"Fred Marshall" <fmarshallx@remove_the_x.acm.org> wrote in message news:DbednbTcRY6SN77bnZ2dnUVZ_r6vnZ2d@centurytel.net...> "David Morgan (MAMS)" <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote in message > news:0aGUh.2900$nU4.922@trnddc03...> > "Fred Marshall" <fmarshallx@remove_the_x.acm.org>....> >> Jerry, > >> > >> I assumed a perfect quantizer that decides which level to output based on > >> the input being within 1/2 a level distance. Thus, the peak error is 50% > >> of a level. They are never a full level off with a perfect quantizer. > >> > >> Because the amplitudes are uniformly distributed, the errors peak at 1/2 > >> a level - so I guess the expected abolute value of an error *is* 1/4 a > >> level. Good catch.> > WTF are you babbling about ?> I take it from your tone that you don't want an explanation and that your > question is pejorative?? If not, please accept my apologies. Otherwise: > > Just DSP stuff.Ah.... a sideline of comedy relief - I see now. Sorry, I was confused.
Help understanding audio sampling
Started by ●April 14, 2007
Reply by ●April 16, 20072007-04-16
Reply by ●April 16, 20072007-04-16
"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message...> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:> > "Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message...> >> You can reach the limits of audible frequencies at sampling rates far > >> below 96 KHz. You can exceed the accuracy of tape or vinyl with numbers > >> smaller that 32 bits.You can exceed the accuracy of tape and vinyl with 14 bits and 44.1Khz.> > 16 bit, 44.1khz is more than adequate for accurate reproduction within > > the range of human hearing... that's why it was chosen 20 years ago > > and that is why it is still the standard digital audio delivery medium today.> > If anything, the 'bar' of acceptable quality is being progressively and > > willingly lowered by MP3, ATRAC and the ongoing host of other data > > compression codecs and schemes.> Sure. There are good arguments to be made for more than 16 bits in > places along the processing chain, but 16 bits dithered down from the > processing word width is plenty for reproduction.I wasn't including "processing" math; which I for one, had much rather keep in the analogue domain. We already have enough distortion going on via 'audio-piles' who keep preaching that they can detect frequencies above 20khz so there must be higher and higher sampling rates to accomodate those. Bit depth with decrease math problems in 'processing', but not higher sampling rates. IMHO, dithering should be avoided at all costs until the last possible moment if you are dealing with bit deprths higher than 16 on the recorded material.> (You say you can hear that 17 bits sounds better? Listen in good health!) > The anti-alias and reconstruction filters are easier to build (fewer compromises > needed) at the somewhat higher sample rate of 48 KHz, but that's not the issue. > (Especially for me, with my 4 KHz cutoff. :-( ) > > I try to avoid numbers in threads like this because they often lead to > unproductive digressions.I can see where that would become an issue around here. ;-) DM
Reply by ●April 16, 20072007-04-16
David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:> "Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message... > >> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote: > >>> "Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message... > >>>> You can reach the limits of audible frequencies at sampling rates far >>>> below 96 KHz. You can exceed the accuracy of tape or vinyl with numbers >>>> smaller that 32 bits.I did not! Please quote accurately.> You can exceed the accuracy of tape and vinyl with 14 bits and 44.1Khz. > >>> 16 bit, 44.1khz is more than adequate for accurate reproduction within >>> the range of human hearing... that's why it was chosen 20 years ago >>> and that is why it is still the standard digital audio delivery medium today. > >>> If anything, the 'bar' of acceptable quality is being progressively and >>> willingly lowered by MP3, ATRAC and the ongoing host of other data >>> compression codecs and schemes. > >> Sure. There are good arguments to be made for more than 16 bits in >> places along the processing chain, but 16 bits dithered down from the >> processing word width is plenty for reproduction. > > I wasn't including "processing" math; which I for one, had much rather keep > in the analogue domain.What are you babbling about? How do you mix and adjust gain with digital tracks? ...>> I try to avoid numbers in threads like this because they often lead to >> unproductive digressions. > > I can see where that would become an issue around here. > > ;-)It's an issue in any thread started by a request for basic concepts. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Reply by ●April 16, 20072007-04-16
