44.1/16 vs 48/24 [Archive] - SAWStudio / SAC User Group

TotalSonic

03-05-2005, 02:28 PM

George -
There are 2 seperate issues you are asking - wordlength and sample rate. In my experience best results are always had by tracking at 24bits and mxing down to 24 bits and then converting to 16bits using the dither of your choice as the very last final step.

As far as the sample rate -
It really depends on what you are using for sample rate conversion. To my ear even the best software src algorithms lead to a small degradation of sound quality. There are a few dedicated (and expensive!) hardware boxes such as the Weiss SFC-1 and the Lavry LE3000S that are pretty amazingly transparent for src. Still - for modern day converters I don't think that the gains from tracking at 48kHz really make any audible difference (especially if they have to go through a software src to get to their delivery format - i.e. CD) over tracking at 44.1. To me the only reason to track at 48kHz is if you know you are going to deliver to video, film, DVD, or TV broadcast.

To me the gains from tracking at a high resolution such as 88.2 or 96kHz do in fact have the potential outweigh the degradations from src. I should make a mention that there is a myth that 88.2 makes for an "easier" conversion to 44.1 than 96kHz since it is a direct integer - but when using the advanced asynchronous converters such as the ones I mentioned above this is no longer true.

fwiw - in my mastering work my usual procedure is to send out to the analog process chain via a high end DAC at whatever sample rate I've received and then capture back at 24bit/44.1kHz again with a high end ADC. This way all issues of sample rate conversion are avoided.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

SoundSuite

03-05-2005, 02:31 PM

:eek:
*goes to make some popcorn for the reading to come*

this will be a good one :)

TotalSonic

03-05-2005, 02:44 PM

I should mention to chime in on some alternate viewpoints that there are a number of digital processing hardware boxes (such as the Weiss EQ-1 & DS-1 mkII's) that automatically upsample at input and that a lot of mastering engineers upsample prior to any digital processing as standard procedure, as they claim it makes all of the digital processing sound smoother, so that 2 stages of src are standard procedure in their work flow. Most that I know who are doing this are owners of the Weiss SFC-1 or have built their own src boxes using chips such as the TI SRC4194.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

MMP

03-05-2005, 02:46 PM

More like..."Time to head down into the old bomb shelter for a week, or two."http://www.sawstudiouser.net/forums/images/icons/icon11.gif

MM

:eek:
*goes to make some popcorn for the reading to come*

this will be a good one :)

TotalSonic

03-05-2005, 02:48 PM

also - wanted to mention that I am among those trying to get an src shootout organized over at the mastering forum at recording.org where you'll be able to download blind files to a/b.

Planned for inclusion in the test will be SAWStudio along with something like 20 other options including the Weiss SFC-1, loopback using Apogee Rosetta, Lavry Blue & Mytek Stereo96 converters, and numerous software solutions such as Voxengo's r8brain, Samplitude, PT, etc.

I'll post a note as soon as it's available for download

Best regards,
Steve Berson

Carl G.

03-05-2005, 02:51 PM

:eek:
*goes to make some popcorn for the reading to come*

this will be a good one :)
I'll go get the 'butter' :)

TotalSonic

03-05-2005, 02:53 PM

More like..."Time to head down into the old bomb shelter for a week, or two."http://www.sawstudiouser.net/forums/images/icons/icon11.gif

MM

c'mon guys - this ain't that controversial! That is - unless you're one of those whose never bothered to crank up tails that fade to the least significant bit to actually hear what truncation to 16 bit really sounds like!

Anyway - as always there are a lot of viewpoints to this stuff so - I'll just add -
OMMV!

Best regards,
Steve Berson

canipus

03-05-2005, 04:40 PM

George -
I should make a mention that there is a myth that 88.2 makes for an "easier" conversion to 44.1 than 96kHz since it is a direct integer - but when using the advanced asynchronous converters such as the ones I mentioned above this is no longer true.
Best regards,
Steve Berson

Mr Bearson,

Would you please expound what you mean by ADVANCED asynchronous sample rate conversion?

I think I am aware of most of the techniques appertaining asynchronous SRC processing but I am wondering what precisely is different in the 'advanced' converter?

I trust we agree on the premise that in the asynchronous converter the filter coefficient sets have to be calculated in real-time, as the i/p / o/p sample rate ratio is dynamically changing continuously in the time domain.

Are you inferring that in the ADVANCED converter these coefficients are no longer calculated dynamically and the related resultant coefficient jitter from the fractional variation of i/p / o/p sampling frequency is negated?
In synchronous converters, the ratio is fixed and therefore the filter coefficient sets are fixed. There is no jitter to impact the sound quality. That would normally make synchronous processing more advanced than asynchronous in spite of the synchronous technique not allowing arbitrary ratios between the i/p / o/p sampling frequencies.

canipus

tomasino

03-05-2005, 04:42 PM

TotalSonic

03-05-2005, 05:00 PM

Mr Bearson,

Would you please expound what you mean by ADVANCED asynchronous sample rate conversion?

I think I am aware of most of the techniques appertaining asynchronous SRC processing but I am wondering what precisely is different in the 'advanced' converter?

