Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
digital photography vs. digital audio
Are there any meaningful parallels that can be drawn between digital
photography and digital audio? For example, if you take a digital photo with a high-megapixel count, this means you can enlarge the picture more before you start to see imperfections. So if you record a 24-bit signal just under clipping, does that mean you can get away with wider level adjustments in the DAW mixing environment before noticing signal degradation? I've formed some analogies: linearity of audio recorder= lens quality frequency range of recorder=color accuracy bit depth of recorder= pixel count Any truth to that? |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
digital photography vs. digital audio
wrote in message
oups.com... Are there any meaningful parallels that can be drawn between digital photography and digital audio? Yes, one is 1D, the other 2D. For example, if you take a digital photo with a high-megapixel count, this means you can enlarge the picture more before you start to see imperfections. So if you record a 24-bit signal just under clipping, does that mean you can get away with wider level adjustments in the DAW mixing environment before noticing signal degradation? I've formed some analogies: linearity of audio recorder= lens quality frequency range of recorder=color accuracy bit depth of recorder= pixel count Purely from a mathematical 1 dimensional audio to 2 dimensional photography comparison, it would be more like this: linearity of audio converter = linearity of video converter frequency range of audio recorder = combined resolution of image sensor and lense bit depth of recorder = bit depth of image sensor sample frequency of recorder = number of pixels on one image line. Meindert |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
digital photography vs. digital audio
"Meindert Sprang" wrote in message
l.nl... wrote in message oups.com... Are there any meaningful parallels that can be drawn between digital photography and digital audio? Yes, one is 1D, the other 2D. Wouldn't it depend on the audio source, how it was recorded and the playback system? mono ~ single point to 1D stereo ~ 1D to 2D quad/surround ~ 2D to 3D octophonic ~ 3D etc, etc Photography is at least 2D and if you consider holography etc it can also be 3D. John L Rice |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
digital photography vs. digital audio
wrote in message
oups.com Are there any meaningful parallels that can be drawn between digital photography and digital audio? Other than questionable metaphors, probably not. For example, if you take a digital photo with a high-megapixel count, this means you can enlarge the picture more before you start to see imperfections. I've never seen a photograph of something with substance that could be confused with a view of the origional object, after a close inspection. So if you record a 24-bit signal just under clipping, does that mean you can get away with wider level adjustments in the DAW mixing environment before noticing signal degradation? Now that is true. If you attenuate a FS 16 bit signal 64 dB, there is only about 32 dB left. This is usually highly audible degradation. If you attenuate a FS 24 bit signal 64 dB, there is still about 80 dB left, and that is rarely if ever an audible amount of degradation. Lesson to learn - use 24 bits or more for mixing and EFX. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
digital photography vs. digital audio
Arny Krueger wrote:
I've never seen a photograph of something with substance that could be confused with a view of the origional object, after a close inspection. Have you heard an audio recording of something with substance (e.g. singer, instrument) that could be confused with listening of the original object after a close inspection? I haven't... Boris -- http://www.borislau.de - computer science, music, photos |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
digital photography vs. digital audio
Boris Lau wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote: I've never seen a photograph of something with substance that could be confused with a view of the origional object, after a close inspection. Have you heard an audio recording of something with substance (e.g. singer, instrument) that could be confused with listening of the original object after a close inspection? I haven't... I have, once or twice in my life. My goal is to make that experience more common. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
digital photography vs. digital audio
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 14:31:51 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Boris Lau wrote: Have you heard an audio recording of something with substance (e.g. singer, instrument) that could be confused with listening of the original object after a close inspection? I haven't... I have, once or twice in my life. My goal is to make that experience more common. Bet a nickel it WASN'T on Memorex. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
digital photography vs. digital audio
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
digital photography vs. digital audio
Paul Repacholi wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) writes: I have, once or twice in my life. My goal is to make that experience more common. Could you share with us what they where? Well, one of them was the first time I heard the LS 3/5a. The vocal sounded like it was right there in front of me, and it was the first time I ever heard a playback that sounded like the real thing. Then the band came in and it was clear that it was a tape.... but with just the vocal, it was nothing short of eerie. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
digital photography vs. digital audio
"Boris Lau" wrote in message
... Arny Krueger wrote: I've never seen a photograph of something with substance that could be confused with a view of the origional object, after a close inspection. Have you heard an audio recording of something with substance (e.g. singer, instrument) that could be confused with listening of the original object after a close inspection? I haven't... I have, four times, but *not* on close inspection. On two occasions, I was standing just around the corner from my remote monitoring setup when I heard Phil Cooper (a musician I was recording) ask me a question. Both I opened my mouth to answer before realizing that the voice was recorded rather than real, and that Phil was standing in front of me with his lips not moving. On one occasion, I was in an audio showroom when somebody banged something directly behind my right shoulder. I jumped and spun around; of course, there was nothing there. They had a not-particularly great JBL surround system in the room. Finally, when I worked as service manager at the Speaker and Stereo Store, I was coming from the back room toward the front when I stopped and said, "Why does Wylie have a drum kit set up in the store?" When I came into the room, I realized it wasn't a drum kit, but an SACD recording of one, played back on not-particularly-great AR speakers. Four occasions, each of them times when my backbrain was fooled. All in casual mode, not analytical mode. For the record (so to speak), the first two instances were on analog tape (15 ips, half track, NAB EQ, no NR); the next was probably a Laserdisc; the last, as mentioned, was an SACD. Monitor speakers: Rogers LS3/5a's, JBL surround system, c. 2000-vintage AR speakers, respectively. Peace, Paul |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
digital photography vs. digital audio
For the record (so to speak), the first two instances were on analog tape
(15 ips, half track, NAB EQ, no NR); the next was probably a Laserdisc; the last, as mentioned, was an SACD. Monitor speakers: Rogers LS3/5a's, JBL surround system, c. 2000-vintage AR speakers, respectively. Peace, Paul AR had a touring classical string quartet back in the '60s. They would play on a local stage with AR speakers on each side of the group. As the performance went on, the drapes would close. A minute or so later the drapes would open to reveal the musicians comfortably at rest as the music continued. The changeover was pretty near seamless. That demo sold a lot of speakers. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
digital photography vs. digital audio
"Boris Lau" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: I've never seen a photograph of something with substance that could be confused with a view of the origional object, after a close inspection. Have you heard an audio recording of something with substance (e.g. singer, instrument) that could be confused with listening of the original object after a close inspection? I haven't... I have been fooled, and I've fooled others. The basic trick i've used is to make a good close-miced recording of a small group performing in a room, and then play the recording back in the same room from pretty good speakers in the same general vicinity as the origional performance. |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
digital photography vs. digital audio
Arny Krueger wrote:
Have you heard an audio recording of something with substance (e.g. singer, instrument) that could be confused with listening of the original object after a close inspection? I haven't... I have been fooled, and I've fooled others. The basic trick i've used is to make a good close-miced recording of a small group performing in a room, and then play the recording back in the same room from pretty good speakers in the same general vicinity as the origional performance. Well, yeah. But I'm still suspicious about that "close inspection part" ;-) -- http://www.borislau.de - computer science, music, photos |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
digital photography vs. digital audio
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 04:22:08 +0200, Boris Lau
wrote: I have been fooled, and I've fooled others. The basic trick i've used is to make a good close-miced recording of a small group performing in a room, and then play the recording back in the same room from pretty good speakers in the same general vicinity as the origional performance. Well, yeah. But I'm still suspicious about that "close inspection part" ;-) If you "closely inspect" a live performance, you'll find all kinds of fault with it. Hopefully, the music and the performance take over your attention so that all but gross technical imperfections are masked. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
digital photography vs. digital audio
"Boris Lau" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: Have you heard an audio recording of something with substance (e.g. singer, instrument) that could be confused with listening of the original object after a close inspection? I haven't... I have been fooled, and I've fooled others. The basic trick i've used is to make a good close-miced recording of a small group performing in a room, and then play the recording back in the same room from pretty good speakers in the same general vicinity as the origional performance. Well, yeah. But I'm still suspicious about that "close inspection part" ;-) Point well taken. I doubt that there would have been any problem discerning the audible difference in a close comparison. But as others have pointed out, real world listening tends to be monadic, which is an inherently insensitive type of evaluation. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
digital photography vs. digital audio
wrote in message
oups.com... Are there any meaningful parallels that can be drawn between digital photography and digital audio? For example, if you take a digital photo with a high-megapixel count, this means you can enlarge the picture more before you start to see imperfections. So if you record a 24-bit signal just under clipping, does that mean you can get away with wider level adjustments in the DAW mixing environment before noticing signal degradation? In theory yes; see Arny's analogy in the other thread about a signal with a 72dB dynamic range. In a 24-bit system you could theoretically drop its level 72dB, then bring it back up, and you'd only add a few dB of noise. That's not analogous to a high pixel count in photography, though; if you wanted to draw an analogy for that, it'd probably be a high audio sampling rate rather than bit depth. But you're still comparing two very different things. I've formed some analogies: linearity of audio recorder= lens quality frequency range of recorder=color accuracy bit depth of recorder= pixel count Any truth to that? Nope. Peace, Paul |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
digital photography vs. digital audio
wow, you can move -72db and then +72db with only slight signal
degradation? that's good news. i thought if you moved much more than 6db in either direction you would be causing distress on the audio file. maybe 24 bit recording with 32bit float mixing gives you more room to move without penalty than i thought. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
digital photography vs. digital audio
wrote:
wow, you can move -72db and then +72db with only slight signal degradation? that's good news. i thought if you moved much more than 6db in either direction you would be causing distress on the audio file. 6 dB is about one bit. If you take a 16 bit value, and you store it as a 24 bit integer (scaled up by four bits), you can attenuate it by four bits (24 dB) or amplify it by four bits (24 dB) without clipping, truncating, or changing its value in any way. The whole point is that the intermediate representation should be wider than the inputs and outputs, so you have this freedom. maybe 24 bit recording with 32bit float mixing gives you more room to move without penalty than i thought. Oh, go to 32 bit floats and you have enormous room to move. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
digital photography vs. digital audio
|
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
digital photography vs. digital audio
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
digital photography vs. digital audio
On Apr 26, 9:47 am, wrote:
Are there any meaningful parallels that can be drawn between digital photography and digital audio? The only parallel that I've found to be a constant between digital photography and digital audio is amount of money you shell out for more gear. Both are bottomless pits, lol. |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
digital photography vs. digital audio
wrote in message oups.com... Are there any meaningful parallels that can be drawn between digital photography and digital audio? This is meaningful to me. * One can compare two photographs side by side. * One can only listen to single performance piece of audio at a time and compare what they are now hearing to what they remember hearing earlier, and audio memory is very short. peace dawg |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
digital photography vs. digital audio
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 12:47:35 -0400, wrote
(in article .com): Are there any meaningful parallels that can be drawn between digital photography and digital audio? For example, if you take a digital photo with a high-megapixel count, this means you can enlarge the picture more before you start to see imperfections. So if you record a 24-bit signal just under clipping, does that mean you can get away with wider level adjustments in the DAW mixing environment before noticing signal degradation? yes. I've formed some analogies: linearity of audio recorder= lens quality frequency range of recorder=color accuracy bit depth of recorder= pixel count Any truth to that? As someone who is reaching across from the audio to video side, I think there is. Regards, Ty Ford --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
digital photography vs. digital audio
we could talk about how when you play a certain aphex twin track in a
spectrograph, you can see his face |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
digital photography vs. digital audio
wrote:
For example, if you take a digital photo with a high-megapixel count, this means you can enlarge the picture more before you start to see imperfections. So if you record a 24-bit signal just under clipping, does that mean you can get away with wider level adjustments in the DAW mixing environment before noticing signal degradation? bit depth of recorder= pixel count Of course there's a relation. Audio = 1D over time, Pictures = 2D over time. That's the main difference, the rest is the same. ;-) Actually, the pixel resolution is more like the sampling frequency, in audio over time, in an image over space. Zooming in means playing it slower. The higher the sampling rate, the slower you can play it before it sounds bad. The bit depth of a digital audio signal relates to the bit depth of an image. Most digital cameras use 16-bit jpeg images, the DSLR cameras can output RAW images with 24 or 32 bit. Here you can change the overall brightness (=volume) or the color curves/levels (=dynamics) without seeing steps in smooth color transitions. Boris -- http://www.borislau.de - computer science, music, photos |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
digital photography vs. digital audio
Boris Lau wrote:
Pictures = 2D over time. nope: Pictures = 2D over space. That's what I meant so say ;-) |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
digital photography vs. digital audio
wrote:
Are there any meaningful parallels that can be drawn between digital photography and digital audio? The slide into obsolescence is equally precipitous! Cheers Goaty -- _--_|\ John Lamp - in beautiful downtown Highton / \ meanderings. 2200-2400 Wednesday \_.--._/ on 94.7 the Pulse - Geelong Community Radio v http://www.myspace.com/meanderings_thepulse "You know, if the internet was analogue with tubes, this stuff wouldn't happen." - Sean S |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
digital photography vs. digital audio
John Lamp wrote:
wrote: Are there any meaningful parallels that can be drawn between digital photography and digital audio? The slide into obsolescence is equally precipitous! It is a little weird, isn't it? Definitely bad news from a business perspective. In high school, I saved up from a summer job to buy a Crown Graphic. I still have it. Today, I could probably sell it for about what I paid for it (though admittedly the dollar is worth less). You can see some photos taken with it in the latest Recording magazine; I still use it regularly. A fellow at work bought a high end digital camera three years ago and now cannot get even get media for it. This is even _worse_ than the audio world. The analogue audio world is inconsistent too: the ATR-100 machines have held their value, while you can pick up an Ampex 440 (which is really a nice sounding machine) for next to nothing. And the higher end digital stuff holds its value for at least a couple years. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
digital photography vs. digital audio
Hi,
I've formed some analogies: linearity of audio recorder= lens quality frequency range of recorder=color accuracy bit depth of recorder= pixel count Any truth to that? Sort off, and, not really. There are actually a few more dimensions and frequencies domains involved than one would expect with video. Lets start with a single pixel of a grey scale camera. - audio sample rate = video framerate The value of a video pixel is read say around 24 frames per second. - audio bit depth = video bit depth The value of a video pixel is read using a 10, 12, 14 or 16 bit A/D converter - audio gain = pixel gain an amplifier is used to increase the signal strength of a pixel before entering the A/D converter, there is also a bias component this is to seed a pixel with some more signal so that the linearity improves. - audio noise = pixel noise A pixel includes noise from the amplifiers, quantization noise from the A/D converter, and electrical noise picked up by the sensor. - diagraph (how do you write that) size = pixel well size. A larger pixel can receive more photons and with it reduce the signal noise. - high notes aliasing = high object movement aliasing. It is not really called aliasing in the video world, but the effect is nevertheless the same, objects that move fast are not seen by a pixel, only object that move slower than the frame rate will be seen. As you see every effect you would have for audio from a single microhpone, would correspond to a single grey scale picture of a video camera. Now imagine you have lots of microphones put in a grid, maybe you want to make a wall of sound, the output of which would be to a speaker array, think surround sound taken to the extreme. This is very similar to a video sensor. - each microphone is different = each pixel is different You have to know the bias and sensitivity for each pixel and compensate for it, otherwise it would show as static noise. Now, if you have a lot of microphones you could have a single A/D converter for each, but that may not be cost effective, for video at least it is not. Instead each pixel has a sample and hold circuity, and each pixel is quickly read one by one by a single A/D converter through the same amplifier. Larger image sensors divide the image in two or four regions each with a amplifier and A/D converter. Then there is the lens, you could use an array of directional microphones pointing them to a slightly different direction. you can theoretically do the same with an image sensor, increase the well depth of each pixel and point each well to a slightly different direction. The problem is the amount of photons that will be exactly parallel to a well is very low, so you need a lot of light, just like a long microphone will receive a lot less sound. Instead we use a lens to capture a lot of photons and point the photons to the correct pixel well. In this array you also have aliasing, object that are seen by one pixel and not the other, the keep high resolution you want to use a optical filter in front of the sensor, that scatters the photons randomly in multiple pixel wells. Then there is color, you take a grey scale camera, and put a colored filter in front of each pixel, so one pixel is only used for red, and other for green and yet an other for blue. It is like putting different sound absorbing materials in front of each microphone in the array, so that each responds to a low, mid or high frequency range (this is not a perfect analogy). In the video world they are running in to the same issues as the audio world has with low bit depths. Current cameras have quite a low contrast range and storing each pixel value into 8 bits does not help. It is like using a compressor/limiter on all the pixels to fit in such a low range of values. Luckily this is changing and we are now going into an era that will be using HDR (High dynamic range) imaging, the edit applications are using floating point, cameras are outputting high bit depth and found algorithms to increase the psychological dynamic range of a display (which are still only 8 bit). Ok, this is already a long post and I will shut up now. Cheers, Take Vos analogy boy |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
digital photography vs. digital audio
On Apr 26, 12:47 pm, wrote:
Are there any meaningful parallels that can be drawn between digital photography and digital audio? For example, if you take a digital photo with a high-megapixel count, this means you can enlarge the picture more before you start to see imperfections. So if you record a 24-bit signal just under clipping, does that mean you can get away with wider level adjustments in the DAW mixing environment before noticing signal degradation? I've formed some analogies: linearity of audio recorder= lens quality frequency range of recorder=color accuracy bit depth of recorder= pixel count Any truth to that? 24 bit is denser than say 16 far as a camera.. see it the same as sound.. just depends on how dense the pixels are. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Uncompressed Digital Video vs. Uncompressed Digital Audio | Tech | |||
Mac Pro digital output Look for a set of speakers with digital input | Pro Audio | |||
digital recodring equiptment (Sony TCD-D8, SBM-1, Core Sound mics and digital I/O cable) - ends tomorrow | Marketplace | |||
FA: digital recodring equiptment (Sony TCD-D8, SBM-1, Core Sound mics and digital I/O cable) | Marketplace | |||
Connections between digital mixer and a digital recorder? | Pro Audio |