Patrick Talbot - Upper Hand (M&F)

[Digitaldruglord]

Since you got so technical and last time you ignored my question regarding this I took the liberty to find this. Learned a few things my self

Originally Posted by majkel View Post
1) The Nyquist theorem does not include amplitude quantization meaning infinite resolution, so it doesn't discuss quantization effects at all.
2) There is no audio system in the world giving more than 20 clear bits of signal due to resistance and semiconductor noise chracteristics.
3) You cannot "recreate" a single thing by dithering, just make it sounding more natural to the ears, especially when using noise shaping filters for the dither signal.
4) It's not true ADC's do any dithering. Some of them do some lowpass filtering with noise shaping involved when delta-sigma type which happens not for the dithering purposes but for the signal itself.
5) You cannot increase dynamic range by dithering.
6) It's not dynamics killing people and affecting hearing but sound pressure with the given numbers of 140dB = pain, 160~180dB = death, respectively. You can listen to the signal with the 144dB dynamics not exceeding safe sound pressure limits, just set the volume appropriately. Sure, you won't hear the bottom of your dynamic range then.

1. True.
2. True. Most people believe that their 24bit DAC is actually a 24bit DAC, just marketing I'm afraid.
3. True. Dithering is just a process which should be used whenever a quantisation or re-quantisation is performed, to convert quantisation errors into un-correlated noise.
4. This one is not true. All ADCs use dither. Some 24bit ADCs use self-dither, in other words because the digital noise floor is so low (-144dB) the noise generated by their own internal components is enough to dither, but one way or another, they all dither. Also, all ADCs use a low-pass brick wall filter (anti-alias filter). Noise-shaped dither is not and should never be used in an ADC or when mixing. As the recorded channels are mixed the re-distributed noise is summed and can cause problems. The only time noise-shaped dither should be applied is during the last quantisation process. This usually means when converting the 24bit master from the recording studio into 16bit for CD release.
5. Sort of true. In an absolute sense CD has 96dB dynamic range, however if we move the noise that is down at the -96dB level to areas of the hearing spectrum where we are less sensitive (for example below 60Hz or above 12kHz). This gives a perceived improvement of dynamic range for 16bit. Bob Katz, the leading expert, reckons that about 120dB is the perceived dynamic range achievable with today's dithering technology.
6. True. Though of course by turning down your amp and not hearing the quietest sounds, then you are not hearing all the detail or the whole dynamic range, so it rather defeats the whole purpose of more dynamic range (more bits) in the first place.


If I'm listening to your mix at low or mid level and it distorts.. Then there is a problem.

Sure, it's called "Don't use earbuds to listen to my mixes" I ignore you because you said you're on a 2007 computer and on headphones, I admire your work, it's good, but your opinions come from a contained working environment..

[Shul]

Are all your mixes in 24bit in this forum?

[Digitaldruglord]

Are all your mixes in 24bit in this forum?

I post 24-bit source links with all posts with the "XQR" label on them for listening analysis, with a note to download the file and install BitPerfect for Mac (as most pro audio people use macs) - my mistake has been converting them to MP3 and posting them here when the mixes were not prepared for MP3 or CD delivery but I figured the forum require MP3 upload.. I figured anyone listening critically would know to listen to the 24-bit version and critique on that.. As again, I assume everyone has 24-bit playback capability because the sessions are 24-bit sessions. TipToe Through The Crypto is the only 16-bit source file I linked because the session was 16-bit.

This song and the last one I did, I did not post the 24-bit version because I'm trying out several things and it's not in my XQR 24-bit mix style and delivery process...

The consumer market will be listening to Audiophile level audio soon when iTunes goes to HD High Rez.. There's a section of audio guys already experienced in it from SACD and HDTrack.com delivery.. But soon, that caliber is going to be standard.. Then my 24-bit posts here will perhaps make sense at that time

If you downloaded 24/96 Thriller from HDTracks right now and listened to it, without the proper gear it will sound distorted and harsh.. But with a pair of HD800 and HDVD800 using an Audiophilio with PurePower... It's going to be the best sounding record you've ever heard...

[Digitaldruglord]

Here is a video of me playing back a 24-bit song I posted in the forum.. the levels on Apollo 8 being played direct from the Mac with BitPerfect iTunes playback (the blue icon) - this is true 1:1 studio "reference" delivery...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/68f9k7fnp5ks4i...M.mov?dl=0

[Digitaldruglord]

Here is my 24-bit source of "Mouche" - the levels jumping like that is dynamic range.. and this version levels jump dynamically more than any other version posted with "loudness" applied...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2cpj2uim66fu6e...M.mov?dl=0

[Digitaldruglord]

And one more, this is my "Summertime" 24-bit.. the XQR process I developed delivers louder and clearer audio than the "squashed" loudness wars stuff, but with actual real dynamic range... There isn't another version of this song that's as loud or louder than this that has a similar dynamic range in the levels..

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lh07qwwvhkfk6p...M.mov?dl=0

[Digitaldruglord]

There are some high-quality studio gear that guys use for their 24-bit handling, but for headphones.. to handle 24-bit playback, high end gear is needed.. for instance.. Here is the HD800... most people stop at the headphone but to get the full balanced power to the headphone to deliver the full capability, the Cardas balanced cable (connected in the picture) alone runs $800

[Shul]

Glad to hear that. Because the song I heard distorting was angels in amplifiers.
The other songs I heard sound fine.

Again, my headphones are not the problem. I don't use earbuds.. Mine are reference headphones for mixing. Not the cheapo iPod Headsets.. Which are crap by the the way.

The time u ignored me was way before I told you I use a 2007 computer. I asked "so your mix does not distort in your system?" .. You then said "tell u what, there is a mix competition if u win I'll PayPal you 200".....was that not ignoring the question?

I think you are confusing bit depth with sample rate. Fidelity of audio has to do with sample rate And not bitdepth.

[Digitaldruglord]

Glad to hear that. Because the song I heard distorting was angels in amplifiers.
The other songs I heard sound fine.

Again, my headphones are not the problem. I don't use earbuds.. Mine are reference headphones for mixing. Not the cheapo iPod Headsets.. Which are crap by the the way.

The time u ignored me was way before I told you I use a 2007 computer. I asked "so your mix does not distort in your system?" .. You then said "tell u what, there is a mix competition if u win I'll PayPal you 200".....was that not ignoring the question?

I think you are confusing bit depth with sample rate. Fidelity of audio has to do with sample rate And not bitdepth.

Angels in Amplifiers, you was right.. And the mix only version of that was posted as a result.. But when the comment is made it reads as being applied globally.. Amplifiers was posted after many other posts, and in Amplifiers it was deliberately mixed hard because of the type of song it is (think Michael Bolton power rock).. People give opinions, some less knowledgable than others.. Until I know what the work quality of the commenter, I can't trust it and at that time you only had like 7 posts.. Today I know your work because you've done a lot since then and I know you speak from having put time in and doing good work.. Unless I can verify another guy's own work, I'm not going to act on comments.

[Shul]

Well in no way I was disrespecting your mix.. I have heard your other mixes and I'm positive I have left some good comments on some. But with this one I said what I said cause of the acoustic guitars sound.

The gear you have is expensive, and I'm sure you can get great results if you use them right. But you should do so without making other people's work insignificant or qualify them as demo quality, I assure you the majority of the people here try very hard. Having said that I apologize if I made you upset with my opinion.