1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

[i]Please Help Me![/i]: Waveform vs Envelope:

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by TheSonicTruth, Sep 26, 2018.
1 2
4 5 6
  1. bigshot
    The pro engineer forum's loss is our gain.
  2. gregorio
    1. I always thought the "Pro" in Rec.Audio.Pro was short for "professional" but even if it does stand for "production", still that group has always been aimed at/used by professionals, rather than at consumers. I'll come back to this later.

    2. They appear entirely correct to insist that you "don't know how to distinguish a waveform and an envelope". An "envelope" and a "waveform" are two different things, an envelope is NOT "the outline of the peaks of all those squiggles"! The term "envelope" has a specific meaning, it refers to the collective phases of the production of a musical note (or acoustic sound), which are defined as ADSR: Attack, Decay, Sustain and Release. The term "envelope" was originally invented to standardise these phases specifically when designing sounds in synthesizers. The term "envelope" is today sometimes used more broadly, outside the realm of synthesis. Technically then, "the outline of all the peaks" of a waveform will only appear the same as the "envelope" if the waveform is a quite highly zoomed recording of a completely dry (without ambience/reverb) single note/sound. This scenario is very rare or completely non-existent in the completed master of many/most genres and furthermore, even if an actual envelope is evident in a mix, there is no one specific zoom level at which it would become evident, as none of the ADSR phases have a fixed time/duration, they could be anything from around a tenth of a milli-second to more than a minute in some cases.

    Going back to my first point above, this seems to be a trend of yours. You go to pro audio forums/groups (you've mentioned GearSlutz and others in the past) with a specific agenda about the use of compression which you relentlessly push whenever you "see the opportunity". That in itself is annoying enough but it's infinitely more annoying on account of you having relatively little knowledge and therefore "seeing an opportunity" where in fact there isn't one. And, if that's not already more than bad enough, you refuse to understand or appreciate the actual facts when they are explained to you and instead just repeat the same conspiracy theory about the use of compression you started with. Envelopes and waveforms are typically covered in the first year of sound engineering courses, so in a forum of professional engineers, who are obviously well beyond the stage of a first year student, the term "envelope" is understood to the point of being taken for granted, even when used in a broader, more abstract/metaphorical sense. You arguing about it and trying to misuse it to push your agenda not only demonstrates your lack of relative basic understanding but is rude/insulting towards that pro audio community. It's hardly surprising that some eventually loose their patience and retaliate harshly. Case in point:
    1. Clearly it's a passion of yours. Unfortunately, it's a passion which blinds you to many of the actual facts!

    2. And here is the result of that blinding passion; A DELIBERATE LIE to support your passion! There are no engineers who don't acknowledge the loudness war exists and completely contrary to your assertion, they do discuss it and have done for many years before you even knew it existed. The reason I accuse you of a deliberate lie rather than just being inadvertently ignorant or misinformed is because this has been explained to you previously, on more than one occasion, and yet here you are again, repeating that same incorrect assertion, fully aware that it is incorrect!

    Waveforms can be a forensic tool but it's only one of several forensic tools and as with all forensic tools, they have to be applied appropriately and the results interpreted. This is just another example of a basic fact you refuse to acknowledge, let alone try to understand, appreciate or heaven forbid, apply to your own argument/passion! Just ignoring facts which confuse or contradict your point of "passion" might be an acceptable solution to you but as this forum is specifically dedicated to the science and facts of sound, it's effectively disrespectful of this sub-forum, rude/insulting to it's members and as this has all been explained to you more than once, it can only be viewed as a deliberate act of trolling!

  3. TheSonicTruth
    G1. It is 'Production'. Several of the human participants have made that abundantly clear to me.

    G2. Wave vs Env. So again, when I have a lone 4min pop song up on my DAW window, which am I looking at? The usenet guys seem to lean in the direction of envelope, claiming that beyond a few outlying peaks, no individual waves can be seen. Selecting, say, 30sec of that song, and zooming it to full window width, they state, produces a waveform, because individual waves and spikes become readily visible.

    G2. "Deliberate lie": Clarification - Some engineers' ATTITUDES, and their response to my comments, to me suggests denial of a loudness race. At least how I interpret them.

    G on Trolling: As far as I am aware, trolling could include inflaming, name-calling, threats, toilet-language, and introducing off-topic material to a forum, sub-forum, or specific thread or post.

    None of the above are or were my intents, either in moderated forums or on UseNet, even though some, especially spy-bot 'None', might have become 'inflamed'.

    My mentions of OVER-compression, or of EXCESSIVE peak limiting or other processing, might not be the core topic of a particular conversation, but, they are audio-related and therefore have some relevance to it. (notice I emphasized OVER and EXCESSIVE - that implies I am not opposed, as I have been accused of here and elsewhere, to any form of dynamics processing.) But, they are not trolling, as making a comment about political or sports headlines in an audio environment definitely would constitute.

    To use a nice quarter pound cheeseburger as an example: Add ketchup to taste - some prefer a drop, other, at least a tablespoon. Sadly, if that burger were a modern pop tune, the ketchup bottle would be, in a compression sense completely emptied, and someone eating the burger would now have a table and lap fulla Heinz! LOL. THAT's what I'm championing against. And just like with any of today's top 3 political news items - go ahead, look em up! - of course my views(or yours, or someone elses) are bound to P/O someone. But sorry to inform you, it's not 'trolling'.
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2018
  4. gregorio
    1. As I stated, it doesn't matter whether it stands for "production" or "professional", the group is aimed at/ used by professionals.
    2. You are looking at a highly time compressed graphical representation of sample data points. So NOT an "envelope" nor strictly speaking even a "waveform", although for simplicity's sake it's often called a "waveform" by professionals who understand it's meaning in this context.
    2a. It's a group aimed at professionals and therefore a certain level of understanding of terminology and context is expected. What's not expected is arguing from a position of ignorance. On the face of what you're reporting, the "usenet guys" would appear to be wrong but prior experience of what you've reported indicates that you've either misunderstood/misinterpreted what the "usenet guys" have said or are misrepresenting it.
    3. This is NOT your forum, this is the science forum and we're interested in the facts, not in what engineers' responses "suggest to you" or "how you interpret them"!
    4. That's not true, you've been made aware of what constitutes trolling here, on numerous occasions!

    Just because something is audio-related does NOT mean that it is necessarily relevant to a particular thread. Microphones are audio related but would have nothing to do with a thread on sound synthesis for example and there are numerous threads where over-compression or excessive peak limiting has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. So, even by one of your own definitions of trolling ("introducing off-topic material to a thread") you are therefore quite often trolling!!

    Maybe a better starting point would be "championing against" inappropriate analogies that aren't even vaguely analogous anyway?

    Sorry to inform you, YET AGAIN, but yes it is trolling! This is the science forum, NOT "thesonictruth's views" forum. Unless your views align with the science/facts (or you have some compelling reliable evidence to support a contrary view), then just repeating the same erroneous views IS considered TROLLING in this sub-forum. This has been explained to you numerous times and even in the simplest terms imaginable. So either you are incapable of comprehending "the simplest terms imaginable" or you are deliberately trolling, which is it?

  5. TheSonicTruth
    So because I'm opposed to CURRENT - read: post-2000 music and audio production values and engineering practices, and against legacy remastering - that means I'm "trolling". Well I guess Jesus Christ was "trolling" when he upset the vendor tables set up in the temple square and spoke out against injustices of the early Romans, and Ghandi and Rev. MLK Jr. were "trolling" in their causes also.

    You're just one of those individuals for whom every point of view, theory, or postulation is 'wrong' or constitutes 'trolling' if it doesn't sync precisely with yours.

    Well Gregorio guess what: I'm not on here to lick boots or toe lines.
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2018
  6. castleofargh Contributor
    do you realize how ludicrous you are, pulling yourself and your loudness war tantrum at the same level as those people you mentioned?
    you get real mad when people call you a troll on your most passionate topic, and I can understand that. but then you post such bait, like you're asking for it.
  7. TheSonicTruth
    Well someone around here has to rattle the status-quo. This is the music making business, not the lawnmowing business(see my avatar for that explanation).
  8. gregorio
    1. How ironical is that? You are NOT being accused of trolling because of your personal tastes or opinion, you are being accused of trolling because you misrepresent (or simply make-up) many of the facts you use to justify your opinion, and then just keep repeating those incorrect "facts" even after they've been refuted and demonstrated/proved to be false. So your response to being labelled a troll for repeatedly misrepresenting the facts (even when it's off-topic anyway), is to misrepresent why you've been labelled a troll?! It's hard to imagine a more ironical response!

    2. Castle covered this one!

    3. Clearly that's a lie. For the umpteenth time: Your opinions are your own and you're entitled to have and make them up BUT the facts are NOT yours, you are NOT entitled to make them up, you are likely to be challenged if you do and you will be labelled a troll if you just keep repeating the same falsehoods!

    4. Then, as you have has also been told previously, you're in the wrong forum. This is the Science sub-forum, you either "lick the boots"/"toe the lines" of the science/facts or contradict them ONLY if you have reliable and compelling evidence. Making-up or misrepresenting facts is unacceptable here and repeatedly doing so is considered trolling! How many times do you need to have this explained?

    1. What status quo? This is an extremely competitive industry and there is no status quo. It continuously evolves to create and take advantage of market trends, and always has done.

    bfreedma likes this.
  9. bfreedma
    He’s on my ignore list, but seeing your responses, I had to see the post. Did he actually compare his issues here with those historical figures? Wow, just wow. Talk about an absurd level of self importance. It’s actually rather concerning from a psychological perspective.

    And isn’t religion one of those items forbidden by the site’s TOS?
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2018
  10. bigshot
    Only non-audio related religion!
    71 dB likes this.
  11. castleofargh Contributor
    it's not religious proselytism or anti, and it clearly isn't the weird part of his post. let's just assume he's talking about what some consider an historical event, along with the other historical events he referred to, and move on. possibly to another thread :deadhorse:
  12. bigshot
    Whew! Thank heavens! ....whoops!
  13. TheSonicTruth
    So I'm ready to listen: What do you think I'm wrong about about in post # 14508603, quoted above yours?
  14. bigshot
    You're wrong to assume that just because a waveform looks different that it will necessarily sound different.
    Steve999 likes this.
  15. TheSonicTruth

    Well, in my DAW, something that looks like the waveform on the bottom of my profile avatar is quite likely to sound a lot louder than something that looks like the waveform on the top. Not to mention if the EQ on them is not the same. So I'm not sure where you're coming from with that.
1 2
4 5 6

Share This Page