Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Objectivists board room
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Objectivists board room - Page 243

post #3631 of 3633
Quote:
Originally Posted by LazyListener View Post

 

1a.  If by synth, we mean a short, singular, electronically created sound, then I agree - some synths, maybe most, have a relatively narrow dynamic range.  ...  With that said, synthesizer technology as a whole is not any more limited in dynamic range or even ultrasonics, than recorded acoustical instruments.

 

[1b] I disagree that the creative choices of producers are limited by the genre.  At least not when it comes to subject at hand - dynamic range.

 

2.  What does "benefit in terms of accuracy" mean?  2a. What is the point of the "accuracy" if there's no perceivable benefit to the listener?

 

3.  Are you saying the link to the gearslutz forum I posted was a bunch of "ignorant nonsense from noobs?" 

3a. You say pros hang out there, too.  3b. So they didn't chime in?

3c. So you're saying EDM may benefit from Hi-Res, just not working at or distributing it in Hi-Res.  Thanks for clarifying that.

 

4.  No.  I'm saying I don't see how that specific example (some use of lo-fi processors which still capture what they're supposed to capture in terms of frequencies) explains how EDM as a genre benefits the least from Hi-Res.

 

6.  I didn't realize most of today's software synths were created using samples.  Are you sure about this?  I was under the impression that samples were mostly a thing of the past, and that today's synthesizer tech was largely fully digital and electronic.  Not so?

 

1a. I was not talking about synthesizer technology as a whole, I was talking about the types synths typically used in EDM!!

1b. Listen to what you're saying and the fundamentally simple logic which proves you wrong. I take it that you know that EDM is an abbreviation of Electronic Dance Music? Unlike say classical music where the audience sits quietly to listen, the audience for EDM doesn't (or at least isn't supposed to), they are supposed to dance. In practise they move around the club or festival venue, drinking, talking and dancing, they're not deliberately trying to be quiet and the result is a very high noise floor. Now, if a producer created a piece of EDM with a large dynamic range the audience would not be able to hear the quiet parts and if they can't hear it then they can't dance to it and if they can't dance to it then it's NOT Electronic Dance Music (EDM)! The dynamic range of EDM therefore must be small, not because of creative choice but because otherwise it won't be EDM, it would be some other electronic music genre!

 

2. Some instruments produce significant amounts of energy above 20kHz, if we want to accurately capture those instruments then obviously we need to capture that energy above 20kHz.

2a. That's a good question and one that almost the entirety of audiophile industry would answer that there is some perceivable benefit. If the audiophile industry did not stand to benefit so much from making such claims then they wouldn't make them and we wouldn't need to choose our words so carefully or be so concerned about imperceivable accuracy!

 

3. Yes. 3a. Yes. 3b. I can't be sure but there were a couple of posts from people who appeared to know more than the noobs.

3c. Yes, EDM and other popular music genres often use hard driven modelled compressors. A characteristic of such compressors is high freq content causing IMD (Inter Modulation Distortion) in the audible band. So there is some benefit of running such compressors at higher than 44.1kHz sample rates. Once the compressor has created it's IMD artefacts in the audible band then obviously that can be captured with a 44.1kHz sample rate, there's no need to maintain a high sample rate. Compressors and synths which benefit in this way from an extended freq spectrum therefore simply need to up-sample, process and down-sample again internally. Neither the mix session, nor the other processors, nor the distribution format itself benefit from a "hires" sample rate.

 

4. By definition, Lo-fi processors do not accurately capture the amplitudes of the frequencies, if they did, they wouldn't be Lo-Fi, they would be Hi-Fi! So, how do you think Lo-Fi could benefit equally from "hires" as Hi-Fi?

 

6. Yes, many of today's synths are based on samples. Samplers are still commonly used in EDM, though not as much as previously. With a sampler, you've got to make (or source) samples and then spend time (days/weeks) manually processing each one. The reason they aren't as common today is because many of today's "synths" are effectively a sampler + synthesizer + effects rack, with a whole bunch of presets where all that manual processing has already been done, you can simply use the preset as soon as it's selected or tweak some of the parameters/processing. Some creators/producers still like to get their hands dirty and build some of their sounds themselves (from raw samples).

 

What I really don't get about your responses is that on the one hand you state "Honestly, I don't know the technical ins and outs like you and others here do.", and then within a sentence or two you're vociferously arguing and telling us we're wrong. I don't see how you can logically reconcile these two facts? If you don't understand, then ask but arguing that we're wrong from a position of ignorance just doesn't make any sense or at least, doesn't make any sense in a Science sub-forum.

 

G

post #3632 of 3633
Quote:
Originally Posted by castleofargh View Post
 

each side has elaborated a lot, even potential confusion on terms has been voiced. some stuff said were clearly false and that too has been pointed out and IMO clearly explained several times now.

at this point here is what I'm reading: someone said "humans have 2 arms".  and another dude has seen a picture of that kid born with 3 arms and goes, "that claim is false, humans can have more than 2 arms".

relative vs absolute.

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

 

But I have three ears, all of them golden.

Someone is enjoying kicking around an intangible, the perception of DR based upon musical content and human beings. I suspect that this can go on for years and not arrive at a meaningful conclusion/consensus.

post #3633 of 3633
Quote:
Originally Posted by castleofargh View Post
 

each side has elaborated a lot, even potential confusion on terms has been voiced. some stuff said were clearly false and that too has been pointed out and IMO clearly explained several times now.

at this point here is what I'm reading: someone said "humans have 2 arms".  and another dude has seen a picture of that kid born with 3 arms and goes, "that claim is false, humans can have more than 2 arms".

relative vs absolute.

 

Absolutely, relatively speaking.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Objectivists board room