SoundAndMotion
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2015
- Posts
- 353
- Likes
- 229
So @TheSonicTruth reminds us of his passion (which most of us already know)... and tells us he thinks he can look at waveforms to see that different versions of a song will sound different. This sounds like a reasonable assumption, even if it's wrong. For him to understand, an explanation of why his assumption is wrong must be clear to him.To be honest, the 'loudness wars' are a passion of mine ... [snip]
...
So waveforms to me are a forensic tool in analyzing if an original song was altered in any way. ...[snip]
I seem to recall several "tellings", but none stuck; I assume because they were not made clearly enough for @TheSonicTruth .[snip]... If I remember correctly you've been told that you can't judge sound quality by looking at the display on the screen several times over the past few months.
@bigshot continues, but discusses "quality", not "difference".And an "altered signal" isn't necessarily a poorer quality signal. Compression is a tool whose effectiveness depends on the skill of the engineer applying it. There is good remastering and bad remastering, and the quality of remastering depends on more than just compression... noise reduction, equalization, level adjustment, and other forms of sweetening are involved too.
@TheSonicTruth knows that if the waveforms look different, the waveforms ARE different, but goes on to assume that necessarily means they will sound different. He makes clear he means "different" NOT "Inferiority or superiority".I can judge by the display on the screen that it is going to sound different. If the 'orig vs remaster' image in my avatar represented a DAW screen, it is clear that the two versions will sound different. Inferiority or superiority of one against the other is another story. I choose the original/not remastered versions simply because I feel it is closer to the original artistic intent.
I understand the frustration... when some things have been explained and @TheSonicTruth stubbornly contradicts some facts, you (and others) lose interest in further explanations. But you mixed difference with quality, so he answered.Wel,, you are dead wrong and don't know what you're talking about then. I'd explain, but you don't listen.
But, nearly a year later, he asks nicely for the explanation you offered contingent upon his listening. He's willing to listen:
So I'm ready to listen: What do you think I'm wrong about about in post # 14508603, quoted above yours?
And this counts as the explanation!?!? Sheesh!You're wrong to assume that just because a waveform looks different that it will necessarily sound different.
@TheSonicTruth: It's late here and I'm going to sleep soon. But here is a quick and simple-minded attempt: you know 30kHz is an example of something inaudible, right? So let's use that as an example, a placeholder, for everything inaudible, for now. Imagine I take the signal from the top of your avatar and ADD to it: (a 30kHz signal with the envelope of the bottom of your avatar MINUS a 30kHz signal with the envelope of the top of your avatar). That may look quite strange zoomed in, but all scrunched up, it should look like the bottom of your avatar. ...AND!!! sound identical to the top to human ears.
I have no doubt there are errors in my example (I'm half asleep!), but do you get what I'm trying to say? The different envelopes may look different, and the waveforms are different, but they sound the same, because the differences are not audible.
Last edited: