[Trevor]

On 15/10/2015 2:31 AM, Luxey wrote:
Limiting is not more than special case of compression ie compression with
infinite ratio. All the attack, release, envelope, waveform ... talk is an
unnecessarry waste of energy.

Also, IMO, signal may be clipped, but clipping is the gear, pushed to work out of
speced range of operaation. The result is seen as charachteristic distortion
of the waveform, but that is just a sign the gear was pushed into clipping, so it
produced such a waveform which we've conveniently named "clipped" after the
clipping gear that produced it.

Agreed, if the waveform is clipped, I can't see the point in arguing HOW
it was done. Other than the to the person who did it perhaps.

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "- show quoted text - Which is why many assume that you are a
troll rather than simply stupid.

geoff "

Actually geoff: neither! And you know about the first part
of assuming.

I disdain nit-picking, and prefer to keep the conversation concise
and on a roll. If I make a statement:

"You know, the waveform of that latest George Benson tune
is surprisingly spiky for something modern"

I don't expect a twenty-reply theological debate over
"envelope vs waveform" to hijack a good thread.

I know a lot more about this audio thing we love than
most of you care to give me credit for. But I use simple
straight-forward terms to convey or absorb concepts,
rather than delve into semantics and word-play. This is
rec.audio.pro - not the Pentagon.

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "why ask?"

Because you guys got all nit-picky over
what's a waveform and what's not, instead
of just sticking to the topic of whatever
thread the splitting hairs took place in.

Kind of like "used car-NO, it's a "pre-owned
car". Totally gay(not the homosexual kind
either!).

[geoff]

On 15/10/2015 4:17 p.m., wrote:
geoff wrote: "why ask?"

Because you guys got all nit-picky over
what's a waveform and what's not, instead
of just sticking to the topic of whatever
thread the splitting hairs took place in.

Kind of like "used car-NO, it's a "pre-owned
car". Totally gay(not the homosexual kind
either!).



No. It's not nit-picking at all. Say what you mean instead of what you
steadfastly refuse to understand, and people will understand you.

It's more like you calling a single skyscraper a skyline (to use Scott's
analogy).

Really, it's not that difficult.

geoff

[Trevor]

On 15/10/2015 4:31 PM, geoff wrote:
On 15/10/2015 4:17 p.m., wrote:
geoff wrote: "why ask?"

Because you guys got all nit-picky over
what's a waveform and what's not, instead
of just sticking to the topic of whatever
thread the splitting hairs took place in.

Kind of like "used car-NO, it's a "pre-owned
car". Totally gay(not the homosexual kind
either!).

No. It's not nit-picking at all. Say what you mean instead of what you
steadfastly refuse to understand, and people will understand you.

It's more like you calling a single skyscraper a skyline (to use Scott's
analogy).

And yet most people don't draw an imaginary line between building tops
and call that the skyline.


Really, it's not that difficult.

That only one is real and one is imaginary still seems to be beyond many
though. A waveform is still a waveform whether you zoom in or not,
whether you can see detail or not. But the "envelope" is still a useful
*concept* IF you understand it.

Trevor.

[geoff]

On 15/10/2015 8:24 p.m., Trevor wrote:


That only one is real and one is imaginary still seems to be beyond many
though. A waveform is still a waveform whether you zoom in or not,
whether you can see detail or not. But the "envelope" is still a useful
*concept* IF you understand it.


Thought you'd find a nit to pick !

If you zoom out to the point you cannot see individual cycles, then all
you can see is the envelope. Not imaginary - it's the outline shape that
you see.

How about the term "waveform envelope" - cover enough bases for you ?


geoff

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "How about the term "waveform envelope" - cover enough bases for you ?"

Uhh geoff, the ****ing Titanic is completely
bow-down; are you still trying to discern
the BRAND OF PAINT used on that lifeboat,
or are you jumping in?!

sheez!..

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/14/2015 9:34 PM, geoff wrote:
Um no, not semantics ! In audio iIf you can discern individual cycles it
is a waveform. If all the cycles are bunched together , then the overall
outline (which is all that you can discern) is the envelope.

You don't have to be able to see a waveform in order to see it. And when
you "zoom out" the waveform doesn't disappear, to be eclipsed by the
envelope. But understand that these are just names for graphic
representations of a changing voltage.

If a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody around to hear it, it
still makes a sound. If you zoom out of a graphic representation of a
signal so that you can see an envelope, the waveform is still there.

Is this semantics? Or philosophy?


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

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "You don't have to be able to see a waveform in order to see it."

Pure https://www.google.com/search?q=dona..._HVsondq M%3A !

Now how about those 'known-unknowns', Mikey?

[[email protected]]

"Is this semantics? Or philosophy? "

If I zoom in on a duck's feathers or
stand twenty feet away it's still a DUCK
to me!

[None]

wrote in message
news:da6b6322-78d7-4275-a419-
I know a lot more about this audio thing we love than most of you
care to give me credit for.

Then why do yo go to such trouble to prove that you're a dumb ****?

[None]

wrote in message
...
"Is this semantics? Or philosophy? "

If I zoom in on a duck's feathers or
stand twenty feet away it's still a DUCK
to me!

Li'l Krissie is having a meltdown again.

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "Say what you mean"

Admittedly I have trouble putting words
together, even if I DO get the concept.

"instead of what you
steadfastly refuse to understand, "

ARE YOU INSIDE MY HEAD or something,
wiseguy?! Don't try to ASSume you know
my motives, GEOFF. As if I would purposely
insist that grass is pink when it is plainly green.


Nobody, except maybe a politician, might
DELIBERATELY try not to understand
anything!

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/15/2015 6:16 AM, wrote:
geoff wrote: "How about the term "waveform envelope" - cover enough bases for you ?"

I would consider that the proper term for what's been shortened to
"envelope" by the lazy duffers.

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/15/2015 6:42 AM, wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote: "You don't have to be able to see a waveform in order to see it."

Geez, did I write that? I must have needed another cup of coffee and
didn't realize it. What I really meant was that you don't have to be
able to see a waveform in order for it to be there.

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/15/2015 6:48 AM, wrote:
"Is this semantics? Or philosophy?"

If I zoom in on a duck's feathers or
stand twenty feet away it's still a DUCK
to me!

But without seeing the duck from 20 or 5 feet away, but only saw a
couple of feathers, would you know it was a duck?

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

[None]

thick-headed-toddler-whines @gmail.com wrote in message
...
geoff wrote: "Say what you mean"

Admittedly I have trouble putting words
together, even if I DO get the concept.

"instead of what you
steadfastly refuse to understand, "

ARE YOU INSIDE MY HEAD or something,
wiseguy?!

Your refusal to understand is on display in your posts. Nobody has to
go inside your head. You keep missing that essential point. It's
another thing you refuse to understand. Anyone who reads this
newsgroup knows that you prefer endless childish arguments to
understanding. This recent string of toddler-tantrums from you is yet
another example. Of course, you don't understand that, because you
refuse to understand.

Don't try to ASSume you know
my motives, GEOFF. As if I would purposely
insist that grass is pink when it is plainly green.

But when anybody points out that the grass is sometimes brown, your
head explodes in rage, and you start ranting and drooling and issuing
personal attacks and filthy diatribes against whoever pointed out the
simple fact that the grass is sometimes brown. The world (including
audio) isn't simple enough for a simpleton like you. What a tragedy.

Nobody, except maybe a politician, might
DELIBERATELY try not to understand
anything!

So you're a politician now? A dumb**** politician in a dumbuck
politician's hockey helmet, on the politiclans' short campaign bus?
Boy, it really sucks to be you.

FCKISSFDSWAHHTHRAOTP. AHETHHS. STBY. Right, Krissie?

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
Or 'waveform' is the shape of individual cycles, and 'envelope' is the
outline of a bunch of cycles over time (as when zoomed out). "


This is all just nitpicking, semantics,
and the word games typical of
being played within this group.

No, it's important. Because it's important to know if you're looking at
the actual waveform sample by sample, or just an averaged envelope.

A lot of things like crossover distortion isn't visible at all on the
envelope but are very visible on an actual waveform display.

I call a duck a duck, and you guys
can just DEAL. sheesh!

Distinctions like the difference between peak and average levels, between
reference levels and full scale levels, and between waveforms and envelopes
are absolutely critical to understand dynamics processing.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff wrote:
On 15/10/2015 4:17 p.m., wrote:
geoff wrote: "why ask?"

Because you guys got all nit-picky over
what's a waveform and what's not, instead
of just sticking to the topic of whatever
thread the splitting hairs took place in.

Kind of like "used car-NO, it's a "pre-owned
car". Totally gay(not the homosexual kind
either!).



No. It's not nit-picking at all. Say what you mean instead of what you
steadfastly refuse to understand, and people will understand you.

It's more like you calling a single skyscraper a skyline (to use Scott's
analogy).

I actually didn't use that analogy... it was attributed to me but I can't
take credit. It's a good analogy, though, and I like it.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
wrote:
"Is this semantics? Or philosophy? "

If I zoom in on a duck's feathers or
stand twenty feet away it's still a DUCK
to me!

If the waveform is a duck, the envelope is a drawing of a duck.
--scott

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

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 12-10-2015 04:03, JackA wrote:

On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 9:47:34 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Whoever decreed that ALL audio tracks MUST peak within
1/1,000,00dB of full scale must be on something strong!!

I was told, no clipping! Otherwise, Loudness Wars would have never existed.

Hogwash, the best way to get nice bricks is to clip all bands of a
multiband compressor.

Take some time to actually learn the tools you rant about.

Jack

- Peter Larsen

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

In article ,
wrote:
"Is this semantics? Or philosophy? "

If I zoom in on a duck's feathers or
stand twenty feet away it's still a DUCK
to me!

If the waveform is a duck, the envelope is a drawing of a duck.

And if heavily processed as per some of today's fashion, what was once music now
sounds just like a continuously quacking duck, only louder.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[geoff]

On 15/10/2015 11:32 p.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
On 10/14/2015 9:34 PM, geoff wrote:
Um no, not semantics ! In audio iIf you can discern individual cycles it
is a waveform. If all the cycles are bunched together , then the overall
outline (which is all that you can discern) is the envelope.

You don't have to be able to see a waveform in order to see it. And
when you "zoom out" the waveform doesn't disappear, to be eclipsed by
the envelope. But understand that these are just names for graphic
representations of a changing voltage.

If a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody around to hear it, it
still makes a sound. If you zoom out of a graphic representation of a
signal so that you can see an envelope, the waveform is still there.

Is this semantics? Or philosophy?



Semantics. Zoom out of the forest. In that forest, you can no longer
discern the tree, but you can see the forest. The forest is not 'a tree'.

geoff

[geoff]

On 15/10/2015 11:48 p.m., wrote:
"Is this semantics? Or philosophy?"

If I zoom in on a duck's feathers or
stand twenty feet away it's still a DUCK
to me!
If you zoom in so all you can see is a feather, you are looking at a
feather, not 'a duck'.

Yes, it is a duck's feather, but if you had not seen the zoomed out
version, you wouldn't know it was a duck's feather.

geoff

[geoff]

On 16/10/2015 4:44 a.m., Frank Stearns wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) writes:

And if heavily processed as per some of today's fashion, what was once music now
sounds just like a continuously quacking duck, only louder.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Frank
Mobile Audio



Lump of paté ?

geoff

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
Semantics. Zoom out of the forest. In that forestZZZZHHHHHHIPPPPP!!!
(needle being dragged across record)

geoff "


I told you - no "semantics", only ENGLISH. So by your forest
analogy, one tree = one up & down cycle = one waveform.

What you say might be true, correct, but when I Google up
"audio waveform", this is what I get THOUSANDS of as
results: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...234454be16.jpg

So you go on ahead Geoff and start correcting all these
thousands of users, for the sake of the survival of the
audio universe!!!

And to be fair:
"audio envelope" returns a sizable majority of this: http://www-sipl.technion.ac.il/new/T...tors/pic10.png
as hits. Very different from the majority of hits from "waveform.

Again, a colossal waste of all our time here, seriously!

[geoff]

On 16/10/2015 11:37 a.m., wrote:

Again, a colossal waste of all our time here, seriously!


You are.

Enough of my time. Bye.

geoff

[Ralph Barone[_2_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
"Is this semantics? Or philosophy? "

If I zoom in on a duck's feathers or
stand twenty feet away it's still a DUCK
to me!

If the waveform is a duck, the envelope is a drawing of a duck.
--scott


If the waveform is a duck, the envelope is the shadow of a duck.

[[email protected]]

Ralph Barone wrote: "If the waveform is a duck, the envelope is the
shadow of a duck. "


https://abiadams.files.wordpress.com...8825206674.jpg

[david gourley[_2_]]

said...news:c7ab072a-e2ae-4ad1-beab-6e76a5f9bbe6
@googlegroups.com:

Ralph Barone wrote: "If the waveform is a duck, the envelope is the
shadow of a duck. "


https://abiadams.files.wordpress.com...head-in-hands-
e1298825206674.jpg

Presumably the look of 'still not getting it?'

david

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Ralph Barone wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
"Is this semantics? Or philosophy?"

If I zoom in on a duck's feathers or
stand twenty feet away it's still a DUCK
to me!

If the waveform is a duck, the envelope is a drawing of a duck.
--scott


If the waveform is a duck, the envelope is the shadow of a duck.



I shall use my laaargest scaaales....

--
Les Cargill

[None]

thickskullocks @ gmail.com wrote in message
...
geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
Semantics.
I told you - no "semantics", only ENGLISH.

1. You're not the moderator. You don't get to tell others what to
post. It makes no difference what you told anybody. Have you forgotten
that already, since the last time you were reminded? It was only this
morning.

2. Without semantics, English is useless. The only conclusion is that
you have no idea what at least one of those words means. You get
yourself in trouble when you use words without having any idea what
they mean. Like basically all words about audio.

Again, a colossal waste of all our time here, seriously!

No ****, Dumb ****. And it's entirely your fault. You've polluted this
newsgroup so much, even you can't stand the stench. Maybe you should
go crap all over some other newsgroup, far away, YSFSJBSC.

[None]

"Ralph Barone" wrote in message
news:1319924126.466653813.861076.address_is-invalid.invalid@shawnews...
If the waveform is a duck, the envelope is the shadow of a duck.

If the waveform is a flat line, the envelope is a flat line. It's
thikskull's brain function.

[John Williamson]

On 15/10/2015 23:37, wrote:

What you say might be true, correct, but when I Google up
"audio waveform", this is what I get THOUSANDS of as
results: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...234454be16.jpg

So you go on ahead Geoff and start correcting all these
thousands of users, for the sake of the survival of the
audio universe!!!

That is an excellent picture of an envelope, showing a hint of the
waveform of the sounds. Given sufficient detail on the original
screenshot, if you looked more closely, you could see the individual
waveforms within the envelope. At just the right zoom level, where the
waveforms are just becoming visible, defocus your eyes and you will see
the envelope, and you can switch between the two views at will.

And to be fair:
"audio envelope" returns a sizable majority of this: http://www-sipl.technion.ac.il/new/T...tors/pic10.png
as hits. Very different from the majority of hits from "waveform.

That is the graphic depiction of the output voltage from an Attack,
Decay, Sustain, Release (ADSR) generator as used on many synthesisers
(Such as the original Moog, or my little Casio pocket jobby) to control
the amplitude of the audio output from the waveform generator's Voltage
Controlled Amplifier when a key is struck, and bears no relationship to
the audio waveform.

Again, a colossal waste of all our time here, seriously!

Only because you are not paying attention to what many very
knowledgeable people are trying to tell you.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Trevor]

On 15/10/2015 7:28 PM, geoff wrote:
On 15/10/2015 8:24 p.m., Trevor wrote:
That only one is real and one is imaginary still seems to be beyond many
though. A waveform is still a waveform whether you zoom in or not,
whether you can see detail or not. But the "envelope" is still a useful
*concept* IF you understand it.


Thought you'd find a nit to pick !

If you zoom out to the point you cannot see individual cycles, then all
you can see is the envelope. Not imaginary - it's the outline shape that
you see.

You still can't read what I wrote apparently :-(
Just because you choose not to see the actual detail doesn't make the
"envelope" any less of an imaginary construct!


How about the term "waveform envelope" - cover enough bases for you ?

No, but imaginary waveform envelope would. However envelope alone is
fine for those who actually know what it means already.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 15/10/2015 11:35 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 10/15/2015 6:48 AM, wrote:
"Is this semantics? Or philosophy?"

If I zoom in on a duck's feathers or
stand twenty feet away it's still a DUCK
to me!

But without seeing the duck from 20 or 5 feet away, but only saw a
couple of feathers, would you know it was a duck?

Would that matter to the duck? Oh wait, I guess it might if you were a
duck hunter! :-(

Trevor.

[Gray_Wolf]

On 10/15/2015 5:37 PM, wrote:
geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
Semantics. Zoom out of the forest. In that forestZZZZHHHHHHIPPPPP!!!
(needle being dragged across record)

geoff "


I told you - no "semantics", only ENGLISH. So by your forest
analogy, one tree = one up & down cycle = one waveform.

What you say might be true, correct, but when I Google up
"audio waveform", this is what I get THOUSANDS of as
results: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...234454be16.jpg

So you go on ahead Geoff and start correcting all these
thousands of users, for the sake of the survival of the
audio universe!!!

And to be fair:
"audio envelope" returns a sizable majority of this: http://www-sipl.technion.ac.il/new/T...tors/pic10.png
as hits. Very different from the majority of hits from "waveform.

Both of these are not true waveforms. They are both envelopes. One has been
smoothed and the other has not. It would be impossible to determine the
occurrence of cross-over distortion, low level parasitic oscillation and many
other things. For this you would need to see the detailed waveform. It's the
difference between observing the general form of a razor and close examination
of the quality of the cutting edge.

In any case why would your knowing the difference between wave form and envelope
be of any value to you?

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/15/2015 10:04 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
If the waveform is a duck, the envelope is the shadow of a duck.

If the envelope is a duck, what the duck had for lunch is somewhere in
the waveform.

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

[None]

"Trevor" wrote in message
...
"Is this semantics? Or philosophy?"

Would that matter to the duck? Oh wait, I guess it might if you were
a duck hunter! :-(

It's wabbit season.

[[email protected]]

Would that matter to the duck? Oh wait, I guess it might if you were
a duck hunter! :-(

It's wabbit season.

Is that why my compressor has a ducking input?

And the duck bill for my ducking compressor came in an envelope?



Mark