[geoff]

On 8/11/2017 8:10 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote:
i have listened to 16 and 24 bit wav files processed with 40 bit and 64 bit=
DSP - the 16 with 40 bit is horrid, the 24 bit is better but the 24 bit p=
rocessed with DAWs and digital outboard gear using 64 bit math - are VERY a=
udibly better overall, and ez to hear the difference even when dithered dow=
n to 16/44.1 CD and or compressed with a high rate MP3.

....

can you make a quantitative measurement to demonstrate this.

Probably not anymore. I think you'll be hard-pressed to find anything
still doing fixed-point math for audio applications any longer. Maybe some
cheaper standalone gear.

But then, I tend to avoid doing any processing in the digital domain at all.
--scott


You should give it a try.

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff wrote:
On 8/11/2017 8:10 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

But then, I tend to avoid doing any processing in the digital domain at all.

You should give it a try.

Well, sometimes you can't avoid it. For the most part, I should say that I
tend to avoid doing processing of any sort if it can be avoided.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

On 8/11/2017 8:17 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoff wrote:
On 8/11/2017 8:10 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

But then, I tend to avoid doing any processing in the digital domain at all.

You should give it a try.

Well, sometimes you can't avoid it. For the most part, I should say that I
tend to avoid doing processing of any sort if it can be avoided.
--scott


Not even the universally applicable 3K-boost ?!!! (oops 3k)

geoff

[[email protected]]

24/96On Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 4:08:04 PM UTC-5, Geoff wrote:
On 8/11/2017 8:17 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoff wrote:
On 8/11/2017 8:10 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

But then, I tend to avoid doing any processing in the digital domain at all.

You should give it a try.

Well, sometimes you can't avoid it. For the most part, I should say that I
tend to avoid doing processing of any sort if it can be avoided.
--scott


Not even the universally applicable 3K-boost ?!!! (oops 3k)

geoff


3k at 24/96. Might give it a try, think it deserve better!!!

I am taking that (3k) self discovery to my grave!!

Jack

[John Williamson]

On 07/11/2017 21:38, wrote:

I am taking that (3k) self discovery to my grave!!

Best place for it.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 4:41:54 PM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
On 07/11/2017 21:38, wrote:

I am taking that (3k) self discovery to my grave!!

Best place for it.

I THOUGHT we were beyond this. Let's be friends.
Actually, when I have a MINUTE to spare, both you and Geoff can teach me everything you know about impressive sounding audio.

Peace.

Jack


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

To be fair, a 3k boost or cut with EQ will be far more
audible than the differences between 24/96 or
24/48.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 11/7/2017 8:15 PM, wrote:
To be fair, a 3k boost or cut with EQ will be far more
audible than the differences between 24/96 or
24/48.

To be accurate, such a boost or cut will be equally noticeable at either
sample rate. Whether it's good or bad depends on the source.


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "
To be accurate, such a boost or cut will be equally noticeable at either
sample rate. Whether it's good or bad depends on the source.


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com "


That's more or less what I said. So much stink
is made about high res, especially in delivery,
that no one gives a second thought to
decsions made at the mastering level, or
back in the recording process.

[None]

theccchhhhhkkkkhhhhmaaah:

So much stink is made about high res, especially in delivery,
that no one gives a second thought to decsions made at the
mastering level, or back in the recording process.

Yes, by now everyone knows that you don't have the slightest idea how
decisions are made at the mastering level or in the recording process. And
you never will. You're just too stupid. KSFNJU. FCKWAFA.

[Trevor]

On 8/11/2017 6:10 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote:
i have listened to 16 and 24 bit wav files processed with 40 bit and 64 bit=
DSP - the 16 with 40 bit is horrid, the 24 bit is better but the 24 bit p=
rocessed with DAWs and digital outboard gear using 64 bit math - are VERY a=
udibly better overall, and ez to hear the difference even when dithered dow=
n to 16/44.1 CD and or compressed with a high rate MP3.

....

can you make a quantitative measurement to demonstrate this.

Far easier to make a quantitative measurement to show minute differences
than it is to hear them! And far easier to claim to hear minute
differences than to prove it. :-)


Probably not anymore. I think you'll be hard-pressed to find anything
still doing fixed-point math for audio applications any longer. Maybe some
cheaper standalone gear.

But then, I tend to avoid doing any processing in the digital domain at all.

Not enough added distortion for you?

Trevor.

[geoff]

On 8/11/2017 10:36 PM, Trevor wrote:


But then, I tend to avoid doing any processing in the digital domain
at all.

Not enough added distortion for you?

There was some plugin (VST !) version '500-series' module or
channel-strip not long ago that claimed to have modeled the tolerance
variations and nonlinearities of the individual discrete components of
the hardware version, randomly between instances.

That should do it.

geoff

[John Williamson]

On 08/11/2017 10:14, geoff wrote:
On 8/11/2017 10:36 PM, Trevor wrote:


But then, I tend to avoid doing any processing in the digital domain
at all.

Not enough added distortion for you?

There was some plugin (VST !) version '500-series' module or
channel-strip not long ago that claimed to have modeled the tolerance
variations and nonlinearities of the individual discrete components of
the hardware version, randomly between instances.

