Sparse Vs The Full Sound

xo · Post by xo » 04/07/2007 - 14:51

razmo wrote:XO: My mother actually HAS heard her music on my studio speakers... and yes, she says that she can hear a difference, but to her, it matters more that the speakers are places so that they look nice, no matter how silly they are placed (usually at different levels and near the roof! ... and I don't think she is the only consumer with this way of seeing things... it is probably to them what things that we don't pay attention is to us... I for an example has no whatsoever interest in cars... if I ever get a drivers license, I'd probably not care anything about the car, as long as it does it's job to my needs.... drive that is... though car enthusiasts would certainly shiver from my choice of car.... but do I care?... not really.... people are just different, and not everyone will find the same need for "resolution" be it cars, samples, pixels whatever.

I am an audio enthusiast though... I care for my music, and I want it to sound as perfect and good as I can possibly make it do, within my ears capabilities, and my wallet's not the least

I don't care much about cars either, but I have "fallen in love" with a couple of them.

Yep, it's important to a majority of users, or their female counterparts how things look, how big they are and, most importantly, how invisible they are.

Sure, I also value aesthetic looking things, I just like to put the horse before the cart; I don't think the horse likes to push the cart.

It's like going to a fancy restaurant every day, except it's at home and the chef is employed by you! (well, actually not quite, because I can't yet afford what I want).

I also care about image quality because I spend a lot of time reading on screens, and better DPI and more resolution means that is easier without anti-aliasing and sophisticated sub-pixel rendering algorithms. And it also makes things look more photo realistic, which I enjoy.

Similarly to music though, when I create synthetic images, I can apply compression (Dynamic Range reduction) by saturating the image and increasing contrast, as an artistic expression, but I still want my monitor to show the finest details of HDR photographs. (well, in the future...)

Razmo · Post by **Razmo** » 04/07/2007 - 14:52

Is it possible to ignore fidelity until the mastering process, you think? At least you need good recordings to work with from the outset.

I know this... yes... but in what stage should this DXD format be introduced?.... are we talking in the creative process, the mixing process or the mastering process? ... The raw source is still old analog and digital synthesizers... and newer ones of course, that all use different types of formats from analog, 12bit PCM, 16bit PCM, 24 bits etc. etc... so these sources is allready subject to antialiasing curcuitry in the creation phase.... will these types of music benefit from anything until the mastering process? I'm fully aware that the best possible recording is essential (or at least the prefered) for mastering...

I guess this technological advance you are talking about is something that will happen... especially if they are currently advancing even motherboards and the like... but as things are at the moment, I see no reason for me as a musician to think about this new technology until the consumers and myself have the ability to get the equipment needed to both make, and listen to it properly.

I know, that it would be a nice thing for the future, to have a lot of DXD mmixes lying about for remastering, but I'm not sure if I'd care for old material of mine at that time... at that time it would be more or less passÃƒÂ© in my ears, and probably also others...

Razmo · Post by **Razmo** » 04/07/2007 - 15:03

In general people just have different expectations of things... some have high, others have low... different views of what is good enough for them (especialy when money is involved). I make my music to the expectations I have, and if my listeners have higher expectations than me, I try to strive for that extra expectation to please (what is what musicians want in the end I guess), but in many cases, the musicians expectations of his work is many times that of his listeners, so it's not that important because the listeners usualy have a lower expectation (at least when we talk fidelity)... so how high standards do "real people" really need to feel satisfied? ... that is the question

... but the bringing of the MP3 format certainly hints that space and convenience has outconquered fidelity... that is a dead sure proof already (not that I like it!... I hate lousy 128bit MP3's, and the constant loudnes battle!)

Romeo Knight · Post by **Romeo Knight** » 04/07/2007 - 15:14

xo wrote:Accuphase... It's okay and expensive (no relation).

Sorry, I lied, I got that wrong, it's McIntosh equipment including the MCD201 SACD-Player.

So what speakers?

It should be the Piega P 10:
http://www.piega.ch/review_archiv/theab ... 7-2001.htm
http://www.piega.ch/review_archiv/stere ... -1999.html

I still would like to invite you one day. I doubt you ever heard treble like this.

If I'm capable of hearing any trebles at all then....too much Heavy Metal....

DHS · Post by **DHS** » 04/07/2007 - 15:31

I only listen to music using my old Gelosino

Romeo Knight · Post by **Romeo Knight** » 04/07/2007 - 15:40

and this is the mainboard of my new digital audio workstation computer:

(DualCapacitor capable

)

Romeo Knight · Post by **Romeo Knight** » 04/07/2007 - 15:46

..and my new masterkeyboard:

Razmo · Post by **Razmo** » 04/07/2007 - 16:11

Yay! ... minimalistic audio!

