Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
RAP5/2/01 Scott Dorsey "Odaiko"
Carey Carlan wrote:
Yes, 14 bits are plenty for good dynamics. Notice how grainy the flute sounds, though? It's not horrible, but it's not completely natural. On a modern 16-bit converter it would be much more smooth. But considering the technology of the day when it was recorded... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
RAP5/2/01 Scott Dorsey "Odaiko"
James Boyk wrote in
: Carey Carlan wrote: Yes, 14 bits are plenty for good dynamics. The BBC published a Research Dept. paper long ago with the conclusion that linear PCM required 22 bits to capture the dynamics of an "unconditioned" signal (uncompressed, etc.) from sources of widest dynamic range (e.g., big band); 20 bits for the actual dynamic range, and 2 more to allow for possible mis-setting of the window. We're talking specific examples here. Take your ears out of the book and listen. Given the room acoustics, the amount of background noise, the power of the given instruments, can your ears truly say that, in THIS recording, the dynamic range was compromised? I'm not asking if the recording is perfect. I'm just asking if the dynamic range of the recording was adequate to record the performance you hear? Somewhere, sometime a 22 bit recording is necessary. This wasn't it. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
RAP5/2/01 Scott Dorsey "Odaiko"
James Boyk wrote in
: The BBC published a Research Dept. paper long ago with the conclusion that linear PCM required 22 bits to capture the dynamics of an "unconditioned" signal (uncompressed, etc.) from sources of widest dynamic range (e.g., big band); 20 bits for the actual dynamic range, and 2 more to allow for possible mis-setting of the window. LOL. No ****. I mean, do you really need BBC to tell you 20-22 bits are needed to cover some 120-130dB from the threshold of hearing to the threshold of pain? "Published a paper"???. Man, I'm still laughing. How much more pompous can you get? Vladan www.geocities.com/vla_dan_l www.mp3.com/lesly , www.mp3.com/shook , www.mp3.com/lesly2 www.kunsttick.com/artists/vuskovic/indexdat.htm |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
RAP5/2/01 Scott Dorsey "Odaiko"
In article Vladan
writes: James Boyk wrote in : The BBC published a Research Dept. paper long ago with the conclusion that linear PCM required 22 bits to capture the dynamics of an "unconditioned" signal (uncompressed, etc.) from sources of widest dynamic range (e.g., big band); 20 bits for the actual dynamic range, and 2 more to allow for possible mis-setting of the window. LOL. No ****. I mean, do you really need BBC to tell you 20-22 bits are needed to cover some 120-130dB from the threshold of hearing to the threshold of pain? "Published a paper"???. Man, I'm still laughing. How much more pompous can you get? Vladan The BBC knows something about his topic. You're free to disparage their work when you have presented data to refute theirs. -Jay -- x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
RAP5/2/01 Scott Dorsey "Odaiko"
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 21:37:11 -0700, James Boyk
wrote: And so pompous you think that a statistical matter has an absolute answer. ????????? Sorry, I'm too stupid fior your wisdom. Vladan www.geocities.com/vla_dan_l www.mp3.com/lesly , www.mp3.com/shook , www.mp3.com/lesly2 www.kunsttick.com/artists/vuskovic/indexdat.htm |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
RAP5/2/01 Scott Dorsey "Odaiko"
In article "Arny Krueger"
writes: "James Boyk" wrote in message Carey Carlan wrote: Yes, 14 bits are plenty for good dynamics. The BBC published a Research Dept. paper long ago with the conclusion that linear PCM required 22 bits to capture the dynamics of an "unconditioned" signal (uncompressed, etc.) from sources of widest dynamic range (e.g., big band); 20 bits for the actual dynamic range, and 2 more to allow for possible mis-setting of the window. There's some totally unreasonable assumptions here - like that the big band would be playing in a NC10 room, and that the musicians themselves contribute only music to the sound level in the room. They're interested in the limiting cases, not the average. I'm surprised that measurements on the deck of an fully-operational aircraft carrier deck were left out (and not compared to some empty chamber in a dry cave 1,000 feet underground)! Back in the real world, if you ever find music that peaks say 80 dB over room tone: (a) be sure you are using ear protection (b) make a note of it, because it's an outrageously exceptional condition Our studio noise floor is about 21 dBA. The output of a Musicman 2x12 guitar amp is often 110 dB. That's not unusual at all in popular music. (Well, maybe the 21 dB noise floor is a bit atypical...) I agree on the hearing protection. -Jay -- x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
RAP5/2/01 Scott Dorsey "Odaiko"
I think you guys are inventing an argument where there doesn't need to
be one. Surely the BBC's research told them they didn't need MORE than 22 bits to capture the dynamics of an "unconditioned" signal. They obviously know that not all signals "require" that much resolution. ulysses In article , Carey Carlan wrote: James Boyk wrote in : Carey Carlan wrote: Yes, 14 bits are plenty for good dynamics. The BBC published a Research Dept. paper long ago with the conclusion that linear PCM required 22 bits to capture the dynamics of an "unconditioned" signal (uncompressed, etc.) from sources of widest dynamic range (e.g., big band); 20 bits for the actual dynamic range, and 2 more to allow for possible mis-setting of the window. We're talking specific examples here. Take your ears out of the book and listen. Given the room acoustics, the amount of background noise, the power of the given instruments, can your ears truly say that, in THIS recording, the dynamic range was compromised? I'm not asking if the recording is perfect. I'm just asking if the dynamic range of the recording was adequate to record the performance you hear? Somewhere, sometime a 22 bit recording is necessary. This wasn't it. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
RAP5/2/01 Scott Dorsey "Odaiko"
"Jay Kadis" wrote in message
In article "Arny Krueger" writes: "James Boyk" wrote in message Carey Carlan wrote: Yes, 14 bits are plenty for good dynamics. The BBC published a Research Dept. paper long ago with the conclusion that linear PCM required 22 bits to capture the dynamics of an "unconditioned" signal (uncompressed, etc.) from sources of widest dynamic range (e.g., big band); 20 bits for the actual dynamic range, and 2 more to allow for possible mis-setting of the window. There's some totally unreasonable assumptions here - like that the big band would be playing in a NC10 room, and that the musicians themselves contribute only music to the sound level in the room. They're interested in the limiting cases, not the average. I have nothing against scientific investigation, but I favor a complete analysis of the noise floor when people start making claims about what kind of dynamic range it takes to record and reproduce music. My method for analyzing that is to look at raw tracks from a recording session. Obviously recording starts before musicians start playing. The sound level at that point sets the background noise level. I don't adjust recording levels while musicians are playing. So, the peak level on the track, compared to background noise level at the beginning or end of the recording set the recording's actual dynamic range. On the best day of my life I see something like 70 dB, and that's with close micing of singers and acoustical instruments and direct connection to digital electronic instruments. A secondary experiment is to bring the noise floor in by stages. I've made recordings where I turn the mic preamps off, start recording and then turn on the mic preamps, but the room is still totally empty except me. Then I record room tone with just me in the room. Then I record room tone during rehearsal, but when nobody's doing nothing. Then I record room tone with the powered instruments turned on. etc. I'm surprised that measurements on the deck of an fully-operational aircraft carrier deck were left out (and not compared to some empty chamber in a dry cave 1,000 feet underground)! Back in the real world, if you ever find music that peaks say 80 dB over room tone: (a) be sure you are using ear protection (b) make a note of it, because it's an outrageously exceptional condition Our studio noise floor is about 21 dBA. And that's with musicians in place, ready to play? Of course not! Musicians raise the noise floor even higher when they start to play (exclusive of course, of the sounds made by their musical instruments). The output of a Musician 2x12 guitar amp is often 110 dB. The fallacy here is that the guitar amp itself significantly raises the noise floor in the room when it's turned on, set to go, but the guitarist isn't playing. That's not unusual at all in popular music. (Well, maybe the 21 dB noise floor is a bit atypical...) A room's 21 dB noise floor is history, as soon as there are people in the room. They breath and move around. At 21 dB SPL, just about everything is pretty noisy. I agree on the hearing protection. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
RAP5/2/01 Scott Dorsey "Odaiko"
"LeBaron & Alrich" wrote in message