I trust we agree on the premise that in the asynchronous converter the filter coefficient sets have to be calculated in real-time, as the i/p / o/p sample rate ratio is dynamically changing continuously in the time domain.

Are you inferring that in the ADVANCED converter these coefficients are no longer calculated dynamically and the related resultant coefficient jitter from the fractional variation of i/p / o/p sampling frequency is negated?
In synchronous converters, the ratio is fixed and therefore the filter coefficient sets are fixed. There is no jitter to impact the sound quality. That would normally make synchronous processing more advanced than asynchronous in spite of the synchronous technique not allowing arbitrary ratios between the i/p / o/p sampling frequencies.

canipus

Hi Canipus -
There's no "a" in "Berson". Rhymes with "person".

You're reading way way too much in my use of the word "advanced" in this post. I'm just referring to what to me are good sounding implementations of the technology with the use of the word - not some reference to a way that they work differently than other asynchronous converters. Don't freak out on the semantics - tsokay?

As far as synchronous vs. asynchronous - the 2 boxes that mentioned I think do src really well (not that my needs have ever made me want to spring the cash for them yet though). What synchronous converters do you prefer over them??

Anyway - if you want technical arguments you're barking up the wrong tree. I'm a "plug it in and play with the knobs and see how it sounds" type of person - not a "white paper writer" - my degree is in music and not engineering. I base my opinions on what sounds good to me in a/b's so if you want to get into things beyond the basics of digital audio then you can easily write circles around me if you like. Ultimately as long as I make my clients happy by having their music sound a lot better when it leaves my studio than the way it sounds it when it comes in the door then I feel I can leave the technical arguments to others (not to say that I don't try to learn from watching the debates from the sidelines - but ultimately I leave design issues to others to figure out and base my choices in the tools I use simply on what sounds good to my ear).

Best regards,
Steve Berson

TotalSonic

03-05-2005, 05:05 PM

It was getting kinda quite around here.

Converting for CD's?... That's so old skool.
Guess its a quaint idea for old people to talk about.
(grandma/grandpa voice) "I remember back in the day when we made CD's, we converted n' we liked it! :eek: "

OMMV??? This one is not in the glossary => Totalsonic 1 foul!!
Further use of font sizes greater than 2 is suspended for a day.

Hi Tomasino -
OMMV has been common internet shorthand for a while for:
Other's Mileage May Vary.

Basically it means that one person's trash might be another person's treasure.

Sorry for the ultra large type but I was just trying to emphasize the point.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

Pedro Itriago

03-05-2005, 05:37 PM

"."

Sorry for the ultra large type but I was just trying to emphasize the point.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

TotalSonic

03-05-2005, 05:46 PM

"."

:)
Pedro -
yes - that's definitely an emphasized point!

Best regards,
Steve Berson

canipus

03-05-2005, 05:57 PM

Hi Canipus -
There's no "a" in "Berson". Rhymes with "person".

You're reading way way too much in my use of the word "advanced" in this post. I'm just referring to what to me are good sounding implementations of the technology with the use of the word - not some reference to a way that they work differently than other asynchronous converters. Don't freak out on the semantics - tsokay?

As far as synchronous vs. asynchronous - the 2 boxes that mentioned I think do src really well (not that my needs have ever made me want to spring the cash for them yet though). What synchronous converters do you prefer over them??

Anyway - if you want technical arguments you're barking up the wrong tree. I'm a "plug it in and play with the knobs and see how it sounds" type of person - not a "white paper writer" - my degree is in music and not engineering. I base my opinions on what sounds good to me in a/b's so if you want to get into things beyond the basics of digital audio then you can easily write circles around me if you like. Ultimately as I long as I make my clients happy by having their music sound a lot better when it leaves my studio than the way it sounds it when it comes in the door then I feel I can leave the technical arguments to others.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

Then for a plug and play with the knobs and see how it sounds (b)person I would suggest making definitive statements without being able to technically corrobate and substantiate them such as "when using the advanced asynchronous converters such as the ones I mentioned above this is no longer true"; is foolhardy, dangerous, naive and uninformed. It is generally accepted that asynchronous SRC products, regardless of whether they are accompanied with the language of 'advanced' 'new generation' 'optimized'; result in harsh highs and reduced low frequencies. Those findings are corroborated by higher levels of measured jitter that typically produce those types of distortions.
Of course I am fully aware that technology marches on and it is entirely feasible that a technique that is truly 'advanced' in the sense of 'new', 'unique', 'previously unused', may appear in a product. I welcome these advances and in the interest of wanting to learn more is the reason I asked you to corroborate and explain your use of the word. In the absence of an explanation I will assume you are the victim of 'hype' and being technically uniformed are too willing to readily repeat the heresay and myths of others.
The audio industry is full of unsubstantiated hype fuelled by plug and play tinkers that know no better than to repeat everything verbatim.
But of course that's just my view of the industry and admittedly is a cynical approach. The products you mention are indeed very good and have the freedom of unlimted frequency divisors but I'm still waiting to learn what makes them 'advanced' compared with other SRC units

TotalSonic

03-05-2005, 06:50 PM

Then for a plug and play with the knobs and see how it sounds (b)person I would suggest making definitive statements

nuh-uh. Anyone who reads my posts will note that I constantly make statements that they are not "definitive" but merely my opinion. That's what the big ol' OMMV is all about.

without being able to technically corrobate and substantiate them such as "when using the advanced asynchronous converters such as the ones I mentioned above this is no longer true";

I sat in a room and had the boxes I mentioned demonstrated (on different occasions) to me downsampling from 96kHz and 88.2kHz to 44.1KHz. When I am not able to do well in a blind test picking out the original from the src'd one - then I'd say they are doing a good job. And I'd say that using the products I mentioned were doing an equally good job downsampling from 96kHz as they were 88.2kHz - I really wasn't hearing any difference in performance. So for me this made the idea that the conversion would be better from 88.2 to 44.1 no longer true.

is foolhardy, dangerous, naive and uninformed. It is generally accepted that asynchronous SRC products, regardless of whether they are accompanied with the language of 'advanced' 'new generation' 'optimized'; result in harsh highs and reduced low frequencies.

Again - I wasn't hearing those things from those boxes in the admittedly short amount of time I spent with them. A lot of other people who have chosen to spend beaucoup bucks on these in order to use them with in their mastering work (and I'm not one of them) also are not hearing those things you mention above. But of the engineers work that I know up & downsample as normal procedure using these boxes usually has sounded really nice to me and I am not hearing what I would think of src artifacts out of their work. So I'd say the "general acceptance" is not true in this regard.

Those findings are corroborated by higher levels of measured jitter that typically produce those types of distortions.

Lavry in particular goes to pains to discuss how his box minimizes jitter. You can discuss this directly with him at his forum http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/f/38/2475/?SQ=e62d8db5644c77dbff44996585c79d29
if you like.

Of course I am fully aware that technology marches on and it is entirely feasible that a technique that is truly 'advanced' in the sense of 'new', 'unique', 'previously unused', may appear in a product. I welcome these advances and in the interest of wanting to learn more is the reason I asked you to corroborate and explain your use of the word. In the absence of an explanation I will assume you are the victim of 'hype' and being technically uniformed are too willing to readily repeat the heresay and myths of others.

Again - I go by what my ears hear. Having heard these particular boxes I thought they sounded very very close to the source after conversion. For budget and work flow reasons I chose not to incorporate them into the studio though - and in fact I have chosen not to use src in my work at all.

Again - my question to you is what synchronous converters or algorithms do you think make things sound closer to the source after conversion in comparison to the boxes I mentioned?? I'd definitely like to check them out.

The audio industry is full of unsubstantiated hype fuelled by plug and play tinkers that know no better than to repeat everything verbatim.

Canipus - you're insulting me here. We're working with audio - the whole point is whether we can HEAR IT. So the answer is to LISTEN. i.e what does it sound like?? I have very little idea on things like how the internals of my Medici makes the mids sound so nice or how the code of JMS Hi-res eq's work- but this does not prevent me one bit from making judgements on what eq's to apply! The fact that I have a backlog of work and lots of return business makes me think I must be doing something right in this regard.

But of course that's just my view of the industry and admittedly is a cynical approach. The products you mention are indeed very good and have the freedom of unlimted frequency divisors but I'm still waiting to learn what makes them 'advanced' compared with other SRC units

I already explained that I used an adjective in a way that you are getting bent out of shape about. Let go of the semantics.

The real question is what procedures in terms of getting the best sounding results you think apply to the original post? I stated what I felt based on my experience with both mixing and mastering and hearing a number of tools used and demonstrated in the studio. So what do you suggest the poster do differently??

Best regards,
Steve Berson

canipus

03-05-2005, 07:19 PM

I stated what I felt based on my experience with both mixing and mastering and hearing a number of tools used and demonstrated in the studio. So what do you suggest the poster do differently??

Best regards,
Steve Berson

For starters study the mechanics of audio blind listening tests and adopt some of the research on the requirements of human auditory level control and how low levels impact the subjective listening experience. The research from MIT is I believe the latest, outlining the need for level matching to tolerances far tighter than previously believed necessary. (0.25dB)

yours etc.
C

canipus

03-05-2005, 07:24 PM

For starters study the mechanics of audio blind listening tests and adopt some of the research on the requirements of human auditory level control and how low levels impact the subjective listening experience. The research from MIT is I believe the latest, outlining the need for level matching to tolerances far tighter than previously believed necessary. (0.25dB)

yours etc.
C
I apologise, I left a very important word out of the above. The following line is corrected:
"....level control and how low level variations impact the subjective listening experience."

The emphasis is on the word variations and not levels.

TotalSonic

03-05-2005, 07:30 PM

I need to post a small mea culpa here - on further research the current Weiss SFC-2 box is indeed operating synchronously. My apologies for spreading any disinformation on this particular box.

It'd be interesting to get a demo of the new Mytek SRC192 box (which is actually being offered for pretty reasonable cash) as it offers both synchronous and asynchronous modes.

as far as blind listening tests - yeah - level matching is critical - even .1 of a db can matter. Louder usually sounds "better" in listening tests - which is how we've gotten to the horrendous situation of releases often being crushed to death by peak limiters these days.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

Alan Lastufka

03-05-2005, 07:35 PM

Louder usually sounds "better" in listening tests - which is how we've gotten to the horrendous situation of releases often being crushed to death by peak limiters these days.
Agreed. That's what single-handedly ruined the last Thursday album for me ("War All The Time"). It was so squashed it had no life left to it.

