whitefang Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 How come... That in this "musicplayer" forum, where a great number of members claim to be jazz lovers, there are no forums for horns or wind instruments. Two class of musical instruments so closely associated with jazz? The word "phonetic" isn't SPELLED that way? I don't hear "garage bands" practicing around the neighborhood in summer like some years before? I've never seen that dude in the bolero hat that sells guitar lessons on TV anywhere else? Skinny, homely fat-lipped bug eyed girls are considered "babes" in several of the movies coming out lately?(think Hilary Swank and Angelina Jolie) I have to deal with punks working in music stores that seem to have never heard of "standard tuning"? More later. Maybe. Whitefang I started out with NOTHING...and I still have most of it left! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHAN Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 [b]'How come'[/b] : All frozen peas are the same size? When you go up an escalator, the hand rail moves just a little bit faster than the stairs? So Many Drummers. So Little Time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falcon Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 For me it's called "getting older". Something we all, hopefully, get to experience. Q. How do you eat an elephant? A. One bite at a time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Botch. Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 How come mic cables, instrument cables, MIDI cables, S/PDIF cables, phone cords, and ladders are [i]always[/i] 6" too short? :mad: Botch "Eccentric language often is symptomatic of peculiar thinking" - George Will www.puddlestone.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thisDude Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 If Trident is so good for your teeth, why does it mean "Three Teeth"? Why do people with bad breath always wanna tell you secrets? Why aren't there any deodorants ph balanced for men? Why do "flammable" and "inflammable" mean the same thing? Why is pick-pocketing so bad, and putting things into people's pockets, just as bad? Why are women prisoners also subject to the "penal code"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
not Cereal Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 THISDUDE so wacthin a little comedy central last night eh? ***** how come, if flash rom is under a buck a meg, dont we have the os of our daws stored in flashrom? think about it, the machine would boot [i]instantly[/i] mac or pc either way would work. hell for $500 we could have a "no boot daw" my sampler has this provision..... HOW COME ALL THE BAR BANDS PLAY THE SAME 75 TUNES I HAVE HEARD OVER AND OVER MY WHOLE LIFE, AND CONITUE TO HEAR ON THE RADIO? how come new computer monitors get worse every year? why are designers wanting to increase the incoming bit rate of audio into your daw when the most expensive class a mic pre cant produce enough s/n ratio to cover more than 21 bits anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offramp Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 ...we only choose from two parties for our President, yet 50 parties for our Miss America? I've upped my standards; now, up yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thisDude Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 [quote] why are designers wanting to increase the incoming bit rate of audio into your daw when the most expensive class a mic pre cant produce enough s/n ratio to cover more than 21 bits anyway? [/quote]It's like SPF 100 for suntan lotion. And yes... the guy on Conan was hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mats Olsson. Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 [b] [quote] why are designers wanting to increase the incoming bit rate of audio into your daw when the most expensive class a mic pre cant produce enough s/n ratio to cover more than 21 bits anyway? [/b][/quote]* Because higher resolution can lead to less (truncation) errors when processing digital audio. Sound shaping does not only take place in the preamps. * When 16 bit technology was utilized for CD in early 80's, higher resolutions was not a financially viable option back then. * More headroom * Because there is a demand, it makes sense for the market to make more money by offering a new generation of gear * The sonic difference can be heard, 24 is a major improvement over previous standards. This list could go on... /Mats http://www.lexam.net/peter/carnut/man.gif What do we want? Procrastination! When do we want it? Later! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
not Cereal Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 * Because higher resolution can lead to less (truncation) errors when processing digital audio. Sound shaping does not only take place in the preamps. -maybe. whether or not we can hear the difference between an incoming 24 bit and the proposed incoming 32 bit format is debatable. its obvious we CAN hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit, but the difference is due to more than the INCOMING signal, has more to due with processing the signal later. you have a point, but so do i. * When 16 bit technology was utilized for CD in early 80's, higher resolutions was not a financially viable option back then. -horsehockey. 16 bits was chosen becuase it represented a full representation of the then-currently used media. and for that representation, it worked great. its when folks tried to stream multiple 16 bit tracks together (mixing) that the sonic mess began (see question one) yes 24 bits is better in this case. * More headroom -nope. the extra headroom will be noise only. if a certain peice of gear has a 120db range of useful signal, capturing it at a higher bit rate will still yeild 120db of usable signal. * Because there is a demand, it makes sense for the market to make more money by offering a new generation of gear -agreed. although the reason for the demand is debatable, and perhaps stoopid at this point. * The sonic difference can be heard, 24 is a major improvement over previous standards -agreed. although we dont hear 24bits of sound, we most likely hear 21 bits of sound. the other three bits is noise. we mostly agree mats. i just think its stupid for companies to go is this direction at this point. they need to rethink what they are doing. one more point about incoming bit rates- we are on the same page here, and i agree there is a substancial difference in incoming bit rates of 16 and 24. BUT (always a but) if we were to say, record a performance of a peice of equipment that had 43db singal noise ratio, i think we would not hear much of a difference in recording it to 16 bits verses 24bits. try it. take a poorly recorded cassette with no dolby (i'm talking POORLY recorded, -18db) and record it into 16 bits and 24bits. i'm betting theres not much if any difference. also try fm radio as a source. whats my point? well if 24bit medium cant record whats really happening outside the converters beyond 21bits, then 32bit medium cant record much past 21bits. the extra bits are noise. when these increased bit rates come into play is when we process the sounds later, after being recorded. this includes mixing them internally in a daw, and applying plugins etc. this is a tremendous help to have the higher bit rates. BUT (always a but) if we were to actually capture a sound at the lowest bit rate that would accurately capture it (i.e. extreme example - a 20db s/n ratio source needs only a few bits to capture it correctly) and then process it at a HIGH bit rate (like 56 bits) this would work fine. (this is actually what is happening today in most DAW's - the incoming signals are processed at a higher bit rate than they are captured). i really think we will not see any advantage to capturing a typical signal at 32 bits over capturing at 24bits. we will only see increased disk space. MIXING at a higher bit rate is great, keep increasing that! but thats my point. they dont need to capture at 32 bits, they need to improve the internal structure of the daw before any more improvements are to be heard. so, in other words, NYAH NYAH NYAH :wave: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mats Olsson. Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 [quote] * More headroom -nope. the extra headroom will be noise only. if a certain peice of gear has a 120db range of useful signal, capturing it at a higher bit rate will still yeild 120db of usable signal. [/quote]But the thing is that when recording music you need the extra headroom to keep a healthy distance to avoid hitting 0 dB. When recording at lesser resolutions the margins are to narrow/tight. When tracking with a 16 bit system you are really using less bits (often less than 14 bits) most of the time, of course the same principle goes for all resolutions. /Mats http://www.lexam.net/peter/carnut/man.gif What do we want? Procrastination! When do we want it? Later! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gtoledo3 Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by Mats_Olsson: [b] [quote] * More headroom -nope. the extra headroom will be noise only. if a certain peice of gear has a 120db range of useful signal, capturing it at a higher bit rate will still yeild 120db of usable signal. [/quote]But the thing is that when recording music you need the extra headroom to keep a healthy distance to avoid hitting 0 dB. When recording at lesser resolutions the margins are to narrow/tight. When tracking with a 16 bit system you are really using less bits (often less than 14 bits) most of the time, of course the same principle goes for all resolutions. /Mats[/b][/quote]Nooooooo! I can't stand looking at this! This is not true. On the case of what you're talking about, it would be more accurate to say that you are just not taking advantage of the lower noise floor. Don't let Nika see this! :D Want mix/tracking feedback? Checkout "The Fade"- www.grand-designs.cc/mmforum/index.php The soon-to-be home of the "12 Bar-Blues Project" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
not Cereal Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 i agree about that mats i'm so happy about the way incoming 24bits sounds in the end taht i think they should leave it [i]at least for now[/i] and work on the weak link; the internal mixer. THATS what needs the improvement. what they want to do now is similiar to placing a bigger engine in a car when the current transmission cant handle the engine in there now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mats Olsson. Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by G(Jazzbo)T3: [b][QUOTE]Nooooooo! I can't stand looking at this! This is not true. On the case of what you're talking about, it would be more accurate to say that you are just not taking advantage of the lower noise floor. Don't let Nika see this! :D [/b][/quote]Semantics. I'm pretty sure that we basically agree, perhaps I need to re-phrase what I was trying to express. I'd welcome a proper correction. /Mats http://www.lexam.net/peter/carnut/man.gif What do we want? Procrastination! When do we want it? Later! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
not Cereal Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 i think what mats is trying to get at is that he's thinking the extra 8 bits would be [i]above[/i] the level of signal, and i'm thinking the extra 8 bits would be [i]below[/i] the noise floor. i think either of us are right, depending on the level of signal (this is confusing) :D NIKA! HELP US OUT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
not Cereal Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 i'd also like to point out that we seem to be able to have a discussion between us here and its not a flame fest. why? i dunno. maybe its just us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.