On 12/02/2015, gwenhwyfaer wrote:
> On 11/02/2015, Andrew Simper replied to me:
>>> ... I made 7 sawtooth
>>> waves with random (static) phases and one straightforward sawtooth
>>> wave, with all partials in phase. I just listened to it again, to
>>> check my memory. On a half-decent pair of head
On 11/02/2015, Andrew Simper replied to me:
>> ... I made 7 sawtooth
>> waves with random (static) phases and one straightforward sawtooth
>> wave, with all partials in phase. I just listened to it again, to
>> check my memory. On a half-decent pair of headphones, the difference
>> between the all
On 11 February 2015 at 05:52, gwenhwyfaer wrote:
> On 10/02/2015, Didier Dambrin wrote:
>> Pretty easy to check the obvious difference between a pure low sawtooth, and
>>
>> the same sawtooth with all partials starting at random phases.
>
> Ah, this again? Good times. I remember playing. I made 7
compressor in a soundcard.. that alone
> might be a point for dithering, if the common end listener leaves that kind
> of thing on.
>
>
>
>
> -Message d'origine- From: Andrew Simper
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 6:52 AM
>
> To: A discussion list for
Here's the guts of the Pono:
http://mikebeauchamp.com/2014/12/pono-player-teardown/
DAC is an ESS ES9018K2M
http://www.esstech.com/PDF/ES9018-2M%20PB%20Rev%200.8%20130619.pdf
"32-bit" - Wonder what the actual ENOB is...
Output driver is a discrete design.
Main MCU is apparently a TI OMAP sim
Maybe you missed the original kickstarter video (it’s still there)…snake oil
sales is when famous musicians, who have spent countless hours in the finest,
quietest studios, with the finest and costliest equipment available, step out
of a CAR, with a pocket-player system, and say it’s the best so
I've read that the Pono DAC is Sabre 9018.
E
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Zhiguang Zhang wrote:
> Actually scratch that 2nd thought. It would be good to know what DAC the
> Pono device contains.
>
> -EZ
>
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Zhiguang Zhang
> wrote:
>
> > Re:Pono, what about
Actually scratch that 2nd thought. It would be good to know what DAC the Pono
device contains.
-EZ
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Zhiguang Zhang
wrote:
> Re:Pono, what about the DAC in the device? That could make an audible and
> real difference. Also, there is undeniably more informatio
Re:Pono, what about the DAC in the device? That could make an audible and real
difference. Also, there is undeniably more information in high res downloads,
if the original master was recorded to tape or to hi-res in Pro Tools. So, has
anyone ever considered the sample-level ‘phase’ effect of
How do the crest factors of these different "sawtooth" waveforms compare?
I'd expect one with randomized phase to have a much lower crest factor.
Which is to say that I'd expect the in-phase sawtooth to activate a lot
more nonlinearity in the playback chain, which explains why that one is
easy to p
On 10/02/2015, Didier Dambrin wrote:
> Pretty easy to check the obvious difference between a pure low sawtooth, and
>
> the same sawtooth with all partials starting at random phases.
Ah, this again? Good times. I remember playing. I made 7 sawtooth
waves with random (static) phases and one straig
I like the trend of releasing remastered material, where there is scope for
improved quality. Which isn't always, but there's an entire generation of
albums that were victims of the loudness wars, and various early work by
artists that hadn't access to quality mastering at the time, and so on,
that
What I am interested in, regarding this discussion, is quite specific.
I make computer music using Csound, and usually using completely
synthesized sound, and so far only in stereo. Csound can run at any
sample rate, can output floating-point soundfiles, and can dither. My
sounds are not necessaril
So you like the bar being raised, but not the way that Neil Young has
attempted?
Whether the higher resolution actually degrades the quality is a
topic up for future debate.
From the ponomusic webpage:
"...and now, with the PonoPlayer, you can finally feel the master in all
its glory, in its na
I'm all for releasing stuff from improved masters. There's a trend in my
favorite genre (heavy metal) to rerelease a lot of classics in "full
dynamic range" editions lately. While I'm not sure that all of these
releases really sound much better (how much dynamic range was there in an
underground de
The only comment in that page that actually tells the story is buried:
--
Different media, different master
I've run across a few articles and blog posts that declare the virtues
of 24 bit or 96/192kHz by comparing a CD to an audio DVD (or SACD) of
the 'same' recording. This compar
>why does higher-than-needed sample rate hurt audio quality?