AudioAstronomer

03-05-2005, 08:11 PM

Agreed. That's what single-handedly ruined the last Thursday album for me ("War All The Time"). It was so squashed it had no life left to it.
As what has ruined the new mars volta for me :(

TotalSonic

03-05-2005, 08:21 PM

As what has ruined the new mars volta for me :(

I believe Mars Volta was Vlado Meller mastering / Rick Rubin producing. I think Vlado has done some great work in his career but this particular combo of personalities usually spells trouble as they seem to bring out the worst in each other (i.e. the last few Johnny Cash albums that were squashed for no reason I could think of).

Best regards,
Steve Berson

AudioAstronomer

03-05-2005, 09:02 PM

I believe Mars Volta was Vlado Meller mastering / Rick Rubin producing. I think Vlado has done some great work in his career but this particular combo of personalities usually spells trouble as they seem to bring out the worst in each other (i.e. the last few Johnny Cash albums that were squashed for no reason I could think of).

Best regards,
Steve Berson
Vlad the impaler (non tepes)... he's ruined some of the most anticipated albums on my "to buy list". Ugh.

It's disgusting to hear it on the radio... it becomes soo much softer than the rest of the music. But on CD it's way louder and horrible to listen to... really really bad.

tomasino

03-05-2005, 09:49 PM

Hi Tomasino -
OMMV has been common internet shorthand for a while for:
Other's Mileage May Vary.

Basically it means that one person's trash might be another person's treasure.

Sorry for the ultra large type but I was just trying to emphasize the point.

Best regards,
Steve Berson
Oh, that's what OMMV stands for...
No appologies necessary - just havin' some fun.

MMP

03-06-2005, 06:42 AM

In audio technology, both ears & brains are important. I tend to defer to the ears as the final decision maker. I want the art of equipment design to be furthered, but I continue to be impressed by audio designs 30-50 years old that are not state-of-the-art. I choose to keep sample rate conversions to a minimum, though I am glad there are technically accurate ways of doing this in the digital domain, I am more interested in not having to do it in the first place. Right now, I need better low mid detail in my monitor speakers, not a Weiss unit. I have heard many technical statements about why a given audio design should sound better than it does, so I listen to the argument and then I listen.

It is fun to see the missles fly for a while.
For me...back to the bunker...as you were.

MM

AudioAstronomer

03-06-2005, 08:23 AM

TotalSonic

03-06-2005, 08:28 AM

Ironically Bob Katz just posted an interesting report on a shoot out he did between a custom box made with the evaluation board of the new asynchronous TI 4193 src chip (available if you know how to finagle one for around $150) and the synchronous Weiss SFC-2 (which goes for thousands).

For anyone curious you can read it at
http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/4201/0

Info on the TI chip at http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/src4192.pdf

Best regards,
Steve Berson

canipus

03-06-2005, 08:49 AM

TotalSonic

03-06-2005, 08:54 AM

"A wise man taketh counsel"

I agree! Very nice post Michael - and definitely the way I like to approach it also.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

tomasino

03-06-2005, 09:22 AM

I want the art of equipment design to be furthered, but I continue to be impressed by audio designs that are not state-of-the-art.
MM
Totally agree.

I think one of the best recordings I've ever made came from just a single tube mic (GT1a), a little Lexicon verb and nothing else, straight to DAT (at 48/16 I think). It was at the end of a session and I was breaking down, but the artist (C.J. Hutchins) just wanted to print a track of this song he'd been working on. One take, one mic, one guy with an acoustic guitar (slide too), it was awesome.

I need to call C.J. n' say "waz up?".

Tim Miskimon

03-06-2005, 09:26 AM

Hi Canipus -
There's no "a" in "Berson". Rhymes with "person".

You're reading way way too much in my use of the word "advanced" in this post. I'm just referring to what to me are good sounding implementations of the technology with the use of the word - not some reference to a way that they work differently than other asynchronous converters. Don't freak out on the semantics - tsokay?

As far as synchronous vs. asynchronous - the 2 boxes that mentioned I think do src really well (not that my needs have ever made me want to spring the cash for them yet though). What synchronous converters do you prefer over them??

Anyway - if you want technical arguments you're barking up the wrong tree. I'm a "plug it in and play with the knobs and see how it sounds" type of person - not a "white paper writer" - my degree is in music and not engineering. I base my opinions on what sounds good to me in a/b's so if you want to get into things beyond the basics of digital audio then you can easily write circles around me if you like. Ultimately as long as I make my clients happy by having their music sound a lot better when it leaves my studio than the way it sounds it when it comes in the door then I feel I can leave the technical arguments to others (not to say that I don't try to learn from watching the debates from the sidelines - but ultimately I leave design issues to others to figure out and base my choices in the tools I use simply on what sounds good to my ear).

Best regards,
Steve Berson

EARS GUYS - it's all about the ears - what's on a freakin lab sheet doesn't mean a damn thing if it sounds like crap!

I think the original post was meant to ask a simple question which was "what do we think is the best sounding format to use". Not "what looks better on paper".
My answer would be to "try both & use what you think sounds best".
Steve's answer is accurate and close to mine - he tries out different combinations of in board & out board mastering tools on a daily basis and the only way to know the difference is to listen - not look at the spec sheets that come with the product - as far as audio goes I think that went out of style with Quad sound systems... :)
Tim

canipus

03-06-2005, 09:47 AM

Im with MMP on this one.

Im very familiar with how digital and analog audio works made many of my own devices, and software blah blah blah...

but in the end all I want is good sounding music. And often no matter of technical craziness can make up for bad musicians or a terrible engineer... so despite anything out there it's great to see progress being made but has it changed the quality of music in the last 60 years? Nope. The more technology we get cheap and good, the more the market is flooded with crap music and terribly engineering recordings.

It's a symptom of empowering the masses. Technology has created products at lower prices that previously few could afford. We have a generation of autocrats and technocrats that are able do things they were previously unavailable to do.
In the modern world everybody is an artist, writer, actor, videographer, musician, producer. Unfortunately technology is unable to empower us to act as outstanding artists, writers, actors, videographers, musicians, producers. It offers the promise of potential but not the goal.

On the other side it allows individuals to explore their creative inner abilities and hone their talents. But there is a caveat. Society needs to be educated to act as the moderator and not the worshipper. If we fail to be the discerning arbiter, fail to actively criticise, pass educated judgement and act as the boundary moderator for every creative aspiration; then we lose our ability to judge, determine low art from high art, poor art from fine art. By allowing the outpouring of every aspiration to garner publicity, exhibition space, unqualified recognition and financial reward, society has reinforced the notion that all creativity is worthy and acceptable regardless of quality, emotion or spirit. In casting aside meritocracy as our core fabric, society has allowed itself to drift into a literary pre-Renaissance darkness where the dynamics are little more than the self-perpetuating adoration of our existence.

Dave Labrecque

03-06-2005, 02:10 PM

Are you inferring that...
Canipus,

Do you mean "implying" or "deducing"? Cuz "inferring" is synonymous with the latter. Smarty pants.

AudioAstronomer

03-06-2005, 02:15 PM

Jay Q

03-06-2005, 02:49 PM

It's a symptom of empowering the masses. [snip]Very interesting post, canipus -- BTW, why don't you sign posts with your real name? I understand the desire for anonimity, but not even a first name? Is your handle a play on "canopus"? Are you a lover of things Egyptian? Or an astonomy geek? Or is it more along the lines of "cannabis"? Are you a raging pothead who feels compelled to extol the name of your chosen vice? Hey, sheathe those canipean claws; I kid! ;)

I agree with most of what you said, however...

determine low art from high art, poor art from fine art...this kind of talk always makes me cringe a little. While I truly do understand your point -- I've made similar points in the past -- talking about "high" vs. "low" and "poor" vs. "fine" opens the door to an absolutist view of art which is at odds with what art actually is, i.e., expression. And the perceived value of that expression is really meaningless without context.

Whether you are moved more or less by one person's art than another's is, of course, entirely subjective such that your reaction could come down to one, minute experience in your life that makes you appreciate a work of art in a way that is totally meaningless to another person. Of course, it's easier to make judgements on skill level, e.g., how cleanly and quickly a guitarist can play a solo, but I've heard *many* technically proficient players whose music makes virtually no emotional impact on me whatsoever. I recognize that they have put in many long hours practicing their scales and whatnot, but their music just doesn't move me. Should I consider their art high just because they've put in a lot of hours on their instrument (yes, that's a rhetorical question. ;) )?

My point, basically, is that most agree that art is judged on its emotional impact. One could say that when a large number of people are moved by a piece of art, that piece is successful, but to imply that a piece that moves only a small number of people is "low" seems rather insulting to those few people who are, indeed, moved. There is some art, particularly within music, that I just can't stand. But I've seen people respond very positively to it, and their lives seem better for it, so who am I to say it's high or low or good or bad?

But I'll stop jabbering since this is completely OT, so I'll leave it at that.

Jay

canipus

03-06-2005, 03:18 PM

Whether you are moved more or less by one person's art than another's is, of course, entirely subjective such that your reaction could come down to one, minute experience in your life that makes you appreciate a work of art in a way that is totally meaningless to another person. Of course, it's easier to make judgements on skill level, e.g., how cleanly and quickly a guitarist can play a solo, but I've heard *many* technically proficient players whose music makes virtually no emotional impact on me whatsoever. I recognize that they have put in many long hours practicing their scales and whatnot, but their music just doesn't move me. Should I consider their art high just because they've put in a lot of hours on their instrument (yes, that's a rhetorical question. ;) )?

My point, basically, is that most agree that art is judged on its emotional impact. One could say that when a large number of people are moved by a piece of art, that piece is successful, but to imply that a piece that moves only a small number of people is "low" seems rather insulting to those few people who are, indeed, moved. There is some art, particularly music, that I just can't stand. But I've seen people respond very positively to it, and their lives seem better for it, so who am I to say it's high or low or good or bad?

But I'll stop jabbering since this is completely OT, so I'll leave it at that.

Jay

Good points you've raised here. I think you've hit the crux about emotions being a center issue but at the risk of boring folks and going off topic let's just
examine the emotions issue. Would you say that our emotions are ultimately governed by life's experiences and part of those experiences are themselves formed by upbringing, early child hood, the formative years, our schooling and education? If you think of education in the wider context of schooling to teach us to interact with the world and not just our prowess in academic disciplines, then the formative years are a major part of what we become such as open minded, close minded, receptive, non receptive to the world.
I was really saying these are characteristics that affect our ability to look at art critically. Emotion is a subset of the evaluation process. Emotion in itself is subject to our whole outlook on life which probably boils down to those formative early years. In the original post I was suggesting that by taking away the value of meritocracy we have stripped away one of the important foundations of how we learn in the formative years and you could argue that ulltimately changes how we view the world and what we feel about the world. We have a new set of emotional references towards and about our surroundings. That will change our view of the value of art and what comprises art. I think you are saying something very similar but we are approaching the subject from different ends.

canipus

03-06-2005, 03:31 PM

lol... something I have learned to take note of canipus..

If one is predisposed to using words uncommon in the daily vernacular, at least use proper grammar :) It just looks funny to see what most people would label "big words" with really really bad grammar. Though able to (as Im sure most are) i tend to ignore both and just say what I want in whatever form gets the idea across best :)
And perhaps you could differentiate better the difference between grammar and vocabulary?
Vocabulary is not grammar. Sentence construction and formatting/placement of words within sentences is grammar.
I think Dave was referring to choice/meaning of words i.e selection within the vocabulary.
I don't see any reference to grammar in what he is writing. The misuse of a word or a malapropism is the subject of vocabulary.
LOL

AudioAstronomer

03-06-2005, 03:43 PM

I dont think I was referring to anything dave said at all... yep, I wasnt :) His post was written while I was writing mine but I happened to forget to hit send for an unusually long period of time.

Im well aware of the difference between vocabulary and grammer, after many years of studying both Ive well decided to ignore them as well haha

canipus

03-06-2005, 03:46 PM

EARS GUYS - it's all about the ears - what's on a freakin lab sheet doesn't mean a damn thing if it sounds like crap!

Tim
But what if it doesn't sound like crap? What if you listened to three items of equipment reproducing audio and they all sound exactly the same to your ears and non of it is crap. You only have the money to purchase one. Which one will you choose? Would you use specifications to help you? If specs might help why would they be any more valuable when something doesn't sound like crap than when it does sound like crap. And what if your ears were deceiving you? I'm sure you trust your ears but supposing that trust was misplaced and your ears deceived you? What if we were listening with a group of people and you said it sounds like crap and everyone else had a differing opinion? It doesn't matter you trust your ears are right and the others are wrong?

canipus

03-06-2005, 03:48 PM

SoundSuite

03-06-2005, 04:58 PM

I like popcorn!

Pedro Itriago

03-06-2005, 06:37 PM

Clap, clap, clap, clap...

A thousand points for your post. Those are exactly my thoughts. I wouldn't have any problems if it was just people trying to use things in order to get an outlet for their creativity, whatever it may be.

What I do have a real problem is with the industry at it's current state. I think I've said this many times, but I remember having a conversation with my partner at the time in the middle of the 80's about MIDI & our conclusion was that, although it was a great technology addition for music creation, it would help stall music execution and would also encourage a lot of people who weren't musicians to belive they were. Here we are now and I think that's even truer today.

I've been reading a book (dangerous thing, this is) these days & even though is not related to the music world per se, it's about the entertainment industry and much of what I found there applies to the music "industry" as well.

The people running things since it was "discovered" that a lot of money could be done in almost anything that involved creativity, have managed to push the direction of the "marketeer" mentality that more is better. First step was slashing production costs to get better "bottom line", this meant lowering quality and making artist lose their artistry to a "you have to deliver more of thos each year" kind of mentality.

Then in the middle of the 90's we observed that they could do whitout creativity too, re-doing whatever was done yesterday that they thought or actually was successful, re-packaging it to get their new "talents" a boost or to simply meet a deadline. Don;t get me wrong, I like paying "tribute" to my beloved artists, but this ain't it.

Then, all of the sudden, we also are doing without actual talent. I will give a very recent example: a rapper goes into a radio for an interview on a station where a "player" of his was previously interviewed, starts badmouthing this "player" who get's annoyed and rushes back to the station to "get things straight" and a shoot out start, leaving 1 injured; the result of this thing? days latter this rapper's album hits the stores and sells a hughe ammount of copies. Is his music any good? heck no, but he's cool.

I know rockers used to trash hotels & get veeery high and all that stuff, but I never bought one single LP because of that.

Then you have something like the Grammys. You have talented people like an Alicia Keys, but the amount of sub-par "artist" getting awards is dissapointing.

We are playing the "lowest common denominator" game too much, & it's starting to bite us in the caboose.

It's a symptom of empowering the masses. Technology has created products at lower prices that previously few could afford. We have a generation of autocrats and technocrats that are able do things they were previously unavailable to do.
In the modern world everybody is an artist, writer, actor, videographer, musician, producer. Unfortunately technology is unable to empower us to act as outstanding artists, writers, actors, videographers, musicians, producers. It offers the promise of potential but not the goal.