"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:o9CdnSbfpsh5br7bnZ2dnUVZ_vShnZ2d@rcn.net...> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:> > "Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message...> >> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:> >>> "Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message...> >>>> You can reach the limits of audible frequencies at sampling rates far > >>>> below 96 KHz. You can exceed the accuracy of tape or vinyl with numbers > >>>> smaller that 32 bits.> I did not! Please quote accurately.You did not what? Are you saying that you did not say that? Please see your message: news:I8-dnZFSkOzv17_bnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@rcn.net...> > You can exceed the accuracy of tape and vinyl with 14 bits and 44.1Khz.> >>> 16 bit, 44.1khz is more than adequate for accurate reproduction within > >>> the range of human hearing... that's why it was chosen 20 years ago > >>> and that is why it is still the standard digital audio delivery medium today.> >>> If anything, the 'bar' of acceptable quality is being progressively and > >>> willingly lowered by MP3, ATRAC and the ongoing host of other data > >>> compression codecs and schemes.> >> Sure. There are good arguments to be made for more than 16 bits in > >> places along the processing chain, but 16 bits dithered down from the > >> processing word width is plenty for reproduction.> > I wasn't including "processing" math; which I for one, had much rather keep > > in the analogue domain.> What are you babbling about?Babbling? Contain yourself dear boy, at look at the REAL recording industry, not the million homes full of dunces with computers who THINK they actually comprehend how real music is recorded and mixed. If I had a dollar for every dim-witted, inexperienced, shill who purchased a PC and some software and printed a business card claiming to be a recording engineer / producer, etc., I'd be happy to buy you and me a *real* studio using all of the "digital tracks" you would ever care to store. ;-)> How do you mix and adjust gain with digital tracks?You use a REAL analogue mixing desk. It requires a little investment of money for interfacing and a certain level of experience and intelligence of practical application. If you haven't seen one lately, check my web site.> >> I try to avoid numbers in threads like this because they often lead to > >> unproductive digressions.> > I can see where that would become an issue around here. > > > > ;-)> It's an issue in any thread started by a request for basic concepts.Basic concepts begin with capturing and processing real audio, not mathematics. Sampling rates are the biggest lot of hype and baloney to hit the consumer audio marketplace in a long, long time. They're called "marketing bits" by anyone with real-world experience in audio recording. -- 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
Reply by ●April 16, 20072007-04-16
"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:o9CdnSbfpsh5br7bnZ2dnUVZ_vShnZ2d@rcn.net...> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:> > "Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message...> >> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:> >>> "Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message...> >>>> You can reach the limits of audible frequencies at sampling rates far > >>>> below 96 KHz. You can exceed the accuracy of tape or vinyl with numbers > >>>> smaller that 32 bits.> I did not! Please quote accurately.You did not what? Are you saying that you did not say that? Please see your message: news:I8-dnZFSkOzv17_bnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@rcn.net...> > You can exceed the accuracy of tape and vinyl with 14 bits and 44.1Khz.> >>> 16 bit, 44.1khz is more than adequate for accurate reproduction within > >>> the range of human hearing... that's why it was chosen 20 years ago > >>> and that is why it is still the standard digital audio delivery medium today.> >>> If anything, the 'bar' of acceptable quality is being progressively and > >>> willingly lowered by MP3, ATRAC and the ongoing host of other data > >>> compression codecs and schemes.> >> Sure. There are good arguments to be made for more than 16 bits in > >> places along the processing chain, but 16 bits dithered down from the > >> processing word width is plenty for reproduction.> > I wasn't including "processing" math; which I for one, had much rather keep > > in the analogue domain.> What are you babbling about?Babbling? Contain yourself dear boy, at look at the REAL recording industry, not the million homes full of dunces with computers who THINK they actually comprehend how real music is recorded and mixed. If I had a dollar for every dim-witted, inexperienced, shill who purchased a PC and some software and printed a business card claiming to be a recording engineer / producer, etc., I'd be happy to buy you and me a *real* studio using all of the "digital tracks" you would ever care to store. ;-)> How do you mix and adjust gain with digital tracks?You use a REAL analogue mixing desk. It requires a little investment of money for interfacing and a certain level of experience and intelligence of practical application. If you haven't seen one lately, check my web site.> >> I try to avoid numbers in threads like this because they often lead to > >> unproductive digressions.> > I can see where that would become an issue around here. > > > > ;-)> It's an issue in any thread started by a request for basic concepts.Basic concepts begin with capturing and processing real audio, not mathematics. Sampling rates are the biggest lot of hype and baloney to hit the consumer audio marketplace in a long, long time. They're called "marketing bits" by anyone with real-world experience in audio recording. -- 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