>might not be necessary, but how does it make it worse (excluding
>the increased computational burden)?
The danger is that you are now including a bunch of out-of-band content in
your output signal, which can be transformed into in-band
ia.edu
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
On 2/10/15 1:22 PM, Didier Dambrin wrote:
Of course, a lot of visually different waveshapes sound the same, as soon
as the phase relationship between neighboring partials is shifted by the
same amount.
they can be shifted by *any* amoun
On 2/10/15 1:51 PM, Ethan Duni wrote:
So to you, that Pono player isn't snake oil?
It's more the 192kHz sampling rate that renders the Pono player into snake
oil territory. The extra bits probably aren't getting you much, but the
ridiculous sampling rate can only *hurt* audio quality, while cons
On 2/10/15 1:30 PM, Didier Dambrin wrote:
Of course 24bit isn't a bad idea for intermediate files, but 32bit
float is a better idea, even just because you don't have to normalize
& store gain information that pretty much no app will read from the
file. And since the price of storage is negligib
>So to you, that Pono player isn't snake oil?
It's more the 192kHz sampling rate that renders the Pono player into snake
oil territory. The extra bits probably aren't getting you much, but the
ridiculous sampling rate can only *hurt* audio quality, while consuming
that much more battery and storag
On 2/10/15 1:22 PM, Didier Dambrin wrote:
Of course, a lot of visually different waveshapes sound the same, as
soon as the phase relationship between neighboring partials is shifted
by the same amount.
they can be shifted by *any* amount, as long as it's static.
in fact, what do you mean by "s
-Message d'origine-
From: robert bristow-johnson
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 6:11 PM
To: music-dsp@music.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
i certainly don't think we need 24-bit and 192 kHz just for listening to
music in our living room. but fo
y, February 10, 2015 6:11 PM
To: music-dsp@music.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
On 2/10/15 8:49 AM, Didier Dambrin wrote:
What are you talking about - why would phase not matter? It's extremely
important (well, phase relationship between neighboring partials).
On 2/10/15 8:49 AM, Didier Dambrin wrote:
What are you talking about - why would phase not matter? It's
extremely important (well, phase relationship between neighboring
partials).
well, it's unlikely you'll be able to hear the difference between this:
x(t) = cos(wt) - 1/3*cos(3wt) + 1
linear (mu/A-law) encoding could
have applied to 16bit as well..
-Message d'origine-
From: robert bristow-johnson
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 2:37 PM
To: music-dsp@music.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
On 2/9/15 10:19 PM, Nigel Redmo
On 2/9/15 10:19 PM, Nigel Redmon wrote:
But it matters, because the whole point of dithering to 16bit depends on how
common that ability is.
Depends on how common? I’m not sure what qualifies for common, but if it’s 1 in
100, or 5 in 100, it’s still a no-brainer because it costs nothing, effec
o: A discussion list for music-related DSP
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
Hi Didier,
I count myself as having good hearing, I always wear ear protection at
any gigs / loud events and have always done so. My hearing is very
important to me since it is essential for my livelihood.
I
Andreas:
>The hearing threshold apparently is at around 10dbSPL
The generally accepted hearing threshold is in fact around 0 dB SPL.
Around 3 kHz it is around - 6 dB SPL.
--
Best regards,
Goran Finnberg
The Mastering Room AB
Goteborg
Sweden
E-mail: master...@telia.com
Learn from the mistake
how common that ability is.
-Message d'origine- From: Andrew Simper
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2015 2:08 PM
To: A discussion list for music-related DSP
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
On 7 February 2015 at 03:52, Didier Dambrin wrote:
It was just several times th
xpensive trigonometry functions, and it has become quite
> common to use low-precision algos to spare CPU. I've always done this
> according to my ears, not according to charts.
>
>
>
>
> -Message d'origine- From: Nigel Redmon
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10,
te common to use low-precision algos to spare CPU. I've always done this
according to my ears, not according to charts.