That should do it.

Not really, as the real thing is pretty consistent each time you turn it
on, while differing between units. To minimise day to day differences,
you leave the unit turned on overnight.

The randomness you are referring to will give a different result every
time you turn it on as if you had bought a new unit overnight.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Trevor]

On 8/11/2017 9:14 PM, geoff wrote:
On 8/11/2017 10:36 PM, Trevor wrote:


But then, I tend to avoid doing any processing in the digital domain
at all.

Not enough added distortion for you?

There was some plugin (VST !) version '500-series' module or
channel-strip not long ago that claimed to have modeled the tolerance
variations and nonlinearities of the individual discrete components of
the hardware version, randomly between instances.

That should do it.

:-)
Nah, just like tape emulation, or actually bouncing to tape and back,
the purists won't have a bar of it whether they can tell the difference
or not. You must do it the hard way, like playing vinyl, when digital
can easily capture all the wow, flutter, rumble, mis-tracking, pinch
effect, limited channel separation, frequency non linearities, THD, IMD
etc. forever in a more easily accessible format. :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 8/11/2017 10:25 PM, John Williamson wrote:
On 08/11/2017 10:14, geoff wrote:
On 8/11/2017 10:36 PM, Trevor wrote:
But then, I tend to avoid doing any processing in the digital domain
at all.

Not enough added distortion for you?

There was some plugin (VST !) version '500-series' module or
channel-strip not long ago that claimed to have modeled the tolerance
variations and nonlinearities of the individual discrete components of
the hardware version, randomly between instances.

That should do it.

Not really, as the real thing is pretty consistent each time you turn it
on, while differing between units. To minimise day to day differences,
you leave the unit turned on overnight.

The randomness you are referring to will give a different result every
time you turn it on as if you had bought a new unit overnight.


Er, leave the computer on then, just like you would the real unit. :-)
There is probably a "random" option setting anyway if you really care,
although I'm pretty sure you don't. :-)

Trevor.

[John Williamson]

On 08/11/2017 12:12, Trevor wrote:
On 8/11/2017 10:25 PM, John Williamson wrote:
The randomness you are referring to will give a different result every
time you turn it on as if you had bought a new unit overnight.


Er, leave the computer on then, just like you would the real unit. :-)
There is probably a "random" option setting anyway if you really care,
although I'm pretty sure you don't. :-)

It's software, so each time you call the program, it initialises
according to the settings. This means the only way to ensure continuity
is to either put the computer to sleep or hibernate it with the DAW and
plugins all open. Close the DAW program, and you get a newly randomised,
set of plugins when you re-open it, unless you can disable the
randomisation which sort of defeats the object.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 08/11/2017 12:08, Trevor wrote:
On 8/11/2017 9:14 PM, geoff wrote:
On 8/11/2017 10:36 PM, Trevor wrote:


But then, I tend to avoid doing any processing in the digital domain
at all.

Not enough added distortion for you?

There was some plugin (VST !) version '500-series' module or
channel-strip not long ago that claimed to have modeled the tolerance
variations and nonlinearities of the individual discrete components of
the hardware version, randomly between instances.

That should do it.

:-)
Nah, just like tape emulation, or actually bouncing to tape and back,
the purists won't have a bar of it whether they can tell the difference
or not. You must do it the hard way, like playing vinyl, when digital
can easily capture all the wow, flutter, rumble, mis-tracking, pinch
effect, limited channel separation, frequency non linearities, THD, IMD
etc. forever in a more easily accessible format. :-)

Yes, but you lose the *warmth* of the analogue experience, as the
digital stuff robs it of all reality. ;-)

Or so the Audiophools think. Personally I would be processing the
digitisation to remove the imperfections as far as possible.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

snip
...... when digital
can easily capture all the wow, flutter, rumble, mis-tracking, pinch
effect, .....snip


what is the pinch effect?

m

[geoff]

On 9/11/2017 1:24 AM, John Williamson wrote:
On 08/11/2017 12:12, Trevor wrote:
On 8/11/2017 10:25 PM, John Williamson wrote:
The randomness you are referring to will give a different result
every time you turn it on as if you had bought a new unit overnight.


Er, leave the computer on then, just like you would the real unit. :-)
There is probably a "random" option setting anyway if you really care,
although I'm pretty sure you don't. :-)

It's software, so each time you call the program, it initialises
according to the settings. This means the only way to ensure continuity
is to either put the computer to sleep or hibernate it with the DAW and
plugins all open. Close the DAW program, and you get a newly randomised,
set of plugins when you re-open it, unless you can disable the
randomisation which sort of defeats the object.




Or just use a different plugin, without the designed-in flaws, and enjoy
the accuracy instead.

geoff

[geoff]

On 9/11/2017 1:27 AM, John Williamson wrote:
On 08/11/2017 12:08, Trevor wrote:

Nah, just like tape emulation, or actually bouncing to tape and back,
the purists won't have a bar of it whether they can tell the
difference or not. You must do it the hard way, like playing vinyl,
when digital can easily capture all the wow, flutter, rumble,
mis-tracking, pinch effect, limited channel separation, frequency non
linearities, THD, IMD etc. forever in a more easily accessible format.
:-)

Yes, but you lose the *warmth* of the analogue experience, as the
digital stuff robs it of all reality. ;-)

Or so the Audiophools think. Personally I would be processing the
digitisation to remove the imperfections as far as possible.


