Sparse Vs The Full Sound

[xo]

Analog does not sound "dirty". It just sounds. Old analog equipment may.

If you want pure digital sound that sounds like the real world (if the rest of your equipment is up to the task, i.e. state of the art), you may check out

http://www.digitalaudio.dk/ax24.htm

I've written briefly about it here

http://xosfaere.blogspot.com/2007/07/di ... ition.html

Lagerfelt can chime in aswell, I'm sure.

There is also dCS

http://www.dcsltd.co.uk/products_pro.html
http://www.dcsltd.co.uk/dcs_elgar_plus.html

"Dirtiness" as an artistic expression is another thing, but the real analog world doesn't have a layer of dirt on it, of course, it just is.

DXD (Digital eXtreme Definition) is used as an extreme high-definition format for mastering SACD and DVDA.

For speakers, I recommend

http://xosfaere.blogspot.com/2007/06/eben-ayra-c10.html

It uses a planar tweeter with zero audio distortion and extreme high frequency extension, as opposed to all dome tweeters I've ever heard. The nearest experience to this clarity, has been the ring radiator of GamuT L7, but not with the same high frequency extension.

Amplifier? Some candidates could be Burmester, NuForce, and others.

...

Sadly, these components will cost a lot of money.

Digital reproduction can sound so analog with the right equipment, that you almost cannot hear it is not real. It's just not within the reach of most people to ever find or to buy.

[Razmo]

Well... aside from not knowing much about the progress of digital audio or how good it can sound (read: analog) I still find that a simple digital recording of an analog synth using a modest A/D converter sound well enough in my ears... so it's to me not a matter of the quality of the AD/DA converters, but instead the raw sound coming from analog gear compared to digital ones...

Even when the analog sound has turned into digital numbers, it still sound supperior in my ears to digital synthesizers... or at least it sounds in a way that I've not heard any softsynth being able to sound yet, though technology is advancing in this area...

Theoretically, if a recorded analog sound in digital format still sound "analog", it should be possible to make the same sound using digital algorithms... theoretically...

so my post was not about audio fidelity... it was about the "sound of analog synthesizers"... and still to this day, analog synthesizers just sound "Dirty" and "Alive"... terms I use in lack of better words... Just the sound of an old analog filter, can sound unstable in a way I've not heard replicated in a softsynth yet... it's like when the resonance is cranked up it make the sound ...well.... DIRTY! it just sound as if the filter is slightly out of tune resulting in audible imperfections making the sound more "Organic"... as soon as they are digitally rendered, they sound "Sterile", or "Clean" or "Stable" or whatever... analog just has this "Sweetness" to it that I happen to like.

Now a debate on weather analog or digital is best I'm not to endulge in becuase frantically it's a matter of taste and me personally like both for different things... though, I'd be hardly hesitating to use anything else for bass sounds but analog after hearing how it sounds compared to digital... still, FM basses is really cool too and they are digital...

A matter of taste it is!... I always use Behringers slogan when this debate is up: JUST LISTEN!

[xo]

I get your point and agree with it. You're probably right, that analog synthesizers have not been superseeded by digital synthesizers.

I just wanted to make a distinction between the real world sound and the noise effects on old analog media and reproduction systems. It may sound stupid to argue this point, but still...

Digital can sound analog, and analog ≠ noise. But even if most converters can do a decent job, I don't believe most reproduction systems, are even vaguely up to the task.

Digital instruments also have not superseeded physical instruments, which must be due to these three factors: inferior physical modelling, inferior interfaces, musicians like real instruments.

[Razmo]

Xo: I'm fully with you on all you said.... I just suspected we were talking past each other ... therefore my "little" post

Now that you mention todays converters are not up to the task... I cannot say, because I have next to no experience in converters... personally I use an EMU 1212M with the same converters as those found in the pro tools recording gear, and I find these to be good enough for me, though still I can hear that "something" is missing after a recording, though it's hard to put my finger on WHAT is missing... I have to add, that I have all my gear (digital and analog) hooked up to a Mackie LM3204 analog mixer, and what this mixer does just sound more "Warm" than what the 1212M has recorded... if this is due to digital nature in general, AD conversion or maybe even DA convertion back to analog I do not know... I just notice a difference...

But then again, what can we use all this analog/digital info for?... the consumers convert to MP3 in the end anyways and don't give shit about the quality as long as they can steal it for free, or get it onto their quality degrading MP# players (legally or not)... is this fidelity aspect something that a musician should be dealing with? .... maybe we should just leave the mastering to the mastering engineers

I for all use what I find to sound good.... digital, analog or whatever... I really don't care...... anymore (been there, done that)

And to prove my point of softsynth unable to reproduce analog synths still, take a listen here: (and notice that this demo is not of truly analog machines... just the filters are analog in some of the sounds)

Click here to watch Analog-Gear-Demo

if anyone can give me a link to a softsynth with the same "feel", please do... I'm keen to listen ... currently, the best softsynth filter I've heard is the one in Gmedia's ImpOSCar...

[xo]

The biggest bottleneck is the reproduction system, especially the loudspeakers, but what I wouldn't give to hear that DAD AX 24. A shame that I do not have any converter capable of showing the difference between 16 bit 44,100 Hz and 24 bit 352,800 Hz (DXD), but without capable speakers such as the ones I mentioned, with a magnetostatic tweeter, it wohn't matter much anyway.

http://www.digitalaudio.dk/audio.htm - now has links to wav files recorded at different definitions (up to DXD)

Denmarks Radio (DR) now uses the DAD AX24 as an AD converter for classical concerts (it can be configured for both an AD and a DA).

MP3. It will change in the future, I'm sure. The record companies have increased awareness that they need to emphasize quality aspects and I'm sure equipment manufacturers don't want their equipment demonstrated with MP3 so something has to happen.

The Linn Records store now supports Studio Master FLAC downloads, above uncompressed CD quality. They have, by far, the best store I've seen, but there are other stores with HD FLAC downloads.

Also, machines that support FLAC natively are starting to appear - e.g. the Squeezebox and Transporter. Neither are supposed to have great audio quality though, but they do support streaming FLAC files wirelessly, from a PC or a NAS, it they have very easy to use displays and remotes to browse artists and directory structures.

[Razmo]

Xo: But the consumers will never have these mega-expensive converters in their home stereos... neither will they employ giga-money loadspeakers, so why even bother with it? ... Even most of todays digital synthesizers (if not all) have digital specifications much "worse" than that great gear you mention, so for electronic music those pro-converters seem like overkill to me. Even the recordings that DR is doing of orchestral scores; where will they come to their right if the reproduction machines in the end will be poor converters in peoples televisions? not to mention the awful speakers? The only place in which I can see great use of such gear is in the mastering process because of increased processing fidelity... especially in 100% digital mastering fascilities... but do these exist yet? (seems to me that pro mastering often has analog gear involved). in the end, a recording made with the equipment you mention will never be better than the source, so in the end that is what will dictate the "quality" anyway... and franticaly, in electronic music for all, there are a lot of "inferior" digital equipment to make the source... well "bad" (compared to the pro gear)...

enough rambling from me... don't even know if I make myself understandable anymore

[xo]

DXD is indeed intended to also be used as a mastering format for SACD and as a digital archive format. DSD is insufficient and cannot accurately represent "square waves".

I think all owners of great SACD players and great amps and loudspeakers will benefit.

Unfortunately, since DXD appears to be the limit, above which it doesn't make any sense to go any further (inaudible fidelity on any system), it's a shame we don't have pure DXD media.

But I assume DR will be releasing their DXD concert recordings in SACD format, if not done so already. So some people will benefit.

There is also some technological advances taking place in cheap digital amplifiers. But sure, for most users, sound sounds like crap, the crappy kind of crap.

http://www.sa-cd.net/showthread/18108//y?page=first

"The main benefit of DXD is the much better impulse response which are capable of capture the ambience around the instruments"

[xo]

Peter Schelke writes

Allow me a short and popular explanation of the reasons behind our technologies:

1. In a multi bit (PCM) A/D audio converter all frequencies is mirrored around half sampling rate.

2. As a consequence multi bit (PCM) audio sampling can not reproduce higher frequencies than half the sample rate.

3. The mirrored frequencies will loose their harmonic relationship to the original signal. Therefore and A/D converter has an Anti Aliasing Filter, typically a filter starting at 45 % of the sample rate with full attenuation at 55% of the sample rate.