-Message d'origine-----
From: Nigel Redmon
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 4:19 AM
To: A discussion list for music-related DSP
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video
ed when both were normalised, I had my headphones amp
> at -18 dB so the first noise peak was loud but not uncomfortable.
>
> I thought it was an odd test since the test file just stopped before I
> couldn't hear the LFO amplitude modulation cycles, so I wasn't sure
> what y
-Message d'origine- From: Andrew Simper
> Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2015 2:08 PM
> To: A discussion list for music-related DSP
> Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
>
> On 7 February 2015 at 03:52, Didier Dambrin wrote:
>> It was just several times
ssage d'origine-
From: Andrew Simper
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2015 2:08 PM
To: A discussion list for music-related DSP
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
On 7 February 2015 at 03:52, Didier Dambrin wrote:
It was just several times the same fading in/out noise at differe
I’m thankful for Andy posting that clear explanation too. Sometimes I
understate things—when I said that it would be “pretty hard to avoid” having
ample gaussian noise to self-dither in the A/D process, I was thinking
cryogenics (LOL).
> On Feb 9, 2015, at 7:54 AM, Vicki Melchior wrote:
>
>
OK, I don’t want to diverge too much from the practical to the theoretical, so
I’m going to run down what is usual, not what is possible, because it narrows
the field of discussion.
Most people I know are using recording systems that bussing audio at 32-bit
float, minimum, and use 64-bit float
Nigel, I looked at your video again and it seems to me it's confusing as to
whether you mean 'don't dither the 24b final output' or 'don't ever dither at
24b'. You make statements several times that imply the former, but in your
discussion about 24b on all digital interfaces, sends and receives
That's a clear explanation of the self-dither assumed in A/D conversion, thanks
for posting it.
Vicki
On Feb 8, 2015, at 9:11 PM, Andrew Simper wrote:
> Vicki,
>
> If you look at the limits of what is possible in a real world ADC
> there is a certain amount of noise in any electrical system
Vicki,
If you look at the limits of what is possible in a real world ADC
there is a certain amount of noise in any electrical system due to
gaussian thermal noise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson%E2%80%93Nyquist_noise
For example if you look at an instrument / measurement grade ADC like
this
>Beyond that, Nigel raises this issue in the context of "self-dither”...
First, remember that I’m the guy who recommended “always” dithering 16-bit (no
“always” as in “alway necessary”, but as in “do it always, unless you know that
it gives no improvement”), and to not bother dithering 24-bit. S
I have no argument at all with the cheap high-pass TPDF dither; whenever it was
published the original authors undoubtedly verified that the moment decoupling
occurred, as you say. And that's what is needed for dither effectiveness. If
you're creating noise for dither, you have the option to
On 2/7/15 8:54 AM, Vicki Melchior wrote:
Well, the point of dither is to reduce correlation between the signal and quantization noise. Its effectiveness requires that the error signal has given properties; the mean error should be zero and the RMS error should be independent of the signal. The b
efore.) 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 quie
t;>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Original Message
>>
>> Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
>>
>> From: "Vicki Melchior"
>>
>> Date: Fri, Febru
6:27 PM, robert bristow-johnson
> wrote:
>
>
> Original Message ----
>
> Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
>
> From: "Vicki Melchior"
>
> Date: Fri, February 6, 2015 2
w-johnson wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Original Message ------------
>
> Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
>
> From: "Vicki Melchior"
>
> Date: Fri, Februar
ear the LFO amplitude modulation cycles, so I wasn't sure
what you were trying to prove!
All the best,
Andy
> -Message d'origine- From: Andrew Simper
> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 3:21 PM
> To: A discussion list for music-related DSP
> Subject: Re: [music-dsp]
32-bit internal floating point is not sufficient for certain DSP tasks
and will be plainly audible as causing all sorts of problems, a DF1 at
low frequencies is the classic example of this, it causes large
amounts of low frequency rumble. This is a completely different thing
to the final bit depth
Original Message
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
From: "Vicki Melchior"
Date: Fri, February 6, 2015 2:23 pm
To: "A discussion list for mu
The self dither argument is not as obvious as it may appear. To be effective
at dithering, the noise has to be at the right level of course but also should
be white and temporally constant. The noise floors present in music data
normally come from the self noise of the analog components used i
tinely, 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
at it's a bit silly.
-Message d'origine-
From: Nigel Redmon
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 7:13 PM
To: A discussion list for music-related DSP
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
Mastering engineers can hear truncation error at the 24th bit but say it is
subtle
So you hear all 6 too?
-Message d'origine-
From: Richard Dobson
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 4:10 PM
To: music-dsp@music.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
On 06/02/2015 14:21, Andrew Simper wrote:
Sorry, you said until, which is even more conf
eady
being the 0dB "annoyance" starting point)
-Message d'origine-
From: Andrew Simper
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 3:21 PM
To: A discussion list for music-related DSP
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
Sorry, you said until, which is even more
mmh, "Affiliation: Meridian Audio Ltd"?
-Message d'origine-
From: Vicki Melchior
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 2:21 PM
To: A discussion list for music-related DSP
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
The following published double blind test contradi
Hi Michael,
I know that you already understand this, and comment that this is for internal
calculations, but for the sake of anyone who might misinterpret your 32-bit vs
64-bit comment, I’ll point out that this is a situation of error feedback—the
resulting error is much greater than the sample
>Isn't it generally agreed that truncation noise is correlated with the signal?
“Is correlated”? No, but it can be.
First, if there is enough noise in the signal before truncation, then it’s
dithered by default—no correlation.
Second, if the signal is sufficiently complex, it seems, then there
This was done before John ffitch (I believe it was he) changed the
filter samples in even the single-precision version of Csound to use
double-precision. And I think this change may have been made as a
result of my report.
Regards,
Mike
-
Michae
Yes, but note that in the case Michael is reporting, all filters have
double-precision coeffs and data storage. It is only when passing samples
between unit generators that the difference lies (either single or
double precision is used). Still, I believe that
there can be audible differences.
V
Thanks for the reference Vicki
>What they are hearing is not noise or peaks sitting at the 24th
>bit but rather the distortion that goes with truncation at 24b, and
>it is said to have a characteristic coloration effect on sound. I'm
>aware of an effort to show this with AB/X tests, hopefully it
Isn't it generally agreed that truncation noise is correlated with the
signal?
The human ear is excellent at picking up on correlation, so a system
that introduces multiple correlated (noise) signals may reach a point
where it is perceptual, even if the starting point is a 24 bit signal.
I would
Quite. This conversation is veering down the vintage wine tasting alley.
Victor Lazzarini
Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy
Maynooth University
Ireland
On 6 Feb 2015, at 18:13, Nigel Redmon wrote:
>> Mastering engineers can hear truncation error at the 24th bit but say it is
>> subt
Do not believe anything that is not confirmed to a high degree of
statistical signifance (say, 5 standard deviations) by a double-blind
test using an ABX comparator.
That said, the AES study did use double-blind testing. I did not read
the article, only the abstract, so cannot say more about the s
>Mastering engineers can hear truncation error at the 24th bit but say it is
>subtle and may require experience or training to pick up.
Quick observations:
1) The output step size of the lsb is full-scale / 2^24. If full-scale is 1V,
then step is 0.000596046447753906V, or 0.0596 microvolt (
On 06/02/2015 14:21, Andrew Simper wrote:
Sorry, you said until, which is even more confusing. There are
multiple points when I hear the noise until since it sounds like the
noise is modulated in amplitude by a sine like LFO for the entire
file, so the volume of the noise ramps up and down in a c
Sorry, you said until, which is even more confusing. There are
multiple points when I hear the noise until since it sounds like the
noise is modulated in amplitude by a sine like LFO for the entire
file, so the volume of the noise ramps up and down in a cyclic manner.
The last ramping I hear fades
On 6 February 2015 at 17:32, Didier Dambrin wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, until which point do you hear the noise in this
> little test (a 32bit float wav), starting from a bearable first part?
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6Cr7wjQ2EPucjFCSUhGNkVRaUE/view?usp=sharing
I hear noise immedi
The following published double blind test contradicts the results of the old
Moran/Meyer publication in showing (a) that the differences between CD and
higher resolution sources is audible and (b) that failure to dither at the 16th
bit is also audible.