Naa - just turn the treble down a tad. Or move your head a few inches !

geoff

[geoff]

On 9/11/2017 2:54 AM, wrote:
snip
..... when digital
can easily capture all the wow, flutter, rumble, mis-tracking, pinch
effect, .....snip


what is the pinch effect?

m


"Ouch !" ?

geoff

[Trevor]

On 9/11/2017 12:54 AM, wrote:
snip
..... when digital
can easily capture all the wow, flutter, rumble, mis-tracking, pinch
effect, .....snip


what is the pinch effect?

This is the first URL Google turns up.
https://www.vinylengine.com/turntabl...ic.php?t=31865

I'll leave it up to you to search for others.

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 1:50:23 AM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:
On 9/11/2017 12:54 AM, wrote:
snip
..... when digital
can easily capture all the wow, flutter, rumble, mis-tracking, pinch
effect, .....snip


what is the pinch effect?

This is the first URL Google turns up.
https://www.vinylengine.com/turntabl...ic.php?t=31865

I'll leave it up to you to search for others.

Trevor.

ok thanks

thankfully most of us no longer have to worry about it

m

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 1:50:23 AM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:
what is the pinch effect?

This is the first URL Google turns up.
https://www.vinylengine.com/turntabl...ic.php?t=31865

I'll leave it up to you to search for others.


ok thanks

thankfully most of us no longer have to worry about it

Because we use modern fineline (van den Hul) styli.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Trevor]

On 10/11/2017 1:55 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 1:50:23 AM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:
On 9/11/2017 12:54 AM, wrote:
snip
..... when digital
can easily capture all the wow, flutter, rumble, mis-tracking, pinch
effect, .....snip


what is the pinch effect?

This is the first URL Google turns up.
https://www.vinylengine.com/turntabl...ic.php?t=31865

I'll leave it up to you to search for others.


ok thanks

thankfully most of us no longer have to worry about it


Yes, but strange many want to go back. I wonder how long it will last?

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 10/11/2017 2:10 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote:
On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 1:50:23 AM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:
what is the pinch effect?

This is the first URL Google turns up.
https://www.vinylengine.com/turntabl...ic.php?t=31865

I'll leave it up to you to search for others.


ok thanks

thankfully most of us no longer have to worry about it

Because we use modern fineline (van den Hul) styli.
--scott


VdH and Shibata styli were not commonly used in the glory days of vinyl,
even less so now by the masses. I'm glad I don't have to replace my
V15VMR anyway. Once copied to digital I can now play forever without
wearing out the stylus thank god!


Trevor.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoff wrote:
On 8/11/2017 8:10 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

But then, I tend to avoid doing any processing in the digital
domain at all.

You should give it a try.

Well, sometimes you can't avoid it. For the most part, I should say
that I tend to avoid doing processing of any sort if it can be
avoided. --scott


I went for a long time thinking simple biquads were a solved problem.

Nope. There are good compromises. But they're hardly cookbook items.

--
Les Cargill

[geoff]

On 10/11/2017 5:12 PM, Les Cargill wrote:


I went for a long time thinking simple biquads were a solved problem.

Nope. There are good compromises. But they're hardly cookbook items.



Naa. Lots of work at the gym for them.

geoff

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 9:44:57 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote: "
To be accurate, such a boost or cut will be equally noticeable at either
sample rate. Whether it's good or bad depends on the source.


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com "


That's more or less what I said. So much stink
is made about high res, especially in delivery,
that no one gives a second thought to
decsions made at the mastering level, or
back in the recording process.

Yeah, high res' crap. Putting low res' content on high res' media or format outputs low res'.

Great point!!

Jack

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 7:28:01 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
On 08/11/2017 12:08, Trevor wrote:
On 8/11/2017 9:14 PM, geoff wrote:
On 8/11/2017 10:36 PM, Trevor wrote:


But then, I tend to avoid doing any processing in the digital domain
at all.

Not enough added distortion for you?

There was some plugin (VST !) version '500-series' module or
channel-strip not long ago that claimed to have modeled the tolerance
variations and nonlinearities of the individual discrete components of
the hardware version, randomly between instances.

That should do it.

:-)
Nah, just like tape emulation, or actually bouncing to tape and back,
the purists won't have a bar of it whether they can tell the difference
or not. You must do it the hard way, like playing vinyl, when digital
can easily capture all the wow, flutter, rumble, mis-tracking, pinch
effect, limited channel separation, frequency non linearities, THD, IMD
etc. forever in a more easily accessible format. :-)

Yes, but you lose the *warmth* of the analogue experience, as the
digital stuff robs it of all reality. ;-)

Or so the Audiophools think. Personally I would be processing the
digitisation to remove the imperfections as far as possible.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

This "warmth" they talk about is the vacuum tube equipment they use!

Jack