Reply by ●April 16, 20072007-04-16
"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:o9CdnSbfpsh5br7bnZ2dnUVZ_vShnZ2d@rcn.net...> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:> > "Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message...> >> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:> >>> "Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message...> >>>> You can reach the limits of audible frequencies at sampling rates far > >>>> below 96 KHz. You can exceed the accuracy of tape or vinyl with numbers > >>>> smaller that 32 bits.> I did not! Please quote accurately.You did not what? Are you saying that you did not say that? Please see your message: news:I8-dnZFSkOzv17_bnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@rcn.net...> > You can exceed the accuracy of tape and vinyl with 14 bits and 44.1Khz.> >>> 16 bit, 44.1khz is more than adequate for accurate reproduction within > >>> the range of human hearing... that's why it was chosen 20 years ago > >>> and that is why it is still the standard digital audio delivery medium today.> >>> If anything, the 'bar' of acceptable quality is being progressively and > >>> willingly lowered by MP3, ATRAC and the ongoing host of other data > >>> compression codecs and schemes.> >> Sure. There are good arguments to be made for more than 16 bits in > >> places along the processing chain, but 16 bits dithered down from the > >> processing word width is plenty for reproduction.> > I wasn't including "processing" math; which I for one, had much rather keep > > in the analogue domain.> What are you babbling about?Babbling? Contain yourself dear boy, at look at the REAL recording industry, not the million homes full of dunces with computers who THINK they actually comprehend how real music is recorded and mixed. If I had a dollar for every dim-witted, inexperienced, shill who purchased a PC and some software and printed a business card claiming to be a recording engineer / producer, etc., I'd be happy to buy you and me a *real* studio using all of the "digital tracks" you would ever care to store. ;-)> How do you mix and adjust gain with digital tracks?You use a REAL analogue mixing desk. It requires a little investment of money for interfacing and a certain level of experience and intelligence of practical application. If you haven't seen one lately, check my web site.> >> I try to avoid numbers in threads like this because they often lead to > >> unproductive digressions.> > I can see where that would become an issue around here. > > > > ;-)> It's an issue in any thread started by a request for basic concepts.Basic concepts begin with capturing and processing real audio, not mathematics. Sampling rates are the biggest lot of hype and baloney to hit the consumer audio marketplace in a long, long time. They're called "marketing bits" by anyone with real-world experience in audio recording. -- 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
Reply by ●April 16, 20072007-04-16
"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:o9CdnSbfpsh5br7bnZ2dnUVZ_vShnZ2d@rcn.net...> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:> > "Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message...> >> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:> >>> "Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message...> >>>> You can reach the limits of audible frequencies at sampling rates far > >>>> below 96 KHz. You can exceed the accuracy of tape or vinyl with numbers > >>>> smaller that 32 bits.> I did not! Please quote accurately.You did not what? Are you saying that you did not say that? Please see your message: news:I8-dnZFSkOzv17_bnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@rcn.net...> > You can exceed the accuracy of tape and vinyl with 14 bits and 44.1Khz.> >>> 16 bit, 44.1khz is more than adequate for accurate reproduction within > >>> the range of human hearing... that's why it was chosen 20 years ago > >>> and that is why it is still the standard digital audio delivery medium today.> >>> If anything, the 'bar' of acceptable quality is being progressively and > >>> willingly lowered by MP3, ATRAC and the ongoing host of other data > >>> compression codecs and schemes.> >> Sure. There are good arguments to be made for more than 16 bits in > >> places along the processing chain, but 16 bits dithered down from the > >> processing word width is plenty for reproduction.> > I wasn't including "processing" math; which I for one, had much rather keep > > in the analogue domain.