"Bob Ohlsson"—not sure if I really typed it that way or if it got autocorrected...
> On Feb 5, 2015, at 10:13 AM, Nigel Redmon <earle...@earlevel.com> wrote: > > Music is not typically full scale. My level was arbitrary—where the mixer > knob happened to be sitting—but the note is relatively loud in a musical > setting. > > You don’t get to use all 16 bits, all the time in music. So, to complain that > it might as well be 13-bit…well, if we had 13-bit converters and sample size, > we’d be having this discussion about 10-bit. The bass note is LOUD, compared > to similar bits in actual music, as I’m playing from iTunes right now. > > OK, I’m not trying to convince you—it was obvious that we’d have to agree to > disagree on this. And, as you know, I’m not overstating the importance of > dithering 16-bit audio, as many others do. I’m simply saying that it’s worth > it—the cost is virtual nothing (it’s not even don’t in real time, but just > for the final bounce to disk), doing it doesn’t harm the music in any way (if > you can hear the distortion, I don’t think you’ll hear 16-bit flat dither). > > Our biggest difference is that you are looking at this from the end-listener > point of view. But why would I be giving advice to the listener? They aren’t > the ones making the choice to dither or not. The advice is for people in the > position of dithering. And these people do hear it. If my advice were “Don’t > bother—you can’t hear it anyway”, these people would think I’m an idiot—of > course they can hear it. Their business is to look for junk and grunge and > get rid of it. I can envision Bob Katz, Bob Olson, and Bruce Swedien knocking > at my door, wanting to beat me with a microphone stand and pop screens for > telling them that they can’t hear this stuff. (Just kidding, they seem like > really nice guys.) > > The funny thing is that I’m arguing in favor of 16-bit dither with you, and > having a similar exchange with a mastering engineer, who is sending me > examples of why we really must dither at 24-bit ... > > >> On Feb 5, 2015, at 9:49 AM, Didier Dambrin <di...@skynet.be> wrote: >> >>>> If you mean that the peak loudness of the synth isn’t hitting full scale >> >> Yeah I mean that, since, to compensate, you crank your volume up, making it >> 13bit worth (from 14bit, after your extra -6dB gain) >> >> I mean it's always the same debate with dithering, one could demonstrate >> exactly the same with 8bit worth of audio in a 16bit file. To me a 16bit >> file is 16bit worth of audio, for the whole project, thus with the loudest >> parts of the project designed to be listened to. If the entire project peaks >> at -18dB, then it's not designed to be listened to at the same level as >> other 16bit files, and thus it's not 16bit worth of audio. One could go >> further & store 1 bit worth of audio in a 16bit file and point out how >> degraded it is. >> Quantization & loss is everywhere in a computer (obviously) and magnifying >> it doesn't make a point, because you always can bring the imperceptible back >> to perception. To me it's all about what's perceptible when the project is >> used as intended, otherwise, even 64bit float audio should be marked as >> "lossy". >> >> >>>> I could have had a louder sound with a similar tail that would have >>>> produced the same distortion. >> >> yeah, except that louder sound would have killed your ears, so you would >> have cranked your listening level down, and not heard the noise anymore >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Message d'origine----- From: Nigel Redmon >> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 6:22 PM >> To: A discussion list for music-related DSP >> Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles >> >> Oh, sorry about the 6 dB. I made the 16- and 32-bit versions, then noticed I >> had the gain slider on the DP mixer pushed up. I pulled it back to 0 dB and >> made new bounces, plus the residual and dithered version subsequently, but >> must have grabbed the wrong 32-bit version for upload. >> >> I have no idea what you’re implying about "IMHO this is 13bit worth of audio >> inside a 16bit file”. I took care to have no gain after the truncation >> (except the accidental 6 dB on the 32-bit file). If you mean that the peak >> loudness of the synth isn’t hitting full scale, then, A) welcome to music, >> and B) it’s immaterial—I could have had a louder sound with a similar tail >> that would have produced the same distortion. >> >> I’m not surprised you couldn’t hear it, as I said it required fairly high >> listening levels and I don’t know what your equipment is. It can be heard on >> a professional monitoring system. I’m monitoring off my TASCAM DM-3200, and >> it does not have a loud headphone amp—I can’t hear it there. But it’s right >> on the edge—if I boost it +6 dB I have no problem hearing it. But my >> monitoring speakers get louder than the headphones, so I can hear it there. >> And I know engineers who routinely monitor much louder than my gear can get. >> >> >>> On Feb 5, 2015, at 4:55 AM, Didier Dambrin <di...@skynet.be> wrote: >>> >>> I couldn't hear any difference (through headphones), even after an insane >>> boost, and even though your 16bit truncated wav was 6dB(?) lower than the >>> 32bit wav >>> >>> But even if I could hear it, IMHO this is 13bit worth of audio inside a >>> 16bit file. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Message d'origine----- From: Nigel Redmon >>> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 9:13 AM >>> To: A discussion list for music-related DSP >>> Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles >>> >>> OK, here’s my new piece, I call it Diva bass—to satisfy your request for me >>> to make something with truncation distortion apparent. (If it bother you >>> that my piece is one note, imagine that this is just the last note of a >>> longer piece.) >>> >>> I spent maybe 30 seconds getting the sound—opened Diva (default “minimoog” >>> modules), turn the mixer knobs down except for VCO 1, set range to 32’, >>> waveform to triangle, max release on the VCA envelope. >>> >>> In 32-bit float glory: >>> >>> http://earlevel.com/temp/music-dsp/Diva%20bass%2032-bit%20float.wav >>> >>> Truncated to 16-bit, no dither (Quan Jr plug-in, Digital Performer), saved >>> to 16-bit wave file: >>> >>> http://earlevel.com/temp/music-dsp/Diva%20bass%2016-bit%20truncated.wav >>> >>> You’ll have to turn your sound system up, not insanely loud, but loud. (I >>> said that this would be the case before.) I can hear it, and I know >>> engineers who monitor much louder, routinely, than I’m monitoring to hear >>> this. My Equator Q10s are not terribly high powered, and I’m not adding any >>> other gain ahead of them in order to boost the quiet part. >>> >>> If you want to hear the residual easily (32-bit version inverted, summed >>> with 16-bit truncated, the result with +40 dB gain via Trim plug-in): >>> >>> http://earlevel.com/temp/music-dsp/Diva%20bass%2016-bit%20truncated%20residual%20+40dB.wav >>> >>> I don’t expect the 16-bit truncated version to bother you, but it does >>> bother some audio engineers. Here's 16-bit dithered version, for >>> completeness, so that you can decide if the added noise floor bothers you: >>> >>> http://earlevel.com/temp/music-dsp/Diva%20bass%2016-bit%20dithered.wav >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Feb 4, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Didier Dambrin <di...@skynet.be> wrote: >>>> >>>> Yes, I disagree with the "always". "Not always needed" means "it's >>>> sometimes needed", my point is that it's never needed, until proven >>>> otherwise. Your video proves that sometimes it's not needed, but not that >>>> sometimes it's needed. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Message d'origine----- From: Nigel Redmon >>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 6:51 PM >>>> To: A discussion list for music-related DSP >>>> Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles >>>> >>>>> I totally understood the point of your video, that dithering to 16bit >>>>> isn't always needed - but that's what I disagree with. >>>> >>>> Sorry, Didier, I’m confused now. I took from your previous message that >>>> you feel 16-bit doesn’t need to be dithered ("dithering to 16bit will >>>> never make any audible difference”). Here you say that you disagree with >>>> "dithering to 16bit isn't always needed”. In fact, you are saying that >>>> it’s never needed—you disagree because “isn’t always needed” implies that >>>> it is sometimes needed—correct? >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Feb 4, 2015, at 5:06 AM, Didier Dambrin <di...@skynet.be> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Then, it’s no-win situation, because I could EASILY manufacture a bit >>>>>>> of music that had significant truncation distortion at 16-bit. >>>>> >>>>> Please do, I would really like to hear it. >>>>> >>>>> I have never heard truncation noise at 16bit, other than by playing with >>>>> levels in a such a way that the peaking parts of the rest of the sound >>>>> would destroy your ears or be very unpleasant at best. (you say 12dB, >>>>> it's already a lot) >>>>> >>>>> I totally understood the point of your video, that dithering to 16bit >>>>> isn't always needed - but that's what I disagree with. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Message d'origine----- From: Nigel Redmon >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 10:59 AM >>>>> To: A discussion list for music-related DSP >>>>> Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles >>>>> >>>>> Hi Didier—You seem to find contradictions in my choices because you are >>>>> making the wrong assumptions about what I’m showing and saying. >>>>> >>>>> First, I’m not steadfast that 16-bit dither is always needed—and in fact >>>>> the point of the video was that I was showing you (the viewers) how you >>>>> can judge it objectively for yourself (and decide whether you want to >>>>> dither). This is a much better way that the usual that I hear from >>>>> people, who often listen to the dithered and non-dithered results, and >>>>> talk about the "soundstage collapsing" without dither, “brittle” versus >>>>> “transparent" , etc. >>>>> >>>>> But if I’m to give you a rule of thumb, a practical bit of advice that >>>>> you can apply without concern that you might be doing something wrong in >>>>> a given circumstance, that advice is “always dither 16-bit reductions”. >>>>> First, I suspect that it’s below the existing noise floor of most music >>>>> (even so, things like slow fades of the master fader might override that, >>>>> for that point in time). Still, it’s not hard to manufacture something >>>>> musical that subject to bad truncation distortion—a naked, low frequency, >>>>> low-haromic-content sound (a synthetic bass or floor tom perhaps). >>>>> Anyway, at worst case, you’ve added white noise that you are unlikely to >>>>> hear—and if you do, so what? If broadband noise below -90 dB were a >>>>> deal-breaker in recorded music, there wouldn’t be any recorded music. >>>>> Yeah, truncation distortion at 16-bits is an edge case, but the cost to >>>>> remove it is almost nothing. >>>>> >>>>> You say that we can’t perceive quantization above 14-bit, but of course >>>>> we can. If you can perceive it at 14-bit in a given circumstance, and >>>>> it’s an extended low-level passage, you can easily raise the volume >>>>> control another 12 dB and be in the same situation at 16-bit. Granted, >>>>> it’s most likely that the recording engineer hears it and not the >>>>> end-listener, but who is this video aimed at if not the recording >>>>> engineer? He’s the one making the choice of whether to dither. >>>>> >>>>> Specifically: >>>>>> ..then why not use a piece of audio that does prove the point, instead? >>>>>> I know why, it's because you can’t... >>>>> >>>>> First, I would have to use my own music (because I don’t own 32-bit float >>>>> versions of other peoples’ music, even if I thought it was fair use to of >>>>> copyrighted material). Then, it’s no-win situation, because I could >>>>> EASILY manufacture a bit of music that had significant truncation >>>>> distortion at 16-bit. I only need to fire up one of my soft synths, and >>>>> ring out some dull bell tones and bass sounds. Then people would accuse >>>>> me of fitting the data to the theory, and this isn’t typical music made >>>>> in a typical high-end study by a professional engineer. And my video >>>>> would be 20 minutes long because I’m not looking at a 40-second bit of >>>>> music any more. Instead, I clearly explained my choice, and it proved to >>>>> be a pretty good one, and probably fairly typical at 16-bit, wouldn’t you >>>>> agree? As I mentioned at the end of the video, the plan is to further >>>>> examine some high-resolution music that a Grammy award-winning engineer >>>>> and producer friend of mine has said he will provide. >>>>> >>>>>> ...and dithering to 16bit will never make any audible difference. >>>>> >>>>> If you mean “never make any audible difference” in the sense that it >>>>> won’t matter one bit to sales or musical enjoyment, I agree. I imagine >>>>> photographers make fixes and color tweaks that will never be noticed in >>>>> the magazine or webpage that the photo will end up in either. But I >>>>> guarantee you, there are lots of audio engineers that will not let that >>>>> practically (using the word in the original “practical" sense–don’t read >>>>> as “almost") un-hearable zipper in the fade go. If they know it’s there, >>>>> and in some cases they CAN actually hear it, with the volume cranked, you >>>>> can tell them all day and all night that they are wasting there time >>>>> dithering, because listeners will never hear it, but they will want to >>>>> get rid of it. And the cost of that rash action to get rid of it? >>>>> Basically nothing. Hence my advice: Dither and don’t worry about it—or >>>>> listen to the residual up close and see if there’s nothing to worry >>>>> about, if you prefer. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 3, 2015, at 10:24 PM, Didier Dambrin <di...@skynet.be> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry, but if I sum up this video, it goes like this: >>>>>> you need dithering to 16bit and I'm going to prove it, then the video >>>>>> actually proves that you don't need it starting at 14bit, but adds "it's >>>>>> only because of the nature of the sound I used for demo". >>>>>> >>>>>> ..then why not use a piece of audio that does prove the point, instead? >>>>>> I know why, it's because you can't, and dithering to 16bit will never >>>>>> make any audible difference. >>>>>> It's ok to tell the world to dither to 16bit, because it's nothing >>>>>> harmful either (it only mislays people from the actual problems that >>>>>> matter in mixing). But if there is such a piece of audio that makes >>>>>> dithering to 16bit