4. A perfect square pulse has an unlimited frequency band, however with less amplitude of the higher frequencies. (A perfect square sound pulse do not exist in nature however many type of attacks will contain parts which is close to a square pulse when analyzed in the analog domain).

5. Many claims that a sampling rate at 192 kHz/24 bit should be enough (can reproduce frequencies up to 96 kHz), however at 192 kHz sampling rate an Anti Aliasing Filter is still needed.

6. At DXD 352.8 kHz/24 bit (or 384 kHz) an anti aliasing filter is not needed since the frequencies at more than 176.4 kHz are very weak by nature.

7. A downsides of the anti aliasing filter is that some energy is lost in pre/post ringing. A smooth filter will give a better impulse response a less ringing than a stiff filter.

8. When analyzing a 3us perfect pulse we can reproduce 49% of the amplitude at 192 kHz and 88 % of the amplitude at 352.8 kHz (due to the lack of anti aliasing filter and the wider frequency band).

9. The impulse response is very important, since the brain is using the small differences in time from one ear to the other ears in order to re-calculate an image of the room.

Therefore a digital recording at 352.8 kHz (DXD) is sounding real analog. You are able to capture the ambience around the instruments at 352.8 kHz.
192 kHz, 96 kHz and 44.1 kHz/24 bit are all sounding digital. Of course the higher resolution is better that the lower resolution, but these formats are all sounding digital.

10. DSD is a one bit format (SACD format) and do not have an anti aliasing filter. It has a band wide up to 1.3 MHz and can therefore reproduce the amplitude of a perfect pulse 100%.

11. The downsides of DSD is that the format can not be edited since it is a 1 bit format, and the quantizes noise of the format is significant (-80 dBfs without noise shapers)

12. With a noise shaper we have been able to move some of the noise to a higher frequency band; however the energy will always be there. We can keep the noise below -120dBfs up to 24 kHz but then the noise will increase. At 100 kHz we have -22dBfs noise in our DSD implementation.

13. If you need to edit a DSD file you have to convert it to some kind of multibit format.
When you then again want the DSD format you will ad quantizes noise once again.

14. Therefore DSD (SACD) is a consumer format. It is very good if you only ad quantizes noise once, due to the perfect impulse response, but it should not be used for production.

Best regards,

Peter

[Romeo Knight]

I know we've been there before xo, but I think people should rather trust their ears and shouldn't rely on this Hi End-extreme-hifi-technical stuff, just to be sure it sounds best like this. If you can't already tell by your ears, what's the point?
The sound quality improvement of DXD over SACD for example by any means cannot be clearer than
- checking your ears and removing earwax at the ENT doctor at regular intervals (NO joke!)
- taking care for decent acoustics in the room where the music is gonna played.
But these are topics that are left out by the industry as well as the Hi End consumers. Because the industry can't make any money with this. Instead they constantly increase tech specs and try to sell new devices every now and than.
In the end ironically numbers and tech features seem to be more important than the actual sound.
I only can encourage people to check and compare their equipment in double blind tests and they'll be astonished about the results that'll come up! (mp3s sounding better than PCM files and so on..... )

I always use Behringers slogan when this debate is up: JUST LISTEN!

Thank you, razmo!

[xo]

Yes, we've been there before. I don't agree with your conclusion.

Yes, it is a good idea to optimize many other things - earwax removal, room acoustics, etc. But that does not remove the need for the DXD format. There is truth in what he says. Digital does not quite sound analog. There is no irony: you don't get analog sound just by trying out random things and listening, you actually think about it and design better solutions, such as DXD.

As to making money off the other optimizations, well they already are! Room acoustic panels, diffusors and absorbers sell, just not in high numbers to the end consumer.

I have listented to a magnetostatic tweeter would love to hear the combination of DXD and that.