On the other side it allows individuals to explore their creative inner abilities and hone their talents. But there is a caveat. Society needs to be educated to act as the moderator and not the worshipper. If we fail to be the discerning arbiter, fail to actively criticise, pass educated judgement and act as the boundary moderator for every creative aspiration; then we lose our ability to judge, determine low art from high art, poor art from fine art. By allowing the outpouring of every aspiration to garner publicity, exhibition space, unqualified recognition and financial reward, society has reinforced the notion that all creativity is worthy and acceptable regardless of quality, emotion or spirit. In casting aside meritocracy as our core fabric, society has allowed itself to drift into a literary pre-Renaissance darkness where the dynamics are little more than the self-perpetuating adoration of our existence.

N2RCDNG

03-06-2005, 06:51 PM

Well, digression certainly ruled this discussion. I followed most of it; alas, one post did help to answer my original question. That is, I should try the different src techniques and use the one that sounds best to me. That is what I will do. Thank you all ...... and now for some popcorn. ;)

George

Tim Miskimon

03-06-2005, 11:13 PM

But what if it doesn't sound like crap? What if you listened to three items of equipment reproducing audio and they all sound exactly the same to your ears and non of it is crap. You only have the money to purchase one. Which one will you choose? Would you use specifications to help you? If specs might help why would they be any more valuable when something doesn't sound like crap than when it does sound like crap. And what if your ears were deceiving you? I'm sure you trust your ears but supposing that trust was misplaced and your ears deceived you? What if we were listening with a group of people and you said it sounds like crap and everyone else had a differing opinion? It doesn't matter you trust your ears are right and the others are wrong?

Well at this point - after being a professional musician & sound engineer for 30 years - if I can't trust my ears - I can't trust anything & shouldn't be doing what I'm doing.
I feel fortunate & likewise confident that I can make a choice between various pieces of audio equipment (I'd have a problem if we were talking about cars or diamonds). I feel that my thousands of hours playing & recording music has given me the training one needs to make an intelligent choice.
After listening myself I will listen to others opinions & recomendations but the final choice comes down to what I think sounds best.
Spec sheets very rarely become a factor. Features & overall sound quality is what I use to make a decision - and sometimes cost will become an issue if something seems over priced to me.
By all means - if spec sheets are important to you in making an audio purchase decision then I say go for it.
I just stopped paying attention to them years ago when I realized that there are too many varables.
Power ratings, noise levels, frequency response - there are simply too many ways to make a product look better on paper than it really is. For the most part specs sheets are just another page of advertisment - at lease that's the way I see it.
best regards,
Tim

canipus

03-06-2005, 11:44 PM

Well at this point - after being a professional musician & sound engineer for 30 years - if I can't trust my ears - I can't trust anything & shouldn't be doing what I'm doing.
I feel fortunate & likewise confident that I can make a choice between various pieces of audio equipment (I'd have a problem if we were talking about cars or diamonds). I feel that my thousands of hours playing & recording music has given me the training one needs to make an intelligent choice.
After listening myself I will listen to others opinions & recomendations but the final choice comes down to what I think sounds best.
Spec sheets very rarely become a factor. Features & overall sound quality is what I use to make a decision - and sometimes cost will become an issue if something seems over priced to me.
By all means - if spec sheets are important to you in making an audio purchase decision then I say go for it.
I just stopped paying attention to them years ago when I realized that there are too many varables.
Power ratings, noise levels, frequency response - there are simply too many ways to make a product look better on paper than it really is. For the most part specs sheets are just another page of advertisment - at lease that's the way I see it.
best regards,
Tim
just answer the question. if you have 3 items of equipment and they all sound identically great to you and your colleagues and you need to choose one, what criteria do you use?

TotalSonic

03-07-2005, 12:21 AM

just answer the question. if you have 3 items of equipment and they all sound identically great to you and your colleagues and you need to choose one, what criteria do you use?

I've never actually been in that situation! Usually one or the other thing will stand out - but if they truly were identical in sonic performance then factors like features (i.e. if one had only aes i/o but the other had both spdif & aes I'd probably go for the latter), the companies reputation for support and reputation for making a reliable product; the actual build (i.e. metal usually will win me over a lot quicker than plastic); potential brand name identification by clients (which can sometimes be unfortunate as marketing leaders aren't necessarily leaders in quality - although if you have a "sexy" piece in the rack it can lead a tiny bit of extra biz sometimes); the interface and ergonomics (i.e. metering, how the buttons look and feel, etc); all probably come into play before whatever is written on a piece of paper does. Manufacturer's spec sheets often lie - and running exhaustive testing to come up with scientifically accurate specs yourself is not often feasible at all. Not that they should be discounted - as often if they are measured by a reliable third party they can tell you a lot about the quality of what you're getting - but it's important to keep them in perspective. Obsession with the minutiea is cool as long as one doesn't lose the big picture - (i.e. something like dither choice makes a heckuva lot less difference in how a master will sound than a choice between say boosting at +1db at 1.2k vs. boosting +.5db at 1.4kHz)

Basically if 2 things sound alike - cost the exact same price - and have the same features - then it really comes down to what which one would look best in your rack!
:D

Best regards,
Steve Berson

Jay Q

03-07-2005, 03:18 AM

If you think of education in the wider context of schooling to teach us to interact with the world and not just our prowess in academic disciplines, then the formative years are a major part of what we become such as open minded, close minded, receptive, non receptive to the world.
[snip for brevity's sake]
That will change our view of the value of art and what comprises art.Very interesting topic (to me, anyway). I think I see what you're saying. To temper my previous comments, I'll say this: While I don't like referring to art in terms of absolutes, I most definitely have opinions on what I think is good/bad. And I most definitely believe some people engage in artistic pursuits with little more than a desire to be heard, i.e., while they may have something to say artistically, they just aren't that good at their chosen craft. Just because you wanna be a singer doesn't mean you're gonna be good at it -- and by good, here, I'm referring to relatively quantifiable things like pitch and rhythm.

So, to bring this back to your earlier comments, yes, it is definitely easier these days for folks to indulge in the creation of music given current technology, and so you end up with lots of people who feel they have something of worth/interest to offer, but who may find they have a very small audience for it despite their ability to easily create product. Not sure whether that's a good or bad thing for art in general... I guess all I'm saying it's fine to be critical of art as long as one acknowledges that one's dealing with the realm of opinion rather than fact. I've heard music that I think is absolute junk, but I'd bet everything I owe (no, that's not a typo :( ) that there are at least a few other people who think it has merit.

Jay

AcousticGlue

03-07-2005, 07:44 AM

Price.
Price determines which product will be attainable. If the market is flooded with many products that are in my price range I try to determine who has the outstanding reputation to what you refer.
James Jensen from www.acousticmusicresource.com said, "people like what they know and don't know what they like". Media being shoved down your throat on radio stations that are midi-maniacs who don't sing like Denis DeYoung or play guitar like Al DiMeola or perform modern classical pieces like Invert ( I just purchased them).
Many factors decide what people view as "better". Many people are under-schooled on technologies, many just want no change. Some people will buy just because they are influenced by commercials and hype. Where do you put yourself?

UpTilDawn

03-07-2005, 08:08 AM

Just to note for the record:

Originally Posted by canipus: just answer the question. if you have 3 items of equipment and they all sound identically great to you and your colleagues and you need to choose one, what criteria do you use?

Originally Posted by Tim Miskimon: After listening myself I will listen to others opinions & recomendations but the final choice comes down to what I think sounds best.... Features & overall sound quality is what I use to make a decision - and sometimes cost will become an issue if something seems over priced to me.

I believe your question was answered directly and to the point.

DanT

Tim Miskimon

03-07-2005, 11:32 PM

just answer the question. if you have 3 items of equipment and they all sound identically great to you and your colleagues and you need to choose one, what criteria do you use?

Well I thought I did but here goes... If all three items sounded the same (which has never happened to me - I could always hear some difference) but if all items happened to sound the same I would buy the one that was the cheapest price, on sale, or the one that had the best warranty, or the one that was made by the company with the best tech support or the best reputation.
I hope you didn't take my statement as being harsh - that wasn't my intent. I just think a musician or engineer should be able to trust his ears - after all spec sheets don't mean that much to Stevie Wonder... ;)
Tim

Carl G.

03-08-2005, 06:43 PM

just answer the question. if you have 3 items of equipment and they all sound identically great to you and your colleagues and you need to choose one, what criteria do you use?
oooops... I'm sorry, I didn't mean to get in this thread....
I.....I....I was just looking for something important.... sorry. : )

But seriously, I do like to look at stats, graphs, papers, reviews.... to help choose the best beyond my 'perception' of Idenditical. I remember when I was 30yrs old, in disbelief that the old chief engineer could not hear the difference in what he thought was identical. I'm wise enough now to know my perception of sound is only as wide as is my ability to hear it. Saying that, I'm also a firm believer in letting the creative process drive the choice of audible color for the emotional feeling desired.

Jay Q

03-08-2005, 07:11 PM

I'm wise enough now to know my perception of sound is only as wide as is by ability to hear it. Saying that, I'm also a firm believer in letting the creative process drive the choice of audible color for the emotional feeling desired.Wisely and succinctly stated... I wish I had that ability! ;)

Jay

canipus

03-09-2005, 10:13 PM

oooops... I'm sorry, I didn't mean to get in this thread....
I.....I....I was just looking for something important.... sorry. : )

But seriously, I do like to look at stats, graphs, papers, reviews.... to help choose the best beyond my 'perception' of Idenditical. I remember when I was 30yrs old, in disbelief that the old chief engineer could not hear the difference in what he thought was identical. I'm wise enough now to know my perception of sound is only as wide as is my ability to hear it. Saying that, I'm also a firm believer in letting the creative process drive the choice of audible color for the emotional feeling desired.

Very true Carl. Couldn't have put it better. We are all dependent on our ears and most of us make do with far from perfect hearing. Our ears are not truly balanced left versus right and the impairement fall off increases with age. You only have to get your hearing tested and the results recorded every 5 years to see the changes. The entire concept of trusting our ears is really no more disimilar to trusting your car not to get you into a car accident. You have what you've got and you make the best of it but you can't rely on your ears as the total criteria for make decisions on audio. There are too many inherent errors. We use our hearing as part of the criterion. Have you noticed how women working in studios are far better equipped to hear what's going on at the high frequency end?