Jay Kadis wrote: Our studio noise floor is about 21 dBA. The output of a Musicman 2x12 guitar amp is often 110 dB. That's not unusual at all in popular music. But it's a great reason not to be in that room when that amp is cranking. Or use ear protection. However, I've never seen an amp set up to play at 110 dB that was exactly quiet before the guitarist started playing. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
RAP5/2/01 Scott Dorsey "Odaiko"
In article "Arny Krueger"
writes: "LeBaron & Alrich" wrote in message Jay Kadis wrote: Our studio noise floor is about 21 dBA. The output of a Musicman 2x12 guitar amp is often 110 dB. That's not unusual at all in popular music. But it's a great reason not to be in that room when that amp is cranking. Or use ear protection. However, I've never seen an amp set up to play at 110 dB that was exactly quiet before the guitarist started playing. Yeah, but noise gates can alter that. While it's true that guitar amps are basically compressors, they are not necessarily always in the mix even if they're on. -Jay -- x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
RAP5/2/01 Scott Dorsey "Odaiko"
"Jay Kadis" wrote in message
... In article writes: Jay Kadis wrote: Our studio noise floor is about 21 dBA. The output of a Musicman 2x12 guitar amp is often 110 dB. That's not unusual at all in popular music. But it's a great reason not to be in that room when that amp is cranking. -- ha One of many, actually. I've been using a nice little Blues Jr. myself. Reasonable levels with good tone. -Jay -- x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x I see that you're at Stanford, are you familiar with Curt Emery in El Cerrito? He makes a little 8 watt tube head that's great for recording. Very simple, Class A. Better living through dynamics. I just did a bunch of stuff with it and was quite pleased. Darryl |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
RAP5/2/01 Scott Dorsey "Odaiko"
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
RAP5/2/01 Scott Dorsey "Odaiko"
The BBC knows something about his topic. You're free to disparage their
work when you have presented data to refute theirs. I don't disagree with BBC. 20-22db is exactly how much bits is needed to cover whole dynamic range of effective hearing, from silence to pain. But when someone as pompous as Boyk comes in with "BBC published a paper" on that, that's just plain ridiculous and funny. It may be good enough to impress his students: ... wow this "professeure" of ours, he reads AES papers, wow, one day we may end being so educate, like he is. I can't help but LOL. Not taking any sides here, but is it possible that this BBC paper that was published on & anon ago was published BEFORE there were 20-bit (or 22-bit/24-bit,etc) convertors? If so, then 14 bits may have been the best reference they could have come up with at the time. Just wondering. NeilH |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
RAP5/2/01 Scott Dorsey "Odaiko"
James Boyk wrote: Any experimental conclusions in this field will be statistical; for instance, the BBC work concluded that with *source of widest dynamic range and with the mike signal from that source *unconditioned, *22 bits was necessary to conceal *"granularity distortion" for *99% of listeners. Each starred element is relevant and important; for instance, 1% of listeners _could_ still hear the granularity. Those who think that something like this--something statistical and empirical--can be replaced by "a priori" thinking are missing the boat. What is "granularity distortion"? Is that the same as quantization noise or does it refer to some other phenomenon? Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
RAP5/2/01 Scott Dorsey "Odaiko"
On 13 Aug 2003 00:04:44 GMT, (NeilH011) wrote:
Not taking any sides here, but is it possible that this BBC paper that was published on & anon ago was published BEFORE there were 20-bit (or 22-bit/24-bit,etc) convertors? If so, then 14 bits may have been the best reference they could have come up with at the time. Just wondering. Quite possible, afterall, all knoweledge has to be writen somewhere for referwnce, but nowdays it's really unnescessarry, if not unapropriate to call on such an paper. I'm sure the man was posing. Vladan www.geocities.com/vla_dan_l www.mp3.com/lesly , www.mp3.com/shook , www.mp3.com/lesly2 www.kunsttick.com/artists/vuskovic/indexdat.htm |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
RAP5/2/01 Scott Dorsey "Odaiko"
NeilH011 wrote:
...is it possible that this BBC paper ...was published BEFORE there were 20-bit (or 22-bit/24-bit,etc) convertors? If so, then 14 bits may have been the best reference they could have come up with at the time. Yes, the paper dates from '77 or so if I remember correctly. But for purposes of the experiment, the researcher was cleverly able to simulate having more bits than he really had. Of course it would be best to do it with true 22-bit or better yet 24-bit converters; unfortunately, there aren't any true 24-bit converters even today, so far as I know. James Boyk |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
