Hallo!

I wonder how exactly must transients be reproduced by a (digital)
system.
At the one hand, time and phase differences are critical for location.
At the other hand short clippings on attacks (-totally damaged
curve!) are unhearable.

ThomasT wrote:

I wonder how exactly must transients be reproduced by a (digital)
system.

As exactly as they would be by an analogue system with the same frequency
and phase response characteristics.

At the one hand, time and phase differences are critical for location.
At the other hand short clippings on attacks (-totally damaged
curve!) are unhearable.

Clipping is an amplitude issue, not a time issue.

Are you asking:

1. How well do digital systems reproduce transients?

or

2. How well does a system need to reproduce transients for the effect
of the system to not be noticeable?

or

3. How well does a system need to reproduce transients for the effect
of the system to not be offensive?

Nobody knows whether timing issues are a real problem or not. We do know
that timing accuracy on transients is more accurate with 44.1 systems than
with most analogue systems because of the wider system bandwidth. And the
timing accuracy on most microphones isn't very good at all. And the timing
accuracy on speakers stinks.

For the most part, the microphones and speakers are the major problem as
far as transient reproduction goes. Or any other reproduction for that matter.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

ThomasT wrote:

I wonder how exactly must transients be reproduced by a (digital)
system.
At the one hand, time and phase differences are critical for location.
At the other hand short clippings on attacks (-totally damaged
curve!) are unhearable.

Time and phase differences between stereo channels are indeed crucial
for localization. Such details are preserved better by any reasonable
digital recording system than they have ever been by even the best
analog recording systems.

Some people have a certain impression about digital audio recording--
they imagine that it's like a movie, which takes a "snapshot" of the
signal at every sampling interval but ignores everything in the time
between those particular moments. That is not a correct impression;
the reality, which is different, can fairly easily be observed.

However, a system which is based on regular sampling will certainly
have a finite bandwidth as a function of the sampling frequency. And
that's perfectly OK, as long as that bandwidth is no less than the
bandwidth of the listeners' ears!

Of course there are other aspects of quality which are important in a
recording system--but that is true for analog as well as for digital.

--What you say about clipping is true enough, but it does not seem to be
relevant here; it is usually possible to avoid clipping, no?

"David Satz" wrote in message om...

ThomasT wrote:

I wonder how exactly must transients be reproduced by a (digital)
system.
At the one hand, time and phase differences are critical for location.
At the other hand short clippings on attacks (-totally damaged
curve!) are unhearable.

--What you say about clipping is true enough, but it does not seem to be
relevant here; it is usually possible to avoid clipping, no?


It really sounds as if the only problem may be turning down the record level.

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_______________________________________
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

In article writes:

I was always thinking that transients are evil and best thrown out to
get a good mixdown level? ...

Well, yeah, if they're the kind of transients living in the flat
upstairs who are always banging on the floor and walls.

Musical transients, however, are where the life is in the music.
Transients don't have to exceed the average level (though I suspect
that's what you're thinking about).

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote:

"David Satz" wrote in message om...

ThomasT wrote:

I wonder how exactly must transients be reproduced by a (digital)
system.
At the one hand, time and phase differences are critical for location.
At the other hand short clippings on attacks (-totally damaged
curve!) are unhearable.

--What you say about clipping is true enough, but it does not seem to be
relevant here; it is usually possible to avoid clipping, no?

It really sounds as if the only problem may be turning down the record level.

Chuckle. :-)


Graham

Nudge wrote:

ThomasT wrote:
Hallo!

I wonder how exactly must transients be reproduced by a (digital)
system.
At the one hand, time and phase differences are critical for location.
At the other hand short clippings on attacks (-totally damaged
curve!) are unhearable.

I was always thinking that transients are evil and best thrown out to
get a good mixdown level? ...

Squash the buggers to hell with a compressor !

Like much current music production. :-(


Graham

ThomasT wrote:
Hallo!

I wonder how exactly must transients be reproduced by a (digital)
system.
At the one hand, time and phase differences are critical for location.
At the other hand short clippings on attacks (-totally damaged
curve!) are unhearable.

I was always thinking that transients are evil and best thrown out to
get a good mixdown level? ...

--
Nudge // PCS Records Studio Leipzig
http://studio.lieber-media.de

(ThomasT) wrote in message . com...
Hallo!

I wonder how exactly must transients be reproduced by a (digital)
system.
At the one hand, time and phase differences are critical for location.
At the other hand short clippings on attacks (-totally damaged
curve!) are unhearable.

The transients in music are essential to communicate 'feel' to the
listener, or the feeling of 'being there', as are all timing issues in
recorded music.
if the microphone/preamp/recorder/playback chain preserves the time
relationship of the transients in the music, the effect is that the
music seems to be coming from a definite spot, and is realistic.

From a mixdown point of view sometimes you want to reduce transient
'resolution' and the spikes (amplitude/clipping) in order to put the
sound deeper into the soundstage (or place it louder without it
overtaking the mix) and facilitate blending the individual sounds so
that nothing 'sticks out'. This is why sometimes old tube equipment
that has gone fuzzy (or is mushy) can make it easier to mix some
things.

I feel that the ideal situation for 'being there' transient realism
seems to be one where very few mikes are used and high quality tube
equipment (little feedback) are implemented to amplify etc.

ribbon mikes also seem to be more realistic transient-wise than
condensers, with the exception maybe of the big German mics (u47 etc)
that used no feedback and used relatively big tubes for amplification.

Although I respect the opinion of people who advocate digital as a
superior medium, my experience and that of other people who have
worked on both and listen to recordings from all eras is that
high-speed analog is superior (if the recorder's electronics don't
smear the transients etc.)

in fact, I have discovered while hunting down old classical records
from the 30s to the late 50's that the 78 record with all it's noise
and distortion has a realism to it that surprises listeners used to
cd's.
recording to cd makes the 78 lose it's 'feel' and so you hear the
distortion more than the music.

Anyone heard direct stream digital? it should be the best digital
system..ideally.

"ThomasT" wrote in message
om

I wonder how exactly must transients be reproduced by a (digital)
system.

They should be reproduced exactly enough to be audibly indistinguishable
from transients that are reproduced with far higher accuracy.

At the one hand, time and phase differences are critical for location.

True, but the ear does not directly hear time and phase differences at high
frequencies. It does hear some of their consequences, such as frequency
response variations. However, reproducing those frequency response
variations with a high degree of audio perfection is not all that difficult
with modern digital equipment.

At the other hand short clippings on attacks (-totally damaged curve!)
are unhearable.

That would be due to temporal masking, and similar effects. Loud sounds
inhibit audibility of sounds that follow them. Perhaps surprisingly, loud
sounds also inhibit audibility of sounds that precede them.

Although I respect the opinion of people who advocate digital as a
superior medium, my experience and that of other people who have
worked on both and listen to recordings from all eras is that
high-speed analog is superior (if the recorder's electronics don't
smear the transients etc.)

in fact, I have discovered while hunting down old classical records
from the 30s to the late 50's that the 78 record with all it's noise
and distortion has a realism to it that surprises listeners used to
cd's.
recording to cd makes the 78 lose it's 'feel' and so you hear the
distortion more than the music.


Geeze...

I'm not even going to bother...

Mark