The question is not whether people will choose MP3 over PCM. The question is that they can at all hear the difference consistently. And then there is the use of proper equipment. You simply cannot make these tests with low-end home equipment. It doesn't make any sense, except for low to higher bitrates of MP3. The subjective reasons for liking MP3 over pure PCM are, by nature subjective. The same for the use of hard compression and dynamic range reduction. It's not really that relevant.

[xo]

Maybe I should invite you to Denmark, so you can hear what sound is supposed to sound like, Romeo. (Not at my place, I don't have a world class system like that )

[Razmo]

Well... I see advantages and overkill in all of this debate... first off, the debate on MP3 vs. PCM (or whatever format), who can tell the difference from a PCM and an MP3 at 192bit?... only those who have exeptional training in listening, and proper gear, or those who actually listen to both to do a comparison... and to the end user, that is most concerned with a tradeoff between quality and the practicalness of the format they often don't care... as I said before they just want a sleek looking, portable MP# player, as most don't even noticve the quality difference anyway.... so at a consumer level I don't see any need for this hi-tech technology really...

Then we have the musicians... musicians vary wildly in this field of tech-cravings... some are just creative folk playin' off in basements having fun and nowing next to nothing about mixing and mastering... they probably don't give a shit either, they just do their stuff, and don't think much about digital technologies... then there are the more technical enclined musicians that fiddle around with mixing and semi-mastering too... but I believe fewe have to funds to use these hi-tech tools....

And if the DXD format cannot be edited really, I doubt it will benefit mastering engineers either, as they definitely need to edit the sound... so in the end, the DXD should be best suited for doing live recordings that need no editing, and is to be presented in an "as is" format... and then again the playback equipment should be supperior as you say, so it's probably left for theatre and cinema experiences, and not consumer...

I do though see an interresting aspect in this technology, if it can somehow be used in software synthesizer technology... then it can be used in a total digital environment from start to the end master... but it requires that the technology can become editable, otherwise it's just a simple Record'n'play format in my eyes.

I do however see the good thing in the development of better and better quality anyway... only by new inovations will we ever progress, so to ignore progression in this field is not wise I think... but until now, the leading technology is just not practical for the common musician and consumer i think...

I just think: Where can this exeptional new audio technology benefit me as a musician? ... first of, I cannot afford it, and thus my interest stops there... but I can take the thought further: IF I could afford it, would my listeners be able to afford it? ... no... I'm stopped again... IF my listeners COULD aford it, would they use it? ... probably not since it would crave imense storing capacity... again formats like MP3 would come to the surface, compromising the quality...

[xo]

DXD is highly editable. In fact it is one of it's motivations, as a mastering format for DSD since delta coded data cannot be mixed, it needs to be transcoded to PCM form and then mixed.

Perhaps you are referring to software? I don't know much about professional audio software but DXD is catching on. Several DAW and ADA manufacturers support it. I gather it also has support in software.

The average consumer will not care but it doesn't matter. The average consumer also doesn't care about SACD or DVDA. Perhaps he does care about SACD because of its multi channel capabilities.

So no, it's not for the casual user, and that really doesn't matter all that much for the non-casual user, except that he would want the use to become wide-spread.

DSD is not editable and so it is really best suitable for record and play (no mixing) because transcoding to/from PCM will damage the result.

[Razmo]

XO: but would it benefit a musician?... will it enable someone like me to make better fidelity in my mixes?... if yes, I'll gladly admit to it's usefulness for the end user as well

[Razmo]

All in all, I personally do whatever I can to make my music sound as perfekt as can be... when I reach the point where I cannot hear any difference anymore I stop there, and if I like it there... others probably will too, MP3, PCM, DXD whatever the format... I don't really care anymore at that point...

Personaly I like PCM format better than MP3... cuase I can hear the difference when comparing them... but in the end, the only format anyone hear is the damn MP3 format because I have to use this format on the internet... even if someone had a CD with it, he/she would probably compress it to MP3 at a rediculous 128bit version, not caring about it.... becuase he/she just HAVE to have it on their MP3 collection, or their MP3 player, or their in their car CD player (that plays MP3s by the way)...

just my view