any audible, without an abnormally massive boost to >>>>>> hear it, I'd like to hear it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Andrew says he agrees, but then adds that it's important when you >>>>>> post-edit the sound. Yes it is, totally, but if you're gonna post-edit >>>>>> the sound, you will rather keep it 32 or 24bit anyway - the argument >>>>>> about dithering to 16bit is for the final mix. >>>>>> >>>>>> To me, until proven otherwise, for normal-to-(not abnormally)-high >>>>>> dynamic ranges, we can't perceive quantization above 14bit for audio, >>>>>> and 10bits for images on a screen (debatable here because monitors >>>>>> aren't linear but that's another story). Yet people seem to care less >>>>>> about images, and there's gradient banding all over the place. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Message d'origine----- From: Andrew Simper >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 6:06 AM >>>>>> To: A discussion list for music-related DSP >>>>>> Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Nigel, >>>>>> >>>>>> Isn't the rule of thumb in IT estimates something like: "Double the >>>>>> time you estimated, then move it up to the next time unit"? So 2 weeks >>>>>> actually means 4 months, but since we're in Music IT I think we should >>>>>> be allowed 5 times instead of 2, so from my point of view you've >>>>>> actually delivered on time ;) >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks very much for doing the video! I agree with your recommended >>>>>> workflows of 16 bit = always dither, and 24 bit = don't dither. I >>>>>> would probably go further and say just use triangular dither, since at >>>>>> some time in the future you may want to pitch the sound down (ie for a >>>>>> sample library of drums with a tom you want to tune downwards, or >>>>>> remixing a song) then any noise shaped dither will cause an issue >>>>>> since the noise will become audible. >>>>>> >>>>>> All the best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Andrew >>>>>> >>>>>> -- cytomic -- sound music software -- >>>>> -- >>>>> dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: >>>>> subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, >>>>> dsp links >>>>> http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp >>>>> http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp >>>> >>>> -- >>>> dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: >>>> subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, >>>> dsp links >>>> http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp >>>> http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp >>>> >>>> ----- >>>> Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. >>>> Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr >>>> Version: 2015.0.5645 / Base de données virale: 4281/9056 - Date: 04/02/2015 >>>> -- >>>> dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: >>>> subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, >>>> dsp links >>>> http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp >>>> http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp >>> >>> -- >>> dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: >>> subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, >>> dsp links >>> http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp >>> http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp >>> >>> ----- >>> Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. >>> Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr >>> Version: 2015.0.5645 / Base de données virale: 4281/9059 - Date: 05/02/2015 >>> -- >>> dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: >>> subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, >>> dsp links >>> http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp >>> http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp >> >> -- >> dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: >> subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp >> links >> http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp >> http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp >> >> ----- >> Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. >> Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr >> Version: 2015.0.5645 / Base de données virale: 4281/9059 - Date: 05/02/2015 >> -- >> dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: >> subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp >> links >> http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp >> http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp > > -- > dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: > subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp > links > http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp > http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp -- dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp links http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp
