not have the same sound quality as wavs.

And if you think about it is is perfectly logical and plausible...The bigger soundsystems seem to reflect this a lot more acurately...

I know you only need two points to fully define a circle, however, you also need to consider that if you depict the wav as a sinecurve instead of a circle, which is more often done and by no means more or less accurate, if your sinewave is too long for the distance of your 2 points the recorded sample will be aliased and therefore not precisely recorded.

As to join the dots, I have no idea what you mean by that.

Besides, we are getting into the age old arguments between digital and analog domain and this could probably go on until the end of time.

Geez, I am not even talking about resolution and you still are bugging me with it.

On 2007-06-26 03:47, Upavas wrote:
"Which one? Alot of the Nagra devices are digital."
try any analog Nagra 4 track, not the digital ones...

As to why my cat will not like cd's, she can perceive much higher frequencies than us and even with the best filters there will still be some aliasing, that is unless you spend big money...

Analog recording devices have some harmonic distortion, yes, however it is not perceived by humans directly, so since you so abundantly made clear with the human ear and digital recording, it does not matter.

What matters is that Analog records directly, from a soundsource into a converter which converts it into voltage and then to your speaker which converts it back without taking single samples like digital recording, it simply records the whole thing, not in incrementations of 44.1oo per second, just the whole thing at once... NO ALIASING!!!

Since we do not have unlimited amounts of 1's and 0's yet we cannot EVER record anything digitally a 100% which is why lp filters are being used.

So in that sense any tibetan singing bowl which has a very large spectrum of overtones that goes a lot higher than 20k will never sound the same digitally recorded, simply because there is a lowpass filter which cuts of anything above 20k, that is if it is a good one... you have a much better chance recording that whole sound more true analog.

And yes, these frequencies may not be perceived by the human ear, it still has an impact on our bodies and our feeling just like the 7hz frequency does...

As to the placebo effect, no, I don't always know what anybody uses who plays before or after me, after all I do not care, I generally use wavs, so I know mine will be ok... so you are suspecting wrongly in that instance...

As you made clear once the signal is converted it IS analog. So no aliasing. Unless you have not used the filters of course and your digital version had aliasing... however nothing above 20k will be there, so where is the accuracy?

You may not be able to hear the difference, however it still has an impact on you since the ears are not all of our senses...

my brand of cd player is called Pioneer 100, any more questions on that one?

I said the big PA's seem to , not do. When we hear something more loud, so we hear more things that may not have had enough loudness with the studio monitors. A studio monitor will of course reflect spl more accurately, however in a studio at least I don't crank it up like on a party. Now don't you start complaining about my monitors, I know they are good...

YOU can't tell between mp3 format and wav format, however I can and many other people I know seem to be able to as well. Even if 320kbps... it is till not the same sound, sorry.