... love it... but eh!?... SID music is minimalistic, so it's no surprise

Unfortunately I cannot compete with you guys

Don't have that kind of gear

... next piece to the collection this week probably won't cut it for being minimalistic:

.. and now I have to live on dry bread and water for the rest of this month because of that

Romeo Knight · Post by **Romeo Knight** » 04/07/2007 - 18:22

razmo wrote: .. and now I have to live on dry bread and water for the rest of this month because of that

And why don't you take this
http://www.native-instruments.com/index ... eaktor5_us
instead?
Does the same much cheaper, is much more versatile, you'd only need an extra controller.

Razmo · Post by **Razmo** » 04/07/2007 - 20:32

Romeo Knight: Simply because I do not use software synthesizers

I use my computer for three things:

1. Sequencing using MIDI
2. Sampling the whole output of my analog mixer
3. Digital mastering of the ending stereo track

and I know what the next question might be

... probably "Why!?" ... and the answer is lengthy... but a few explanations are:

1. Preference. I'm used to external equipment and prefer all the "gadgets"...

2. Quality. I feel that the sound is often better than computer sound generators (yes, also the digital ones, explanation can follow if necessary)

3. Stability. I've had nothing but trouble trying to use a PC for making music using software in combination with outboard gear (sync problems etc.) and I'm NOT going to drop my analog gear for a 100% software based studio.

4. Limitations. I work best in limited environments... this is a psykological explanation, but in general I get extremely unproductive when I got too many options, and with all the options in software, I simply go crazy!

5. Because I'm crazy and suffer from gear lust.

I'm trying to build up a confined studio environment for myself at the moment, and have build the whole darn thing up around a Mackie 16 channel stereo line mixer... my mision is to get 16 synthesizers, one for every single channel of this mixer, so that I can use them all in single mode and take ful advantage of their FX possibilities... it's like having 16 individual instruments... on top of that, two FX processors for AUX (reverb and delay). Everything can then be mixed analog, and the final output is recorded to my PC for mastering. Beginning to have the PC do softsynths would be overkill where I'm at now... just wan't to get this setup realized and get started remix'ing and composing

A lengthy explanatin to a short question... hope it explained it well

Razmo · Post by **Razmo** » 04/07/2007 - 20:47

And for the explanation of why I prefer outboard digital gear to software on PC is that many synthesizers of digital hardware manufacture works by custom chips... many of these work much faster internally than a PC running audio at 44.1KHz.. this makes them sound much better in my ears which is one reason I prefer them (I choose my gear VERY carefuly, and do lot's of research before getting anything). I've made it a mission to get as much different gear as possible, so that not two machines do the same thing and thus I've also set up search for different types of synthesis, and some of them just has no comparison in software... that is another reason. Many hardware synths have so heavy a synth layout that I've not seen the likes in software yet (take a look at the Yamaha EX5R for example... one patch can utilise both sampling, physical modelling, analog modelling, FDSP synthesis and advanced FX... or the Yamaha FS1R's formant synthesis) ... and FM synthesis; I've yet to hear a software emulation of a DX7 that sound as punchy and rough as the real thing... no emulation so far does it the way I like it... the Yamaha FM chips simply sound superior to me.

I'm not saying that PC software sound bad... actually there are a few synths I'd like to see in hardware... I just go for the oldschool approach becuase of the reasons explained, and as a consequence I lack a lot of other great advantages as SPACE, AUTOMATION, VERSATILITY, not to mention lots of new technology as most new stuff happen on the software scene... and then there are the cost issues as well (though many older synths are quite cheap in hardware these days)

xo · Post by xo » 04/07/2007 - 20:53

I'm out, but have fun.

Razmo · Post by **Razmo** » 04/07/2007 - 20:58

XO: Arh! ... come on!

... don't you want to have the good ol' debate on hardware vs. software? ... just took the fidelity debate to the max. so let's take on another cap now!

I start: Softsynths suck big time!

.........

(next topic: Analog vs. Digital... and the next one: Live playing vs. sequencing)

Razmo · Post by **Razmo** » 04/07/2007 - 21:02

And what about this one: C64 suck! ... ZX Spectrum is da winner!

He went 'a that a' way! ----------------------------------------------------->

xo · Post by xo » 04/07/2007 - 21:09

It's probably futile to discuss this subject further, I may have touched a nerve, so yes, software synhesizers it is!

I'm firmly interested in physical modelling, and have always been so. But I've never heard truly convincing physical modelling. Do you have any good references to check out? I'm not interested in arbitrary synthesis, I'm much more interested in sounds based on real-world physics, to some degree.