RAP5/2/01 Scott Dorsey "Odaiko"
Buster Mudd wrote:
(LeBaron & Alrich) wrote... Jay Kadis wrote: Our studio noise floor is about 21 dBA. The output of a Musicman 2x12 guitar amp is often 110 dB. That's not unusual at all in popular music. But it's a great reason not to be in that room when that amp is cranking. What, due to the presence of popular music? SPL does seem to be popular. -- ha |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
RAP5/2/01 Scott Dorsey "Odaiko"
James Boyk wrote:
Any experimental conclusions in this field will be statistical; for instance, the BBC work concluded that with *source of widest dynamic range and with the mike signal from that source *unconditioned, *22 bits was necessary to conceal *"granularity distortion" for *99% of listeners. Each starred element is relevant and important; for instance, 1% of listeners _could_ still hear the granularity. Those who think that something like this--something statistical and empirical--can be replaced by "a priori" thinking are missing the boat. If you want to be statistical and empirical you have to define the following: 1) source of widest dynamic range - how wide is it? 60dB? 130dB? 2000dB? 2) unconditioned - untreated, or any imaginable, or...? 3) conceal - make listeners unaware of? Make the effect inaudiable? Under what conditions (unconditioned?). Is tested signal played at SPL equal to source? 4) granularity - what is it? 5) 99% - how many in number? Please check that "paper" and tell us. Vladan www.geocities.com/vla_dan_l www.mp3.com/lesly , www.mp3.com/shook , www.mp3.com/lesly2 www.kunsttick.com/artists/vuskovic/indexdat.htm |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
RAP5/2/01 Scott Dorsey "Odaiko"
Sorry folks, have lost the start of this thread, and cannot be regained ,
but Scott, you made me spill my cup of coffee ! geoff |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
RAP5/2/01 Scott Dorsey "Odaiko"
Geoff Wood -nospam wrote:
Sorry folks, have lost the start of this thread, and cannot be regained , but Scott, you made me spill my cup of coffee ! You shoulda read the LINER NOTES first. evil chuckle --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
RAP5/2/01 Scott Dorsey "Odaiko"
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Geoff Wood -nospam wrote: Sorry folks, have lost the start of this thread, and cannot be regained , but Scott, you made me spill my cup of coffee ! You shoulda read the LINER NOTES first. evil chuckle --scott I didn't get any liner notes. Should I sue somebody ?-) geoff |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
RAP5/2/01 Scott Dorsey "Odaiko"
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote: Geoff Wood -nospam wrote: Sorry folks, have lost the start of this thread, and cannot be regained , but Scott, you made me spill my cup of coffee ! You shoulda read the LINER NOTES first. evil chuckle --scott I didn't get any liner notes. Should I sue somebody ?-) geoff The liner notes are the equivilant of a small book; way too much to print and include with the discs. So, at the very start, we decided we would keep the liner notes on the Internet. They reside at: http://www.recaudiopro.net . I believe the notes are also available as a large text file from one of the members. Harvey Gerst Indian Trail Recording Studio http://www.ITRstudio.com/ |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
RAP5/2/01 Scott Dorsey "Odaiko"
"Harvey Gerst" wrote in message I didn't get any liner notes. Should I sue somebody ?-) geoff The liner notes are the equivilant of a small book; way too much to print and include with the discs. So, at the very start, we decided we would keep the liner notes on the Internet. They reside at: http://www.recaudiopro.net . I believe the notes are also available as a large text file from one of the members. There *was* a smilie there Harv ! Without printing the 'book' one needs to be diligent to keep up with the notes, or one's drycleaning bill can get a bit much ..... geoff |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
RAP5/2/01 Scott Dorsey "Odaiko"
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 07:45:08 +1200, "Geoff Wood"
-nospam wrote: Without printing the 'book' one needs to be diligent to keep up with the notes, or one's drycleaning bill can get a bit much ..... Knight: "That rabbit's dynamite." King: "Go and change your armor." Chris Hornbeck |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Scott Wheeler's extraordinary life. | Audio Opinions | |||
Scott quacking about Arny Krueger and Libel | Audio Opinions | |||
Scott Reams' reaction to Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference | Pro Audio |