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib
>Here's a double-blind A/B/X test that indicated no
>one could hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit.
>24-bit is better than 16-bit with dithering so maybe
>you can extrapolate.
I'd strongly prefer a direct test. For one thing, it's not clear to me
whether it is possible to extrapolate any con
ruary 06, 2015 8:21 AM
To: A discussion list for music-related DSP
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
On 6 February 2015 at 12:16, Didier Dambrin wrote:
I'm not quite sure I understand what you described here below.
I think the wavs should have contained a normalized par
>>> 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.wa
7;origine- From: Andrew Simper
> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 3:31 AM
>
> To: A discussion list for music-related DSP
> Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
>
> I also tried boosting the float version of the bass tone to -1 dB (so
> another 18 dB up from with the sa
sion 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.
From: Tom Duffy
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 3:50 AM
To: music-dsp@music.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
The AES report is highly controversial.
Plenty of sources dispute the findings.
---
Tom
On 2/5/2015 6:39 PM, Ross Bencina wrote:
Hi Ethan,
On 6/
ty quiet listening setup
here (for those who have tried QC15's).
-Message d'origine-
From: Andrew Simper
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 3:31 AM
To: A discussion list for music-related DSP
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
I also tried boosting the float
laim that
"engineers shouldn't do things according to the lowest common denominator".
A video you should watch as well, btw:
http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml
-Message d'origine-
From: Ethan Duni
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 3:17 AM
To: A discussion list for music-
Easily googled.
Paraphrased from memory:
Insufficient info on equipment used, can't reproduce experiment.
Source probably not greater than 16 bit quality to start with.
---
Tom.
On 2/5/2015 7:01 PM, Ross Bencina wrote:
On 6/02/2015 1:50 PM, Tom Duffy wrote:
The AES report is highly controversia
On 6 February 2015 at 09:00, Nigel Redmon wrote:
>...
> Several people have told me that they can hear it, consistently, on 24-bit
> truncations. I don’t think so. I read in a forum, where an expert was using
> some beta software and mentioned the audible difference with engaging 24-bit
> dithe
On 6/02/2015 1:50 PM, Tom Duffy wrote:
The AES report is highly controversial.
Plenty of sources dispute the findings.
Can you name some?
Ross.
--
dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website:
subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp
links
http://
The AES report is highly controversial.
Plenty of sources dispute the findings.
---
Tom
On 2/5/2015 6:39 PM, Ross Bencina wrote:
Hi Ethan,
On 6/02/2015 1:17 PM, Ethan Duni wrote:
>> There is just no way A/B testing on a sample of listeners,
>> >at loud, but still realistic listening levels,
Hi Ethan,
On 6/02/2015 1:17 PM, Ethan Duni wrote:
>> There is just no way A/B testing on a sample of listeners,
>> >at loud, but still realistic listening levels, would show that
>> >dithering to 16bit makes a difference.
>
> Well, can you refer us to an A/B test that confirms your assertions?
>
ot 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.
>>>
>>>
>There is just no way A/B testing on a sample of listeners,
>at loud, but still realistic listening levels, would show that
>dithering to 16bit makes a difference.
Well, can you refer us to an A/B test that confirms your assertions?
Personally I take a dim view of people telling me that a test wou
ould
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 d
m isn't even a shrimp
> in the whole universe.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Message d'origine- From: Nigel Redmon
> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 7:13 PM
> To: A discussion list for music-related DSP
> Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and
on
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 7:13 PM
To: A discussion list for music-related DSP
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
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.
l 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -
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
stortion.
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 D
> 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
d song and
bear it?
-Message d'origine- From: Andreas Beisler
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 4:22 PM
To: music-dsp@music.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles
The artifacts are very prominent in the tail end of the truncated file.
I don't understand
ry 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
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 jus
rom: 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 yo
eeded, 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
>>
nt 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 di
--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'
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
>
>
Great point, Steffan, and glad to hear that you did some experiments. I have
not, but made an assumption (by considering the math involved in encoding) that
encoding from a high resolution source is best. My current music partner is a
long-time engineer and producer, and he has the habit of mixi
1 - 100 of 133 matches
Mail list logo