> What are you babbling about?Babbling? Contain yourself dear boy, at look at the REAL recording industry, not the million homes full of dunces with computers who THINK they actually comprehend how real music is recorded and mixed. If I had a dollar for every dim-witted, inexperienced, shill who purchased a PC and some software and printed a business card claiming to be a recording engineer / producer, etc., I'd be happy to buy you and me a *real* studio using all of the "digital tracks" you would ever care to store. ;-)> How do you mix and adjust gain with digital tracks?You use a REAL analogue mixing desk. It requires a little investment of money for interfacing and a certain level of experience and intelligence of practical application. If you haven't seen one lately, check my web site.> >> I try to avoid numbers in threads like this because they often lead to > >> unproductive digressions.> > I can see where that would become an issue around here. > > > > ;-)> It's an issue in any thread started by a request for basic concepts.Basic concepts begin with capturing and processing real audio, not mathematics. Sampling rates are the biggest lot of hype and baloney to hit the consumer audio marketplace in a long, long time. They're called "marketing bits" by anyone with real-world experience in audio recording. -- 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
Reply by ●April 16, 20072007-04-16
David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:> "Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:o9CdnSbfpsh5br7bnZ2dnUVZ_vShnZ2d@rcn.net... >> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote: > >>> "Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message... > >>>> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote: > >>>>> "Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message... > >>>>>> You can reach the limits of audible frequencies at sampling rates far >>>>>> below 96 KHz. You can exceed the accuracy of tape or vinyl with numbers >>>>>> smaller that 32 bits. > >> I did not! Please quote accurately. > > You did not what? Are you saying that you did not say that? > > Please see your message: news:I8-dnZFSkOzv17_bnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@rcn.net...Sorry! My mistake. ...>>> I wasn't including "processing" math; which I for one, had much rather keep >>> in the analogue domain. > >> What are you babbling about? > > Babbling? Contain yourself dear boy, at look at the REAL recording industry,Claiming that mixing and setting levels -- processing to be sure -- should be by analog means even in digital recordings is babbling. If you didn't mean that, what did you try to write?> not the million homes full of dunces with computers who THINK they actually > comprehend how real music is recorded and mixed. If I had a dollar for every > dim-witted, inexperienced, shill who purchased a PC and some software and > printed a business card claiming to be a recording engineer / producer, etc., > I'd be happy to buy you and me a *real* studio using all of the "digital tracks" > you would ever care to store. ;-)You seem to have a bone to pick with audio types. DSP involves a lot more than that, with the same principles applying to all of it. There's a common thread that you're too eager to particularize.>> How do you mix and adjust gain with digital tracks? > > You use a REAL analogue mixing desk. It requires a little investment of > money for interfacing and a certain level of experience and intelligence > of practical application. If you haven't seen one lately, check my web site.Gee! You could change sample rates that way, too. I wonder why decimation and interpolation are so widely used.>>>> I try to avoid numbers in threads like this because they often lead to >>>> unproductive digressions. > >>> I can see where that would become an issue around here. >>> >>> ;-) > >> It's an issue in any thread started by a request for basic concepts. > > Basic concepts begin with capturing and processing real audio, not > mathematics. Sampling rates are the biggest lot of hype and baloney > to hit the consumer audio marketplace in a long, long time. They're > called "marketing bits" by anyone with real-world experience in audio > recording.Try to sample 20 KHz music with an 8 KHz sampler, then tell me what baloney is. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Reply by ●April 16, 20072007-04-16
"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:> > "Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message> >> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:> >>> "Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message...> >>>> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:> >>>>> "Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message...> >>>>>> You can reach the limits of audible frequencies at sampling rates far > >>>>>> below 96 KHz. You can exceed the accuracy of tape or vinyl with numbers > >>>>>> smaller that 32 bits.> >> I did not! Please quote accurately.> > You did not what? Are you saying that you did not say that? > > > > Please see your message: news:I8-dnZFSkOzv17_bnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@rcn.net...> Sorry! My mistake.Lends me to believe that you're knee-jerking at me for some reason, Jerry. ;-)> >>> I wasn't including "processing" math; which I for one, had much rather keep > >>> in the analogue domain.> >> What are you babbling about?> > Babbling? Contain yourself dear boy, at look at the REAL recording industry,> Claiming that mixing and setting levels -- processing to be sure -- > should be by analog meansBabbling, my dear Jerry, is thinking you can read my mind, and thay you have all of the correct answers before any questions are asked... THAT is "babbling." But while we're at it, an analogue mixer will not impart summing problems and CPU issues that one will run into when mixing "in the box". Unfortunately, most people simply don't have the experience to understand that and thus can't hear when they are damaging their material.> ...even in digital recordings is babbling."DIGITAL" is nothing more than another storage medium. Decent software and decent interfacing hardware allows *complete* interfacing to the real- world of analogue for any and all processes. I prefer that world of quality hardware far more than using a handfull of algorithms to mathematically attempt to model said analogue world.> If you didn't mean that, what did you try to write?You definitely ARE haveing a knee-jerking afternoon, Jerry. I never "CLAIMED" a damn thing, nor did I ever suggest that anything "SHOULD" be done a specific way. I SAID, "I for one, had much rather keep in the analogue domain." It's right above, in plain sight; read it again. My presonal preference should be no call for a knee-jerking assault of 'incorrect' on your part.> > not the million homes full of dunces with computers who THINK they actually > > comprehend how real music is recorded and mixed. If I had a dollar for every > > dim-witted, inexperienced, shill who purchased a PC and some software and > > printed a business card claiming to be a recording engineer / producer, etc., > > I'd be happy to buy you and me a *real* studio using all of the "digital tracks" > > you would ever care to store. ;-)> You seem to have a bone to pick with audio types.Excuse me? I've spent the last 33 years of my life as an "audio type". If I have a bone to pick, it is with snake-oil salesmen and the continually dropping 'bar' of quality audio recording and reproduction. Of course, DSP freaks who think there is only one way to access, process, and otherwise manipulate a digital audio file don't make life any easier. Digital is a storage medium... and if you treat it as such, a whole new world of potential quality will open up for you.> DSP involves a lot > more than that, with the same principles applying to all of it. There's > a common thread that you're too eager to particularize.The common thread between us, thus far, is that you apparently lack any real-world or analogue audio experience. Don't foget... all raw audio (moving air), no matter how captured or how stored, is in fact ANALOGUE in it's creation and in it's perception.> >> How do you mix and adjust gain with digital tracks?> > You use a REAL analogue mixing desk. It requires a little investment of > > money for interfacing and a certain level of experience and intelligence > > of practical application. If you haven't seen one lately, check my web site.> Gee! You could change sample rates that way, too. I wonder why > decimation and interpolation are so widely used.Yes, you could... but I don't necessarily recommend it -- any more than I would recommend recording using unecessarily high sample rates under the misunderstood guise that it somehow reproduces with more accuracy to the human ear (mathematics aside for a moment). Above 48K and you are basically wasting your time, drive space, accuracy in returning to the standard delivery medium, and recording the unrecordable for the purpose of addressing the hearing of dogs.> >>>> I try to avoid numbers in threads like this because they often lead to > >>>> unproductive digressions.> >>> I can see where that would become an issue around here. > >>> > >>> ;-)> >> It's an issue in any thread started by a request for basic concepts.> > Basic concepts begin with capturing and processing real audio, not > > mathematics. Sampling rates are the biggest lot of hype and baloney > > to hit the consumer audio marketplace in a long, long time. They're > > called "marketing bits" by anyone with real-world experience in audio > > recording.> Try to sample 20 KHz music with an 8 KHz sampler, then tell me what > baloney is.You just completely changed our discussion by entering into a realm that is not only assanine, but plain damned stupid, and a million miles away from the subject of using abnormally high and unecessary sampling rates. Moving to an analogy of comparing to lower sampling rates makes about as much sense as the bozo who relates digital imaging to digital audio. Have a nice day Jerry. -- 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
Reply by ●April 16, 20072007-04-16
"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:> > "Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message> >> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:> >>> "Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message...> >>>> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:> >>>>> "Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message...> >>>>>> You can reach the limits of audible frequencies at sampling rates far > >>>>>> below 96 KHz. You can exceed the accuracy of tape or vinyl with numbers > >>>>>> smaller that 32 bits.> >> I did not! Please quote accurately.> > You did not what? Are you saying that you did not say that? > > > > Please see your message: news:I8-dnZFSkOzv17_bnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@rcn.net...> Sorry! My mistake.Lends me to believe that you're knee-jerking at me for some reason, Jerry. ;-)> >>> I wasn't including "processing" math; which I for one, had much rather keep > >>> in the analogue domain.> >> What are you babbling about?> > Babbling? Contain yourself dear boy, at look at the REAL recording industry,> Claiming that mixing and setting levels -- processing to be sure -- > should be by analog meansBabbling, my dear Jerry, is thinking you can read my mind, and thay you have all of the correct answers before any questions are asked... THAT is "babbling." But while we're at it, an analogue mixer will not impart summing problems and CPU issues that one will run into when mixing "in the box". Unfortunately, most people simply don't have the experience to understand that and thus can't hear when they are damaging their material.> ...even in digital recordings is babbling."DIGITAL" is nothing more than another storage medium. Decent software and decent interfacing hardware allows *complete* interfacing to the real- world of analogue for any and all processes. I prefer that world of quality hardware far more than using a handfull of algorithms to mathematically attempt to model said analogue world.> If you didn't mean that, what did you try to write?You definitely ARE haveing a knee-jerking afternoon, Jerry. I never "CLAIMED" a damn thing, nor did I ever suggest that anything "SHOULD" be done a specific way. I SAID, "I for one, had much rather keep in the analogue domain." It's right above, in plain sight; read it again. My presonal preference should be no call for a knee-jerking assault of 'incorrect' on your part.> > not the million homes full of dunces with computers who THINK they actually > > comprehend how real music is recorded and mixed. If I had a dollar for every > > dim-witted, inexperienced, shill who purchased a PC and some software and > > printed a business card claiming to be a recording engineer / producer, etc., > > I'd be happy to buy you and me a *real* studio using all of the "digital tracks" > > you would ever care to store. ;-)> You seem to have a bone to pick with audio types.Excuse me? I've spent the last 33 years of my life as an "audio type". If I have a bone to pick, it is with snake-oil salesmen and the continually dropping 'bar' of quality audio recording and reproduction. Of course, DSP freaks who think there is only one way to access, process, and otherwise manipulate a digital audio file don't make life any easier. Digital is a storage medium... and if you treat it as such, a whole new world of potential quality will open up for you.> DSP involves a lot > more than that, with the same principles applying to all of it. There's > a common thread that you're too eager to particularize.The common thread between us, thus far, is that you apparently lack any real-world or analogue audio experience. Don't foget... all raw audio (moving air), no matter how captured or how stored, is in fact ANALOGUE in it's creation and in it's perception.> >> How do you mix and adjust gain with digital tracks?> > You use a REAL analogue mixing desk. It requires a little investment of > > money for interfacing and a certain level of experience and intelligence > > of practical application. If you haven't seen one lately, check my web site.> Gee! You could change sample rates that way, too. I wonder why > decimation and interpolation are so widely used.Yes, you could... but I don't necessarily recommend it -- any more than I would recommend recording using unecessarily high sample rates under the misunderstood guise that it somehow reproduces with more accuracy to the human ear (mathematics aside for a moment). Above 48K and you are basically wasting your time, drive space, accuracy in returning to the standard delivery medium, and recording the unrecordable for the purpose of addressing the hearing of dogs.> >>>> I try to avoid numbers in threads like this because they often lead to > >>>> unproductive digressions.> >>> I can see where that would become an issue around here. > >>> > >>> ;-)> >> It's an issue in any thread started by a request for basic concepts.> > Basic concepts begin with capturing and processing real audio, not > > mathematics. Sampling rates are the biggest lot of hype and baloney > > to hit the consumer audio marketplace in a long, long time. They're > > called "marketing bits" by anyone with real-world experience in audio > > recording.> Try to sample 20 KHz music with an 8 KHz sampler, then tell me what > baloney is.You just completely changed our discussion by entering into a realm that is not only assanine, but plain damned stupid, and a million miles away from the subject of using abnormally high and unecessary sampling rates. Moving to an analogy of comparing to lower sampling rates makes about as much sense as the bozo who relates digital imaging to digital audio. Have a nice day Jerry. -- 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
