Mixing Question - Levels

[ernstinen]

We will be saying soon, remember when we used to play 44.1 16 bit music.....YUCK......LOL.........

Ha! I've been saying that for YEARS! --- That reminds me: When will hi res music on DVD or BlueRay etc. become the norm? It seems that record companies and hardware manufacturers are missing the boat for audiophiles like us! But since most people listen to mp3s (double YUCK!), maybe the powers-that-be just don't care. --- And isn't Steve Jobs' new "Cloud" concept mp3-based?

Just wonderin' ---

Ern

[Casey H]

I miss the good old analog days... Nothing was sampled and digitized and it was all played on AM radio through a 3 inch speaker...

[mazz]

We will be saying soon, remember when we used to play 44.1 16 bit music.....YUCK......LOL.........

Ha! I've been saying that for YEARS! --- That reminds me: When will hi res music on DVD or BlueRay etc. become the norm? It seems that record companies and hardware manufacturers are missing the boat for audiophiles like us! But since most people listen to mp3s (double YUCK!), maybe the powers-that-be just don't care. --- And isn't Steve Jobs' new "Cloud" concept mp3-based?

Just wonderin' ---

Ern

Most people aren't audiophiles, the days of people sitting in their room listening to a "record" all the way through are over. Audiophiles make up a very tiny segment of the population. How many people do you know with multi thousand dollar sound systems and treated rooms, etc? Record companies have done some pretty stupid things, but they seem to have figured out that catering to audiophiles would be a money losing proposition. It's business: supply the demand. The demand for audiophile quality is small.

Music has become the soundtrack for everything, it's everywhere and iPods and the like are the delivery medium of choice. If the general public really cared about sound quality, then casettes would have never been as popular as they were. Most consumers will trade convenience over sound quality, it seems. High resolution audio has had many opportunities to break into the mainstream but hasn't gained traction in a big way. Unfortunately, it may be that when people remember 44.1 16 bit music, they look back as fondly at it as some of us do at analog and records: "remember when music used to sound good?".

From what I've read of iCloud, it's not limited to mp3 files. In fact, the music you purchase from the iTunes store are AAC files which are of a higher quality than garden variety mp3 files.

All of this is not to say that we shouldn't be producing the highest quality we can. A very high quality source file will have a much better chance of making it through the production chain unscathed, kind of like making a photocopy: If you start with a high resolution source, your copy will look much better than if you only have a copy of a copy to start with.

FYI: One of the new deals I just signed is asking for audio files to be delivered as 256kbps mp3 files! This is for a network daily news show!! That's where we're heading.

Mazz

[gtrmann]

If Harry knew you were misspelling his name, he'd be rolling over in his grave.... Probably at 2x the highest.... well, whatever...

It's "Nyquist", not "Nyquest"....

Casey

(PS Note the shiny, happy, laughing smilies)

LOL.....your are correct...... Sorry Harry........LMFAO now...!!!!!!

[mojobone]

Nyquist's theorem says that A/D sampling is best done at at least 2x the highest frequency component of the signal you are sampling.

Completely true...... component is in reference to the harmonics of the complex waveform.....

This is key to understanding the Nyquist frequency and digital audio's limitations, which have less to do with the actual frequency than with the filter used to prevent frequency components near the Nyquist frequency from causing artifacts such as aliasing. As far as digital components of an audio system are concerned, the quality of that filter has the greatest bearing on the quality of the audio you hear. Interestingly, the expense of a particular digital system is completely unrelated to the quality of said filter; it only matters whether the designer cared enough to make it sound good/accurate/right.

[gtrmann]

Nyquist's theorem says that A/D sampling is best done at at least 2x the highest frequency component of the signal you are sampling.

Completely true...... component is in reference to the harmonics of the complex waveform.....

This is key to understanding the Nyquist frequency and digital audio's limitations, which have less to do with the actual frequency than with the filter used to prevent frequency components near the Nyquist frequency from causing artifacts such as aliasing. As far as digital components of an audio system are concerned, the quality of that filter has the greatest bearing on the quality of the audio you hear. Interestingly, the expense of a particular digital system is completely unrelated to the quality of said filter; it only matters whether the designer cared enough to make it sound good/accurate/right.

Absolutely, you have to cut out the 44.1K sampling frequency out of the audio with a brick wall filter... If you dont cut the 44.1K, it will mix with the audio creating sum and difference frequencies......This is the aliasing ....

A good example of sum and difference frequencies can be found on a guitar... when you almost tune two strings to the same pitch and you hear that waver sound when it is real close to the same pitch, all you guitar players know what I am talking about.... that is the difference frequency... usually only a coule of hertz.... wow.... wow.... wow... wow...........

Time to get in the truck and go home... I guess I am on a Ny Quest..........or maybe I need some Ny Quill.....

[mojobone]

Absolutely, you have to cut out the 44.1K sampling frequency out of the audio with a brick wall filter... If you dont cut the 44.1K, it will mix with the audio creating sum and difference frequencies......This is the aliasing ....

Listen....do you smell something? Take a deep whiff, that's rarefied air. Now what if, instead of that stoneage brickwall filter, we used a linear phase filter? Or maybe a couple-three filters in series, with a gentler slope? What about a dynamic or reactive EQ? None of these are expensive to implement in software, but maybe just a tad difficult. See the problem with a brickwall EQ is the same as that with a brickwall limiter; it introduces some nonlinearities of its own, in the form of phase anomalies, and this is where digital audio originally got it's reputation for "harshness".




So which sounds better, digital or analog? Wrong Question.

[jdhogg]

Unless his wind breaking is in tune and adds a nice midrange texture to the piece.

I think you will find that the bottom line is that bum notes are generaly not welcome.

[gtrmann]

So which sounds better, digital or analog? Wrong Question.

Ern.... he asked your question........

[gtrmann]

Unless his wind breaking is in tune and adds a nice midrange texture to the piece.

I think you will find that the bottom line is that bum notes are generaly not welcome.

Now that's funny right there.......

I am going to get back to writing my Canadian influenced album.... all songs in Ay......

Then on to the Spanish album.....in Si..

Can't take credit those, I owe those to a ex bassist