This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
> On 12/05/2023 2:45 PM EST Nigel Redmon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Haha—yes, I often thought this during online discussions among recording engineers and musicians, when someone has to warn that the shape of EQ filter near Nyquist doesn’t have the response that an analog filter would have, if it’s not done a certain way (and you better check). My thoughts would be, “so…you’re worried someone will put a peaking filter at say 15k Hz or so, with significant boost…uh-huh...and it will not sound the same, in the 20 kHz range, as doing the same thing on an analog console…um, ok…and assuming they could hear it, they would still do it blindly because they could have done it or were used to doing it that way on an analog board?” > And with the Orfanidis/Knud_Christianson compensation, even most of that goes away. And it really doesn't make any difference if Fs = 88.2 or 96 kHz, which I might expect is becoming increasingly common. > Yes, this is why people don’t trust digital. They want to consider doing things that don’t matter or don’t make sense, and compare the results to something that is worse in so many more significant ways… > The "don't trust digital" comes from a few different things: 1. Latency (I know some bands that insist that the monitor mix board is pure analog.) There might be a millisecond or two of delay from double-buffering and processing blocks of samples. 2. Inherent delay required by the algorithm. (Like in pitch shifting. But I'd like to see you do decent pitch shifting with a purely analog device.) 3. Really shitty coding around the word quantization that is necessary in virtually every audio processing algorithm. If it's fully dithered and nicely noise shaped, it's gonna be clean. Sometimes internal noise-shaping, such as fraction saving (that is 1st-order noise shaping with a zero right on z=1) is sufficient in internal quantization. Probably the quantization of the final word going out the output should be nicely dithered and noise shaped. 4. Super-ultra-transparent processing that reveals flaws in the signal going in. Just can't get that with magnetic tape or 60 Hz hum or shot noise. 5. And, of course, modeling of non-linear stuff (that we *want* to hear) that's not really all that faithful to the analog circuit being replaced. 6. And there are also some sorta purists that still insist that their vinyl sounds better than the same album pressed to CD. Surface noise and all. Nigel, this is also going to you directly, but the copy that goes to the list is getting encapsulated into an attachment. I have not the foggiest idea why that is. It's happening just to my posts to music-dsp. > 😂 > > Not making fun of the effort here, we should always be aware of the results of our choices. And be aware that we might be judged by compromise decisions even when they don’t detract from sound quality, for that matter ;-) > Yup. -- r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ [email protected] "Imagination is more important than knowledge." . . .
